Turning green in the face, but nowhere else
“You hear that Mr. Anderson?... That is the sound of inevitability... It is the sound of your death... Goodbye, Mr. Anderson...”
Sound familiar? Ah yes, it’s from The Matrix, the 1999 sci-fi thriller depicting the destruction of the world at the hands of evil “machines” behind curtains of illusion.
Funny, though, that this Hollywood blockbuster might well have been a transcript of the political falling out between Captain Martin and one former environment guru, Mr. David Anderson...
PM: “Mr. Aaaannnddderrson. We’ve been watching you. Driving around in your little Toyota Prius … how ‘human’ of you, trying to save the environment. You are nothing more than a virus.”
DA: “Woah Paul... I know Kung Fu.”
PM: “I don’t care for your Feng Shui, Mr. Anderson, or composting, for that matter. You cannot win the war with industry.”
You get the idea. And yes, I probably exaggerated a little. But considering that Canada has no active plan to achieve its Kyoto targets – targets that relative to other nations are very high, with deadlines creeping closer ever so quickly -- who knows, maybe this isn’t so far off.
In a recent Canadian Press article (see link below), Anderson smacks the Martin government for bowing to industrial interests when it comes to environmental protections. Specifically, he criticizes the government’s easy stand on the auto industry, where Mr. Anderson’s 2002 plan to cut vehicle emissions by 25% in cooperation with automakers has been
slashed in half. To make matters worse, Anderson notes, automakers are lobbying the government for extra funds, essentially threatening to cut jobs and production facilities without public funding incentives. Anderson's response: “Well bugger that.”
Bugger that indeed. It’s time Canada stood up for environmental protection.
What if Canada were to make hybrid engine technology mandatory for every new car coming off the lot? Sounds ridiculous. You can’t tell industry what to do! Wrong again, Agent Smith. It’s about time government told big business what to do… and you know what, it’s worked in the past. Remember leaded fuel? Maybe not, because the government banned that a long time ago, coupled with the introduction of catalytic converters. And by the looks of it, that turned out pretty well.
Realistically, what is the downside to banning non-hybrid combustion engines for personal vehicles? Hybrid car technology is thriving. Toyota can’t produce enough next-generation Priuses to keep up with demand. Are you telling me that’s bad for business?
Everyone would be better off. First, it goes without saying that our air would be cleaner and healthier (which would not only have health benefits, but also positive economic ramifications cutting across all areas of life). Better yet, Canada might just become a bastion for the development of leading-edge green technology, exporting our knowledge across the globe.
We, as a planet, have no choice in the matter -- either we go green or, in a perverse twist of fate, become the latest non-renewable resource. Why not start the revolution right here at home?
Two minutes for political shenanigans
First off, although my ideals and opinions may lean to the left of the political spectrum, I am by no means a card carrying member of the NDP -- and for that matter don't intend to be (ever).
But back to the fun... Adam, it upsets me that you seem OK with our elected officials playing poker within the halls of democracy.
"Sticking it to the Liberals," unfortunately, is NOT Stephen Harper's job.
When Stephen Harper stands in the House and calls for more tax cuts to boost the economy, that's his job. When he calls for increased military spending, that's his job. When he calls for more transparency in government -- his endless criticism of the Liberals' lowball budget forecasting is a great example -- that's all OK, because it's his job. He is obligated to provide alternative ideas to the Prime Minister in the interest of Canadians.
Threatening to shatter the democratic process because he thinks he can intimidate the Prime Minister is, without question, NOT his job.
I am convinced that the millions of Canadians who voted Conservative did not vote for these shenanigans. Sure, they would've liked to have seen him in 24 Sussex, but after years of political manoeuvring and campaigning, is a coalition with the Bloc really how they envisioned leading the country? I didn't think so. So why waste our time?
As much as I hate to admit it, not everything in Canada is like hockey. Politics is one such exclusion.
Please, someone sound the buzzer already.
The "people's commons", a farce
Last week, Parliament Hill, the people's commons, was turned into a giant game of Risk, with armies of strategists and advisors running about threatening to take over the world. (cue eery music…)
The setting was simple enough. The Bloc and the Conservatives weren't happy. Bigshot Martin, they claimed, never listened to the little ol' opposition. "That's not fair!", they cried. So in a streak of ADD-inspired anxiety, the Bloc and Conservatives set out for revenge. They put an amendment to the Speech from the Throne before the House of Commons that threatened to bring down the minority Liberal government in a vote of confidence (an ironic term for political support considering that one doubts whether any Canadian has confidence in politicians at all!).
The stage was set: if the amendment passed, a couple of renegade white men in conservative suits would claim victory and walk down to Rideau Hall to appoint Stephen Harper as Canada's new leader -- worse still, there could even be a new election called, after only three days in session; if the amendment was defeated, and the government retained the confidence of the House, all would be forgotten… perhaps a few white hairs here or there, but Canadians could go to sleep that night knowing that the government they voted into office was still there.
Tensions were high. Party officials scrambled to wheel in all the MP's who apparently couldn't get up from the cafeteria's sensational roast beef dinner (I can't verify that beef was on the menu, but it was definitely dinner time).
The media was loving it. Reality television at its finest. Why cover the story of a fat, naked guy getting kicked off a deserted island on Survivor when you can cover a fat-cat Liberal government getting kicked out of a country of 30 million?
So what happened? I'll tell you what happened: NOTHING. The boys all met for a little heart-to-heart and everything was taken care of just in time to get the word out to all Members that the government was willing to let the amendment pass. In the end, the Bloc got what they wanted (a semantic modification along the lines of inter-jurisdictional affirmative action) and the Conservatives got what they wanted (essentially, to say "boo" so loudly that Martin would shit his pants). And what did the Canadian public get? Like I said before, absolutely nothing. Unless you count a mountain of egos, in which case we got a lot of that.
There is no doubt that Harper knew that Martin would cave and cater to opposition demands. And for this, I've lost a lot of respect for the Harper. Despite my concern with some of his policies and ideas, I've always respected his intellect and political sense. No more. This pseuo-coup merely served to demonstrate how low Harper is willing to go to burn the Liberals. Instead of trying to prove himself as a productive force in a minority Parliament, Harper has descended into the ranks piracy.
For a man who rides on slogans of renewing accountability and honesty to government, Harper's dash for the captain's chair has revealed himself as no more than just another in a long line of phony beacons of integrity in Canadian politics.
If only I thought of it sooner
As reported in the Globe & Mail's fantastic "Social Studies" briefs (Oct. 7):
Anthony Wilson, 43, of Branson, Mo., has changed his name legally to
They. The inventor says he became the mythical person cited as "they
say" for the fun of it, and also: "It's important to be an individual.
But this is a reminder that the sum of all of us is greater than the
individual."
That's awesome.
Today's not the problem, 2 years ago is the problem
Clearly, the Concordia controversy is complicated to dissect.
Adam, you bring forward some good points, the most powerful, of course, being that freedom of speech should never take second place to violence, or fear of violence for that matter. I agree. Wholeheartedly.
But the circumstances surrounding this controversy skew the possibility of a simple moral verdict such as “it is wrong to deny freedom of speech”. The fact of the matter is that history is quite significant in analyzing this situation.
Two years ago, violence erupted when Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at Concordia. It was a most unfortunate incident. Obviously, this reality had a profound effect on Concordia’s decision. And you know what, it should.
Concordia has an obligation to ensure a safe and secure learning environment. Based on the facts on the table at this point, I accept Concordia’s choice not to hold the event in question because of security concerns.
However, my acceptance is contingent on the reliability of the facts before me. If Concordia did indeed do everything in their power to try and accommodate the former Prime Minister in partnership with the proper authorities (RCMP, Montreal police, etc.) – and more importantly, did not use political concerns to influence security evaluations – then I am comfortable with their decision.
That doesn't mean, though, that I think Concordia is entirely in the right. While I don’t necessarily disagree with Concordia’s recent decision, I strongly question its decision in the days, months and two years separating this event with that of Netanyahu’s visit.
Concordia had two whole years to plan for something like this -- two years to beef up security on campus, two years to sit down with the authorities as well as with the major players in this debate (Adam, you’re right, everyone knows who’s involved by this point) and lay out procedures and strategies to facilitate peaceful political events on campus. Not doing so shows a blatant disrespect of its students, its staff, as well as those informally associated with the institution, such as citizens in the surrounding neighbourhood.
I doubt, as you suggest Adam, that Concordia is scared of legitimate debate. What they’re scared of is another PR disaster. That’s simple. What is perplexing, however, is trying to understand how the administration didn’t see this coming. For this, no apologies can be made.
But another factor in this controversy must not be ignored: the inexcusable obstinance of both Palestinian and Jewish groups involved. Much like the story in the Middle East, neither side of the conflict is willing to open lines of communication to discuss a potential resolution. Apparently, talking things over is futile. Fine, but if you’re looking for sympathy, you won’t get it from me. If neither side shows a willingness to discuss their differences – I take the verbal assaults carried out by both groups as evidence of this — then neither side should be allowed to claim a moral high ground. Period.
If you want real freedom of speech, on campus or in society in general, it takes a lot more than just security fences and keynote speakers. It takes respect and tolerance. And, regrettably, neither Concordia’s pro-Israel nor its pro-Palestinian populations can claim an understanding of even the faintest idea of such a crucial element of democracy.
Save me from this liberal world
According to Bush & Co., Rather-gate has taught us one important thing: the world is too freakin' liberal.
I doubt it. See below...
Sept. 28 article in the Toronto Star by Antonia Zerbisias on the topic of Rather-gate:
By the way, the chair of Viacom, which owns CBS, told a business audience in Hong Kong last week that the company was firmly in the Bush camp.
According to the Asian Wall Street Journal, Sumner Redstone said that "from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on."
Clearly, this Redstone guy, a multi-billionaire who eats up media companies around the world as if they were trail mix, hates Republicans. What, you can't see it?
Mansbridge, my idol--sometimes
First off, how could I honestly argue against the talents of one Peter Mansbridge? He's practically my second dad, I listen to him so much.
But to be honest, I didn't watch the one on one with Gary Bettman on The National (followed by a sit-down with Bob Goodenow the next night). Purposely.
A twelve year-old could come up with the answers those two spinmeisters are coming out with these days. Don't believe me? Let's recap...
Bob: I didn't start it. He started it. We WANT to play. They locked us out first. (scrunches into seat and mopes)
Gary: Na-uhh......We want a season. It's the players' fault.
Bob: No it's not.
Gary: Yes it is!
The whole thing makes grade 3 recess look like a board meeting.
It's just sad that Peter got sucked into this garbage instead of asking probing questions to people that actually matter.
...and on the topic of Making the Cut: Gratch, you're sad. At least while watching professional hockey you can live vicariously through people with actual talent. Now, you've resorted to living through scraps of reality television (a topic for another day I'm sure). Viewing numbers are diminishing because people are starting to realize how ridiculous it is to sit and watch what essentially is a minor-league tryout. If you are so eager to have your taste of hockey, why don't you go down to your community rink and watch a REAL tryout where people might actually care about the game instead of some last-ditch cry for attention.
Bienvenidos...
Welcome to Beg(2)Differ. Welcome to the discussion...heck, welcome to October!
This should be the start of something fun. You see, this ain't your average blog. We, Gabe (a.k.a. G.Money) and Adam (a.k.a. Gratch), aren't your average bloggers either. To be honest, we're rookies at this game. We're not here to uncover some grand conspiracy (I see you there, Drudge!), and we're not here to try and pretend that we're right all the time -- we're here to PROVE that we are right all the time. The problem is that, often, we think we're both right, and god knows that never works out. The answer? Beg(2)Differ. Or as I just figured out in my head: "B2D".
B2D is a chance for two young thinkers (and their supporters) to duke it out, keyboard to keyboard. Just think of it as the "Thrilla in Manilla"... sans Manilla.
True, there's nothing stopping us from agreeing. And we do -- sometimes. But what's the fun in agreeing, really? You might as well just kiss if you like each other that much. And we all know, kissing is for wusses.
Don't agree? Fantastic. That's what we're looking for. Go on, get upset with us. Feel free to post some comments to any of our rants/analysis/lunacy. Scared? Don't worry. Just remember the words of good ol' Georgey Boy at the State of the Union back in Oh-3: "We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire." Um...ditto. We don't bite.
The ice is now officially broken.
Gabe and Adam
