The Duffy Trial has been a bit of an expose on how the Harper Cons’ PMO operated. It’s not pretty.
The comments made about Sona and Finely are nothing to sneeze at either.
With Sona destined to sit in jail, and Finely in a grave, it all seems a little bit of an academic discussion now, except the Con’s supporters are now clamouring for a referendum to salvage (savage?) our electoral system.
That was following this tragedy highlighted in the world media.
https://twitter.com/saskboy/status/665977631561482242
Wall’s latest ploy was rejected
When voters duly selected
A government who
Promised to unscrew
All that Harper effected.
I have a feeling that some webpages will be changing significantly in the coming years at the Government of Canada.
“At 0.02% of its forested area, deforestation in Canada is among the worldâs lowest”
vs.
âThat means human activities disturbed 20,000 hectares of pristine forest every day [worldwide] for the past 13 years,â the group said.
Of that degradation, more than a fifth â 21.4 per cent â occurred in Canada, the study found. Thatâs more than any other country. ”
That’s 94965000 hectares over those 13 years. At 21.4%, Canada deforested virgin forests covering about 20322510 hectares. Each year that’s 1,563,270 hectares disturbed or gone.
The Harper government, not concerning itself with natural forest, claims these numbers:
“In 1990, 64,000 hectares were lost to deforestation and in 2012 this figure dropped to 45,800 hectares [lost that year].”
How could these two claims be reconciled? Look at the satellite imagery for yourselves, perhaps?
The assumption on the ground in northern Alberta is that everything is fine:
https://twitter.com/HarleyIronRider/status/659092856951279616
Comparing the Huff Po reported study to the Harper Gov site is challenging, because one focuses on deforestation worldwide and of “disturbed” virgin forest, while the Harper figures focus on deforestation rate reduction. That’s the same technique used to give the impression that carbon emissions were going down, when it was intended to show the rate of the increase was going down. Remember the “intensity targets” trick?
Each view gives a maximized number for the shitty situation. The Forest Watch group gets to give a huge number for any area of disturbed, but not totally destroyed forest, and the Harper government peddled the notion that the rate of destruction was falling sufficiently to allay concerns. To know if the rate of deforestation was falling in a meaningful way, you’d have to calculate if the rate of deforestation takes it to zero before too much virgin forests are lost (which will cause species extinctions and contribute to climate change {causing yet more extinctions}).
source:
Harper Government website:
At 0.02% of its forested area, deforestation in Canada is among the worldâs lowest, yet many myths exist about the state of our forests. The reality is that Canada is a world leader in sustainable forest management. Canadian forests are healthy, productive and thriving.
Deforestation is an important issue, since shrinking forest cover reduces biodiversity, affects soil and water quality, impacts wildlife habitat and influences climate change. The Canadian government carefully monitors and regularly publishes reports on deforestation. Our scientists combine satellite and aerial images with information about regional development, forest ecosystems, natural processes and local conditions to help monitor and manage the health of Canadian forests.
Here are some key facts about Canadaâs low levels of deforestation.
Myth: Deforestation in Canada is increasing.
Fact: Canadaâs deforestation rate is among the lowest in the world.The annual deforestation rate in Canada in 2010 was less than 0.02% of our forests and the rate has been declining for over 25 years. In 1990, 64,000 hectares were lost to deforestation and in 2012 this figure dropped to 45,800 hectares.
Today, Canadaâs 348 million hectares of forest lands represent about 9% of the worldâs forest cover, but account for only 0.3% of global deforestation.
Thank goodness for Michael Harris.
Helpfully providing an example of how journalists should not be thinking:
https://twitter.com/saskboy/status/657574431670202368
The Harper sycophant uses “HDS” “to shut down any meaningful criticism of our former dictator on the basis that all criticism was merely partisan”.
Canadians were so eager to get rid of Stephen Harper, they forgot they weren’t served very well by a mainstream party holding a majority on power the last 4 years.
*uncharacteristically crumples plan paper up into a ball and throws it in the garbage*
Me yesterday:
October 19, 2015 at 1:35 PM:
The alternate universe of sensible adults and fair outcomes would include a minority Parliament with Trudeau, Mulcair, and May all sharing the role of PM at different times over the next 4 years. But, we won’t get such an outcome, and are more likely to get [a Liberal minority without Harper in opposition].
If a Liberal majority, then status quo in a lot of ways for the next 4-5 years.
There’s too much change across the country to digest in one blog post about it all. I’m more optimistic about the future than in 2006 when Harper won, but I also have 9 years of experience, and the world has another decade lacking significant action to turn away from civilization destroying air pollution, and deforestation.
What is Trudeau going to do to inspire real changes? His advisers I don’t have much confidence in, sorry, I don’t. I hope he breaks party lines and appoints a few NDP MPs, and Elizabeth May to his cabinet, but that’s too much to hope for.
The result of the election is pretty much known by now, at 8pm Saskatchewan time (MDT), and Harper will no longer be our Prime Minister very soon. I decided this evening to post a prediction because of two tweets.
https://twitter.com/bfaparsons/status/654338056292438019
I figured if he doesn’t want to go down with the ship, that’s a good sign from an insider that Harper is going to lose this time.
==
Now, into the fuzzier stuff.
145 Liberals
120 Conservatives
70 NDP
1 Bloc
1 Greens
1 Independent
And he comes out strong against Stephen Harper.
This video is a cultural event.
Oh right, that evidence of their crimes and misuse of taxpayer money.
Paul Wells wrote this 3 years ago.
I wrote this two years about Coyne’s column about Trudeau. In response, he called me a deranged partisan, and malnourished fool.
Yesterday I posted an endorsement for Trudeau, while Coyne was muzzled by his newspaper’s owners. His last original tweet was days ago.
UPDATE:
—
It was a real dog’s breakfast at this one, where everything from polls to strategic voting discussed frankly by 3 political experts from Regina. Actually it wasn’t a complete mess, it was a well organized event, but the dog’s breakfast thing will make sense if you watch it all.
https://twitter.com/saskboy/status/654767328337334272
https://twitter.com/saskboy/status/654767627613507587
In 2011 Harper ‘won’ a majority government on the heels of lying to Parliament about the true cost of the #F35 boondoggle (which we still don’t have a plane from), and proceeded to lie to us about the cause of the election fraud seen across the country.
In 2015 Harper is possibly going to win government on the heels of saying we should prevent Muslim women from wearing a religious head and face scarf. What lies in store for us after he regains power? The Office of Religious Freedom he started will back up the freedom of Muslim women to dress how they please?
Maybe he’ll just inspire more of this crap?
I liked May’s answer to the “niqab” question during the French debate:
How many jobs have niqabs created What effect does the niqab have on our climate? It’s a distraction from real problems in Canada
Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff 