Obama is responsible for BP oil disaster. Who knew?

Yup that's right: “I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down,” Obama declared at a news conference in the East Room of the White House. Gee I thought it was BP’s fault. When Obama swore to “protect and defend….etc.” I don’t think this is what the framers of the US Constitution meant. In fact this seems to take some responsibility off the shoulders of BP, but Obama went on calling the spill an “unprecedented disaster” and pointed to the “scandalously close relationship” he said has persisted between Big Oil and government regulators. 

Well that does it; I can’t believe that government regulators had anything to do with this. Aren’t US government regulators supposed to be regulating stuff on behalf of the American taxpayer? I thought they worked for the government, the people, by the people and all that shit. I guess I was wrong. Of course NOW Obama is in charge, and yes he is part of that same government he just blamed a couple of lines back. So I guess we can trust them now because it’s a different branch of government. Don’t you feel better?

The good news is that it is oil, and there is lots of sun and heat down there in the Gulf. With the help of “oil eating” microbes the mess gets cleaned up….eventually.

Big Government Canadian style and the right questions

When political parties give up their principles, bad things happen. Of course once in power, the operating principle of almost any political party becomes hold onto power - damn the principles.
In Canada if you belong to the Conservative Party then you know the truth of that last statement.
This morning in the Globe and Mail, Tom Flanagan points to just three issues (I think there are so many, many more) that have created unnecessary debate and discussion, all of them related to the Conservative government's increases in the size and responsibility of the state.
Issue one: the Jaffer-Guergis affair involving alleged lobbying of the federal state to garner subsidies for "green" businesses. Flanagan dismisses the affair then asks the right question: why has a conservative government created a $1-billion Green Infrastructure Fund? Why indeed? Here is a giant plum ripe for the picking by lobbyists and insiders who would scam their own family for financial gain. How is creating this fund being fiscally responsible or conservative?
Issue two: Abortion in the Third World.
First let me say this to those who think abortion should be banned in Canada or anywhere. The only banning that should go on is your power to force anyone to do anything against their will as long as no one's rights are abrogated. If you think a fetus has rights over and above the mother that is carrying it, then you need to take that fetus and bring it to term yourself, good luck. Or should we lock up that pregnant female and force her to carry the fetus? Would you do that to your daughter? The current law in Canada on abortion is the one that is appropriate, that is, no law.
Now that you know my position lets see what Mr. Flanagan said. The Conservative government refuses to fund abortion in the health care part of Canada's foreign aid package. This angers many at home and abroad (including Hilary Clinton) and threatens to become an issue in the G8/G20 summits coming to disrupt your summer plans in Southern Ontario this June. Again Flanagan asks the right question: why is the Conservative government promoting government-to-government foreign aid? He points to scholars that have shown that government-to-government foreign aid (except for immediate disaster relief) actually impedes economic growth and good governance in the Third World. I hope Stephen Lewis reads Flanagan's article.
Issue three: Gay Pride. The Conservatives have decided not to fund this year's Gay Pride Parade in Toronto while continuing to fund a variety of other parades and festivals across the country. Is Harper pandering to the homophobic part of the Conservative Caucus? Probably, but again Tom Flanagan asks the right question: why should the federal state subsidize any parades or festivals anywhere? How is that being fiscally responsible? Well, it isn't and it's too bad that Flanagan stops at three, but it is a start and I recommend the article to you. Flanagan ends by suggesting that today's economic realities will of necessity shrink the size and scope of government, I can't wait.  

In defence of Climate Research; stop the criticism!

It seems that climate scientists are pretty thin skinned when it comes to criticism. They want it to stop; especially the political attacks on the climate change advocates. So they have published an "open letter" basically saying stop the criticism we're right, so there. They invoke names like Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein claiming association with these past scientists and implying that their theory of anthropogenic global warming is on the same level as those past greats. May be, may be not, I don't remember any of those past greats asking for special consideration, their theories spoke eloquently and survived decades (centuries even) of scrutiny and controversy.

Meanwhile Al Gore is doing really well, bought a new house, did you hear?  Yes, just a modest $9 million seaside villa; nothing special really. Back to the scientists, check this column from Libertas Post, I wish I had said this.  

Smart Urban Planning?

Have you ever felt out of step with the majority at a gathering?  Last night I was a town council meeting where I felt like the guy wearing shorts and a tee shirt at a black tie affair.
My town is finally coming to grips with an issue that has been brewing for years. The Province of Ontario has mandated my town as a growth centre - part of the Greater Toronto Area. The town still has a large component of zoned farmland that could be developed to accommodate this new growth. Let's put aside for the moment the issue that the Province can dictate where people should live and how towns should develop, I think that's wrong.
The town's councillors felt compelled to act on the provincial edict. A variety of special interest groups ranging from the David Suzuki Foundation, to all manner of ratepayers, farmers, and developers groups fought (in a civilized way) to convince the town councillors how to plan this future growth. There were public meetings, council meeting, special meetings and on an on for years. The essence of the debate focussed on rezoning the farmland. The developers and the farmers wanted the land rezoned for future development in accord with the provincial edict, the other groups, lets call them the environmental lobby, wanted to preserve 100% of the farmland (some of the best land in the Canada) for future food production (as a Food-belt) and concentrate any future growth within the existing urban developed land. That concentration is euphemistically called "intensification" or I prefer "densification". Councillors were prepared to apportion up to 60% of the future growth within the existing urbanized land and the rest on the rezoned farmland.
So yesterday was decision day and the environmental lobby had there guns out (metaphorically speaking). The mayor, who doesn't know the meaning of brevity, rambled on about the "process" and thanked all present (and those in the past) for the civil conduct displayed. A lot of "back-patting" followed, it is after all an election year.  Then came two hours of deputations beginning with a representative from the Suzuki Foundation who played this video which featured the guru himself. One after another people spoke, mostly on behalf of the environmental lobby, followed by raucous applause. Each repeated how the farmland was essential, even though our growing season is short and farmers are having difficulty competing with farm produce from offshore. Many of the farmers are nearing retirement age with no one willing to purchase their land and keep the farms going. For them selling to a developer may be a profitable out.
The environmental lobby would prevent this, farmers would be forced to continue or sell to anyone but a developer and take far less than the fair market value of the property. One eloquent speaker, the daughter of a farmer, spoke about how her father would like to do nothing else but continue his farm, but his age will make that difficult sooner than later.
Many from the environmental lobby spoke about "smart growth" in towns like Portland Oregon and wanted my town to be a model for smart growth in Canada. The problem is that smart growth has its share of criticisms now, after being around in the States for years. Portland and other cities have many of the problems, that were supposed to be avoided with smart growth. Smart growth is also supposed to be more conducive to beating climate change (if you think that's a problem), but studies have shown the opposite is true. Here is an interesting debate if you have an hour to kill.
All of this debate was going on during our Great Recession, which I fear is still in the early stages. The smart growth approach depends heavily on major governmental transit expenditures. These would need to be financed with increased debt, which could be a problem given the possibility of sovereign defaults in Europe. A default could cause money to stop flowing like those days in the fall of 2008.
Today in the Globe, our friend Neil Reynolds lays out one of the chief problems with Western society. All of this is related to how governments take on responsibilities they should not - smart growth, stupid idea.