shotbanner.jpeg

November 30, 2005

Filthy Canadians

Mark Steyn's latest piece tears into a lot of his usual suspects - terror-supporters, bloated bureaucrats, and so on - but the most interesting part seems to be down toward the bottom:

I notice, for example, that signatories to the Kyoto treaty are meeting in Montreal this week - maybe in the unused Olympic stadium - to discuss "progress" on "meeting" their "goals". Canada remains fully committed to its obligation to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by six per cent of its 1990 figure by 2008.

That's great to know, isn't it? So how's it going so far?

Well, by the end of 2003, Canada's greenhouse-gas emissions were up 24.2 per cent.

Meanwhile, how are things looking in the United States? As you'll recall, in a typically "pig-headed and blinkered" (Independent) act that could lead to the entire planet becoming "uninhabitable" (Michael Meacher), "Polluter Bush" (Daily Express), "this ignorant, short-sighted and blinkered politician" (Friends of the Earth), rejected the Kyoto treaty. Yet somehow the "Toxic Texan" (everybody) has managed to outperform Canada on almost every measure of eco-virtue.

How did that happen?

How?

Because, like Iraq and the economy and pretty much every other key issue facing the Bush Administration, the opposition, in this case Kyoto, is a matter of spin and endless repetition of tropes by the left's surrogates in the media?

Just a guess.

Posted by Mitch at November 30, 2005 12:00 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Donut and pea soup consumption must be up...ay?

Posted by: Greg at November 30, 2005 12:48 PM

And the increase happened in spite of not having to turn on the lights in nor people driving to the NHL arenas in fall/winter '03

Posted by: Nordeaster at November 30, 2005 03:51 PM

I heard on NPR yesterday that Donald Rumsfeld was "bored" with Iraq.

That's one of the reasons I'm against this adminstration, because its full of people who can't or won't handle responsibility - such as getting armor to the troops AS FAST AS POSSIBLE - or who deliberately ignore expert advice on post-war conditions (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20051013/index.htm)
because it runs counter to their pretty ideologies.

All I want is politicians who give a damn. I'm not seeing that.

Posted by: Bill Haverberg at December 1, 2005 08:34 AM

Wow, NPR! Rumsfeld must have spilled his guts to their reporter or else they wouldn't have said it. Uh, wasn't this post talking about global warming?

Posted by: Night Writer at December 1, 2005 09:41 AM

"Uh, wasn't this post talking about global warming?"

Not entirely, Mitch started it:

"Because, like Iraq and the economy and pretty much every other key issue facing the Bush Administration, the opposition, in this case Kyoto, is a matter of spin and endless repetition of tropes by the left's surrogates in the media?"

I am responding to him by demonstrating opposition which is based not on spin, but on reported facts.

"Wow, NPR! Rumsfeld must have spilled his guts to their reporter or else they wouldn't have said it."

You're welcome to your opinions of NPR. I am welcome to my factual statistics on public perception of NPR's reporting quality (Tarrance Group & Lake Snell Perry & Associates nationwide opinion surveys on behest of the CPB, 12/2003), which places you in the 9 percent who disagree on their reporting quality and the 13 percent who believe it is not fair or balanced.

Any politician would kill for those kinds of negatives.

Fell free to keep throwing spiteful attitude devoid of factual content around, I really don't see you going anywhere with it. I prefer to stay within the reality-based community myself, when I post here.

Posted by: Bill Haverberg at December 1, 2005 10:14 AM

Follow up:

I found it interesting that as Mitch was lamenting the "spin and endless repetition of tropes" of the left - implying a lack of factual basis - that you responded to my factually based reply with a drive by spittlefest (or, in kinder words, "spin and repetition of tropes").

Irony isn't your bag, is it?

Posted by: Bill Haverberg at December 1, 2005 10:41 AM

My point (more of a drive-by eyebrow-arching than spittlefest) was more about the "facts" being reported than who was doing the reporting. In other words, in "reality" has Rumsfeld said he's bored, or is the source for this reporting some unnamed generals who wouldn't possibly have an agenda, even if some of their most treasured appropriations and strategies have been dismissed by the SOD? (And wouldn't that be ironic?)

Posted by: Night Writer at December 1, 2005 01:37 PM

À good site, good short contents of the good work. Ñongratulations !

Posted by: Damn at March 21, 2006 05:05 AM

Great. Thanks! wager craps fha loan car finance prednisone business degree

Posted by: thu at May 5, 2006 08:44 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi