The Shotgun Blog
« Rachel Redux | Main | Human Rights »
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Support for an Olympic boycott grows
Scroll down to the Enlightened Comment of the Day to see the latest endorsement from a columnist at the New York Post (which is without a doubt the best newspaper in America, period).
Posted by D.J. McGuire on April 10, 2007 in International Affairs, Sports | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834f5464953ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Support for an Olympic boycott grows:
Comments
Agreed DJ - New York Post is a must read in our offices, along with the Jerusalem Post, Debka File
the Times of London and Scotland on Sunday. But the Games will not be boycotted, it is far too late in the day. This may be the last of the International Olympic Games in any event. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-04-10 11:03:48 AM
Don't boycott the 2008 olympics. The whole world's attention will be focused there. Use that focus to protest China's abysmal human rights record. The Chinese could do little to counter protests, and just have to sit back and accept the humiliation. Good, let them suffer.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-04-10 11:34:16 AM
These may be the first Games that see the athletes wearing hospital masks while competing, due to the horrible pollution present in the atmosphere. But China is exempt from Kyoto because????
Posted by: obc | 2007-04-10 11:52:49 AM
OBC, They're exempt from Kyoto in the same way you're exempt from Mrs. Jones' five year mortgage with RBC. They didn't sign the Accord.
Posted by: Get Your War On | 2007-04-10 12:13:34 PM
Because
1) no one can force China to do anything; the Chinese are viciously anti-foreign. Maybe the fact that Kyoto was named after a Japanese city had something to do with it - a bitter legacy from WWII.
2) they knew Kyoto was a catastrophe from the very start. if they had to pay for emissions credits, the costs would be so high it would bankrupt the economy. I'm curious - why do the lefties in the West, who think China is just dandy, not see anything wrong with China's exemption - or Ontario's for that matter.
3) Reducing carbon emissions is patently impossible because of the sheer scope of their emissions problem. They have the largest coal mining industry in the world because they need it.
No matter how you slice it, Kyoto is a farce. It won't even come close to solving global warming (which itself is a charming theory at best), yet the enthusiasts see it like it was the Koran - heretics and apostates to be removed from society. If Alberta is forced to pay all of Kyoto, then we should secede - it is inhumane and totally unfair to ask any one group to sacrifice.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-04-10 12:20:35 PM
DUH! Tell me something I don't know.
Posted by: obc | 2007-04-10 12:20:37 PM
My last comment was meant in response to Get Your War On.
And I'm all for Alberta seceding today. Why wait for the inevitable while simultaneously paying Quebec and others for being have-nots?
The Republic of Alberta - it has a nice ring to it!
Posted by: obc | 2007-04-10 12:23:50 PM
OBC: "DUH! Tell me something I don't know."
OK. Here's something from the BBC.
A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern [former Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank] suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%. But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says.
Bet you didn't know that. One percent. So what's all the fuss about?
Posted by: Get Your War On | 2007-04-10 12:29:29 PM
Get your war on - go peddle your global swarming rubbish elsewhere for that is not the subject of this post.
Yes, hopefully the Olympics will put the human rights abuses of the Chinese government in the spot light.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-04-10 12:41:59 PM
First of all, Stern's comments are obviously loaded. 20% downturn if you don't act now, when it will be just 1%? Sounds like a sales pitch, not a warming.
One percent of the global GDP may sound reasonable, but what about the impact at the national or local levels. My fear is that the Liebrals, Dippers and Watermelons (Green Party) will force Alberta to pay for carbon credits. Being Ontario based, they know that any artificial downturn in the Ontario economy would turn the voters against them. Their electoral defeat would mean the end of Kyoto. Alberta, on the other hand, is both flush with cash thanks to high energy prices, and the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the country. Moreover, none of those parties has much support in Alberta, so they can afford to antagonize and scapegoat us. It is better for them electorally to push the costs on to Alberta.
So Alberta gets the bill so that the lefties can look good to their foreign friends. Lovely. What about Albertans and their interests? Are we not entitled to have an economy, to put food on our tables, and have nice things? We've already been through one National Energy Policy. There will never be a second. It is a gross violation of our basic constitutional and human rights to make us bear the whole burden. If global warming is a global issue, then everyone has to pay - no special exemptions like has been done for Kyoto. Albertans might express their anger at this by voting for secession.
The fuss, therefore, is about fairness and equality. Heck, Alberta should pay more than others - that's fair. But to ask us to pay for it all is an atrocity and Alberta should secede if the federals force this upon us.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-04-10 12:46:16 PM
BBC is the source, huh? That's all I need to know. I am bowing (and farting) in their general direction as I type these words.
GloBull Warming is more like it!
Posted by: obc | 2007-04-10 12:58:28 PM
obc: I'm inclined to agree with you on gloBULL warming. The approach taken by the climate change people is so biased towards an anti-capitalist agenda. But so often the problem isn't, well, the problem. it's the solution here - Kyoto - which stinks. Find a better way, like one that doesn't punish the economy, eliminate jobs, or throw money away to foreign countries. That's why the Liebrals didn't implement Kyoto when they were in power. They knew it was a dud and buried it for the future. Their current enthusiasm for it is a sham, pure and simple.
The mere fact that the climate change enthusiasts use terms like "denier" proves that their plan is failing. Let it fail, so that a better way can be found.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-04-10 2:10:06 PM
Another favourite term of theirs is "scientific consensus". Well, since Rush Limbaugh does not accept GloBull Warming, he must be right. He commands the largest radio audience in the U.S. That means that there is a "consensus" among the American people that he is right.
Take that, you consensus deniers!
Posted by: obc | 2007-04-10 2:30:48 PM
Get Your War On
"A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern [former Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank] suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%. But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says."
What does this have to do with boycotting the Olympics games?
"Bet you didn't know that. One percent. So what's all the fuss about?"
You lose the bet.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-04-10 3:11:02 PM
Pike's at it with the Ontario bashing again. Comparing China with the most successful Province in our fair Dominion is a fallacy that only the faint of intelligence would believe. Ontario was, is, and will be, the Province that drives the economy of Canada. You should worship at her feet.
Posted by: Ralph Rattfuc | 2007-04-10 4:30:09 PM
Then you won't mind if we in Alberta leave.
Posted by: obc | 2007-04-10 4:41:19 PM
obc: oh they'd mind. Much of their prosperity is based on cash coming from Alberta's energy resources to prop up their profitability. It helps keep federal taxes lower than they otherwise would be if Ontario had to pay the whole deal. They'd invade us, rob us blind, then put every Albertan to the sword just to keep white Ontarians rich.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-04-10 5:07:08 PM
I agree that they wouldn't like it - but they are gutless Lefties who wouldn't lift anything more than their voices in protest.
Posted by: obc | 2007-04-10 6:09:26 PM
1) Do not boycott the games. Why ruin the fun for the athletes and the sportsfans?
2) Doesn't Alberta receive as much in federal transfer payments as Ontario (per capita)? I thought I saw that in a graph illustrating the Newfoundland PM's mindless greed. I would appreciate the correct link.
Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2007-04-10 6:29:44 PM
OBC,
Stands for what?
Actually, China has a plan to scrub their atmosphere before the Olympics.
I don't agree with China not having any environmental respect. They really should be the ones to know, that they who cook carrots, and pees in same pot, are dirty housekeepers.
Then again, they also did not sign a worthless document.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-04-10 7:54:27 PM
OBC,
Stands for what?
Actually, China has a plan to scrub their atmosphere before the Olympics.
I don't agree with China not having any environmental respect. They really should be the ones to know, that they who cook carrots, and pees in same pot, are dirty housekeepers.
Then again, they also did not sign a worthless document.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-04-10 7:54:42 PM
Johan:
"2) Doesn't Alberta receive as much in federal transfer payments as Ontario (per capita)? I thought I saw that in a graph illustrating the Newfoundland PM's mindless greed. I would appreciate the correct link."
Sometimes some of us confuse Transfer payments with Equalization payments. Transfer payments are a superset of Equalization payments. Transfer payments include the Canada Social Transfer, the Canada Health Transfer, and Equalization payments. 8 provinces receive Equalization payments, 2 do not (Alberta and Ontario)
This URL lists the total and per capita Equalization amounts for the 8 receptor provinces.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html
Alberta contributes about $12 billion annually and Ontario about $23 billion to Equalization but I do not have a link for that. The numbers work out to about $3555 per capita for Albertans and about $1891 per capita for Ontarians. This is the number that Albertans often refer to when they describe "Transfer payments"; they actually mean Equalization payments. You can see that Albertans contribute approximately double per capita what Ontarians contribute.
Now for Transfer payments. This URL does not put the data in tabular format.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/mtpe.html
I will put the data in tabular format below. I will take the number under "Total Transfers" for each jurisdiction and divide it by its population to arrive at a per capita number. I will use population numbers for each jurisdiction from Wikipedia (years vary from 2001 to 2006). Totals in million dollars, per capita in dollars.
Area Total Per
..................Capita
Nfld 1370 2824
PEI 474 3489
NS 2689 2878
NB 2466 3305
QB 16677 2180
ON 19581 1610
MB 3368 2860
SK 1523 1546
AB 5198 1540
BC 6971 1695
YK 554 17739
NWT 804 19390
NT 874 29653
If one adjusts for the per capita contributions of Alberta and Ontario, Ontario is a net contributor to the Transfer payments at $281 per capita and Alberta is a net contributor to Transfer payments at $2015 per capita. Residents of all other provinces and territories are net beneficiaries of Transfer payments.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-04-10 8:04:57 PM
Johan:
My error. It turns out the $12 billion and $23 billion mentioned earlier are net Transfer payments. Therefore the numbers in the last paragraph are incorrect and should simply be the $3555 and $1891 per capita numbers mentioned earlier. The principle remains but the numbers in the last paragraph should be corrected.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-04-10 8:24:23 PM
Actually, China did sign Kyoto, precisely because they are considered a 'developing' country and are not required to do anything other than sit back and accept money. Rough job.
I don't agree to a boycott though. The spotlight should be squarely on China, warts and all, during the Olympics.
Posted by: Kim | 2007-04-11 8:35:29 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.