The 200(Mega)Tonne Challenge

Is Rick Mercer available for this one? I can imagine the commercial:

In 2003 I challenged you all to take the One Tonne Challenge. We hoped that all good Canadians would respond and we'd reduce green house gases by 30 Megatonnes. What I didn't tell you was that we'd still need to reduce our emissions by another 170 Megatonnes in order to meet our Kyoto commitments. I'm happy to tell you that now that you have done your duty it's time for corporate Canada to step up and do their bit. That's why I'm calling on them to reduce their emissions by 25%. Come on Canada, you can do it!

Ok, maybe that's not how he'd put it, especially considering the dismal failure the Liberal's 1 Tonne Challenge was. According to Greg Weston, we need to reduce GHG production by 200 Megatonnes in order to meet Kyoto, and that means by 2012. He kindly lists the largest producers of GHGs right down to the 8 Megatonnes produced by domestic aircraft. Doing the math, it would seem obvious that we have to reduce emissions by an average of 25% (at least) to do it. We need to reduce 25% in the next five years to meet the Kyoto targets, something I think we can reasonably assume cannot be done through new, as yet un-invented technologies. The simple fact is that we would have to conserve and reduce through cutting production in industry and reducing the use of CO2 producing items like cars and home heating. Aside from the uncomfortable home life we'd have to endure (I wonder if parliament would redefine "Room Termperature" for us?) such cuts must mean job losses and a retraction of the economy. Most people would call that a recession. The two most recent recessions (US stats) indicate that even a small reduction in economic output over less than year can devastate the economy and bring real pain to the average citizen. Imagine a recession of 25%! Even counting on efficiencies, some new technologies, and fantasies like Wind Power, the necessary reduction in the economy would be almost unthinkable to the average Canadian. I think a more honest commercial would go something like this:

Hey Canada! We signed on to the Kyoto accord and you've made it pretty clear you expect us to comply with our International obligations. Well, were going to! You may be asking "How?" Well, next time you're at work have a look around, count every five people you see and imagine one of them out of work. The resulting reduction in economic output will put us most of the way there. To make up the rest of it, we are banning the use of all personal vehicles 2 days a week, one of which must be a work day. And finally, we will be installing a new thermostat in your house that only goes up to lucky 13C (55 degrees for you old fogies). We know this will cause great pain to all of us Canadians (well, not all of us, there'll still be 308 seats in Parliament) and our sacrifices won't actually reduce the risks of climate change in any real way, but our symbolic gesture will be a beacon of light (energy-saving fluorescent, of course) to the rest of the world. We are certain that China and India, seeing us shivering in the cold, will immediately take steps to reduce their GHG emissions. Thank you, Canada! You're the best!

Does anyone have the guts to actually tell the truth?

French Attempt to Surrender . . .

...without even going to war. Seriously. It appears that France offered to unite with the UK, or at least join the commonwealth, in 1956 because of serious economic problems and the pending Suez Crisis. I guess France was worried they couldn't take Egypt by themselves?

It's probably just me, but I find it incredibly funny every time I hear Groundskeeper Willie from the Simpsons say "Cheese eatin' surrender monkeys" or I see magazine covers like "Soldier of Surrender". But this story isn't even a spoof! The French offered to surrender without a shot being fired or German on the horizon. I know it's been a while since France won a war, the early 1800's pops to mind, but they really need to keep their chins up, have some self-confidence, and maybe invade a small Caribbean nation. That did wonders for the Americans.

Bourque Bork-ed?
(Not the Swedish Chef, you moron)

I just wanted to state for the record that I, The Rat, do not, and have not ever accepted money-for-blog. I just felt I needed to clear the air considering how many other reputable blogs were discussing the subject. But, if you're really cute, female (I said I was straight, O.K.), and have something else to trade drop me a line . . .

The Repsonse Cherniak Won't Post

Jason Cherniak seems to have bone to pick with SPIN. And it seems his SPIN is the only one he wants to get out. In fact, he's so scared someone else might show him up he's begun moderating comments. I don't mean moderating for SPAM, or for obscene content, I mean for stuff he doesn't like. I posted this to his blog in response to his tirade:

Thanks for the morning comedy with the morning coffee. Oh, and for the morning Liberal SPIN. Funny, but I remember reading that, despite the DION BLOGS SPIN, France doesn't make anyone an automatic citizen, that Dion did, in fact, actively pursue his French citizenship. SPIN. And I do prefer Coyne's SPIN on Dion regarding Khan and divided loyalties. Further, I wasn't aware a friend of yours had named his dog "Trudeau". Know why? He hasn't publicly posed with the dog for publicity photos! If Dion didn't want to be mocked he didn't have to make his dog an issue in the campaign!

And a final note to the part of you, Jason, that should be thinking like a lawyer. You wrote:

"It is well known, if little discussed, that he has accepted advertising money from people with close connections to the provincial BC Liberals and the federal Conservatives."

Jason, how can you write that in good conscience? If you're really worried about spin or "unsourced" stories, why would you write speculative crap like that? Wouldn't be interesting if you had to defend yourself against that accusation in court? How would you?

And Jason chose not to post it. It isn't foul or SPAM or off-topic. It might not be brilliance but it's hardly objectionable. It makes me wonder how many other posts Jason is "moderating" because he's afraid people might see his posts for the SPIN they are. Come one Jason, what are you afraid of?

A funny thing happened this weekend: While cruising Vancouver's Craigslist I came across this week's pathetic American post. By that I mean the usual "I hate the US sooo much I'm coming to Canada" crap. Frankly, I despise these little whiners immensely and, being the jerk that I am, I fired off an e-mail detailing exactly how I felt about little pansy leftists, a human rights activist and a musician no less, too cowardly to fight for what they believe in their own country.

What's with all you whiny liberal Americans? Are you
too wimpy to work for what you believe in the most free country in
the world? No, a liberal human rights activist and a musician
aren't needed here, and frankly you couldn't afford the rent on
your Starbucks salary.

I figured that would be it.

It wasn't. Instead I got this reply (edited for length, this guy is longwinded):

Neither of us is too wimpy to work for what we believe in. But we both believe in perspective. It's hard to understand the big picture if you only expose yourself to the small one. It's like this: if you read a book, but you don't understand some of the concepts, you might turn to another book on the same subject, whereupon the first book makes a lot more sense. Or, if a committee . . .

(I told you this guy has a bad case of literary diarrhea) . . .

Maybe, just maybe we don't want to live in a fast-paced, money-solves-everything, buy-more-so-you're-happy, exploit-all, bigger-better-faster-now culture.

And frankly, I don't work at Starbucks, I'm a freelance professional
web designer with years of experience. She's a college grad and a
goddamned genius and can do whatever she puts her mind to.

Ok. This guy is a freelance webdesigner and she's a college grad. How special. More to the point, how does this bozo think he's going to get into Canada? On the point system these two don't come close to the 67 score needed to immigrate, and I doubt musicians are covered under NAFTA. Is he just going to show up and hope no one notices?

To be fair, lets look at his web design skills (and his rather large ego!). Uh huh. Use Front Page much? The third person bit is rich. And do people really compare you to " . . .Classic bands like Led Zeppelin, U2, REM, The Beatles, Genesis, and Pink Floyd"?

Is this guy for real?

Are you a Pacifist?

Are you? Do you wear a white poppy for Peace? Do you consider yourself a follower of Ghandi? Do you follow Ghandi’s teaching? Would you do as he said the British should do:

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."(from Wikipedia)

Is that advice you would follow? If someone wanted your house, would you simply vacate and move on? If I punch you in the nose, will you punch me back? What if someone threatens to rape or kill your wife or girlfriend, husband or boyfriend? Will you stand by? For your son or daughter, too?

Will you call the police? If you do, you must realize you are asking another to do violence on your behalf. Is that really pacifism? Isn’t that just cowardice?

At least Ghandi was a compassionate fellow in that he allowed that not all peope were as perfectly non-violent as he. He felt that non-violence born of cowardice was useless:

"I do believe,' he wrote, 'that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."

Here’s what I think. I believe most of the pacifist horde, the holier than holy group handing out the white poppies, are nothing but cowards, and selfish cowards at that. They don’t want war, they don’t want violence, but they demand the protection of the police and the courts. They want violence done on their behalf, and at their direction only, and only for their own benefit. They cannot, or will not, see the value in doing violence unless it is directly related to them. The needs of an Afghan school-girl, or an Israeli kibbutzer are just too remote. It’s so much easier, intellectually and physically, to just parrot that all war is bad. They don’t need to think of the consequences of those thoughts because there will always be others, more intelligent and practical, who will be willing to do violence to protect them and their selfishness.

"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

Pacifism in the richest nations of the world, in the face of gross violence and killings of innocents in foreign nations, behind the protection of others willing to do violence, is nothing but cowardice. That’s what you are if you are a pacifist in Canada.

In Defense of our Defenders

Today, the day before Remembrance Day, I read a truly pathetic post by a truly pathetic Liberal. In it, our virtuous defender of free speech lashes the veterans who did something (he apparently considers it "bullshit") to ensure it. What do the poor veterans want? Apparently the guys who fought, and whose friends died, are exercising their legal right to defend the image and trademark of their remembrance. The post at that toilet-blog is a pathetic defence of a group whose goal is to diminish the memory of our vets. Peace at all cost isn't peace, and stealing from veterans to make that naive and rather ungrateful point is almost the lowest of the low. Defending it is one of the few things lower. But what do you expect from a self-confessed criminal?

Stealing trademarks, denigrating soldiers, committing white collar crime, stealing millions from taxpayers? To quote our dirty little friend "YAWN". How typically Liberal.