At Home in Hespeler

All the Fluffy news about the worlds biggest nuts.

Bobby Brown is pitching a new reality TV series “Dating Bobby Brown“:

Bobby believes the best way to win a man’s heart is through his stomach, so he’s planning to have the women cook for him while they parade around in thong bikinis.

Classy guy. But, besides being the clown who ruined Whitney Huston’s career, who is he?

Carol Burnett is suing the maker’s of the TV show The Family Guy over an episode that spoofs her old Variety show. I never watch the Family Guy, but I’m going to have to dig that episode up: if it’s good enough to get sued over, then it’s good enough to watch. Thanks for the tip Ms. Burnett.

Ms. Burnett is not the only celebrity from my childhood feeling litigious this week. The Bay City Rollers are suing Arista Records over, what they claim, is millions of dollars in unpaid royalties over the past 25 years. If it’s true that “Arista’s claim over the last 25 years that it does not know who to pay” they should have no further worries: pay the guys on the other side of the courtroom.

You could see this one coming from a mile away. One of these guys (Derek Longmuir I think) has been working as a dentist the past 20 years. Good luck to the lads, if their statement is true then they deserve the money.

We need to add a new term to the popular culture lexicon:, “Indy Girl.” Like the Bond Girls, they are the female lead to play opposite Harrison Ford’s character in the Indiana Jones movies. Previous Indy Girls would be Karen Allen, Kate Capshaw, and Alison Doody. In the case of the upcoming look for Cate Blanchett. While this report says she’s rumoured, IMDB seems to have her confirmed.

Since we are comparing Indiana Jones and Bond, after this movie is it possible to replace Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones and continue the franchise?

Naomi Campbell has begun community service, cleaning at a NYC Department of Sanitation garage, for throwing her cellphone at a maid.

There, let that be a lesson to you.

It appears that Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher is about to become a movie:

London-based producer and distributor Pathe Productions said Tuesday it had commissioned a film about former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, set during the 1982 Falkland Islands war with Argentina.

What’s the bets that, regardless of how good, the actress who plays Thatcher is not even nominated for an Oscar?

Vanessa Williams has received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. You have to wonder When Dom Ameche or Marlon Brando or Bogie got their star in the walk, did they really believe they would be keeping such illustrious company as Vanessa Williams?

Deeply saddened to hear to hear of the death of Calvert DeForest, the actor behind Larry ‘Bud’ Melman from the Letterman show for years. One of the most memorable bit actors pop culture has ever produced.

Melamn/DeForest was 85, and passed after a long, unidentified illness.

Below is a clip of Larry ‘Bud’ Melman handing out towels at the NYC Bus Station:

Uncategorized

Well, I’ve had my first bike ride of 2007, the sun on my face, the wind through my helmet-less hair my muscles used hard and put away wet, and I had some thoughts while I was out there:

*Nice Budget, Mr. Flaherty
*Sponsorship Program? good idea Mr. Harper
*Nice Dog, Mr. Dion
*Nice Hair Britney
*Nice House Mr. Gore
*Hey, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame: Grandmaster Flash – nice
*Mr. Chomsky – “Hegemony is the root of all evil.” Feel free to use that as a gift from me.

I’m feelin’ nice, it must be…

SPRING!

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go to my wonderful job because I love my company and my union.

Uncategorized

Yesterdays Financial Post had two great articles worth reading. The first, by Peter Foster, documents how far into environmentalism we are being taken:

Travel once broadened the mind. Now it is claimed to threaten the planet. Climate change moralists, anti-global localists, and the enviro-left more generally, all want to keep us at home. The sole exception to this new dogma are the thousands upon thousands of policy wonks and NGO reps who seem constantly to be criss-crossing the skies to attend meetings in exotic locations to promote the new feudalism.

If it is wrong for people to travel, it is even more pernicious that agricultural products should go on long journeys. Kiwi is now the forbidden fruit, since it comes from a remote part of the globe to markets in Europe and North America. Thus is a small green delicacy linked to allegedly “robbing our children’s future.” In reality, such restrictions amount to an attempt to rob our children’s present. The perspective, experiences and even diets of our progeny must be narrowed for the sake of indeterminate threats to our great-grandchildren, about whom we — the fecklessly short-sighted — are declared not to care sufficiently. So government — guided by eco-fascists –must do it for us.

Well, screw that nonsense.

Well screw that nonsense indeed! But he’s right, if the environmental lobby had it’s way, we would all return to Victorian Times (he calls it a new Dark Age)and take the Barouche to work – unless you are an environmentalist. Then there’s that conference in Dubai that can’t be missed.

The second article, Lower. Taxes. Soon. Please. discusses how this weeks Conservative budget
represents a failure of conservatives to show the benefit of lower taxation:

Actually, informed speculation suggests that, given their poll numbers in Quebec, the Conservatives like their chances in an early federal election. If so, they probably designed the budget to be election-proof. And if that’s true, the Conservative brains trust clearly believes targeted tax-and-spend policies — or tax-expenditure and spend policies — are what Canadians want.

Mr. Harper is a cagey political strategist. He’s hard to second-guess on what Canadians want. If it’s not what small-c conservatives want, then the fault is ours. We haven’t persuaded people our policies are what the country needs. The solution is not for Mr. Harper to get a majority under false pretences and then revert to his true Reform/National Citizens Coalition self. Short of war breaking out, Canadian voters will never give him a blank cheque. No, the solution is to sell ordinary Canadians on the policies the country really needs.

He`s right, too. As conservatives we aren`t getting the message across that tax cuts help everyone. Canadian conservatives need to do a better job if we want to see real conservatism in this country.

Uncategorized

Ten days ago it was being reported that CAW employees at Brampton’s DaimlerChrysler assembly plant voted to accept mid-contract concessions in order to save jobs at the plant. The reason cited by the for needing the concessions was a need to keep costs down so the cars built at the plant could remain competitive.

Yesterday browsing the post (sorry I can`t find a link – try page A6 of the National Post for Wed. Mar 21st) and side bar titled Good Cars vs. Bad Cars. As I suspected on Tuesday night, two of the Brampton built vehicles are slated for tax increases under the new rules.

Both the Dodge Magnum and the Chrysler 300C will have a $2,000 tax added on to them. What does that do to the sales of the vehicles? And at a cost of how many jobs?

Uncategorized

Uncategorized

John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has done a fair bit of complaining in the past six months about Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty’s spending habits. I must confess, I kind of cringed when he did, thought to myself careful what you say John, it could be much worse.

I was wrong, it couldn’t be any worse. Harper and Flaherty have pulled themselves out of the conservative movement, spending at a level than can only be called scandalously profligate. Meanwhile tax relief is just enough to appear to be keeping their promises, actual and implied. Canadian conservatism has been dealt a severe blow with this budget; ask yourself this. If Flaherty and Harper don’t understand that a surplus is excess taxation, and should be treated with the respect that is due pother peoples money, who in this country will?

Where to start? How about day care. After fighting an election on the simple premise that parents know best, the Conservatives (note the capital C) have decided to give a whack of daycare money to Daddy Dalton and the other Pater Premiers to build public daycare spaces.

Tax break for fuel efficient vehicles? At least we can be thankful it’s not a carbon tax, which seems to be the only policy that separates the Conservatives from everybody else anymore (but give it a year). But isn’t a subsidy for efficient cars just a reverse carbon tax. And how many people will enter the car buying market now that the low end cars are $2,000 cheaper. Harper’s an economist, he gets this idea, if you give people money to buy something, people who otherwise would not have bought will enter the market. How do we know this isn’t adding to the total carbon emissions it was meant to reduce? In fact, it probably will.

Then there’s the tax on larger vehicles. While not purely a carbon tax, the next worse thing. Question: who gets to decide which vehicle qualifies for this tax? Last week employees at Chrysler’s Brampton plant decided to take a minor pay cut to save their jobs: what does this measure do to those jobs? Will the Charger and 300C be included under this tax?

$2000 dollars/child tax credit. Nice, I used this years tax refund to buy the kids new bikes, it’s like they are paying me back. I would rather they never took the money in the first place though. Stop with the targeted tax cuts, and just cut our damn taxes. Is it so hard?

That’s just the tip of the iceberg, but I’m not laughing all the way to the election this morning. In fact I’m left wondering: who the hell is a fiscal conservative supposed to vote for now?

Uncategorized

If Watergate, Iran-Contragate, Monicagate and Shawanigate are all scandals, why isn’t profligate?

Why does Stephan Dion get credit for naming his dog Kyoto, when his dog is a big old Husky; does any dog besides the St. Bernard, exhale more CO2 than a Husky? Isn’t the Husky is, by nature, energy inefficient? Wouldn’t the energitic, yet compact, Jack Russel Terrior be a more apt dog to indicate your concern for the environment?

If Elizabeth May is only interested in knocking off Conservatives, if she doesn’t want to unseat a Liberal or New Democrat, what’s the point of the Green Party? Why doesn’t she just join one of those two parties?

Am I the only person who isn’t surprised that Jean Charest was handed all the conditions for a cakewalk, and is blowing it? I remember this act when he ran the Tories into the ground. Everybody blames Mulroney and Kim Campbell for the downfall of the PCs, but four years after Kim Campbell, Jean Charest had everything going to rebound the party to respectability and blew it. The party got spanked by the electorate in 1993. But in 1997 they were in position to do much better, could of and should of, except Charest was terrible. What’s more surprising, that he’s blowing this election, or that he ever won one in the first place?

Uncategorized

The last report I studied on Canada’s Kyoto costs is Industry Canada’s Sectoral Impacts of Kyoto Compliance (note: PDF file). It is a lengthy report, and more reliable in my estimation than either the Suzuki Foundation report or the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters report that I have previously reported on. It examines various sectors individually and jointly, looking at possible outcomes if there is a national policy, and if you allow sectoral exemptions from policy.

This report again makes the point that Canada’s ability to convert coal power to natural gas is limited, and Canada’s large hydroelectric reliance means “Canada has one of the higher marginal costs of reducing CO2 emissions.” Canada is, in fact” relatively energy-intensive, but not carbon-intensive…” This causes Canada to have “limited scope for low-cost abatement.” In short, Canada is already outputting little carbon relative to the energy we use, reducing carbon is going to be expensive.

In Energy use the case is made that carbon taxes may end up being higher on clean burning natural gas than on dirtier coal: “Since natural gas may be cheaper per BTU than coal or oil, it may end up having a high carbon tax (as proportion of value) even though natural gas has relatively low carbon emissions per BTU.”

Electricity generation is broken into three sectors, fossil fuel generation (coal, natural gas), non-fossil fuel generation (hydro, nuclear) and greenhouse free generation, which amounts to the renewable sector (windmills &tc.). The significant point in this sector is that the third generation option does not become viable until “costs per unit of output are 67 percent higher.” Take your current electricity bill, add two thirds (i.e take a $300 bill and make it a $500 bill) and it now becomes financially feasible to start generating electricity by non-renewable/greenhouse emission free generation.

This study comes in at costs of a carbon tax or carbon permit scheme to be 1.1% GDP for Canada, or $7.02B. However, a theme that repeats in this study is that abatement plateaus at $250(US) tonne of carbon. At a reduction cost of $250 tonne, it is a $225B cost to reduce the necessary 900 mega-tonnes of CO2 that Canada needs to reduce to meet it’s Kyoto commitments. Note, however, they actually call for a global price of Carbon of $45.79, much closer to other predictions, and the effective price noted by many reports, including the Stern Report. That figure puts Kyoto costs at $41.2B.

This is a large report that covers a lot of ground, and I have condensed different findings from different areas of the report into one conclusion. This can be a bit misleading, but is, I think, the most effective way to summarize the report in this format. The reports conclusions are that Kyoto costs are dramatically reduced with the inclusion of a carbon trading market, and when governments begin exempting some sectors from the costs of carbon reduction, the overall costs rise considerably. Kyoto’s costs need to be born over the whole of the economy, and a made in Canada only solution will be much less cost effective, although will do a much better job of reducing CO2 emissions.

Uncategorized

Twenty-Five years ago today one of the true greats of rock guitar died in a small plane accident. Randy Rhodes was an unknown when he began playing for Ozzy Osbourne’s solo band. Ozzy’s first solo album “Blizzard of Oz” was full of breathtaking guitar work. Rhodes, a classically trained guitarist, changed the way rock guitarists would think about their instrument.

With only two albums under his belt, on March 19, 1982, Rhodes was in a plane when the pilot decided, as a practical joke, it would be fun to buzz the tour bus where the rest of the band was sleeping. They did so three times, the wing of the plane clipping the bus on the fourth pass. Rhodes and two others, Andrew Aycock, 36 and hairdresser Rachel Youngblood 58 died in the accident. Rhodes was 25 years old. Rock and Roll had lost one more of it’s young stars to death by stupidity.

As a guy who spends a lot of time with a classical guitar in my lap, and who was 19 in 1982, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that Rhodes was probably the last rock guitarist who included classical work in his rock repertoire. While many others did so in the 70s, the classical tracks had disappeared through the 80’s and is non-existent today in rock music.

More on Randy Rhodes can be found here and here. Most of the details for this post, I got here.

Meanwhile, here is a sample of me playing a Rhodes piece, a beautiful little classical piece called Dee.

Uncategorized

I am not appearing on the BT aggregator this week, I’m not sure why. However, as I derive a large amount of my traffic from there, I would not be sending much traffic to the weeks winner.

Blogging Tories Site of the Week will return as soon as I am back up on the BT aggregator – although I have no idea when that will happen.

Meanwhile, I have updated the archive page. Please feel free to check out some of the sites there.

In the next week or two I will also post some HTML code so people can add the above graphic and link back to the Site of the Week.

Uncategorized

A few weeks ago I suggested Elizabeth May was looking for a place to lay it down, better to lose to a Minister of the Crown, than to some guy named Joe:

So to clarify, she is going to run against Peter MacKay because “deep-seated concern bordering on panic about Stephen Harper’s government.” Or because it’s much less humiliating to lose to the Minister of Foreign Affairs than to Joe Nobody from Schenectady.

May has no hope against McKay, and she must know it. This is not about capitalizing on that “momentum” people keep talking about, this is about saving face when the next election is over and Elizabeth May is still sitting in the visitors gallery.

Take this for what it is, Elizabeth May, the only leader calling for an outright carbon tax, has conceded defeat, and weakened the NDP and Liberals in Peter McKays riding to boot. Because she has “concern bordering on panic about Stephen Harper’s government” – or something like that.

Uncategorized