Un article assez stupéfiant dans Le Monde qui raconte l'apparition en Irak d'un programme permettant de capter les images numériques transmises par les drones de l'armée américaine à leur poste de commande.
Le coût du programme: 26$!
Friday, December 18, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Le sénat sert bien à quelque chose
J'ai toujours défendu l'importance du sénat; cet article montre bien pourquoi.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-senate-alters-key-tory-crime-bill/article1395268/
On sait depuis longtemps que les peines d'emprisonnement minimales ne réduisent pas le taux de criminalité. Elles ont plutôt l'effet de surcharger le système carcéral. Or jamais un politicien élu n'aurait osé modifier un projet de loi anti-drogue pour en enlever les peines d'emprisonnement minimales. Seul nos sénateurs, n'ont pas les mêmes contraintes politiques, peuvent prendre ces décisions qui servent le mieux l'intérêt national.
Les Sénateurs n'ont de comptes à rendre à personne, et c'est bien leur utilité. Ils n'auront jamais un poids politique équivalent à celui de leurs collègues députés, mais s'ils empêchent des projets de lois périlleux de voir le jour, ils auront rempli leur fonction.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-senate-alters-key-tory-crime-bill/article1395268/
On sait depuis longtemps que les peines d'emprisonnement minimales ne réduisent pas le taux de criminalité. Elles ont plutôt l'effet de surcharger le système carcéral. Or jamais un politicien élu n'aurait osé modifier un projet de loi anti-drogue pour en enlever les peines d'emprisonnement minimales. Seul nos sénateurs, n'ont pas les mêmes contraintes politiques, peuvent prendre ces décisions qui servent le mieux l'intérêt national.
Les Sénateurs n'ont de comptes à rendre à personne, et c'est bien leur utilité. Ils n'auront jamais un poids politique équivalent à celui de leurs collègues députés, mais s'ils empêchent des projets de lois périlleux de voir le jour, ils auront rempli leur fonction.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
The Globe
The Globe and Mail, Canada's self-styled newspaper of record, has just published an editorial calling for 'a new national project: to make Canada a clean-energy superpower.'
So the Globe believes we should become a Green super power. Good idea, but how? Well, while there are many steps to reducing carbon emissions, everyone agrees on the necessity of attaching a price to carbon. A carbon tax, in other words.
That's what Stéphane Dion wanted. That's what Stephen Harper campaigned against. But who did our newspaper of record endorse in last year's election campaign? Steven Harper.
So the Globe believes we should become a Green super power. Good idea, but how? Well, while there are many steps to reducing carbon emissions, everyone agrees on the necessity of attaching a price to carbon. A carbon tax, in other words.
That's what Stéphane Dion wanted. That's what Stephen Harper campaigned against. But who did our newspaper of record endorse in last year's election campaign? Steven Harper.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Échec au Président
Hier matin, Barack Obama a annoncé l'envoi de 30 000 troupes américaines supplémentaires en Afghanistan qui s'ajouteront aux 70 000 déjà présentes. Il y aura ainsi plus de soldats américains en Afghanistan qu'il y en avait de russes dans les années 1980s.
C'est sans compter la mince affaire de l'Iraq, où 130 000 soldats américains sont stationnés. En tout, environ 230 000 soldats américains, soit le sixième des effectifs de l'armée, sont engagés en situation de guerre en Iraq ou en Afghanistan.
Plus tôt cette semaine, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a révélé son intention de construire dix nouvelles centrales nucléaires en Iran. Historiquement, la planète pouvait compter sur les États-Unis pour surveiller les régimes totalitaires agressifs de ce type. Cela risque de ne plus être vrai.
La capacité d'action (de réaction, plutôt) de l'armée américaine souffre de son embourbement en Iraq en en Afghanistan. Si jamais l'Iran tentait de mettre en place un programme nucléaire, l'armée américaine serait incapable de l'en empêcher, pour des simples raisons d'effectifs et d'argent. Tout ça, Ahmadinejad le sait très bien. En s'obstinant à saigner ses troupes en Afghanistan en les mettant à la poursuite de fantômes, Obama donne carte blanche à un tyran fou à la tête d'un pays de 70 millions d'habitants.
C'est sans compter la mince affaire de l'Iraq, où 130 000 soldats américains sont stationnés. En tout, environ 230 000 soldats américains, soit le sixième des effectifs de l'armée, sont engagés en situation de guerre en Iraq ou en Afghanistan.
Plus tôt cette semaine, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a révélé son intention de construire dix nouvelles centrales nucléaires en Iran. Historiquement, la planète pouvait compter sur les États-Unis pour surveiller les régimes totalitaires agressifs de ce type. Cela risque de ne plus être vrai.
La capacité d'action (de réaction, plutôt) de l'armée américaine souffre de son embourbement en Iraq en en Afghanistan. Si jamais l'Iran tentait de mettre en place un programme nucléaire, l'armée américaine serait incapable de l'en empêcher, pour des simples raisons d'effectifs et d'argent. Tout ça, Ahmadinejad le sait très bien. En s'obstinant à saigner ses troupes en Afghanistan en les mettant à la poursuite de fantômes, Obama donne carte blanche à un tyran fou à la tête d'un pays de 70 millions d'habitants.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Consumers Should Pay?
Ahead of next month's climate change summit in Copenhagen, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach has been lobbying for what he calls 'realistic' targets. Stelmach means, of course, non existant targets, but he can't be blamed: if Canada were ever to make a serious push to reduce carbon emissions, the oil sands industry would be the first to suffer.
Steven Harper seems to agree with his fellow Albertan. He is standing his ground and refusing to commit to more than 'modest' emissions cuts. He is also doing his best to lower expectations for the Copenhagen Summit, suggesting that Canada's current plan to reduce emssions is not open to renegotiation. Stephen Harper, in other words, has made it clear that Canada will not be a player in Copenhagen.
This is all very unfortunate, because there may acutally be a lot at stake for Canada, especially for Alberta.
Under the current system, carbon emissions are calculated to represent the exact amount of carbon released by each individual country. Canada releases large quantities of carbon into the atmosphere to extract oil, even though most of this oil is consummed abroad, in the US and in Asia. In other words, Canada is blamed for extracting oil that its neighbours consume, and Canada is expected to make its oil more expensive to reflect the environmental cost of extracting it.
What's wrong with that picture? Well, simply that there is very little incentive for countries that use oil to overcome their dependency when they are not themselve bearing the environmental cost.
Say for example, that country A harbours a carbon intensive economy that imports most of its oil from its neighbour, country B. Country B, under the current formula, is classified as an environmental villain that is expected to make its oil expensive to import so that country A will reduce its consumption. Clearly, this is not fair. Why should country B be responsible for encouraging country A to change its practices?
Canada is country B. Many European countries, including Germany, which imports huge quantities of Russian oil, ressemble country A.
A good way to get around that problem would be to include the environmental cost of extracting oil as part of the carbon footprint of the countries that consume it. Thus, United States would be blamed for consuming dirty oil from the Tar Sands, rather than Albertans being blamed for refusing to damage their own industry to reduce american consumption.
In the end, it doesn't matter who pays because the price of dirty oil goes up and consumption logically goes down. But perceptions matter. Alberta shouldn't be blamed for selling its oil at market price, Americans should be blamed for consuming it. If we want to encourage consumers and industries to chance their ways, the burden should lie with them.
Rather than trying to avoid the Copenhagen summit, this is what Harper should be pushing for.
Steven Harper seems to agree with his fellow Albertan. He is standing his ground and refusing to commit to more than 'modest' emissions cuts. He is also doing his best to lower expectations for the Copenhagen Summit, suggesting that Canada's current plan to reduce emssions is not open to renegotiation. Stephen Harper, in other words, has made it clear that Canada will not be a player in Copenhagen.
This is all very unfortunate, because there may acutally be a lot at stake for Canada, especially for Alberta.
Under the current system, carbon emissions are calculated to represent the exact amount of carbon released by each individual country. Canada releases large quantities of carbon into the atmosphere to extract oil, even though most of this oil is consummed abroad, in the US and in Asia. In other words, Canada is blamed for extracting oil that its neighbours consume, and Canada is expected to make its oil more expensive to reflect the environmental cost of extracting it.
What's wrong with that picture? Well, simply that there is very little incentive for countries that use oil to overcome their dependency when they are not themselve bearing the environmental cost.
Say for example, that country A harbours a carbon intensive economy that imports most of its oil from its neighbour, country B. Country B, under the current formula, is classified as an environmental villain that is expected to make its oil expensive to import so that country A will reduce its consumption. Clearly, this is not fair. Why should country B be responsible for encouraging country A to change its practices?
Canada is country B. Many European countries, including Germany, which imports huge quantities of Russian oil, ressemble country A.
A good way to get around that problem would be to include the environmental cost of extracting oil as part of the carbon footprint of the countries that consume it. Thus, United States would be blamed for consuming dirty oil from the Tar Sands, rather than Albertans being blamed for refusing to damage their own industry to reduce american consumption.
In the end, it doesn't matter who pays because the price of dirty oil goes up and consumption logically goes down. But perceptions matter. Alberta shouldn't be blamed for selling its oil at market price, Americans should be blamed for consuming it. If we want to encourage consumers and industries to chance their ways, the burden should lie with them.
Rather than trying to avoid the Copenhagen summit, this is what Harper should be pushing for.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Montly Cartoon
My eyes are closing as I write this post, so I will do what I usually do in these situations and post the CARTOON OF THE MONTH!
Here is is, drawn by Gable, in Wednesday's Globe and Mail.
Here is is, drawn by Gable, in Wednesday's Globe and Mail.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Harpocrisy At Work
Stephen Harper gave a speech in Markham during which he talked at length about the importance of press freedom.
“Our government does not tell journalists what to say, or attempt to intimidate those with whom it disagrees,” Harper explained.
Funny enough, Harper refused to take questions from journalists after the speech.
Oh... and he still hasn't commented on the Afghan detainee allegations. There's no chance of asking him next week in Parliament though, because questions addressed to the Prime Minister need to be submitted in advance to the PMO. Press freedom, in other words.
“Our government does not tell journalists what to say, or attempt to intimidate those with whom it disagrees,” Harper explained.
Funny enough, Harper refused to take questions from journalists after the speech.
Oh... and he still hasn't commented on the Afghan detainee allegations. There's no chance of asking him next week in Parliament though, because questions addressed to the Prime Minister need to be submitted in advance to the PMO. Press freedom, in other words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)