Ezra Levant and Ethical Oil – the Human Rights Hoax by Richard Komorowski – February 6, 2012

Richard Komorowski
CFN– Ezra Levant’s myth, “Ethical Oil” is currently receiving a lot of publicity as part of the Canadian and Alberta Governments’ push to sell Tar Sands oil to the US and China. The myth’s premise is that it is OK to buy Canadian Tar Sands oil, because it comes from an “ethical” source, but not OK to buy oil from most other sources, such as Saudi Arabia, despite being far cleaner and easier to produce, because of, among other things, “human rights violations.”One of the reasons Saudi Arabian oil is so unethical, according to Levant, is that women in that country are not allowed to drive. However, is Levant really concerned about the welfare of Muslim women, or is this just a convenient excuse? One thing he doesn’t go into is whether or not it is wise to allow any woman wearing a niqab (the Muslim face covering) to engage in any activity requiring good vision, especially peripheral vision. Would he still be of the same opinion if burkha or niqab-wearing women drove their Hummers outside his children’s school as the kids were finishing their day?

This justification for the Tar Sands poses interesting ethical dilemmas for Levant himself, which he does not touch upon in his book. Levant has shown himself to be anti-Muslim – he got himself a lot of publicity for publishing the Danish cartoons, and criticizes Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi for both his policies and his religion.

In 2010, Levant planned to accompany American ultra-right wing and anti-Muslim extremist Ann Coulter on a speaking tour of Canadian universities, which was cancelled at the last minute because of alleged “security issues.” Coulter herself commented that had she worn a burka, she would have been safe.

Also, as pointed out in an earlier article, Levant faced disciplinary action at the University of Alberta for, among other things, his attitude towards hiring women, so why is he so suddenly interested in the plight of contemporary Saudi women?

Is Levant honestly interested in the predicament of women in Saudi Arabia (or even civil rights anywhere in the Muslim world), or is this merely an excuse to promote the interests of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ members and the Conservative Party in their efforts to bolster the Chinese economy? Keep in mind that CAPP and some of its members made a questionable donation of $180,000 to the Harper Government in 2011, during a first ministers’ energy conference.

With the United States’ rejection (at least for now) of TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline to the Texan Gulf coast, the Harper Government is now focusing on selling surplus Tar Sands crude bitumen to China.

Although China has become economically as capitalistic as the best (or worst, depending on viewpoint) of the western world, it remains under Communist control, and has some of the worst human rights abuses anywhere. Tibetans routinely suffer persecution, as does any minority ethnic group that promotes separation.

.
According to Levant, it is all right for Quebec to want to separate (he is on record as promoting it during their last independence referendum), but not for Tibet. Like many Arab countries, China uses torture to extract confessions from alleged criminals; like Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, concentration camps still exist; and like Communist Russia, political dissidents can be forced to undertake psychiatric treatment against their will.
.
China also has the highest rate of capital punishment anywhere in the world. In 2008, China executed 1,718 people – the total worldwide for that year was 2,390 – far in excess of the number of Saudis who were beheaded.Why would Mr. Levant be pushing to export vital, unprocessed natural resources to any  country with this sort of record? The obvious answer would be that he is more concerned with profits for the big oil companies (Exxon-Mobile routinely makes about $10bn each quarter) than human rights, whether in Canada or abroad. It seems he would rather sell Canadian natural resources at cost price to a place where human rights are only a distant dream, and which is starting to contribute more than any other country to climate change.

.
Shouldn’t he and his good friend Harper rather be looking out for the well-being of Canadians and of the world’s population in general?

26 Responses to "Ezra Levant and Ethical Oil – the Human Rights Hoax by Richard Komorowski – February 6, 2012"

  1. Yvan   February 6, 2012 at 11:26 AM

    You’d be the first in refusing to buy blood diamonds. Right? And you’d be correct in making that choice. If the US has canceled the new proposed pipeline, then who can we sell the oil to? Russia? What solution do you propose? You are quick to pass judgment on Levant, why don’t you even want to admit that Saudi Arabia has major human rights issues and buying their oil is also support of abuse just as buying Chinese products supports China’s abhorrent human rights failings.

  2. Eric   February 6, 2012 at 11:40 AM

    So what happens to Canada and it’s jobs and safe storage of these fields in say 25, 40 or 60 years, if we do not sell this oil and a new way to heat homes, run cars and make plastics is invented or developed?

  3. Yvan   February 6, 2012 at 12:02 PM

    Those are all really bad things that we must all learn to live without Eric. What environmentalists want us to do is return to living in tents powered by solar panels made in China that cause more damage to the environment by the manufacturing process, and a wind turbine that will kill more birds than an oil slick. Can’t burn wood for fuel either as this will lower the chance of forest fires too much…. and cause undue CO2 emissions….

  4. Richard Komorowski   February 6, 2012 at 1:16 PM

    Yvan, I’m assuming from your comment that you didn’t read the first in this series on Ezra Levant, so here is the link: http://cornwallfreenews.com/2011/12/komorowskis-korner-ezra-levant-and-the-ethics-politics-of-oil-december-23-2011/

    As to abuses in Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere), here is a quote from that article:

    “The oil sands are not perfect, and criticizing them is fair game. But why has criticism of the oil sands been so disproportionately loud compared to criticism of other, larger, more disturbing sources of oil? Sources such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuala, the Sudan, China… the list of oil-producing nations, in large part, reads like a list of target countries for Amnesty International. Human rights abuses, crackdowns on citizens and journalists, environmental abuses – this is what, for the large part, Western countries like the United States have to do business with on a regular basis, just to keep up their fuel supply. Wouldn’t it be better to buy from a country without the laundry list of crimes to its name?

    All this is true, and to give even the devil its due, Levant deserves credit for bringing the abuses committed in these countries to light.

    As to your question as to whom we sell the oil, why do we have to sell it at all? Why do we have to risk wrecking the ecology in northern Alberta, the Northwest Territories, and Northern BC to prop up Asian economies at the expense of our own? As most of the Tar Sands are foreign owned, we don’t even get to keep the profit. Don’t forget, either, that the companies currently exploiting the Tar Sands are also the companies involved in propping up all these unethical regimes, and are guilty of major human rights abuses themselves.

    Would it not be better to let the Chinese pay world price for their energy, and use the money that we would be spending to supply them with cheap oil here at home, creating the infrastructure we need to take back our jobs from China?

  5. Yvan   February 6, 2012 at 2:13 PM

    Thanks for the link to the first article. Isn’t the oil in those sands oozing from the surface in many cases? Isn’t harvesting this oil, or tar depending on which side of the issue one happens to be, a form of cleanup of the environment? If they reuse the same solvents over and over again, and they can, then they are actually doing the environment a favor, all the while making money and paying taxes. We all benefit from continued prospecting of this oil even if some companies are foreign owned.

    No oil is clean and until viable alternatives are available, the oils sands will extend the supply of hydrocarbon for the foreseeable future, some say as much as 200 years.

    A far as bringing back jobs lost to China, that boat has sailed a long time ago. This will only change when the Chinese people start demanding decent pay for the work they do and this will not happen in either of our lifetimes if ever.

    We could keep this oil sand for ourselves, but no environmentalist in their right mind would allow new refineries built on Canadian soil, even if this is the only solution to lower gas prices at the pump.

  6. Richard Komorowski   February 6, 2012 at 5:16 PM

    Yvan, to try and answer both your later two comments. First about environmentalists.

    No environmentalist in his right mind wants to live in a solar powered tent. We’d like to live much the way we do now – comfortably warm in winter, with a sure supply of food and other basic necessities, decent paying jobs, secure pensions, basic transportation, etc. However, if we continue business as usual, and even if we ignore the prospects of climate change, this is not going to happen, because of Peak Oil. Simply put, we are running out of oil that can be extracted (whether drilled inland, mined, as with the Tar Sands, or drilled off-shore). We now have to go after oil that is far more expensive, and takes far more energy to extract, than Saudi oil, which is roughly $10/bbl or less. The break even price for tar sands oil is roughly $40 to $50. This is simply a case of supply and demand. Push the price of oil too high, as happened in 2008, and all economic hell breaks loose.

    As for the oil that oozes out through the surface in the tar sands, quite simply, it isn’t. There are some “outcroppings” (for want of a better word) visible from the surface, but these aren’t oil, but rather bitumen. The bitumen is hard and doesn’t dissolve in water, so it causes few if any environmental problems. The actual Tar Sands are 70 metres or more below the surface. All this fill has to be excavated first, before even the first shovel full of tar sand can be processed. None of this counts as “cleanup of the environment,” especially as the bitumen has been sitting where it is, quite happily and harming no one, for the past several million years.

    Much of the tar sands are even deeper. It has to be extracted by drilling, and then pumping down either enormous quantities of solvent or super-heated steam to get the bitumen liquid enough to pump to the surface. Both these processes take an enormous amount of energy and water. And of course, it’s very expensive, and the net energy gain is far less than the net energy gain from a barrel of Saudi oil. Sorry, but that’s just simple physics, chemistry and economics.

    A 200 year supply? World oil consumption is about 87.5m bbl/day. The Alberta government estimates tar sands reserves at about 170bn bbl. If you do the math, you’ll find that at current rates of consumption, if everything came from the Tar Sands, they’d last about 38 years – assuming it were possible to extract 100% of the reserves, which it isn’t.

    Solvents: the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline is actually a twin. The large line with transport about 525,000 bbl of diluted crude per day. Its smaller twin will transport about 200,000 bbl of diluent, imported from OPEC. Recycling of the diluent is minimal.

    As for jobs that have been exported to China, I do hope you’re wrong about that boat having sailed, although I am afraid you might be right. But does it hurt to try?

    Your last point, about refineries. You’re absolutely right, but the point is moot. First of all, if the oil were kept for Canadian consumption, we probably wouldn’t need any more refineries. The other constraint on more refineries is that there isn’t a sufficiently dependable water supply in northern Alberta to service them.

    Thank you for bringing up these points, Yvan. It’s refreshing to see someone actually taking the time to think about what they are saying, and asking reasonable questions, rather than just amplifying the government/industry echo chamber.

  7. Eric   February 7, 2012 at 8:02 AM

    But not all of the oil is coming from the tarsands, making the 38 years number look like apples and oranges.

    Jobs being exported can be sorted by business cost. A company, paying for Ontario electricty, payroll taxes and unionized labour, is in an awkward place. Even a new refinery would be cost prohibitive, was the cost number 1.5 billion?

  8. Richard Komorowski   February 7, 2012 at 4:06 PM

    Eric, if you had actually read my last comment to Yvan, you would not be making this one.

    Quote: A 200 year supply? World oil consumption is about 87.5m bbl/day. The Alberta government estimates tar sands reserves at about 170bn bbl. If you do the math, you’ll find that at current rates of consumption, if everything came from the Tar Sands, they’d last about 38 years – assuming it were possible to extract 100% of the reserves, which it isn’t.

    What this means is IF this were our only oil supply, it would last about 38 years. If you want to include Alberta’s conventional oil reserves of 1.5bn bbl, add a few more weeks. No apples, no oranges, just oil.

    If you want to include the entire world’s proven reserves, then we have a while longer. However, as oil prices are going to rise continuously as it gets harder to produce, it will reduce the demand for oil, and also make renewable energy (hydro, wind etc) economically more attractive.

    But rising oil prices will also cause another 2008 type depression, which will reduce the demand and lower the price. So how long can we continue current consumption? That’s anyone’s guess, as there are so many variables. My own guess, for what it’s worth, is that we will be in serious trouble before the end of the decade.

    Keep in mind, also, that oil consumption in North America and Europe has more or less reached a plateau, and will probably decline as people are forced to become more efficient in their energy use. This is not the case with China, however, as they use energy very inefficiently, and are constantly accelerating their demand. India, which will soon become the largest country in the world (population) is following in the footsteps of China, but is a few years behind.

    The world’s energy supply will soon become critical. The world is like a family, living way beyond its means and income, using up its capital to do so. When that capital runs out, what happens then? Our energy capital is the deposits of oil and coal, which have slowly formed over the last several million years. Nothing worthwhile will ever replace them. Then what will we do?

    Think about it.

  9. Yvan   February 7, 2012 at 5:05 PM

    Refineries need to be build closer to where the end products will be used. Building one in Alberta is pointless not only for the lack of water but it’s too far to be cost effective for the rest of the population. To be effective, a new one should be build in either Montreal or Toronto. As I mentioned earlier, the environmental hoops to get that built would make up most of that 1.5 billion dollars.

    I also disagree with the amount of available crude not counting the tar/oil sands. With the prices rising as they are, this will spur research into higher efficiency engines and heating apparatus.

  10. Richard Komorowski   February 7, 2012 at 9:36 PM

    Yvan, I think we already have enough refineries in Eastern Canada, although at the moment they are only refining imported oil. The big question would be getting them crude from Alberta. For complete energy security, the pipeline would have to be north of Lake Superior, and this would be a project of major magnitude, and subject to the same environmental problems as Keystone XL or Northern Gateway.

    Just as important as the supply of oil not being able to keep up with demand is the discovery of new oil fields. Discovery peaked in the mid-sixties, when about 55bn bbl/year were discovered. Between 2002 and 2007, only around 10bn bbl/year have been discovered, despite spending more money with improved technology. Current consumption is around 32bn bbl/year. You can do the math – I’m depressed enough, so I’d rather not!

    And I agree, improvements in technology and energy efficiency will help, but the laws of physics will only allow for so much. Canada was making a move to improve the energy efficiency of older homes, but Harper has cancelled the eco-energy retrofit program, without notice and ahead of schedule, yet again.

    Again, Yvan, even though we don’t agree 100%, thank you for some intelligent comments and questions – more than I can say for some commentators!

  11. Richard Fantin   February 9, 2012 at 2:07 PM

    Here is Ezra LEvant being ethically racist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nt5EvA3NLI He even says he’s “playing the race card”.

    I’ve also written several blog posts on the “Ethical Oil” concept:
    http://hellberta.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-dinosuar-propaganda-system-cant-use.html
    http://hellberta.blogspot.com/2011/08/conflict-over-ethical-oil.html
    http://hellberta.blogspot.com/2012/01/great-oil-war-chapter-2-iran.html

  12. Kerry   February 12, 2012 at 6:35 AM

    Good article. Finally, someone is pointing out how selective concern for human rights on the part of some of our so-called pundits and, indeed, our country, can be. Rather than sell to countries with less-than-stellar human rights records, why not develop/enhance our own refining capacity? That way, we could easily meet domestic needs, and refine these products in as environmentally-sensitive a way as possible.

  13. Frank   February 20, 2012 at 5:53 PM

    LOL, dumb article. A cheap smear attempt by a left wing hack putting a stupid spin on Levant backing the Oil Sands. The fact your still calling the Oil Sands Tar Sands pretty much says enough.

    It’s funny how you state in bold Levant’s point is that Canada is an ethical source (seller) because we have extensive human rights laws, then go on a diatribe about is Levant really concerned about human rights in Saudia Arabia and how China ( a buyer) is unethical. Strange diversions from the point.

    You didn’t really establish how Levant has “ethical dilemma’s”. Why because he likes to point out muslims who try and impose their un-Canadian values in our culture? I read his article on Nenshi. Seems to make a good case against Nenshi for being biased.

    “…anti-Muslim extremist Ann Coulter…” – Equating Ann Coulter to people that tie bombs to themselves and kill people. BRILLIANT. So your anti-Conservative extremist then, or an ecoterrorist?

    “Levant faced disciplinary action at the University of Alberta for, among other things, his attitude towards hiring women, so why is he so suddenly interested in the plight of contemporary Saudi women?” – I can read wiki to, but I won’t misrepresent what it says to make stupid rhetorical questions. Wiki states “…he [Levant] was called to a meeting…” and the funny part is this incident apparently was stimulated because Levant accused the UofA of being racist in their implementation of affirmative action.

    “Is Levant honestly interested…or is this merely an excuse to promote the interests of CAPP members and the Conservative Party in their efforts to bolster the Chinese economy? – Don’t really see how selling oil to China bolsters their economy. Is China’s current oil demand not being met somehow?

    “Keep in mind that CAPP and some of its members made a questionable donation of $180,000 to the Harper Government in 2011, during a first ministers’ energy conference.” – Actually what happened is CAPP and members paid for roughly 1/3 of the energy ministers conference. How is this questionable? What obligations were made by Government for that money? Having the industry which the conference is about pick up a portion of the costs makes a lot of sense, or do you think Canadian Taxpayers should foot the bill for these meetings? Also, the meeting was for federal and provincial energy ministers, why are you misrepresenting as a donation to the Harper Government?

    “According to Levant, it is all right for Quebec to want to separate…, but not for Tibet.” – Source? Where is Ezra Levant on record against Tibet separation?

    “Why would Mr. Levant be pushing to export vital, unprocessed natural resources to any country with this sort of record? [China]” – Answer: A. This is pretty obvious but since your confused, It’s great for the Canadian economy, which is great for Canadians. B. It’s stops Chinese money flowing to “unethical” sources.

    “t seems he would rather sell Canadian natural resources at cost price to a place where human rights are only a distant dream, and which is starting to contribute more than any other country to climate change.” – “at cost price” Seriously? Your saying Harper/Levant/CAPP members want to sell oil at cost? Lie much? and in the previous paragraphs you go on about it’s all about profits for Big Oil. Contradict yourself much? Please explain how not selling China oil is going to stop them from buying oil and being the biggest polluters in the world. Why are you not writing articles about stopping purchasing goods from China instead which is the only thing that will curb their industrial and pollution output? Eliminating your country as a supplier will have no effect on their industrial output.

    “Shouldn’t he and his good friend Harper rather be looking out for the well-being of Canadians and of the world’s population in general?” – Increasing Canada’s trade exports IS looking out for the well-being of Candians, and so is taking oil money out of the hands of countries whose main interest is buying bombs and guns is in the best interest of the world. Simple concepts and thankfully the majority of Canadians agree because they gave this Government a long overdue majority. I hope you and the Libs keep talking like this. As long as you do your party will remain a wasteland.

  14. Pete Dick   February 20, 2012 at 7:27 PM

    @Frank. Does the PMO pay you by the word?

  15. Richard Komorowski   February 20, 2012 at 8:42 PM

    @Frank
    LOL, dumb comment. If you’d actually read the article (and perhaps the previous ones in the series), you’d delete some of your comments. Also, if you had even one tenth of the talent Ezra Levant has, you’d be rephrasing the rest of your comment. However, I suppose you’re doing the best you can.

    As for CAPP and its members’ $180,000 contribution, why don’t you check out the facts? http://cornwallfreenews.com/2011/07/federal-and-provincial-energy-ministers-conference-%E2%80%93-sponsored-by-capp-by-richard-komorowski-july-16-2011-cornwall-ontario/

    And I always thought it was socialists and communists who always wanted to prop up other socialist and communist economies. Did I miss something? Have you ever lived under a socialist regime? I doubt it. And I’ll bet you’ve never lived under a communist government, so why don’t you think a little before you accuse others of being socialists/communists? You don’t have a clue. And I hope for your sake, for your children’s sake, and for my sake, that we never have to live under a right wing dictatorship either.

    You accuse me of being a liar, and yet you write “…thankfully the majority of Canadians agree because they gave this Government a long overdue majority.” Really? Think about it. But, as blogfodder for the Libertarian/Fossil Fuel echo chamber, I suppose you’re doing the best you can.

  16. Richard Komorowski   February 20, 2012 at 9:20 PM

    By the way, Frank, three points I forgot.

    1. Being called to face the Dean is facing disciplinary action. The fact that Levant (presumably) did not receive any disciplinary action does not mean it wasn’t considered.

    2. Be careful what you say about Muslims and Muslim countries. I’ve actually lived in one, unlike (presumably) you and Levant. I could tell you lots of nasty things, but I won’t because there’s no point, and I’m also too grown up to blame millions of people for the actions of a few individuals.

    3. Tar Sands? Oil Sands? Kentucky Fried Chicken? KFC?
    When production first started, the official name, which even the Government of Canada used, was the Tar Sands. Even CAPP’s website will confirm this. However, “Oil Sands” sounds a lot cleaner and greener, doesn’t it? The latest Harper Government term is simply “The Sands.” Makes you think of Tahiti or some other tropical paradise, doesn’t it? Likewise, KFC doesn’t make you think of “dietary incorrect” Fried Stuff, Trans Fat, and the dreaded Cholesterol.

  17. Pete Dick   February 20, 2012 at 10:14 PM

    You know there’s a problem when someone writes “your still calling the Oil Sands….”.
    Con-bots are everywhere. Someone once said, I don’t remember who, that not all conservative people are stupid, but all stupid people are conservative.

  18. Jacqueline   February 20, 2012 at 11:42 PM

    This just in! Wanting to know how to begin the transition to post peek oil? Check out this coming event at Cornwall, Ontario Public Library this Sunday, February 26th. Everyone welcome. This is a family friendly event.
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2946057784811&set=a.1650900406686.83666.1662270965&type=1&theater

  19. Frank   February 21, 2012 at 4:00 AM

    I think to anyone who reads my comments it’s clear I DID read your article. What comments should I delete and why? I’m not a journalist nor was I attempting to write some formal article. Sorry but I could care less about checking internet replies for typo’s and grammatical errors, it’s the technical points that matter. So your snide comments about my writing just make me laugh. Are you going to go back and correct all the factual inaccuracies in your piece or to you is only grammar and diction what matters?

    CAPP: I checked the facts before I made my first comment, and I just read your other diatribe you just linked. What facts have I missed? I raised several points refuting your original article. Why are you avoiding responding to them?

    “so why don’t you think a little before you accuse others of being socialists/communists?” – Gee Richard, where did I call you that? and btw, Have you lived under a socialist or communist Government? and then, what is then point? Are you saying selling oil to China would make Canada communist? Really? AGAIN please explain how selling oil to anyone is somehow “propping them up” when they currently freely by that demand elsewhere?

    Yeah technically your right it was, what’s the word, an electoral majority? Not an absolute majority. Poo Poo so I misspoke. You really had to did to find that error didn’t you? A far cry from a professional journalist stating CAPP and members partially funding an energy meeting (which had representatives from the provinces of as well) a DONATION TO THE HARPER GOVERNMENT.

    Amusing how you avoid responding to any of the points I raised and the only defense you can come with is to insinuate I’m stupid. Sadly this is so typical of lefty group think. “If you don’t agree with us your dumb.”

  20. Frank   February 21, 2012 at 4:15 AM

    @Pete Dick

    Thanks Pete. Suggesting my comments were significant enough that they could have come from the PMO. I’ll take that as a compliment.

    Your buddy Richard seems to think the exact opposite.

  21. Frank   February 21, 2012 at 6:11 AM

    “1. Being called to face the Dean is facing disciplinary action.” – No it’s not, and it was the assistant dean, but I’m not going to split hairs over that. The real smear you are making on Levant is trying to paint him as a male chauvinist and hypocrite by stating the meeting was “for, among other things, his attitude towards hiring women”. Specifically the meeting was called for Levant accusing the UofA of racism. Funny how you try to paint him as a bigot when the reality is the incident was about him accusing UofA of bigotry.

    “2. Be careful what you say about Muslims and Muslim countries. I’ve actually lived in one, unlike (presumably) you and Levant. I could tell you lots of nasty things, but I won’t because there’s no point, and I’m also too grown up to blame millions of people for the actions of a few individuals.” – Why be careful? Are you saying we should be afraid of muslims in our own country? That sounds quite “anti-muslim” as you say about others. You don’t need to tell me nasty things, I see the body count in the news everyday. I really don’t see anyone who is blaming millions for the actions of the radicals. The unfortunate truth is though is the Islamo fascists seem to be flourishing and true muslim moderates are losing the battle for control of their nations. Strange you have such harsh criticism of the Chinese and their human rights issues yet completely ignore the Islamic world, which is really far worse. At least the Chinese aren’t expansionist Ideologically.

    3. Your use of term “Tar Sands” was random and not intentional to diminish the image of the industry? Please……………

  22. PJR   February 21, 2012 at 9:44 AM

    Pete Dick, here’s the quote:

    “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.” John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), philosopher and social critic, famous for his essay “On Liberty”.

    A recent study by Canadian researchers at Brock University confirms Mill. See George Monbiot in the Guardian, Feb 6, 2012, “The right’s stupidity spreads….”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/right-stupidity-spreads-enabled-polite-left

    You have to hand it to Harper & Co. Looks like they are trying their level best to own the podium of stupidity.

    And not only stupidity. How about Benjamin Disraeli’s words “A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy” (March 1845) as a summing up of the Harper bunch?

  23. Pete Dick   February 21, 2012 at 11:10 AM

    Thanks PJR. Good article.
    It was heartening to watch the huge public slap-down last week of Vic Toews and his asinine Bill C-30.
    People are finally starting to wake up and pay attention.

  24. Frank   February 21, 2012 at 3:07 PM

    @PJR

    Thanks for strongly reaffirming the elitist mentality of the far left.

    Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes
    Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact – Gordon Hodson

    Translation: Research proves Conservatives are dumb and racist, by shameless ideologue with a Ph.D Gordon Hodson. Priceless. It should come with a subtitle, “A prejudiced study on predjudice”. So let me see…..the impoverished in our culture have the lowest IQ’s so does this study mean aboriginals and other ethnic minorities are the biggest racists in Canada? For a more scientific and nonbiased review of the data in Hodson’s report I suggest reading “Low IQ & Liberal Beliefs Linked To Poor Research?” http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5118

    Like James Taranto sums it up: “So IQ tests are racist, except when they’re used to “prove” that people with “socially conservative ideologies” are racist and intellectually inferior.”

    Thanks PJR, now Vic Toews bill is the dumbest thing I’ve heard this week.

  25. Frank   February 21, 2012 at 3:13 PM

    Typo: Thanks PJR, now Vic Toews bill is’nt the dumbest thing I’ve heard this week.

  26. PJR   February 21, 2012 at 10:18 PM

    Maybe not the dumbest, Frank. But close. Up there with MacKay (helicopter rides), Clement (gazebos), Kenney (phony citizenship applicants), Baird (lecture the Palestinian president; hector the UN), Bernier (briefcase with biker girlfriend), Flaherty (income trusts; from surplus into deep deficit), Kent (fossil award for 2011), and leading the pack big banane Harper (fake lakes; climate change is a socialist plot; caucus of clowns).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.