Archive for October, 2007
I’ve been thinking a lot about the nature versus nurture debate and I’ve come to the conclusion that it is neither.
That is all.
Oh wait. No it isn’t. There’s this:
Eloi and Morlocks
The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the “underclass” humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.
Yeah. Yeah. And then the tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative females would get drunk and mate with the dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like males and we’d be back to now.
Gee, Dr. Curry – get out to the pubs of London much? And I’d take a good look at the upper class of Britain before I go spouting off about who’s gonna be which mutant species of the future, if you know what I mean.
Aw Crap, Naomi Klein
Okay. So what do you get when you combine Naomi Klein’s “Disaster Capitalism” with Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”?
Why, RBC’s “Blue Water Project”, of course.
There. No need for a REAL investigative reporter now. Sooey has solved the problem of RBC’s sudden interest in charity. Because, believe me, Dear Reader – when banks say charity is a good thing – Sooey knows it ain’t.
A Bank Goes Down on Charity
The company said the 10-year grant program, called the RBC Blue Water Project, represents the largest charitable commitment in its history.
Heheh – yeah. The only one, too.
RBC chief operating officer Barbara Stymiest said the company focused on water because of its significance to Canada as a natural resource.
“You could say it represents Canada,” she said. “The less informed might associate water shortages with developing nations, but with developed nations it’s a key issue as well.”
Australia, parts of the United States, and even areas of Canada are feeling the impact of water scarcity, she added. “We think it could become and is becoming a material economic issue.”
It’s not just an issue of securing clean drinking water. Many industries, including Alberta’s oil sands, require access to fresh water to operate.
Companies such as General Electric, which has been aggressively expanding its water technology business, have predicted major wars will be fought over water shortages as nations struggle to compete.
Why, why – that doesn’t sound like charity at all…
Geez Louise. Say – are there any INVESTIGATIVE reporters out there in medialand?
It’s A Plane, It’s A Bird
Oh. Wait. Hey! What kind of SuperEnvoy is this guy?
Nato has “lost in Afghanistan” and its failure to bring stability there could provoke a regional sectarian war “on a grand scale”, according to Lord Ashdown.
Luckily, the role of SuperEnvoy isn’t sewn up for Lord Here is the list of candidates to play the Caped Crusader (Hey – Crusader! Just like George W. Bush!)
Apart from Lord Ashdown, candidates under consideration for the new enhanced role include Joschka Fischer, the former German foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, the serving French foreign minister, and Jaroslav Kaczynski, the former Polish prime minister who lost Sunday’s general election.
Ooh. An election loser, eh… Oh well, as long as everybody understands this is a sovereign country we’re invading here:
A senior diplomat who declined to be named said: “The overall leadership here is that of President Karzai.
“So whoever takes on this role needs to be able to co-ordinate the international community but also serve the interests and structures of a sovereign state.”
Check. Okay. All systems are go.
Say, remember this? Operation Enduring Freedom? I’d forgotten all about that cornball name for this subsidiary of the War on Terror:
It is understood that the super envoy would have the existing duties of the UN representative but also greater powers to co-ordinate the rebuilding of the country after decades of war. Progress in reconstruction and development – especially in the violent south – has been sporadic and considered largely unsatisfactory by the international community.
However, there remains widespread discussion over the precise remit that the new figure would have, particularly in relation to any oversight they might have of Nato operations and Operation Enduring Freedom, the US’s separate mission.
I don’t know why Lord Ashdown (Heheh – I wonder how long before the troops nickname him “Lord Downer”) is so negative. Afterall, it’s not like Afghanistan can get any worse.
Lord Ashdown added: “I believe losing in Afghanistan is worse than losing in Iraq. It will mean that Pakistan will fall and it will have serious implications internally for the security of our own countries and will instigate a wider Shiite [Shia], Sunni regional war on a grand scale.
“Some people refer to the First and Second World Wars as European civil wars and I think a similar regional civil war could be initiated by this [failure] to match this magnitude.”
Uh Hunh… But Back to Climate Change
This article by Mark Steyn intrigues me somewhat:
In particular, this comment at the very end (I skim – shamelessly) caught my eye:
“As for the climate, you could take every dollar spent on “global warming” and blow it on internet porn, and the Earth’s climate in 2050 will be pretty much what it would be anyway.”
So yeah. The reason why it caught my eye is because I happen to agree with it. The way the system has been set up, without China and India signed on to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, too, it’s pretty moot, all this Kyototude.
In the meantime, I’m slightly suspicious of the Right for not pointing out more forcefully (or at all, really), the clear and present fact that the rich are about to get richer brokering deals in the new high flying financial field of carbon credit trading (the rich who are, coincidentally or not, the same rich who got rich producing greenhouse gas emissions).
I mean, we already know all this stuff about Al Gore – the energy consumption at his castle in Tennessee, the global Big Foot print he leaves every time he takes off in his private jet to deliver a lecture on Global Warming to people dumb enough to pay to hear him drone on and on for hours and hours about his movie when you can rent it for just a few bucks and then fast forward to the end “Yup – I’ve seen it – An Inconvenient Movie – It went by very quickly”, the failure to do a single Gawddamned thing about the environment when he was Vice-President of the United States, and so on and so forth and more of the same etc etc.
Why, you’d have to be either a complete idiot or a fellow traveller to think Al Gore deserves the Nobel Peace Prize instead of a great big kick in the pants.
So yeah. We get it about Al Gore, yaddayaddablahblah, but such is the way of the world. In the meantime, what I don’t get, is why nobody is talking about who’s going to pay for our greenhouse gas emissions when we don’t meet these seemingly random targets everybody’s talking about us not being able to meet now that we’ve got a New Conservative government in the Palace on the Hill even though we were signed on to the damn Kyoto thing some time ago by a Liberal government.
Call me a Canadian citizen who didn’t vote for either government, but… where is this money we’re going to be coughing up to pay for all this pollution we’re not reducing going to go? Or rather, to be more pointed – to whom is it going to go?
Because this is what I don’t understand, and what I think a lot of people don’t understand, about all this gung ho talk 24/7 about how drastically we suddenly need to get moving on not meeting our targets for greenhouse gas emissions.
I realize we’re a developed country and all, and, as such, must take much of the responsibility for the level of greenhouse gas emissions thus far, but some of us are more developed than the rest of us, if you know what I mean and I really don’t think it’s fair that we’re all being treated equally now that the shit has hit the fan.
Furthermore, since we’re the ones who are going to be taxed to pay for all this damage to the environment that was mostly caused by rich people, I think the tax rate should be reflective of that indisputable fact. Afterall, some people are more responsible than others for this mess and I would suggest that those same people also have a lot more money than people like say… me.
Finally, if all our efforts are for naught because China and India are going to spew ten times the greenhouse gas emissions we’ve already spewed into the atmosphere, and, since it’s not like paying out millions of dollars to whomever we’re going to be paying out millions of dollars will REMOVE our already spewed greenhouse gas emissions, anyway,- why are we doing it?
And why isn’t the Right asking THAT question? For that matter, why isn’t the Left? Where is everybody? Hello? Anybody home?