Tagged: united states
Why are foreigners attempting to influence Canadian driving laws?
Formed in 1989, registered Canadian charity Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada is the sister organization of Mothers Against Drunk Driving USA. Since it’s inception, this “charity” has been attempting to influence the debate on Canada’s drinking and driving laws. After dogged research, I have uncovered circumstantial evidence that MADD Canada may be receiving funds that originate from the United States.
Unless you looked on their public website, you would never know that one of the chief sponsors of MADD Canada is the Allstate Insurance Corporation – the second-largest personal lines insurer in the United States. Why is this American insurance company attempting to sway opinion in Canada, you may ask? It’s clear that reducing the motor vehicle accident rate caused by drinking and driving brings financial benefits to Allstate in the form of reduced insurance payouts. Where do these savings go? No one knows. While true it’s the Canadian subsidiary of the American company, given the clear links between the two can we really be sure funds are not passed from the United States to Canada, funds that might end up in the coffers of MADD Canada?
It’s very suggestive of my belief they are acting out of a sense of patriotism to advance the American interest in Canada.
I want to be clear, I have nothing against drunk driving laws. But I think it’s very important that this debate around the costs and benefits of drunk driving is conducted by Canadians, and Canadians only.
Don’t you?
UPDATE: 30 seconds ago I emailed Allstate Canada CEO Michael J. Donoghue a set of fair questions asking if he could account for the apparent links between Allstate Canada and Allstate USA, whether he would submit to a forensic audit to determine if any monies from the American organization have come to Canada, and if those monies were then passed on to MADD Canada.
Tellingly, I have yet to receive a response.
Roboconned – The cancer that will destroy the Conservative Party of Canada
It’s becoming increasingly clear that the attempt to suppress the Liberal/NDP vote through deceptive and/or harassing phone calls in the last Federal election was not isolated. The Sixth Estate is building a list of affected ridings and the number is up to 42. RossK mines the comment threads of his past posts to remind us that in the immediate aftermath of the election there were already questions being raised about strange phones calls and the adoption of voter suppression tactics used by the Republicans in the United States.
My 2 cents:
1. It’s easier to suppress the vote in the United States than Canada for the simple reason there is no equivalent to Elections Canada down south. Each county is in charge of running the vote in U.S. Federal Elections. There is no national body to connect the dots of systematic fraud. With that in mind I really wonder what they were thinking and how they thought they’d get away with it.
2. It may ultimately be unknowable1 if the results of the 2011 Federal Election actually were affected to a significant result-changing degree. But that doesn’t play to the Conservatives’ advantage – there is no way to definitively prove they weren’t either. Even if they do the right thing and conduct a thorough investigation that leads to hard jail time for the responsible, and even if it is shown this was a “rogue” operation (and that is very much in question)….there is now a permanent taint on the legitimacy of the Conservative majority government. Only a new, closely monitored election can restore legitimacy and they sure as hell aren’t going to call an early one because they’ll lose.
It’s a cancer. They will not be able to enact the big-ticket items on their agenda. Everything will be questioned.
The Harper Government™ is now a very lame duck.
The malaise from the Sponsorship Scandal still affects the Liberal Party of Canada. This – which all signs point to being the biggest, darkest political scandal in Canada’s history – will destroy the Conservatives.
1Although on The Sixth Estate’s list of ridings reporting problems, I count 12 that were close enough that misdirection efforts could have changed the result.
UPDATE: Dan P. Ball has a list of 11 affected ridings where the Tories squeaked to wins.
UPDATE 2: Chantal Hébert asks a good question – Given safe Tory ridings were apparently hit too where’s the underlying strategy?
A Machiavellian mastermind could always have orchestrated fraudulent calls to a host of ridings where such tricks were unlikely to affect the outcome for or against the Conservatives just to throw anyone off the scent of an orchestrated pattern. But that sounds like a high-risk investment for a relatively low yield.
Really? It seems like it would be a “must-do”. Not only does it muddy the waters but it insulates you with your own supporters.
Also, and:
@acoyne Hebert misses secondary objective to suppressing Lib and NDP votes…denying the enemy $2 per vote. $170 for 10,000 calls #robocon—
Pat Martin MP (@PatMartinMP) February 27, 2012
UPDATE 3:
Infographic showing Conservative majority won by 5184 votes in 12 ridings. 5 of them are reporting electoral fraud. http://t.co/iulmitkh—
Colin White (@colinwhite) February 29, 2012
Compare and contrast: Stephen Harper, WMD Supersleuth
Mr. Harper said he has no doubt that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. “There is absolutely no doubt they are lying,” Mr. Harper said, referring to statements by Iran that the nuclear program is for peaceful uses.
“The evidence is just growing overwhelming. This is not, as was the case of Iraq, merely the opinion of allies,” he said.
Stephen Harper, Globe and Mail, Jan 17, 2012
I noted that there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein operates programs to produce weapons of mass destruction. Experience confirms this. British, Canadian and American intelligence leaves no doubt on the matter. Saddam Hussein’s continued non-compliance and non-cooperation with the United Nations only confirms this information.
Meanwhile, in the evidence-based universe:
“The IAEA does not assert that Iran has resumed a full scale nuclear weapons program nor does it have a program about how advanced the programs really are,” a senior administration official told reporters on a conference call. The official was speaking on background.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has released a report which it says has credible evidence that Iran has carried “out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device”, but has offered no estimate of how long it would take Iran to be able to produce a nuclear weapon.
Though many Iran critics have focused on the report’s claims that Iran continues to participate in activities that indicate interest in building a bomb, the administration chose to focus on the IAEA’s conclusions that a “structured program” to develop a nuclear warhead was halted in 2003.
Update: Other doubters include…Israeli Intelligence:
The Israeli view is that while Iran continues to improve its nuclear capabilities, it has not yet decided whether to translate these capabilities into a nuclear weapon – or, more specifically, a nuclear warhead mounted atop a missile. Nor is it clear when Iran might make such a decision.
Quid pro quo whoa
Vivian Krause got a lot of [semi]-positive press this week. Of note, yesterday’s Globe article. But I’m going to begin with her January 7th article in the Vancouver Sun. First graf:
According to my analysis of Canadian tax returns, Canadian green groups get nearly $50 million in foreign funding every year.
A number is established – $50 million/yr. Next:
Ducks Unlimited Canada reported $65 million and Tides Canada reported $8.3 million in foreign funding for 2009 and 2010.
I’m not sure how the numbers break down exactly for the 2 years cited, but let’s assume a 50-50 split b/w 2009 and 2010 for Ducks Unlimited. My primitive math skills indicate this is $32.5 million per year. Or, put another way, Ducks Unlimited accounts for 65% of the $50 million of foreign funding of Canadian environmental groups each year. Quack quack!
But that’s just the nitty-gritty details that make it seem completely underwhelming. At heart, it’s this that is at the heart of Krause’s arguments:
The problem that I see with the foreign funding is that it is skewing the public debate because the American foundations are playing favourites, supporting only the Canadians whose position aligns with American interests.
What the “American interests” are and how they deviate from Canadian interests is never, of course, mentioned. Another way you could – accurately – phrase the above is this:
The problem that I see with environmental funding is that it is skewing the public debate because the Environmental foundations are playing favourites, supporting only the Environmental groups whose position aligns with Environmental interests.
But that’s no fun. Switching to the Globe article, there’s this:
Ms. Krause said she’d ultimately like to see the Gateway pipeline succeed, but after decisions made by Canadians alone.
Could it be Krause started with a conclusion and is working backwards? You see, I believe a lot of Vivian Krause’s objection flows from an assumption – that the objections to the Northern Gateway pipeline or fish farming are in part phoney-baloney. A cover for U.S. economic interests. This is never demonstrated, only implied.
Nor has she ever established a quid pro quo: that Canadian environmental groups held Position X before receiving U.S. based funding, and Position Y after. That would be a skewing of the debate. Instead, the simplest and most plausible explanation is ignored – that environmental groups hold their positions for environmental reasons. And, of course, foreign corporate interests interfering in the debate – whether they be Norwegian fishing conglomerates or Chinese oil companies – are never explored. (A very telling passage of her testimony to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources starts here)
She (and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver) won’t, and can’t, argue on the merits of the science. So they attack from the sides.
At least she tries to distance herself from Ezra Levant’s “Ethical Oil” clown show.
Like this:
The graphs #Occupy should have on display at every site
50 years of data. No cherry-picking here.
And to the #Occupiers – this comes from the New York Times. Yes, some of the mainstream media bashes you unfairly – but good reporters still exist. Not everyone is Fox or Sun News.
Occupied with #OccupyVancouver
What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.
Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached.
They broke it, we fixed it, and now they are doing their darnest to break it again – in the name of their own narrow greed (while patronizing us that we simply couldn’t understand the complexities of macroeconomics). But if there’s a silver lining it seems a light bulb seems to have gone on in the collective consciousness of the American public: The growing realization that they have been governed for the greater benefit of the wealthiest few and that “a rising tide floats all boats” line they’ve been sold for 30+ years is snake oil. And thus #OccupyWallStreet and We Are The 99% was born.
They’re trying to ignore it. They’re trying to ridicule it. They’d love to co-opt it.
And now it’s coming to Vancouver.
But I’m not sure it’s going to have the same resonance it has down south.
We didn’t bail out the banks here. Well, we did…but stealthily. Unemployment is…well, not exceptionally high by Canadian standards. We’re not as unequal in the distribution of national wealth as other countries – though in Harper’s Canada we are catching up fast.
The beauty of the American movement is that is seems to be broadly based. It’s not just the “usual suspects” who come out to protests. Will it happen here? I have my doubts. I’ve been following the discussions, if they can be called that, between the organizers of #occupyvancouver and…well…the purer than you usual suspects. The following captures the essence of that discussion:
It’s ashame. This…
…is a lot more emotionally and intellectually compelling to the public at large than this…
So why not bend your standards a bit to attract a broader audience? Ack…who knows who’s going to show up and what’s going to happen. And perhaps I’m feeling a bit cynical at the moment, but what’s supposed to happen? What’s supposed to change and what will make Stephen Harper, Christie Clark, Gregor Robertson and Howe Street agree to it? #occupyvancouver could be 110% successful in getting out boots on the ground…but so what? What price do the aforementioned pay? As Ian Welsh depressingly puts it:
[M]odern elites are trained to think in terms of cost-benefit analyses. If the cost to them of not giving in is less than the cost of not giving in, they won’t give in.
Occupying the grounds of the Arts Gallery costs them nothing. Engaging in Black Bloc style violence turns off the general public and provides an excuse to unleash the police…and costs them nothing (you’re doing them a favour in fact).
Only nonviolent, prolonged civil disobedience would make a dent in that cost-benefit analyses. But we’re a long way, I think, from Tahrir Square.
Chart of the day: We are so overtaxed!
Oh…oh…maybe not. The chart is geared for Americans, but as you can clearly see Canada is in the bottom half. And, as Paul Krugman also wryly notes, the EU crisis point countries are also low tax regimes. Look elsewhere than the “welfare state” for the root of the trouble!
If Libya, why not Bahrain: Specious??
Charli Carpenter blogging on Lawyers, Guns, Money (one of my favourite blogs) says the argument that the Libyan intervention is undermined by our failure to act on Bahrain (or Ivory Coast, and perhaps soon Syria) is specious: That the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine has set criteria, criteria that Libya meets [apparently] and the others do not:
The criteria include just cause (which I agree would be fulfilled in a case like North Korea or Bahrain) but also right authority (which in R2P requires multilateral consent – not feasible in Bahrain) and proportionality (requiring a judgment that the overall good to civilians outweigh the potential harm – unlikely in North Korea). In cases not meeting this threshold, the doctrine urges merely non-coercive protection measures, including humanitarian assistance and diplomacy.
Yes, restricting the boundaries of the discussion to the narrow confines of R2P, this is technically and legally correct. It’s also tone deaf. Bahrain, no matter how bad the crackdown becomes, will never achieve the necessary multilateral consent criteria and it will never achieve it precisely because Bahrain is our ally and the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet is stationed there. The R2P criteria very much allows the West to pick and choose it’s interventions.
It may be “specious”, but it’s also 2-faced, with a legal fig-leaf.
Update: Edited to fix atrocious grammar.
R’oh oh: History repeating
Admiral Mike Mullen, the top U.S. military commander, on Sunday said the end-game of military action in Libya was “very uncertain” and acknowledged it could end in a stalemate with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
-Reuters, Sunday March 20, 2011.
All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.
-Sun Tzu
See also Marc Lynch.
The right-wing war against the light bulb
Image via Wikipedia
The compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) that is. Notice op-eds and tweets from the usual people against the CFL? Ever wonder why?
Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), those familiar spiral bulbs, have been shown to have a shelf life ten times that of incandescents, with energy costs around a quarter of those found with the older bulbs. So why are the congressmen behind the bill so in favor of keeping the old, energy-inefficient incandescent bulbs?
Why indeed. Is it because CFLs are worse for the environment?
Others have cited safety concerns, saying that the CFL bulbs pose an environmental risk due to the mercury they contain — though the EPA promotes a bulb recycling program, and the trace amounts of mercury contained in the CFL bulbs would in fact add less mercury to the ecosystem than incandescent bulbs do. Their reduced energy usage would slightly mitigate the amount of mercury that coal-burning power plants emit into the air.
Oh. Okay. Why then?
The real answer as to why the bill’s sponsors are itching to extend the shelf life of incandescent bulbs may not be so ideological. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that in one year, replacing just one 60-watt incandescent bulb with an equivalent CFL results in $7 in energy savings (Microsoft Excel file). Other Department of Energy figures (PDF) state that the average U.S. household has 45 light bulbs across 30 separate fixtures and that there are 116,900,000 households in the country. This means there are 5.26 billion light bulbs across the United States. At present, CFLs hover at a market share just under 30 percent. If that were to go up to 100 percent as a result of the EISA mandate, power companies would stand to lose almost $26 billion in revenue every single year.
That’s why.
