Kenney's Reign in Alberta

58 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Kenney's Reign in Alberta

Following in Mulroney's footsteps it appears.

Following news site's critical reports, Kenney hints at retaliation as PressProgress fires back

David J. Climenhaga

April 24, 2019

MEDIA MATTERS

POLITICS IN CANADA

 David J. Climenhaga)

Apparently the stenographic efforts of Postmedia's Alberta newspapers as a virtual wing of the United Conservative Party campaign team were not enough for the victorious Jason Kenney, Alberta's premier designate.

Journalists and publications that provided less obsequious coverage of the campaign leading up to the April 16 election will be attacked and, by the sound of it, silenced if possible.

Buried deep in a rambling paean to Kenney in Monday's edition of the National Post, the flagship of the Postmedia newspaper chain, is a revealing attack on PressProgress.

It turns out Kenney is shocked and appalled the progressive news site broke a series of important hard news stories that detailed corruption, bigotry and extremism within UCP ranks. He is threatening to do something about it.

Meanwhile, PressProgress quickly shot back, comparing Kenney's threats to those of Donald Trump and standing by "our fact-based, independent, reporting in Alberta."

Have no doubt about it, the damning series of PressProgress reports were news stories, properly researched and edited, just like mainstream media used to publish.

Luckily for the premier designate and his successful UCP campaigners, mainstream media largely ignored the PressProgress stories, or seriously underplayed them.

Nevertheless, the possibility that someone out there is disinclined to act like the tame stenographers touting the UCP line is cause for serious concern among the party's leadership and its media cheerleaders.

Something must be done!

"It's hard to overstate the role PressProgress played in the election campaign that just concluded, and the magnitude of the challenges it presented for the UCP," the author of the Post report observed.

"Many of the stories about UCP candidates that resulted in embarrassment, apologies or resignations originated on the PressProgress website and then trickled into mainstream outlets through social media," the story continues.

Well, trickled is the right word. And never mind that the stories were accurate, else the lawsuits would be raining down. The Post's scribe wants you to know PressProgress is published by the federal-NDP-leaning Broadbent Institute.

"Kenney said his civil libertarian instincts make him uneasy about the idea of media regulation," the Post story continued, "but added, 'having said that, it's not a legit media outlet.'" (Emphasis added.)

And Postmedia is? Oh, give us a break!

Accusing PressProgress of functioning as a "de facto political third-party advertiser," Kenney used his readily available Postmedia pulpit to attack this unsympathetic media operation.

"The NDP, if they can't get mainstream media to pick up on their research, they just email it over to PressProgress to breathlessly write it up," the Post quotes Kenney saying. (In reality, about 80 per cent of the stories PressProgress broke are said to have been leaked by Conservative insiders troubled by the ethical lapses of the crowd around Kenney. But this perception is an interesting commentary on the UCP's cozy relationship with mainstream media in Alberta.)

Thereafter followed a predictable defence by the UCP leader of his 2017 leadership campaign's role in the sleazy and possibly illegal "kamikaze mission" by another candidate, the sole purpose of which was to sink his principal rival, former Wildrose Leader Brian Jean. Turns out the Kenney campaign strategists were just "sharing a few memes with another leadership candidate," he explained.

But if that kind of sharing "constitutes a contribution, then running a full-time attack website, dumping NDP research into the campaign cycle definitely constitutes a campaign contribution," Kenney opined. "So this is something that we will be looking at," he warned.

In its statement yesterday, PressProgress described itself as "an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces original reporting and analysis on important matters of public interest.

"The work of PressProgress -- across a range of critical issues -- has been cited as a reliable source by every major news outlet in Canada," the statement continued. "Politicians often feel, as Mr. Kenney clearly does, that media have been unfair to them. Nobody in public office is immune from scrutiny, especially from the independent media.

"What's not OK, as Donald Trump does on a daily basis, is threatening the media with retaliation. This is corrosive to public debate and to democracy itself."

"We stand by our fact-based, independent, reporting in Alberta leading up to and during the 2019 Provincial Election," PressProgress said. "Our investigative news stories about Jason Kenney's leadership scandal helped bring to light allegations that are now under RCMP investigation. Our diligent research into candidates led to some being held accountable for deeply troubling comments and actions. Our well-researched fact checks of the UCP's platform uncovered significant discrepancies.

"The ability for independent media to freely report on elections, as well as other areas of public interest and concern, must be upheld," the PressProgress statement concluded.

One can never tell, but it's unlikely Kenney's bluster will amount to much in this case. The last time an Alberta government tried to control the media, the lieutenant governor refused to sign the bill. That was in 1937, well before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Well, perhaps Kenney will tear a leaf from the book of premier William Aberhart and try to install an official censor in the PressProgress office in Ottawa.

Still, it's worth noting, if it wasn't already obvious, that what the Post called Kenney's "civil libertarian instincts" don't seem to extend to free expression and a free media when it's not convenient to him.

As predicted in this space yesterday, Kenney is likely to prove to be a fundraising bonanza for progressive and environmental organizations, charitable or otherwise.

By last night, PressProgress had sent a fundraising email to its supporters noting Kenney's attack and vowing not to take his "Trump-style move" lying down. "We will defend our journalistic freedom, because we are publishing stories Canadian need to know," the email said, exhorting contributions to the PressProgress Journalism Defence Fund it set up yesterday morning.

David Climenhaga, author of the Alberta Diary blog, is a journalist, author, journalism teacher, poet and trade union communicator who has worked in senior writing and editing positions with The Globe and Mail and the Calgary Herald. This post also appears on David Climenhaga's blog, AlbertaPolitics.ca

Photo: David J. Climenhaga

Help make rabble sustainable. Please consider supporting our work with a monthly donation. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/alberta-diary/2019/04/following-news-sites-critical-reports-kenney-hints-retaliation#at_pco=smlrebv-1.0&at_si=5cc2af1e1be0420c&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=4&at_tot=5

robbie_dee
quizzical

cabinet and Ministries were announced and we have a anti-choice Minister of Education.

i say fk you to all you who believed Notley wasn't pure enough. 

NorthReport
Aristotleded24

It's amazing that Kenney capitalized on the fear and pain people were feeling due to the economy, and that his first action as Premier is to attack another province rather than help them.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

quizzical wrote:

cabinet and Ministries were announced and we have a anti-choice Minister of Education.

i say fk you to all you who believed Notley wasn't pure enough. 

Notley brought in many good reforms. Though other than the minimum wage, I can't think of any that will sruvive Kenney's "summer of repeal" -- assuming he goes through with his plan to repeal all of Notley's legislation in a summer session of the legislature.

Notley's failure on the environment, however, went far beyond not being pure enough. Notley outright became a shill for the fossil capitalism that is burning our planet.

That said, I still would have voted for the AB NDP if I lived in Alberta. Because as Rebecca Solnit says: "Voting is a chess move, not a love letter."

NorthReport

Alberta had a chance to diversify its economy if they had been serious about building up a Heritage Fund Unlike Norway Alberta basically did not. Albertans will now pay the price as their economy tries to transition itself off fossil fuels

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trident-exploration-aer-owa-oilpatch-1.5120486

Martin N.

NorthReport wrote:

Alberta had a chance to diversify its economy if they had been serious about building up a Heritage Fund Unlike Norway Alberta basically did not. Albertans will now pay the price as their economy tries to transition itself off fossil fuels

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trident-exploration-aer-owa-oilpatch-1.5120486

What a deaf eared and thoroughly dumb regurgitation of an issue that compares a sovereign nation to a provincial entity subject to the predatory taxation of its sovereign nation.

If the 'nation' of Alberta can keep all the taxation powers, it will have the surplus funds just like Norway.........hey, why not become a sovereign nation, stop feeding the haters and build that fund!

Martin N.

If you don't like the political landscape now, just wait till October when the Libranos are turfed. Canada is turning to the right not because of lefty philosophy but due to lefty overreactions and unwise half-assed decisions paid for by taxpayers.

If lefty government couched their policy decisions on wise insight and fairness, the unintended consequences of their rash, headlong rush to demolish the country to give the image of saving the planet could be avoided. All pain for no gain.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Martin N your absurd analysis is premised on the basis that somehow the Trudeau liberals can be deemed a "lefty government." If we started electing governments that were not already captured by our oligarchy we might have a chance to get policy decisions based on wise insight and fairness. As it is we know that the board rooms of Canada will never allow peace, order and good governance because it would be very bad for their bottom lines.

Aristotleded24

Martin N. wrote:
What a deaf eared and thoroughly dumb regurgitation of an issue that compares a sovereign nation to a provincial entity subject to the predatory taxation of its sovereign nation.

If the 'nation' of Alberta can keep all the taxation powers, it will have the surplus funds just like Norway.........hey, why not become a sovereign nation, stop feeding the haters and build that fund!

So in your world was Peter Lougheed a flaming lefty for the royalty rates he charged Alberta oil producers when he was in charge?

Martin N. wrote:
If you don't like the political landscape now, just wait till October when the Libranos are turfed. Canada is turning to the right not because of lefty philosophy but due to lefty overreactions and unwise half-assed decisions paid for by taxpayers.

The Liberals are down, but I wouldn't count them out. For one, there is a visceral fear of what the Conservative party represents. Less than one full year into his mandate, there is a great deal of buyer's remorse about Doug Ford, and Kenney plays right into the right-wing redneck stereotype that people have of Alberta. These 2 Premiers will make great foils for Justin Trudeau. Also, the eastern half of the country is currently under water, while the westernmost province looks like it's about to go up in flames again. If climate change becomes an issue that people care about, the Conservatives will struggle. Plus, with Trudeau stumbling in the media, Scheer has not received so much attention. Once that changes, his popular support will drop as well. Neither leader is particularly competent.

Martin N. wrote:
If lefty government couched their policy decisions on wise insight and fairness, the unintended consequences of their rash, headlong rush to demolish the country to give the image of saving the planet could be avoided. All pain for no gain.

Seriously Martin, who is demolishing the country? You  may disagree with the residents of the BC coast who don't want pipelines, but they have the right to form opinions about what they do or don't want within their communities. This dispute goes beyond that, as if they don't have a right to their opinions. Also, Kenney's ideological counterparts in Quebec will not support a pipeline, despite what Kenney said on election night. And with Kenney threatening to turn off the taps (something oil executives within Alberta are not that happy about) plus threatening court and constitutional challenges because of a disagreement, and you're blaming the left for destroying the country? Give your head a shake.

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Martin N your absurd analysis is premised on the basis that somehow the Trudeau liberals can be deemed a "lefty government." If we started electing governments that were not already captured by our oligarchy we might have a chance to get policy decisions based on wise insight and fairness. As it is we know that the board rooms of Canada will never allow peace, order and good governance because it would be very bad for their bottom lines.

Well then, mount your bicycles, draw your pitchforks. The only way to release the oligarchy's iron grip on the wealth of the nation is to cut their fckn hands off. Electing any pol will do nothing because they will have to risk the only thing they value - their political capital - in order to fight the oligarchy and their lockstep minions, the political class, the bureaucracy and the media. 

Everyone is corrupted upon accepting their first paycheque and if one should resist, banished to the outer ring of the nosebleed section to dwell therein until disallowed to run in the next election, fired outright or a whisper campaign mounted alleging abuse of a neighbour's underage livestock.

Old KC Irving absconded to Bermuda with the family trust and the blessing of Rev Can. His progeny are still robbing Canada blind with the blessing of the Prime Groper. Ditto for the rest of the robbers, thieves and pension fund manipulators whose descendants are now busily proclaiming themselves 'old money'.

The only way to get rid of these parasites and claim the country back is to exterminate the lot. Where is Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot?

NorthReport
Martin N.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
What a deaf eared and thoroughly dumb regurgitation of an issue that compares a sovereign nation to a provincial entity subject to the predatory taxation of its sovereign nation.

If the 'nation' of Alberta can keep all the taxation powers, it will have the surplus funds just like Norway.........hey, why not become a sovereign nation, stop feeding the haters and build that fund!

So in your world was Peter Lougheed a flaming lefty for the royalty rates he charged Alberta oil producers when he was in charge?

Martin N. wrote:
If you don't like the political landscape now, just wait till October when the Libranos are turfed. Canada is turning to the right not because of lefty philosophy but due to lefty overreactions and unwise half-assed decisions paid for by taxpayers.

The Liberals are down, but I wouldn't count them out. For one, there is a visceral fear of what the Conservative party represents. Less than one full year into his mandate, there is a great deal of buyer's remorse about Doug Ford, and Kenney plays right into the right-wing redneck stereotype that people have of Alberta. These 2 Premiers will make great foils for Justin Trudeau. Also, the eastern half of the country is currently under water, while the westernmost province looks like it's about to go up in flames again. If climate change becomes an issue that people care about, the Conservatives will struggle. Plus, with Trudeau stumbling in the media, Scheer has not received so much attention. Once that changes, his popular support will drop as well. Neither leader is particularly competent.

Martin N. wrote:
If lefty government couched their policy decisions on wise insight and fairness, the unintended consequences of their rash, headlong rush to demolish the country to give the image of saving the planet could be avoided. All pain for no gain.

Seriously Martin, who is demolishing the country? You  may disagree with the residents of the BC coast who don't want pipelines, but they have the right to form opinions about what they do or don't want within their communities. This dispute goes beyond that, as if they don't have a right to their opinions. Also, Kenney's ideological counterparts in Quebec will not support a pipeline, despite what Kenney said on election night. And with Kenney threatening to turn off the taps (something oil executives within Alberta are not that happy about) plus threatening court and constitutional challenges because of a disagreement, and you're blaming the left for destroying the country? Give your head a shake.

Ok, I gave my head a shake and nothing fell out which is either good or bad. I will change 'lefty' to thieving eastern bastards.

The Trudeau government is demolishing the country by forcing Alberta to choose between federal bullying and secession from confederation. Also by scaring investment out of the country and deficit spending our descendants into poverty.

I am not a conservative, believing Scheer will be as great, if not greater a fellator of the powerful than Mr. Dressup. I lean more to the Poxonalltheirhouses Party.

NorthReport

 

How much longer are Albertans going to bury their collective heads in the sand and deceiving others about being major contributors to global warming.

Shut 'em down!

Wildly Underestimated Oilsands Emissions Latest Blow to Alberta’s Dubious Climate Claims

As disaster looms, petro province lets industry call the shots.

oilsands-syncrude.jpg

‘Whether or not the rest of the oil patch has as wretched a record of accuracy remains to be seen, but the missing 17 megatonnes thus far unearthed are enormous — equivalent to the entire carbon output of Toronto or Seattle.’ 

Photo by jasonwoodhead23, Creative Commons licensed.

One would expect that an additional 17 megatonnes of CO2 each year might require companies to pony up more money. However, if all players are ultimately shown to be similarly inaccurate, the performance bar simply moves lower — problem solved.

In any case, newly elected Premier Jason Kenney has pledged to sweep much of existing provincial carbon policy into the trash can, and his government’s specific actions on large emitters remain to be seen.

Industry self-reporting in Alberta is nothing if not consistent. On virtually every single parameter from tailings ponds liabilities to emissions of methaneto polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon pollution, and now carbon dioxide, the oil sector somehow always seems to vastly underestimate its burden on taxpayers and the planet.

image atom

Why the Oilsands Era Is Over

READ MORE 

Such regulatory incompetence might be more amusing if not for the tragic human costs seen with our rapidly changing climate. Homeowners across three provinces now struggle against the second 1,000-year flood in only two years. In Mozambique, 200,000 people remain imperiled after two cyclones in six weeks slammed into their coastal country. Even global bankers are callingfor urgent action to tackle a looming climate catastrophe.

Yet Kenney’s top priority seems to be building a war room funded by $30 million in taxpayers money to respond to “lies and myths” about the oil sector.

Is the plan now to sue peer-reviewed scientific journals? Or launch a PR campaign against mathematics? This sad war against facts may play well at the Alberta ballot box, but is this really how we want our country to be remembered during this pivotal moment of history?

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. By that yardstick, continuing to trust the oil sector to oversee their own emissions, pollution, compliance and environmental liabilities is more than a little crazy.  [Tyee]

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/05/03/Oilsands-Emissions-Wildly-Underestimated/

Aristotleded24

Martin N. wrote:
I will change 'lefty' to thieving eastern bastards.

"Theiving eastern bastards?" Time for a little geography lesson. The bans on tanker traffic and other restrictions on pipeline construction are coming from British Columbia, which last time I checked is west of Alberta. Kenney was a federal politician when his ideological counterparts were in charge, and took the exact same approach as they are doing now. That approach saw the Conservative seat count in BC slip from first to third in a single election. Is he not capable of learning anything?

Martin N. wrote:
The Trudeau government is demolishing the country by forcing Alberta to choose between federal bullying and secession from confederation. Also by scaring investment out of the country and deficit spending our descendants into poverty.

Federal bullying? If any province is a victim of bullying by federal or provincial governments, it is BC. The Liberal government actually bought the pipeline. Alberta is thretaning to turn off the taps, raise court challenges, call referendums on equalization, and for what? Where the federal government is failing Alberta is in not giving meaningful relief and helping them to become less reliant on the boom and bust oil cycle which pushed the NDP into office in Alberta in the first place.

And how will secession help their cause? As it is, they currently elect a large number of MPs to the House of Commons, which gives them some clout in federal dealings. If they went on their own as an independent country, they still have the problem of getting their products to market. What leverage will they have with a country that has complete authority to set its own regulations without having to consult them?

"Deficits and scaring investment?" That's a right-wing talking point that gets thrown around whenever businesses perceive that things don't go their way. As for deficits, have you noticed that the only time politicians ever care about that is when they have to spend money on services the citizens need? No deficit is ever too large for paybacks to their wealthy friends who got them elected. The only time politically that a balanced budget is good for a politician is during an election year when they can pat themselves on the back and tell themselves what a wonderful job they've done.

bekayne

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
I will change 'lefty' to thieving eastern bastards.

"Theiving eastern bastards?" Time for a little geography lesson. The bans on tanker traffic and other restrictions on pipeline construction are coming from British Columbia, which last time I checked is west of Alberta. Kenney was a federal politician when his ideological counterparts were in charge, and took the exact same approach as they are doing now. That approach saw the Conservative seat count in BC slip from first to third in a single election. Is he not capable of learning anything?

Martin N. wrote:
The Trudeau government is demolishing the country by forcing Alberta to choose between federal bullying and secession from confederation. Also by scaring investment out of the country and deficit spending our descendants into poverty.

Federal bullying? If any province is a victim of bullying by federal or provincial governments, it is BC. The Liberal government actually bought the pipeline. Alberta is thretaning to turn off the taps, raise court challenges, call referendums on equalization, and for what? Where the federal government is failing Alberta is in not giving meaningful relief and helping them to become less reliant on the boom and bust oil cycle which pushed the NDP into office in Alberta in the first place.

And how will secession help their cause? As it is, they currently elect a large number of MPs to the House of Commons, which gives them some clout in federal dealings. If they went on their own as an independent country, they still have the problem of getting their products to market. What leverage will they have with a country that has complete authority to set its own regulations without having to consult them?

"Deficits and scaring investment?" That's a right-wing talking point that gets thrown around whenever businesses perceive that things don't go their way. As for deficits, have you noticed that the only time politicians ever care about that is when they have to spend money on services the citizens need? No deficit is ever too large for paybacks to their wealthy friends who got them elected. The only time politically that a balanced budget is good for a politician is during an election year when they can pat themselves on the back and tell themselves what a wonderful job they've done.

As a thieving western bastard, I endorse this post.

LB Cultured Thought

.

NorthReport
NorthReport
Martin N.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
I will change 'lefty' to thieving eastern bastards.

"Theiving eastern bastards?" Time for a little geography lesson. The bans on tanker traffic and other restrictions on pipeline construction are coming from British Columbia, which last time I checked is west of Alberta. Kenney was a federal politician when his ideological counterparts were in charge, and took the exact same approach as they are doing now. That approach saw the Conservative seat count in BC slip from first to third in a single election. Is he not capable of learning anything?

Martin N. wrote:
The Trudeau government is demolishing the country by forcing Alberta to choose between federal bullying and secession from confederation. Also by scaring investment out of the country and deficit spending our descendants into poverty.

Federal bullying? If any province is a victim of bullying by federal or provincial governments, it is BC. The Liberal government actually bought the pipeline. Alberta is thretaning to turn off the taps, raise court challenges, call referendums on equalization, and for what? Where the federal government is failing Alberta is in not giving meaningful relief and helping them to become less reliant on the boom and bust oil cycle which pushed the NDP into office in Alberta in the first place.

And how will secession help their cause? As it is, they currently elect a large number of MPs to the House of Commons, which gives them some clout in federal dealings. If they went on their own as an independent country, they still have the problem of getting their products to market. What leverage will they have with a country that has complete authority to set its own regulations without having to consult them?

"Deficits and scaring investment?" That's a right-wing talking point that gets thrown around whenever businesses perceive that things don't go their way. As for deficits, have you noticed that the only time politicians ever care about that is when they have to spend money on services the citizens need? No deficit is ever too large for paybacks to their wealthy friends who got them elected. The only time politically that a balanced budget is good for a politician is during an election year when they can pat themselves on the back and tell themselves what a wonderful job they've done.

Hmm.  Backwoods rustic that I am, I am under the impression that the tanker ban is proposed under Federal legislation, proposed by one J. Trudeau, poster-manchildpeoplekind for thieving eastern bastards and progeny of the original NEP thieving eastern bastard. The majority of BC residents or indigenous peoplekind do NOT support this ban,

Is this an example of what the smart set calls a 'non sequitur '? Or of misinformation, the nemesis of right-wing talking point spewers  everywhere?

Bye the bye, that 'right-wing talking points' thingy gets thrown around whenever activists perceive that things don't go their way. Whenever the non- sequiturs crash and burn, the activists do not support their unsupportable opinions, preferring to shoot the messenger and whine about unfair facts getting in the way of their opinions.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Martin N. wrote:

Hmm.  Backwoods rustic that I am, I am under the impression that the tanker ban is proposed under Federal legislation, proposed by one J. Trudeau, poster-manchildpeoplekind for thieving eastern bastards and progeny of the original NEP thieving eastern bastard. The majority of BC residents or indigenous peoplekind do NOT support this ban.

You are so full of shit it is disgusting. The tanker ban on the West Coast has been partially in place for decades and the people of this coast have always supported it. Here is a good article that voices some very real concerns about the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act.  This new Act like all of Trudeau's bills is mere window dressing. The strange part is the Liberals are giving the oil industry pretty much every thing it wants and still it employs attack dogs to troll the social media.

A new law proposed by Canada’s federal government aims to reduce the risk of future spills in British Columbia’s vulnerable Inside Passage, a sailing route that passes between the mainland and the province’s many islands. This new Oil Tanker Moratorium Act is due for a third reading by Parliament at the end of January and possible passage by spring.

And while activists and many First Nations have voiced support, they take issue with some exceptions written into the bill.

Gavin Smith, staff counsel at the Vancouver-based nonprofit West Coast Environmental Law, says the oil tanker moratorium “changes the rules of the game for the north coast of BC in a way that’s really positive.” However, he adds, “there are definitely flaws with this bill.”

Those flaws, he says, create significant loopholes that allow many barges to continue on their routes.

“As far as we can tell, [the bill] has been explicitly designed so as not to affect any existing traffic in the north and central coast that’s carrying oil products,” says Smith.

Of most concern to the organization, the bill allows the federal transport minister to exempt any oil shipment from the moratorium. West Coast Environmental Law fought this in committee and won the small concession that such a decision must be made public.

https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/oil-tanker-moratorium-act-not-a-morat...

Aristotleded24

Martin N. wrote:
Hmm.  Backwoods rustic that I am, I am under the impression that the tanker ban is proposed under Federal legislation, proposed by one J. Trudeau, poster-manchildpeoplekind for thieving eastern bastards and progeny of the original NEP thieving eastern bastard. The majority of BC residents or indigenous peoplekind do NOT support this ban,

Did you see the seat standings of the federal parties in BC before the last federal election? Notice the Conservatives dropping to third, being wiped out on the coast, and the Liberals rocketing up to first place? I seem to remember that the Conservatives were for pipelines and against banning tankers going into that election. Or is there something else I missed? If the marjority of BC residents support pipelines and oppose the tanker ban, can you explain to me why they themselves elected a majority of MPs who disagreed with that view?

Aristotleded24

Martin N. wrote:
Bye the bye, that 'right-wing talking points' thingy gets thrown around whenever activists perceive that things don't go their way. Whenever the non- sequiturs crash and burn, the activists do not support their unsupportable opinions, preferring to shoot the messenger and whine about unfair facts getting in the way of their opinions.

You have engaged in a large amount of name calling, attacks, and shooting the messenger for your entire posting history of babble. You knew this was a left-wing board when you signed up, so why you didn't expect any pushback against the views you have espoused in your history here is mind boggling.

bekayne

Martin N. wrote:

Hmm.  Backwoods rustic that I am, I am under the impression that the tanker ban is proposed under Federal legislation, proposed by one J. Trudeau, poster-manchildpeoplekind for thieving eastern bastards and progeny of the original NEP thieving eastern bastard. The majority of BC residents or indigenous peoplekind do NOT support this ban,

Any polls to cite?

Martin N.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
Bye the bye, that 'right-wing talking points' thingy gets thrown around whenever activists perceive that things don't go their way. Whenever the non- sequiturs crash and burn, the activists do not support their unsupportable opinions, preferring to shoot the messenger and whine about unfair facts getting in the way of their opinions.

You have engaged in a large amount of name calling, attacks, and shooting the messenger for your entire posting history of babble. You knew this was a left-wing board when you signed up, so why you didn't expect any pushback against the views you have espoused in your history here is mind boggling.

What? Calling myself a backwoods rustic? Call your mom. I am more lefty on many issues than most but here, one must drink the koolaid, not dare to question what is in it.

I have no problem with 'pushback' or cogent argument. I do, however, take issue with groupthink based upon fitting the data to the ideology rather than forming an opinion based upon due diligence.

Dont let your mind boggle too much, even in the fantasy islands of the BC coast, there are many peoplekind who support exporting our resources, including indigenous folk.

Martin N.

bekayne wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Hmm.  Backwoods rustic that I am, I am under the impression that the tanker ban is proposed under Federal legislation, proposed by one J. Trudeau, poster-manchildpeoplekind for thieving eastern bastards and progeny of the original NEP thieving eastern bastard. The majority of BC residents or indigenous peoplekind do NOT support this ban,

Any polls to cite?

Good question. At this point, only the poll of Canadians who support TM. At great risk of the nonsensical 'right wing talking point' label, I shall venture to support my opinion with, regrettably, unacceptable fact.

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Hmm.  Backwoods rustic that I am, I am under the impression that the tanker ban is proposed under Federal legislation, proposed by one J. Trudeau, poster-manchildpeoplekind for thieving eastern bastards and progeny of the original NEP thieving eastern bastard. The majority of BC residents or indigenous peoplekind do NOT support this ban.

You are so full of shit it is disgusting. The tanker ban on the West Coast has been partially in place for decades and the people of this coast have always supported it. Here is a good article that voices some very real concerns about the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act.  This new Act like all of Trudeau's bills is mere window dressing. The strange part is the Liberals are giving the oil industry pretty much every thing it wants and still it employs attack dogs to troll the social media.

A new law proposed by Canada’s federal government aims to reduce the risk of future spills in British Columbia’s vulnerable Inside Passage, a sailing route that passes between the mainland and the province’s many islands. This new Oil Tanker Moratorium Act is due for a third reading by Parliament at the end of January and possible passage by spring.

And while activists and many First Nations have voiced support, they take issue with some exceptions written into the bill.

Gavin Smith, staff counsel at the Vancouver-based nonprofit West Coast Environmental Law, says the oil tanker moratorium “changes the rules of the game for the north coast of BC in a way that’s really positive.” However, he adds, “there are definitely flaws with this bill.”

Those flaws, he says, create significant loopholes that allow many barges to continue on their routes.

“As far as we can tell, [the bill] has been explicitly designed so as not to affect any existing traffic in the north and central coast that’s carrying oil products,” says Smith.

Of most concern to the organization, the bill allows the federal transport minister to exempt any oil shipment from the moratorium. West Coast Environmental Law fought this in committee and won the small concession that such a decision must be made public.

https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/oil-tanker-moratorium-act-not-a-morat...

What you mean is that 'people like you' have always supported a proposed ban that never was declared because industry never proceeded with any exploration drilling in Hecate Strait. The reason for that was that such a project did not have the necessary credentials to succeed in the global competition for capital with other projects, not because of any hypothetical tanker ban.

Apples to oranges with the present legislation before the Senate. This bill allows everything on the north west coast except the export of Alberta oil.

Without descending into the allegorical depths of defecation insults, I must admit your nonsense is hardly worth responding to. Try harder use better hyperbole to give some bounce to a lacklustre, flawed position.

I also live in the Fantasy Islands and, while the gentle-minded ageing hippy, carbon-free kayaker and back-to-the-landish vegan communities are viscerally opposed to pipelines and tankers, they are not opposed to the point of actually getting rid of their ancient oil- burners and embracing the carbon-free future with their own investments in carbon free technology. All hat and no cattle.

For the rest, much as it likely is in the Cumberland Valley, pragmatic peoplekind have divergent views with many supporting pipelines and tankers as a necessary evil to support our economy and social programs.

Martin N.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
Hmm.  Backwoods rustic that I am, I am under the impression that the tanker ban is proposed under Federal legislation, proposed by one J. Trudeau, poster-manchildpeoplekind for thieving eastern bastards and progeny of the original NEP thieving eastern bastard. The majority of BC residents or indigenous peoplekind do NOT support this ban,

Did you see the seat standings of the federal parties in BC before the last federal election? Notice the Conservatives dropping to third, being wiped out on the coast, and the Liberals rocketing up to first place? I seem to remember that the Conservatives were for pipelines and against banning tankers going into that election. Or is there something else I missed? If the marjority of BC residents support pipelines and oppose the tanker ban, can you explain to me why they themselves elected a majority of MPs who disagreed with that view?

I can explain to you the flaws in your analysis but since you are both aware of them and unwilling to accept any view other than your own, why bother, it's not time well wasted.

My only observation is that BC, much like the rest of the country fell for the Trudeau charm offensive and  after the fact realize the charm is fake and the suit is empty. Ask me in October how BCers think about the issue of pipelines and tankers. That conversation will be time well wasted.

Martin N.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
Bye the bye, that 'right-wing talking points' thingy gets thrown around whenever activists perceive that things don't go their way. Whenever the non- sequiturs crash and burn, the activists do not support their unsupportable opinions, preferring to shoot the messenger and whine about unfair facts getting in the way of their opinions.

You have engaged in a large amount of name calling, attacks, and shooting the messenger for your entire posting history of babble. You knew this was a left-wing board when you signed up, so why you didn't expect any pushback against the views you have espoused in your history here is mind boggling.

Bye the bye, I prefer criticism that evolves from critical thinking, not emotional jibber-jabber cloaking a desire to silence a differing opinion. Sorry to be picayune but your ad hominem accusing me of ad hominemery is not up to your usual standard of contribution.

Aristotleded24

Martin N. wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
Hmm.  Backwoods rustic that I am, I am under the impression that the tanker ban is proposed under Federal legislation, proposed by one J. Trudeau, poster-manchildpeoplekind for thieving eastern bastards and progeny of the original NEP thieving eastern bastard. The majority of BC residents or indigenous peoplekind do NOT support this ban,

Did you see the seat standings of the federal parties in BC before the last federal election? Notice the Conservatives dropping to third, being wiped out on the coast, and the Liberals rocketing up to first place? I seem to remember that the Conservatives were for pipelines and against banning tankers going into that election. Or is there something else I missed? If the marjority of BC residents support pipelines and oppose the tanker ban, can you explain to me why they themselves elected a majority of MPs who disagreed with that view?

I can explain to you the flaws in your analysis but since you are both aware of them and unwilling to accept any view other than your own, why bother, it's not time well wasted.

My only observation is that BC, much like the rest of the country fell for the Trudeau charm offensive and  after the fact realize the charm is fake and the suit is empty. Ask me in October how BCers think about the issue of pipelines and tankers. That conversation will be time well wasted.

Then why did the NDP, also taking a somewhat identical position to the Liberals, also finish ahead of the Conservatives in the last federal election?

Aristotleded24

Martin N. wrote:

bekayne wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Hmm.  Backwoods rustic that I am, I am under the impression that the tanker ban is proposed under Federal legislation, proposed by one J. Trudeau, poster-manchildpeoplekind for thieving eastern bastards and progeny of the original NEP thieving eastern bastard. The majority of BC residents or indigenous peoplekind do NOT support this ban,

Any polls to cite?

Good question. At this point, only the poll of Canadians who support TM. At great risk of the nonsensical 'right wing talking point' label, I shall venture to support my opinion with, regrettably, unacceptable fact.

I've seen those polls. The oil companies who support this pipeline have the financial means to buy ads on TV and in newspapers and reach a great many people. Those who oppose this pipeline have internet news and forums like rabble. Given enough time, how do you think the public opinion is eventually going to break?

Martin N.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
Hmm.  Backwoods rustic that I am, I am under the impression that the tanker ban is proposed under Federal legislation, proposed by one J. Trudeau, poster-manchildpeoplekind for thieving eastern bastards and progeny of the original NEP thieving eastern bastard. The majority of BC residents or indigenous peoplekind do NOT support this ban,

Did you see the seat standings of the federal parties in BC before the last federal election? Notice the Conservatives dropping to third, being wiped out on the coast, and the Liberals rocketing up to first place? I seem to remember that the Conservatives were for pipelines and against banning tankers going into that election. Or is there something else I missed? If the marjority of BC residents support pipelines and oppose the tanker ban, can you explain to me why they themselves elected a majority of MPs who disagreed with that view?

I can explain to you the flaws in your analysis but since you are both aware of them and unwilling to accept any view other than your own, why bother, it's not time well wasted.

My only observation is that BC, much like the rest of the country fell for the Trudeau charm offensive and  after the fact realize the charm is fake and the suit is empty. Ask me in October how BCers think about the issue of pipelines and tankers. That conversation will be time well wasted.

Then why did the NDP, also taking a somewhat identical position to the Liberals, also finish ahead of the Conservatives in the last federal election?

Canadian do not vote parties into power, they turf incumbents out. Trudeau has conned Canadians and they are about to show him their opinions.

Martin N.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

bekayne wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Hmm.  Backwoods rustic that I am, I am under the impression that the tanker ban is proposed under Federal legislation, proposed by one J. Trudeau, poster-manchildpeoplekind for thieving eastern bastards and progeny of the original NEP thieving eastern bastard. The majority of BC residents or indigenous peoplekind do NOT support this ban,

Any polls to cite?

Good question. At this point, only the poll of Canadians who support TM. At great risk of the nonsensical 'right wing talking point' label, I shall venture to support my opinion with, regrettably, unacceptable fact.

I've seen those polls. The oil companies who support this pipeline have the financial means to buy ads on TV and in newspapers and reach a great many people. Those who oppose this pipeline have internet news and forums like rabble. Given enough time, how do you think the public opinion is eventually going to break?

Let me polish my magic lantern for a moment while I rummage for an appropriate prevarication.

I think that activists have run amuck with disinformation about the issue and the many headlines in the news has emboldened them to new heights of zealotry. It is too bad that the constructive criticism of reasonable activists is lost in the noise of the ignorami espousing the emotions of the moment because the silent majority is now aroused and is signalling approval for pipelines and tankers.

The pendulum has swung and you have no one to blame but yourselves because your all or nothing approach does not endear you to the average peoplekind. You will lose. Individuals will not vote against their own interests, viz: carbon and other taxes push lower mainland gas prices to new highs. That's what the objective is, hence, reduce demand. But instead, lower mainlanders whine vociferously because they have no options.

But, the political objective is not in line with the reality that most individuals do not have the ability to reduce consumption because the infrastructure is not there to provide options.

Typical bassackwards policy provides a policy objective that does not give the victims options. Put in the mass transit infrastructure FIRST and then tax the bejesus out of the commodity. Stupid pols. The political response is to blame 'gouging', a misdirection that has been disproven in every study of gas pricing.

cco

Martin N. wrote:

Individuals will not vote against their own interests, viz: carbon and other taxes push lower mainland gas prices to new highs.

If only democracy worked that way. Climate catastrophe is against the interests of nearly everyone in Canada (minus people who directly profit from it and won't live long enough to see the results), but plenty of Canadians have voted for that.

Aristotleded24

Left Turn wrote:
quizzical wrote:

cabinet and Ministries were announced and we have a anti-choice Minister of Education.

i say fk you to all you who believed Notley wasn't pure enough. 

Notley brought in many good reforms. Though other than the minimum wage, I can't think of any that will sruvive Kenney's "summer of repeal" -- assuming he goes through with his plan to repeal all of Notley's legislation in a summer session of the legislature.

Notley's failure on the environment, however, went far beyond not being pure enough. Notley outright became a shill for the fossil capitalism that is burning our planet.

That said, I still would have voted for the AB NDP if I lived in Alberta. Because as Rebecca Solnit says: "Voting is a chess move, not a love letter."

The issue of reforms in Alberta are something that directly affect the people there, and not so much outside. On the issue of relations with neighbours, there was no difference between Notley and Kenney. Both are hell-bent on building a pipeline while being disrespectful of the rights of local communities to disagree. Living in Manitoba, had the issue of shipping oil through Churchill come up, I can imagine that a Notley or Kenney led government would be just as disrespectful of local opposition here. As for how I would have voted had I lived in Alberta? That would have depended on whether or not there was a Green candidate and whether or not my vote would have had a chance in blocking a UCP MLA.

NorthReport

Thank goodness we finally have a government in BC that is taking a stand to try and protect the orcas. 

Southern resident killer whales live off the west coast of North America, near the border between the United States and Canada. Photo by Doug Perrine/Minden Pictures

Starving Killer Whales Are Losing Most of Their Babies

A nearly 70 percent miscarriage rate is threatening the future of the southern resident killer whale.

https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/starving-killer-whales-are-losing-most-their-babies/

Martin N.

cco wrote:
Martin N. wrote:

Individuals will not vote against their own interests, viz: carbon and other taxes push lower mainland gas prices to new highs.

If only democracy worked that way. Climate catastrophe is against the interests of nearly everyone in Canada (minus people who directly profit from it and won't live long enough to see the results), but plenty of Canadians have voted for that.

If climate catastrophe, whatever that means, viz: earthquake, volcanic eruption, hurricane or anthropogenic causes is addressed by politicians, it will only be incidental to the more serious catastrophe of losing one's political sinecure and the accompanying privileges.

The present opportunists of climate fearmongering are doing nothing to address the issue other than posturing and pandering to remain in office. I offer the example of one J. Trudeau whose personal carbon footprint alone negates any verbal porridge he issues on the matter.

JKR

Will man-made climate change cause the extinction of Alberta dinosaurs like Kenney?

Kenneyosaurus rex?

 

Martin N.

NorthReport wrote:

Thank goodness we finally have a government in BC that is taking a stand to try and protect the orcas. 

Southern resident killer whales live off the west coast of North America, near the border between the United States and Canada. Photo by Doug Perrine/Minden Pictures

Starving Killer Whales Are Losing Most of Their Babies

A nearly 70 percent miscarriage rate is threatening the future of the southern resident killer whale.

https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/starving-killer-whales-are-losing-most-their-babies/

I dunno what the J pod has to do with Kenny's reign in Alberta but here is the goods from the Pacific Salmon Foundation.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=9Zz8aEAg7dI#

Martin N.

JKR wrote:

Will man-made climate change cause the extinction of Alberta dinosaurs like Kenney?

Kenneyosaurus rex?

 

Maybe but a greater certainty is that Kenneyosaurus will cause the extinction of Lower mainland and fantasy island motorists, The hypocrites should be riding bicycles or paddling their kayaks to work anywho.

 

cco

Martin N. wrote:

I offer the example of one J. Trudeau whose personal carbon footprint alone negates any verbal porridge he issues on the matter.

This is a particularly cute trick the right has used over the last century: the idea that change must happen exclusively on the personal level, and anyone who advocates change from a position of power is therefore a hypocrite. You want to help the poor? Either you're poor, and therefore self-serving, or rich, and therefore a champagne socialist. Want to save the environment? Anything short of homelessness is proof of your hypocrisy. It's a nice way to reinforce class boundaries and discourage anything as dangerous as solidarity. (See also: billionaires campaigning against "rich union bosses".)

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Martin N. wrote:

I also live in the Fantasy Islands and, while the gentle-minded ageing hippy, carbon-free kayaker and back-to-the-landish vegan communities are viscerally opposed to pipelines and tankers, they are not opposed to the point of actually getting rid of their ancient oil- burners and embracing the carbon-free future with their own investments in carbon free technology. All hat and no cattle.

For the rest, much as it likely is in the Cumberland Valley, pragmatic peoplekind have divergent views with many supporting pipelines and tankers as a necessary evil to support our economy and social programs.

 I don't know where the Cumberland Valley is and I can't kayak because I have two replacement knees however my Prius Prime after 12,000 km is averaging 2.7 l/100km, old school Canadian that is 104 MPG. No it is not zero but since the beginning of the year I have driven almost 3,000 km (mostly within a 40 km trip range) and used less than 40 liters of gas.

I know that in my town the majority of the people are either NDP or Green voters and the NDP voters are pissed at Site C and fracking so VI will be quite the battleground in the next provincial election. Federally the Conservatives regularly poll in the mid 30's and often the riding is won with less than 40%.

The pipeline we are talking about will not provide BC with any gas for our vehicles, it is for export. The oil companies closed refineries in BC and if they ever build KM the rates for transport of gas will be higher than they are now. So we get to take all the risk get fifty long term jobs and pay higher gas prices. You can try selling your snake oil to others I don't buy the economic argument unless one is a fascist and their idea of a good economy is one that satisfies the needs of capitalists and impoverishes the rest. BC relies on tourism for a large part of its economy not tar sands gunk. I think Fort Mac needs to build a tar sands spa and get people to vacation there if they need an economy instead of demanding we sacrifice ours.

JKR

Martin N. wrote:

JKR wrote:

Will man-made climate change cause the extinction of Alberta dinosaurs like Kenney?

Kenneyosaurus rex?

 

Maybe but a greater certainty is that Kenneyosaurus will cause the extinction of Lower mainland and fantasy island motorists, The hypocrites should be riding bicycles or paddling their kayaks to work anywho.

Is this how Alberta is going to sweet-talk BC into transporting their tar sands oil to China? 

Like it or not the global climate crisis is working against the long term viability of the Alberta Tar Sands.

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

I also live in the Fantasy Islands and, while the gentle-minded ageing hippy, carbon-free kayaker and back-to-the-landish vegan communities are viscerally opposed to pipelines and tankers, they are not opposed to the point of actually getting rid of their ancient oil- burners and embracing the carbon-free future with their own investments in carbon free technology. All hat and no cattle.

For the rest, much as it likely is in the Cumberland Valley, pragmatic peoplekind have divergent views with many supporting pipelines and tankers as a necessary evil to support our economy and social programs.

 I don't know where the Cumberland Valley is and I can't kayak because I have two replacement knees however my Prius Prime after 12,000 km is averaging 2.7 l/100km, old school Canadian that is 104 MPG. No it is not zero but since the beginning of the year I have driven almost 3,000 km (mostly within a 40 km trip range) and used less than 40 liters of gas.

I know that in my town the majority of the people are either NDP or Green voters and the NDP voters are pissed at Site C and fracking so VI will be quite the battleground in the next provincial election. Federally the Conservatives regularly poll in the mid 30's and often the riding is won with less than 40%.

The pipeline we are talking about will not provide BC with any gas for our vehicles, it is for export. The oil companies closed refineries in BC and if they ever build KM the rates for transport of gas will be higher than they are now. So we get to take all the risk get fifty long term jobs and pay higher gas prices. You can try selling your snake oil to others I don't buy the economic argument unless one is a fascist and their idea of a good economy is one that satisfies the needs of capitalists and impoverishes the rest. BC relies on tourism for a large part of its economy not tar sands gunk. I think Fort Mac needs to build a tar sands spa and get people to vacation there if they need an economy instead of demanding we sacrifice ours.

That's like your insurance company won't insure you because your house will burn down!

 

quizzical

Martin N. wrote:

That's like your insurance company won't insure you because your house will burn down!

get it right 8nsurance companies will insure but just won't give you anything when it does burn.

NorthReport
Martin N.

quizzical wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

That's like your insurance company won't insure you because your house will burn down!

get it right 8nsurance companies will insure but just won't give you anything when it does burn.

I got it right. You just didn't get it.