Wall Gets Support From Postmedia & CBC For “Doing Right Thing”

You’ve evidence that Wall is trying to now do the right thing, and not cynically trying to get out in front of an issue to which public opinion has turned against his view of only a year ago?
Wall pays enough hacks that he doesn’t need free moral support from Postmedia too.
Did you catch when CBC posted Wall’s hack Paul as one of his average citizen supporters, on their story defending the Premier’s “inconsistencies”? At least Paul does his job so well that he sees success like that. How can you not be happy for him?
Wall  sent a letter to Trudeau in November 2015 complaining that the threat of a single terrorist being among the refugees was grounds enough to slow down the process of Syria refugees. Wall — likely playing to his base at the time — was dead wrong to do so…

THAT’S the story, Mandryk, not a nice little set up to take a shot at the SFL (also a hobby of the Premier’s). Wall was “dead wrong” to serve as the poster child of Islamophobia in Canada by suggesting Syrian refugees posed a security risk. Has he sincerely changed his view? Let’s wait a year and see if he can maintain the new image he’s attempting to cultivate. Praising him now is jumping the gun.

Some newspaper guy said this a year ago:

“But if Wall is being serious about this critical issue (as Trudeau also now needs to be) doesn’t it also make sense not to play into ISIS’s hands by refusing or limiting sanctuary for those refugees from Syria fleeing these barbarians? …

But it was unhelpful to anyone other than Wall’s conservative base to give credence to the notion that it’s now OK to abandon desperate Syrian refugees because a terrorist hiding among them might slip through the screening cracks.

However, it seems very helpful to ISIS to have some western leaders suggesting that desperate Syrian refugees are just terrorists-in-waiting.”

If we get in line to slap the Premier on the back this week, will we just be back to smacking him upside the head for being “helpful to ISIS”, by next year?

“we all need to condemn those living in a perpetual state of outrage, rather than the politicians trying to do the right thing.”
This is a joke, coming from a political columnist, right? Or, does anyone really want to condemn me for consistently advocating for progress and peace in our society, city, province, and country.

Wikileaks: Manning Sentence Commuted to 7 years

I’m elated! Chelsea Manning is finally going to be released. Obama signed the commutation today.

Wikileaks, the anti-secrecy organisation which published the diplomatic cables, has previously said its founder Julian Assange would agree to be extradited to the US if Mr Obama granted clemency to Manning.

The White House said the Manning commutation was not influenced in any way by Mr Assange’s extradition offer.

Mr Assange, who has taken refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012, did not immediately comment on whether he plans to surrender.

But he did tweet: “Thank you to everyone who campaigned for Chelsea Manning’s clemency. Your courage & determination made the impossible possible.”

I think if the decision Obama made was not a prisoner exchange, then Assange doesn’t have to surrender. He’s already being illegally detained by the US extradition order they funneled through Sweden. Or, if he is sentenced to a day in prison, he’d keep his promise if he serves that time. I think a day in jail is too much for the person who stood up to the US intelligence machine and exposed some of their worst crimes.

ADDED: It’s only a shame that Edward Snowden and Jeremy Hammond can’t also be set free from their political prisons.

Johnstone: Supports Coal, But Calls Out Wall’s Lack of Plan

A notable column in the Star Phoenix from Bruce Johnstone, as he chastises Premier Wall’s “grandstanding” and for having no plan to deal with climate change.

Wall called the plan, […] a “betrayal” of the PM’s promise to develop a collaborative climate change policy with the provinces.

This despite the fact that Wall and the other premiers were told months ago to develop a carbon pricing plan, or have one imposed upon them. They were reminded of this again last week by Environment Minister Catherine McKenna.

[…]

Wall has also threatened to take the feds to court, claiming that the carbon tax infringes on provincial control of resources, which is protected under the constitution. While provinces are exempt from federal tax under the constitution, the courts could allow a carbon levy if used for regulatory rather than revenue-generating purposes, legal experts say.

Another Wall argument against carbon pricing is that it “holds the lowest potential for reducing emissions, while potentially doing the greatest harm to the Canadian economy.” Yet many economists say carbon pricing is more effective at reducing emissions than regulation or cap-and-trade systems because it changes consumer behaviour by increasing the cost of carbon consumption.

Wall’s weakest argument is that Canada accounts for only 1.6 per cent of GHG emissions, and Saskatchewan accounts for 10 per cent of Canadian emissions, or 75.5 million tonnes. “I deny the fallacy that a new tax on Canadians whose CO2 emissions are 1.6 per cent of the global emissions is the best way for Canada to help fight climate change.”

So what is your plan, Mr. Wall? If not carbon pricing — either through a carbon tax or cap and trade — what is it? Carbon capture and storage (CCS), tougher regulations, like the Management and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases Act that was passed in 2010 but never enacted, a carbon tariff on imports, with an offsetting rebate on exports, as suggested by Regina-Lewvan MP Erin Weir?

The fact is a majority of Canadians support some form of carbon pricing.

Also, in the Leader Post is a flawless column by Murray Mandryk:

Absolutely nothing Moe has said or done in the past week has had anything to do with him being an environment minister.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with the government’s decision to storm out of the federal/provincial environment ministers’ meeting, that its initial reaction was to call Trudeau’s proposal “National Energy Program II” tells you all you need to know about why the government has not, and will not, address GHG emissions in a meaningful way.

So why have an environment minister at all?

If these two keep writing entirely sensible columns, they’re going to put my blog out of a job pointing out their earlier mistakes in logic and worse.

This Morning In Police Shootings…

Even When It Tries To Be Good, It’s Not

The Mainstream Media, or MSM, has failed the people. Maybe because the majority is not owned by the people, but by large debt holders, billionaires, and the government. Their attempt to be “fair”, still overlook elephants in the room.

Yes, the American MSM is failing in their efforts to be fair to Trump. They rarely call his positions “lies”, or “racist”, and continue to give him excessive screen time when he’s clearly manipulating the media to manipulate the public in his favour. The only time the MSM will talk about the Green and Libertarian Party candidates, is when something goes wrong in their campaigns.

Canada’s foremost news anchor has been paid by Big Oil to speak to them in person. Why bother, when he can do so every weeknight on the taxpayer’s dime?

Fortunately, there are exceptions in Canadian media, but not it seems at the largest media creators:

Leader Post Sees Coal Future As Reality

The Leader Post published my letter, and a couple weeks later Murray Mandryk cites the same inexplicable 30-40 years canard. He also makes the same conclusion as Johnstone, which is to not cut our losses on the project.

“Even some strident environmental groups recognize clean coal technology”
Can anyone name even one?

“replacement of dirty coal with clean energy (wind, hydro and solar) comes at a substantial cost we cannot instantly bear.”
Wind Water Solar 100% conversion costs less than #climatechange and other air pollution costs on society, actually.

“The simple reality is, as Wall has repeatedly noted, 40 per cent of world’s electrical needs still come from coal-powered generation. And this will remain the reality for the next three or four decades.”
Why do Leader Post columnists insist on pushing this false “reality”, which it’s actually a prediction about power sources that we must make incorrect if we’re to avoid damaging climate change? The reality remains that if all built coal plants continue to operate until their constructed Ends of Life, we’ll end life as we know it on Earth. The International Energy Agency has calculated this about coal plants, at least 6 years ago when their calculations gave us a deadline of 2015 to stop building new coal plants to avoid 2 degrees of warming.