Bad Caribou Plan

The spin is nauseating,only 380,000 Hectares of new land has been or will be protected and most of it is less threatened,less biologically important and less valuable to the timber industry the other 1.8 million hectares is park land that has been protected for years.Logging will not be reduced ,millions of hectares of rare ancient Inland Rainforest with dozens of endangered species will be lost forever.Bad deal

Clayoquot days

I first met Ms. Berman at a camp-out she was leading in a giant clear-cut during days of protest at Clayoquot Sound.

At the time, local loggers would intimidate us on the road, with their middle fingers and with their trucks. This was before they recognized common ground held with environmentalists - the desire for logging in BC to be a long-term lively-hood rather than the hit-and-run industry it still is.

At a group hand-holding around the fire, Ms. Berman, gently broke the news that one among us was driving a truck recently been purchased and licensed by the major logging company. That fellow, likely a logger, was asked to come clean, but welcomed to stay among us as a friend in what was an awkward, but tender moment. The man chose to leave, but I like to think that he did so as as a changed man.

That is when my admiration for Tzeporah Berman began and now I think she is wonderful.

Yes, but where's the "Personal Ethics"?

Ms. Berman's last self-congratulatory post from Bali contained the following gem:

"The conversation turned quickly, as it often does when Canadians travel abroad, to our spectacular forests and again I was at a loss to explain why Canada did not agree to account for emissions from logging and carbon storage in our forests under Kyoto."

This among a litany of snide remarks about the "Harper government", and particularly strange since Stephane Dione--whose government made the decision in question--was in attendance at the conference.

No doubt we'll see Ms. Berman re-emerge in future as a federal Liberal Party candidate, where she can continue her partisan role.

Not at all Percy.

Did you not get the news that Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada now? In fact, he'll be celebrating his 2nd anniversary in the office in a few days’ time.

Ms Berman appears to be considerably more up to date – she’s heaping the blame at the feet of the folks with the power to do something about it.

Now if you'd like to discuss 'his' ethics....

If the shoe fits

I'm really tired of conspiracy theorists.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
[FIRST FIVE]
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

next 3

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

FINAL 2

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.