Excited Delirium

Stories about Excited Delirium, the Shock Economy and a little fiction here and there.

Harper’s Green Tax Smear

This is a great article in that it finally – and very clearly – elaborates on the numbers behind Stephane Dion’s Green Shift proposal.

  • For every 20 barrels of oil, the tar sands projects create one tonne of carbon dioxide
  • The Green Shift proposal calls for a tax of $40 per tonne of CO2
  • This translates to $2 per barrel
  • There are roughly 42 gallons of gas per barrel of oil
  • This translates to roughly 100 litres of gas (assuming the whole barrel was used to produce auto fuel)
  • A Green Shift tax of $2 per barrel would translate to $0.02 per litre
  • This is less than 2% of the current price at the pump (prices which have risen nearly 100% since the Harpies were elected and then did nothing about the environment – go figure)
  • Harper says that the Green Shift tax will cause the price at the pump to "jump" by 40%

As the author of this article shows, he is clearly bewildered by Harper’s claims.  I am too.  I hope you are as well.

Why are the Liberals not attacking him on this?

Of course, all of this means nothing because Jack Layton has a better plan .

It’s based on the "producer pay" principle.

A wide variety of producers in Canada pump out massive volumes of CO2 every year while Canadians frey about truning one little lightbulb into a CFL (which can’t be disposed of) to save a little energy here and there.

It is time to acknowledge that we ALL need to carry the burden of our waste and Harper and Dion don’t do this effectively with their plans.

What do you think?

Sarah Palin & Amniocentesis

This link offers some interesting comments about Sarah Palin and her views on choice:

http://michaeldorf.org/2008/09/sarah-palin-and-abortion.html

Some quotes from the article:

if Sarah Palin knew at four months that her baby would have Down Syndrome, then she must have had an amniocentesis, a procedure by which a doctor withdraws fluid from the mother’s amniotic sac and then tests the chromosomes in that fluid for the presence of anomalies. The amniocentesis procedure provides what can be devastating information to expectant parents, and there is nothing one can do to "fix" a chromosomal anomaly.

After the test, a parent can decide either to terminate the pregnancy or take it to term. At Palin’s age (44), the odds of her giving birth to a baby with Down Syndrome were relatively high (1/35, I believe), and this is undoubtedly why her doctor offered her the test.

The question, however, is why she agreed to take it. Perhaps she wanted to know. If her test came back negative, she could have experienced relief. And with a positive test, she could prepare herself emotionally for what would be a challenging and painful but also potentially rewarding experience.

This all makes sense, except for the fact that an amniocentesis is hardly a risk-free procedure. In some number of cases (1/200, according to some, a smaller fraction, according to others), an amniocentesis induces a miscarriage (also known as a spontaneous abortion).

Stated differently, one acquires the information available through an amniocentesis only at the small but real risk of terminating the pregnancy. This is why younger women are generally not offered an amniocentesis at all — the risk of miscarriage is too great to justify the procedure.

For a person in a higher-risk category (an older woman, for example) who either will or might terminate a pregnancy on the basis of a positive result, this risk might be worth taking. But for a person who will not abort no matter what the result is, it would not appear to be. This makes me think that, at least for the moment that she decided to have an amniocentesis, Sarah Palin considered having an abortion.

I do not say this to be unkind. I think that Sarah Palin and her husband made a noble choice by taking the pregnancy to term. In addition to the love they showed to their new baby by deciding to keep him, they also demonstrated forcefully to their other four children that their love for them is unconditional. I also do not fault her for having the amniocentesis.

When a woman is pregnant, she is so intimately connected with her baby and yet so ignorant about the baby’s progress without a doctor or midwife to give her information. An amniocentesis provides information in an otherwise frustratingly opaque setting.

I do, however, fault Sarah Palin for wanting to deprive American women of a choice that she herself had and that she apparently thought about making. Though McCain supporters present her choice to take her pregnancy to term as a principled pro-life choice, it behooves everyone to remember that it was in fact a choice and that in the ideal world envisioned by Sarah Palin and John McCain, no other woman could ever choose again, except by visiting the back alley.

I’m the first to admit that you shouldn’t bring people’s kids into politics, but when their decisions affect the fortunes and livelihood of so many millions of people that can’t afford to have 5 kids, then we at least need to ask ‘what was she thinking’?

Canadian Election: A Call for Solidarity on ‘The Left’

A few years ago, the folks on ‘the right’ were represented bya mis-aligned, rag-tag group that now forms our minority government and constantly bullies the opposition into their bidding.  They threaten election, they will likely call one within the next couple of days and they will likely continue … with another minority leadership.

Historically, there were at least three major, nationally recognized ‘right wing’ parties vying for leadership of Canada (or at least the West), including:

  • The Reform Party
  • The Alliance Party
  • The Progressive Conservatives

Add to that the volume of even smaller more radical groups and the right-wing vote looked like it would be permanently fractured beyond any ability to win a few seats, let alone run the country.

They knew this.  The Liberals knew this.  Even the NDP knew this.  We (‘the left’) all gloated in the knowledge that we’d never have to worry about sending our kids abroad in US battles or risk privatizing health care.  No missile defense system here.  We’re all small-l liberals.

And then the Right surprised us all.  They did what the left should have done long ago (and still can).  Ironically, they showed a sign of solidarity and ‘unionized’.

They got together.  ‘Collective Power’ could have been their mantra.  They realized that there was strength in numbers, not power in fragmentation and small voices being silenced by the wave of Liberalism that ran Canada for decades.

They all banded together to create ‘The Conservatives’.  No more ‘Progressives’ here.

They all got behind an intentional strategy to put their squabbling aside and steal the government from the progressives and left.

And their plan is still moving forward today.

I’ll wager that the election that will be called was part of Harper’s plans two, maybe even four, years ago.

Il’l wager that most of the bullying and taunting of the opposition labelling them as ‘kind’ and ‘soft’ have been in the works for half a decade.  Prime Minister Martin was depicted as ‘constantly dithering’ in order to add a level of uncertainty and unkind apathy to a man who was caught up in the wasp’s nest set up by his previous boss.

Stephane Dion is depicted as a whiner.  The kid who would tell his mom that the school yard bully is stealing his lunch money.

The Green Party is gaining momentum and the face of Elizabeth May will become better recognized than out other leaders.  Jack Layton of the NDP risks losing many seats to a sense of ‘green guilt’ that is washing over the populace.

What to do?  What to do?

Punch the bully in the nose.  Surprise him.  When he gets mad and throws a trantrum, his credibility goes down the toilet.

We all know the answer:  we must engage in our show of solidarity.

Maybe Buzz Hargrove was on to something a few years ago when he asked locals to support Liberals in weak NDP ridings.

What I do know is that if we don’t consolidate the left-wing vote and then settle things after we’re in power, we’ll never be in power.  This election will drain the coffers of all of the opposition parties.  It’ll kill them if there’s another election in October 2009.

What was once killing the Conservatives is now killing the Progressive Left.  Fragmentation is not our friend.

A majority government for the (now obviously Radical Right) Conservatives is just an election away and we’re ‘dithering’ and ‘whining’.  The Liberals have voted for the Conservatives more times than I can imagine, but apparently, ‘our government doesn’t work’ (straight from Harper’s mouth).

We’ve lost funding for the arts, women’s causes, legal rights for less-privileged citizens, the right to abort (it’s there, it just hasn’t been tested yet), our communication infrastructure, our lives as we eat because of industry self-regulation, our right to peace (‘support our troops’ is now more ubiquitous than ‘just do it’) and the Conservatives will keep chipping away at everything else that we hold dear until we’re just another state.

Let’s put an end to this nonsense.  LET’S GET TOGETHER.  NOW.

I suggest the following:

  1. The Liberals, the Greens and the NDP represent the majority will and vote of Canadians.
  2. We will not be able to consolidate under one banner before the election.
  3. These three parties must agree to disagree on issues before the election.
  4. During the election, these three parties must show solidarity.
  5. Our only competition is the Conservative Party of Canada.
  6. The leaders of Canada’s Progressive Parties (the Greens, NDP and Liberals) should meet before the election to create a strategy of ‘inclusion’ (a government run by the will of the majority of Canadians) by means of ‘exclusion’ (reducing or eliminating candidates in key ridings in order to guarantee seats won for the Progressive Left).
  7. This means we will have to choose the ridings that each party will be closest to winning (including the Green Party) and take them from the Conservatives, without fragmenting out own vote.
  8. The result:  we spend the same amount of campaign funds on fewer ridings.  This means we will increase the odds of winning more ridings collectively.
  9. The leaders of Canada’s Progressive Parties will have to get together after the election to form a Canadian Caucus, one that truly reflects the majority of Canadians (not this one-third nonsense that rules us now).
  10. After the election, we will lay out a specific strategy that will marginalize the Right.

Some of the points sound awful.  They sound defeatist and undemocratic.  But if we don’t do it, we’ll hand over the will of the majority of Canadians to a small group of people that are determined to alter the future of this country to their benefit and the detriment of the majority.

Please, people.  Answer my call.

To paraphrase John Lennon:  A great future starts today.  If we want it.