Licia Corbella nails it in this morning's Calgary Sun (A Storm Warning)- The current gas shortage in Ontario is a dress rehearsal for a terrorist attack on oil refineries and national transportation systems.
Corbella brilliantly weaves various themes of Liberal hypocrisy, wilful blindness, environmentalism and terror threat, to create a chilling picture emphasizing just how vulnerable we really are.
I also wonder if the fallout from the gas shortage had anything to do with Stephane Dion's recent epiphany regarding the anti-scab bill.
44 comments:
I've been telling folks that Ontario with the gas shortage is what we'll be like if we implement Kyoto.
The terrorism analogy is even more apt.
Molar, that's right. It's all coming together now. Today we even have an ice storm in Ontario with severe power outages all over Southern Ontario.
So we are really living the experience today! (Obviously, I still have power. No gas; but power). ;)
She does make a compelling argument about how easy it would be to cripple our economy and this countries ability to move to and fro.
I can't wait to hear how this will be spun by the Liberals into it all being PMSH's fault and it being a plot by those damn westerners to punish Ontarians for some perceived slight.
Really, let's look at the facts.
1> Terrorists have named Canada as a target.
2> Some terrorist organizations have already shown that they can work in a co-ordinated manner.
3> There are only 13 refineries in this entire country.
4> Rail lines are left almost entirely unguarded.
5> We have upwards of 84,000 people who feel that terrorist attacks against this country would be justified. (They can't all only be in Toronto, can they?)
6> This country's Parliment just sent a message that we are potentially weakening our anti-terror laws.
Have I got your attention yet?
Just look at the disruption caused by only 1 small refinery going down for a limited period of time. How much more would be caused if that happened to 2 or 3 of the largest, or even, God forbid, all of them?
I hope our leaders, all of them, wake up and smell the coffee. We are at risk. Now is not the time to be playing political brinkmanship with the security if our nation.
Thanks for the post, that was an interesting read.
I've never seen an article argue that gas shortages, severe weather and the potential for crippling terrorist attacks were reasons to INCREASE our dependence on oil.
It's so crazy, it might just work.
Oh noes!!!! Be afraid sheeples!!! Harper will save you!
Seriously, Corbella is a disingenuous asshat. What percentage of evangelicals believe in premillenial dispensationalism? How many think that all manner of sh*t is acceptable (be it murder, nuclear war, foreign occupation), since the end times are near? How does that affect environmental, economic and/or foreign policy?
I suspect it's easier to overlook all of the brainless beliefs that people have, particularly when they also advocate atrocities, or when they line up so closely to your own.
Just listening to Garth Turner being interviewed on Newstalk 570. Regarding the anti-terror laws, he said, "Times have changed" since 9-11.
Gee I think I heard that one before..
BTW, Garth, yes times have changed -for the worse!
Red Tory, what an interesting nom de plume - "Anonymous". How clever.
Sorry, not me. I think you've got your foil hat on too tight.
Sorry, Red. Must have been one of your sycophants.
The verbiage bore your literary fingerprint.
RT
Only Liberals will play the grasping of reality as fearmongering.
wilson61: Care to discuss the other point I made, rather than focusing on the (largely) facetious jab I added to the top of my post? I DID follow it directly with the word 'Seriously...'. That should have given it away that I was moving from a joking tone into the meat of the post.
Wilson -- Don't bother directing comments to me as I won't respond. Well, this instance excepted... I don't comment on blogs that practice censorship.
I don't comment on blogs that practice censorship.
Assuming that you mean here, please supply evidence.
wilson61: Care to discuss the other point I made, rather than focusing on the (largely) facetious jab I added to the top of my post?
I don't think you have any moral right to complain about wilson61 ignoring your other point when you ignored (virtually if not literally) every point tht Licia Corbella made, but rather resorted to personal insults and invective to register your disapproval of her column.
I don't comment on blogs that practice censorship.
I wonder if that's why I've not seen you at Jason Cherniak's blog.
Anonymous said . . .
Seriously, Corbella is a disingenuous asshat. What percentage of evangelicals believe in premillenial dispensationalism? How many think that all manner of sh*t is acceptable (be it murder, nuclear war, foreign occupation), since the end times are near? How does that affect environmental, economic and/or foreign policy?
When you can't refute the argument, just do a drive-by sleaze attack and you're back in the game?
What has all of this got to do with the points put forward in her column? Are we to think that just because she believes something you don't agree with that everything she says is just pure hogwash? Well if that's the case, how are we supposed to treat whatever you say if we don't agree with a certain point you make?
BTW, really brave, to make a smear of someone and then hide behind the anonymous tag. If you had the courage of your convictions you would at the least attach you first name to the post.
Sorry Joanne for the attack on that brave soul, but I just get so fed up with these weasels who come on here and ooze their poison and then don't have the intestinal fortitude to sign their cowardly missives.
Chris, don't apologize. I usually ignore anonymous comments, but that one had it coming. Thanks for that.
Assuming that you mean here, please supply evidence.
I don’t need to supply evidence -- you’ve said on a number of occasions that you delete comments. In fact I believe you said once that you were quite happy to do so and at another time that you had no qualms about it. Kind of a “my house, my rules” thing as I recall.
I don’t need to supply evidence -- you’ve said on a number of occasions that you delete comments.
Oh, yeah. o.k. I thought you were referring to a specific comment.
I will delete any comment which I feel is over the top in terms of profanity, personal attacks and spam of course.
But don't get me wrong here, Red. I'm not trying to get you to change your mind.
Yes, indeed. Stick with your principles!! Don't comment here. You sure showed me, boy. Yup.
This is funny,
Cherniak slams a poll, and this is left on a comment:
"Jason,
Our poll today is a random sample from our on-line panel that is weighted to the census population of Canadian adults. It is truly a representative sample of Canadians and is tested among other demographics plus vote. Further, we run a coincidental telephone sample of 1000 in the three days prior to the on-line weekly Omnibus and we can constantly track and weight the numbers so they accurate within the margin of error. In fact, of the $130 Million of market research done this year at Ipsos (and the quarter billion in North America), 60% of the business is done on-line with most of the largest corporations and institutions in North America relying on their outcome.
In addition to defaming our research approach, methodology and expertise which is considerable, you overlook one thing that is really at the root of your potential slander: the questions and results we produced were pretty much the same as the Strategic Counsel poll yesterday and some others that I am aware of in the wings. So, regardless of your ill advised rant on methodology, the bottom line is pretty much the same wherever you look.
Best regards,
John Wright
Senior Vice President
Ipsos Reid
Public Affairs"
Not sure if its real of not (kinda looks like it though), but I like the reference to slander.
Jason is in full blow denial over the lates polling.
Biff - Wow!! That is incredible!
He'd better get a lawyer.
Cherniak took it out!
Good thing we have it here!!
I took the bait. Jason gets another hit count. Twice I have visited there now.
Biff, which post has that comment? I couldn't find it.
He'd better get a lawyer.
He is a lawyer.
The letter is either fake or ill conceived. The statements made about polls are not libelous, they are true. And your first clue about the "comment" should have been that the original statements are in writing, so it would be libel, not slander.
If I buy polling services, do you really believe they will give me a guarantee that they are accurate? If they do not, how can they claim that criticising their methodology is defaming them?
A case like this has a three word defence: Dewey Defeats Truman.
Cherniak deleted it.
yeah, Cherniak took it down....LOL!
Ha! Too funny that he deleted it. Biff, which post was it in originally?
Jason's problem,
(and Lib supporter's here),
is he's confusing the online,anyone can respond poll,
and the one described by Mr.Wright here.
Apparantly if they contact you by computer you don't count, but if your contacted by phone, you count.
"He is a lawyer."
....does he trust himself enough to represent himself???
"Don't Rely On Online Polls"
is the thread,
and here's the spot:
"You mean the same Peter who proved that Ignatieff couldn't lose?
10:29 AM
Comment deleted
This post has been removed by the author.
10:31 AM "
He also appears to have deleted his own response to it (though now "comment deleted" left behind), where he questioned the legitimacy of the comment.
Yes, the good old telephone poll.
Seems like the rich people mostly had phones in 1948, and they were all in favour of Dewey.
Times are different now of course, but blinding accepting polls is foolhardy. I have never heard of this online "sign up" poll. Why would I sign up to something that in my view would probably put me on some spammer's list?
Do you accept the polls that said 600,000 more people in Iraq have died violently in three years than should have? They actually polled 1800 families, and found 60 had lost someone to a violent death. So if 10 "selected" interviewees were added to that pool, you would now have 700,000 as your big number. I don't discount that poll, but only see it as a reason to do a more comprehensive survey.
Oh, I suspect he would hire a lawyer, should it come to that, but he trusts himself enough to know he is not defaming anybody.
Oh, I suspect he would hire a lawyer, should it come to that,
That's good to know, LS. I'm sure he remembers the old saying, "He who represents himself has a fool for a client and a jackass for a lawyer." I kinda like Jason, and I do admire his passion for what he believes, even though I disagree with almost all of his posts. (The one I agreed with, I began my comment by saying, "Pigs must be flying.")
(The one I agreed with, I began my comment by saying, "Pigs must be flying.")
Yeah, wasn't that the one where he almost became a Dion Denier?
Red Tory has a post up on "Politics of Grief". He objects to the 911 victims getting involved.
I thought you might enjoy my response I left on the comments:
Now, take David Suzuki (preaching minimalism while demanding one of those comfy buses that suck gas) or Al Gore (who's mansion gives more greenhouse gas than 20 regular houses) or Stephan Dion, who likes to look like a crunchy granola boy, "hiking" everywhere with his little backpack (but in reality travelling virtually everywhere in a gas guzzling limo).
Those are the REAL advocates. Can't pin the politics of grief on them.
A woman who lost her soul mate? Well she's disqualified from speaking, because the genisis of her position comes from her very real suffering. It's not faux sacrifice, it was real.
Therefore while seemingly and apparantly unequivocaly genuine, such prima facie legitimacy disbars her from entering the fray which resulted in her loss.
The Suzukis, Gores, and Dions of the world, who wouldn't sacrifice one iota of comfort for the causes they claim to hold so dear, they can advocate away.
Interesting position Red.
Very Liberal.
For the record, John Wright's post can be found here (although the other post/comments may have gone away), so maybe the deleting wasn't broad enough?
whoops,
maybe I just couldn't find it the second time, I was pretty sure it was in that post, but maybe not.
thanks candace.
Still, the comments funny.
Cherniak appears not to be disuaded.
Biff -- What, are you my agent now?
Thanks, Candace. Interesting read. It sure sounds like the real deal.
Cherniak appears not to be disuaded.
Jason should cut his losses on this one.
Yeah, wasn't that the one where he almost became a Dion Denier?
No, Joanne, I must have missed that one. It was a post where he spoke about rent controls, and about how Alberta needs them (I know, it is galling, an Ontario Liberal trying to tell us in Alberta what we should do). Anyway, despite that, I agreed with the general gist of his post. I may be a small-c conservative, but I don't always plug into the official small-c conservative point of view. I like to think for myself.
Jason should cut his losses on this one.
He does seem to be sliding down into irrelevancy.
I was having dinner with some wonderful people this past week-end and this topic came up. It's amazing how it has become such a discussion.
It's rather scary to think how much our economy not only relies on oil but how we have managed perform this tightrope walk of this fine line of supply till now. It makes me wonder how many other of these economy tightrope walks are being performed and the fact that the majority of people will never know until something serious happens.
To comment on the subject of this gas shortage being a terrorist advertisement: Without trying scaring everyone too much I have heard from an inside law enforcement source that there have been individuals caught videotaping the waterfront refinery in Hamilton. He says that there is nothing to worry about as there have been many of these types of findings and that the law enforcement is all over this.
Gee, RT, for a guy who never comments... oh, never mind.
Mac, don't bait him. I'm quite content to have to go over there to see my posts savaged.
;)
Sydney, thanks for that insight. Yes, I'm sure there are all kinds of things rumbling just under the surface, and we have to trust that our law enforcement agencies are capable of monitoring it.
We also have to ensure that they have the legal means to deal with threats to safety and security as well.
With Dion in the Liberal driver's seat, I'm afraid that he may have put us all at risk with his boneheaded, unbalanced quest for 'civil liberty' at the expense of leaving us even more vulnerable to terrorist attack.
How ironic that this was the one time he decided to take a stand to exert his leadership authority. The man is the definition of the Peter Principle.
(Sorry for the rant).
Post a Comment