01.09.2011 08:18 AM

In today’s Sun: Peter “Ethical Oil” Kent is now doomed

“…it’s all my fault. Whenever I go against my nature and I try to say something nice about a Conservative, things go awry for them.

As such, I wish to formally apologize to Peter Kent for the following nice things I am now going to say about him.

About three years ago, you see, a group of us decided that Kent would be the best choice for Toronto mayor…”


  1. Bill King says:

    Being criticised by Al Gore, David Suzuki and the United Nations – three of the biggest losers on earth – is a bad thing?

    • Springer says:

      I thought the global warming argument, at least at first glance, had some validity. But then when the likes of the afore mentioned started increasingly coming off as fanatics bearing all the unfettered zealotry of medieval Inquisitors, I got interested enough to start looking into the matter a tad bit deeper.

      And, oh, the horror stories I found involving deception, misrepresentation, disinformation, and even just good ol’ fashioned conspiracy!

      I thought a couple winters in succession of the kind the world is currently experiencing would eventually sort it all out, and render obvious to even the most devout adherents of the Church of AGW the idiocy of their ways.

      Silly me, eh! One certainly has to give them credit for creativeness and adaptability. Turns out pretty much everything is caused by AGW, you name it, they can work it out…kindly accept another application for additional funding/grants/freebies from taxpayers, thank you very much!

      Nevertheless, I remain optimistic that the day of reckoning is coming, and those involved in foisting this mother of all scams…one that has cost God only knows how many hundreds of billions wasted on stupid crap that instead could have been spent on solving actual pollution of our environment…will finally be revealed to all for who they are and what they have done.

      Climate change? Yeah, right. Tell me of even one time in the last 500,000,000 years when it wasn’t changing.

      The only difference now is that we have the usual endless supply of greedy sonsofbitches who reliably will figure out how to exploit it for all its worth.

    • smelter rat says:

      Notwithstanding your dubious charge, I thought you Randians were all about profit making. No?

  2. Steve T says:

    Sorry, WK, but Ezra’s column in today’s Sun is better than yours (which certainly isn’t always the case). Ezra tackles the taxpayer-funded handouts that all Canadian political parties receive, and requests that Harper pledge to eliminate it. That’s got a lot of resonance with the Canadian voter, who is struggling in these tough economic times. If I were the CPC, I would make this a big election issue, and see how much resistance the LPC puts up. Of course the NDP, Bloc, and Greens will fight to preserve their “welfare”, but will the LPC distinguish itself in this area?

    • Mr. Chamberlain says:

      You may find the resonance to a move like that may not be what you assume. Remember, we’re living in Mr. Harper’s post-prorogued Canada. Not a trust-building track record, and trust is what you need to sell that one.

      P.S. Ironically enough it will be the Americans who will have the biggest hand defeating Mr. Harper at the election poll. Hitching to a train in mid-derailment.

    • Keith Meisenheimer says:

      ” Ezra’s propoganda is better than your thoughtful article” … the glove has been thrown Mr. Kinsella

      Ezra metions $ 27 million /year in / vote subsities ( which I can withhold if I so choose)

      What about the $ 40 – $ 50 million donated by individuals who are rebated by 75 % on their income tax ?

      What about ” expenses in an election of 50% to 60% depending on how many votes
      they generated. ”

      ” For example, a riding that spent $90,000 in the last election could have already received as much as $54,000 to help fight ”

      How about the 1,000’s of workers big business can pay to do work for politicaL parties ?

      Time to call ” Democracy Watch ” to have a real debate on political contributions ?
      the next election.

    • Brian says:

      I might have some sympathy with this argument, but only once I see The Mighty Ezra tackling multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded handouts to the oil sector with the same vigor that he attacks thousand dollar handouts to academic studies or riding associations.

      As one of those “struggling Canadian voters,” I have to note that subsidies to profitable oil companies are, needless to say, considerably larger than the paltry millions we wrongfully spend on political parties and related tax credits. In the grand scheme of things, while I oppose both, I’m automatically suspicious of someone who attacks one set of subsidies “on principle” but can’t find much time to apply those same principles to the other.

  3. Anne Peterson says:

    But I know that when conservatives attack the tax payer-funded handouts they are not including the seventy five percent tax rebate donors get when they make party donations. We all pay for seventy five percent of the donations to the conservative party. If we are going to get rid of handouts they should all go, Ezra. See if he agrees with that.

    • Springer says:

      I think making donations tax deductible is fair enough game. You donate money to the party of your choice in order to receive it. That’s democratic, and it provides an incentive of sorts for participation in democracy.

      On the other hand, doling out taxpayers’ money directly to political parties on the basis of votes garnered makes a mockery of democracy.

      I don’t vote for a political party merely so they can pick up an extra $2 once a year from government revenues…and anyone who does should be ashamed!

      The process of fund raising, if it achieves nothing else, keeps politicians honest. To raise funds they have to be credible among the broadest spectrum of the electorate. And if they are not, they will not.

      If any political party cannot achieve “critical mass” on its own merit, than there’s almost certainly good reason for that.

      Preston Manning proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it can be done.

      The Greens, conversely, have not.

      …forget about the appallingly bizarre practice of directly subsidizing separatists!

      Raise corporate limits to $2000 and get rid of this nonsense of equating votes with dollars.

      IMHO, if political parties need money, they should get it the old fashioned way: They can damn well earn it!

      • ktron says:

        On the principle of one vote – one person, the system of giving out a fixed amount per vote is far more democratic than giving rebates on donations – unless of course you mean Athenian democracy where only wealthy landowners had a vote, and mere wage-salves (the bulk of Canadians) would get no say . . .

  4. smelter rat says:

    You must be seriously brain damaged if you give credence to anything Ezra says. He’s Canada’s Foghorn Leghorn.

  5. robert says:

    From a country replete with brilliant minds in any field one could name, I couldn’t think of a more plastic veneered persona with a depth more suited for the Environment ministry in a hillbilly government, than Peter Kent.

    • Liz J says:

      Hillbilly government? You can take note of this and know it to be a fact, Hillbillies may not always polish their shoes, but more importantly, they don’t polish other peoples’ either. Peter Kent will do well, keep watch.

  6. jon evan says:

    When I read words like: “nobody in the Harper government likes the environment”, I stop reading.

    If you drive a car than in absolute terms you too Warren don’t like the environment or do you buy carbon credits to appease and make yourself feel better like Mr. Suzuki does? Come now tell all if you want us to believe that you care about the environment.

    Maybe the LPC should give Canadians the choice: buy gas for their cars from Columbia/Nigeria etc. or buy “ethical” gas from Alberta for their cars. That choice might be a LPC’s winning issue for the next election!

  7. jerry says:

    Yes, nothing like bad people who insist we clean up our
    rooms. Grow up children, you can’t make a mess you don’t clean

    • Liz J says:

      Oh yes you can make a mess you don’t clean up, happens often in politics. Who’s going to clean up Dalton McGuinty’s mess for instance?

  8. jerry says:

    ethical oil: corporations can’t sign affidavits in court
    because they have no conscience to bind them: no conscience: no
    ethics. People have been talking about alternatives to oil for four
    decades, but the dinosaurs keep stomping on every technology that
    was ever invented to democratized energy: corporatism and
    conservatism =fascism, which is why Harper never delivered in
    democracy and transparency promises: he lied for his daddy’s old

  9. Andrew says:

    I’m not sure if Mr. Kinsella isn’t just trying to provoke discussion here. Isn’t that the role of a successful columnist?

    Ethical Oil: wow, that’s a loaded phrase.

    Is Canadian oil and gas production “ethical”? On a relative scale it is (oh, how I hate to agree with Ezra). Does oil and gas production impact the natural environment? Yes it does, as does any other human activity (e.g. forestry, manufacturing, sewage treatment, power generation, shopping malls, driving to the cottage). Do we have a highly regulated oil industry in Canada? Absolutely. I deal with those regulations every working day. Can those regulations be “better” for the environment? Of course they can be. Are the regulators concerned about the environment? Yes and if they aren’t the public is pushing them to act to strengthen environmental protection. Is Stephen Harper concerned about the environment? Not likely (because he doesn’t listen to advice from scientists actively engaged in research) but he does care about votes. So if enough people want the government to protect the environment, then Stephen Harper (or any politician) will make moves to protect the environment.
    Right now, Stephen Harper knows that most people really don’t care too much about the environment. They want jobs so that they can take care of their families. And when it comes right down to it, jobs (any jobs) hurt the environment.

  10. TDotRome says:

    I should have posted this on the day. But, here’s a doc about the Alberta oil sands. http://www.vbs.tv/en-ca/watch/toxic/toxic-alberta-1-of-3

    Any “ethical” ideal disappears in the first two minutes.

    I love the guys from Vice & VBS.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.