Now, while I still pay my share of attention to politics, I paid a lot more back in 2005. And I can safely say that I never heard the Liberal budget of 2005 being referred to as the “Green Budget”. Not once. Ever. That is until seeing said CBC piece, wherein the reference to the possibly apocryphal “Green Budget” is made twice, including in the subtitle (or whatever you call it in a news article). There’s a Green Budget Coalition, but that has nothing to do with the Liberals or their 2005 budget. A Google search on liberal + “green budget” + 2005 doesn’t seem to turn up much of relevance. So, I throw it to the legions of fervent readers: is the notion of a Liberal “Green Budget” in 2005 a smidge of the CBC revisionism?
I’m not a legion, but I did find this March 2005 speech given by then-Environment Minister Stephane Dion in which he refers to the “Goodale Budget” 16 times. The words “green budget” do not appear.
Can we just scrap that attrocity? I mean really. What justification does the CBC offer for their existence that isn’t complete BS.
defining the “izzy money” in terms of hours
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/22/workers-statscan.html
what say you mssr. Dion??
maybe with messr.Dions pronunciation “Goodale Budget” sound like “Green Budget”.
CBCpravda puts quotes around things that are inaudible or unintelligable to the rest of us “pipples”
CBC: Credibility Beneath Contempt? It is so frustrating to know that these untouchable government workers reach into our wallets in order to spread their biases.
Don’t you love it the way the CBC rewrites history?
The Conservative government would get great press from the CBC IF it would announce a doubling of the CBC’s funding in the next budget.
It would be the difference of night and day. Of course, I would want Mr. Harper to do the honourable thing and summarily privatize the CBC.
The ‘green’ in that budget was a refurral to the intended tax grab of ‘greenbacks’ via the Kyota thingie. ‘Carbon Credits’, was to be the new buzz word for regulated robbery of the Canadian people for the benifit of the Liberal Party of Canada and their Mo tse Strong supporters in China, U.N. and ‘Globall’ slavery organizations.
The ‘green’ is always there if it is Liebral – it is a French language culture thing and difficult to translate into the language of merchants (English).
Just to note: I do know that Canadian money is multi colored but even the culture of Dionidites knows the color of real money.
It appears the Liberals don’t white wash their past corruption. They green wash it.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget05/speech/speeche.htm
There is quite a large portion centered around “A Greener, More Sustainable Canada” which contains nothing of much note but is probably enough for the CBC to defend its comments.
C-cannot
B-back
C=content
Mssr. cal2
Work iz ard in Kaybec but izzy in Alberta. We doan need da work da long hour in Kaybec just work ard.
Upon reading Kate’s original pot, I wrote the CBC Ombudsman, copy my MP (CPC), last Friday:
“Sir:
Is it true that the 9-month “investigation” by Mr. Guy Gendron, to be aired on CBC tonight, reveals “sensational” information that has been available all along at United States Energy Association and US Department of Energy websites since March 2006 for anyone who has wanted to view it?
Is Mr. Gendron’s whiz-bang “investigation” going to follow journalistic standards of decency, fairness, full disclosure and unbiased presentation? Not according to this account: http://www.cbcwatch.ca/?q=node/view/2197
How much did this 9-month investigation, disclosing already-public “secret” documents, cost the Canadian taxpayer? Was it worth it? Why are Canadians not receiving balanced coverage of political topics on the CBC?
(signed … yada, yada, address and tel#, blah, blah)”
Today I received this:
“Dear Mr. Sorenson:
I write to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail, which I have shared with Jonathan Whitten, Executive Producer of The National, along with the request that your concerns be addressed.
Yours truly,
Vince Carlin
CBC Ombudsman”
I do not expect anything meaningful from the Executive Producer, certainly not any reference to the issues that I have raised or pertaining to accuracy. But I am hopeful for something, and in the meantime will pass this responses along to my MP for information.
I don’t know why more folks posting at Kate’s blog and elsewhere don’t write these simple lines, and copy in their MP. If the government discerns that enough people are fed up with either the slant or accuracy of CBC material, maybe they will do something about it.
Instead, all I read here and in the original post is moaning and non-topical rants. Inefective, completely. All of you.
If Borat Dion can recreate the past with ficticious childhood stories about “the family of men lying down with the family of beasts,” the Ministry of Propaganda is hereby granted license to say WhateverTF they want to bring down the government.
“All of you”? I’ve posted my correpondence to Vince Carlin, CBC Ombudsman, and Tony Burman here more than a few times.
I agree with you, Erik. People SHOULD write the CBC–regularly. It’s not to get any satisfaction from the CBC, but to have a “paper” trail of its bias, ineptitude, and total lack of integrity.
Copying correspondence to one’s MP is fine, but it should go, for sure, to Bev Oda, Heritage Minister and the PM. That’s where the big decisions are made.
Erik
I commend you that you took the time to write the CBC ombudsman but don’t be so quick in condemning Kate’s readers for taking no action because it is possible many have taken action in different forms but haven’t reported it here.
Myself I not only wrote the CBC ombudsman but I also wrote the following in a note to Tony Burman.
In a couple news items in the last few days done by Margo McDiarmid and Susan Lunn, they both interview failed Liberal candidate Glen Murray, in the last Federal election in Winnipeg Charleswood, and refer to him as an expert on the economy and environment. He is not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, and I assume that was made up by the reporters to give the interview some validity . If they were competent reporters they would have prefaced their remarks with the fact that Murray is a failed Liberal candidate, and listeners could assess his remarks with that knowledge, but instead they try and foist him as an expert on the environment on unsuspecting listeners – shame.
How does the CBC intend to correct or remedy this shoddy reporting?
With whom, in a responsible and capable position, may I share my concern so that I could be assured that this malfeasance will be addressed and some action will be taken.
No reply yet.
Erik Sorenson :
Instead, all I read here and in the original post is moaning and non-topical rants. Ineffective, completely. All of you.
Although I agree with the first part of your post. This last sentence is simply uncalled for, if not pretentiously uncouth. You neither know what individuals have done privately by their own lights, nor the many people who did write in. I guess you missed their posts?
Most Folks here have been brought up not to blow their own horn, or boast about all the petitions, polls, government officials we have all wrote at one time or another I am sure.
Your last comment was iniquitous, specious & without any underpinning, but your own fervid emotions. Stick around a while & see what really occurs here on SDA. Things do happen.
Your sounding a little high in the saddle with overtones of haughtiness.
Happy Trails
Sorry to go slightly sideways on this topic, but it concerns Glowball Worming:
w3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012200917_pf.html
The New Religion is about to enter the realm of the New Totalitarianism. Stalinism lives again with the mask of saving the world!
I will give them, Liberals, credit. They are very good at what they do and the infest much of public life and many of the public organs in the country.
Which is why you never take your foot off their throat when it is finally on.
this is easily done, the CBC didnt make this up this came from a Liberal spinners operating on the reporter, who doesnt check back. More importantly it is a new spin on it that ties to current interest and helps make it a “good story” , i.e. readable and of interest.
The fact taht it is not true is beside the point. It isn’t a lie, just not accurate…if you get my meaning.
Once again, a grudging admiration and those who oppose them need to understand that you NEVER ignore them or let up on them. It will take years of pressure and defeat to break them.
Erik, I too emailed the CBC Ombudsman regarding the shoddy Gendron reporting on Friday and got exactly the same “form reply” as you did. I also await an answer from the “Executive Producer”.
I have a feeling that there are many of us out here who sent a line or two to the CBC Ombudsman lately….
Charley
gotta love it….the pm of France is publicly stating that she supports Quebec independance….I can hardly wait to see citoyen dion’s stick-handling of this one….I can hear it now ‘ just becuz I am da citoyen de France, does not mean I am da sepratiste, honest..do u like da new packback?’….please, can we just get the next election rolling to rid this moron from the national scene!
The Goodale Budget was so full of manure that calling it a Green Budget is probably not far from the truth.
While I can’t abide most of what the CBC turns out, their children’s programming early in the morning isn’t half bad. I wouldn’t mind subscribing to a cable channel that offered that sort of fare out of my own pocket (no need for others to subsidize my daughter’s viewing).
I used the “report typo” URL on the CBC story page to alert them to this obvious typo.
Story in Pyjama Media titled
Climate scientists beginning to feel the heat. Have we gone to far, have we created a monster. (paraphrased) Evidence now that global warming did not cause Katrina, and it was hotter in 1930 than 2006.
Well worth the read. Watch for a huge turnaround in a few months, sort of like the car seat safety issue.
Also known as the “Coronation Place Channel”.
The fact that many posters here write, call and e-mail the cbc daily is well known. We just don’t tell everytime we get/don’t get a reply. I call their talkback number several times a day, to point out lies during the show being aired. Like yesterday, when McQuinty, shadow environment minister, stated that the announcement made by the minister, did not mention kyoto, or the secret deal made re increasing output by 5 fold.
He also had the city and state wrong, he said secret meeting in Washinton etc.
I do think we are having an effect, slowly but surely. If the cbc senses a majority Harper, or another larger minority, they will have to tell the truth about dion, and admit his goofs. Their survival will depend on it.
what, the moonbats/dippers/libranos are wrong on the environment???it can’t be so….citoyen dion is depending on it….well, should be no surprise, they have been wrong on most environmental issues of the last 40 years
1. nuclear – if they let it develop, we would not have even heard of global cooling/warming, climate change/injustice
2. incineration – ok, another one. if we burned the waste using state of the art technology, we would not have the myriad of problems that we have with solid waste
3. recycling – a second set of diesel trucks to pick up half our waste – brilliant
Erik,young man,why would you crow about your activism against the cbc and then in the next breath denounce the readers of this blog with absolutely no proof? Come clean,are you an aspiring cbc wannabe?
Maybe CBC will put themsleves on “Reality Check.”
I have a question, how big an issue is nuclear waste. My understanding, with new techniques, very little (yes, dangerous), waste results.
Maybe we can find a way to deal with this small bit of radioactive waste. Another question, does it really take 200,000 to be safe, as one moonbat argued recently.
It seems the main objection, waste, to nuclear energy has been hyped too.
If you are a true Liberal in this country, concerned as can be about Screwball warming, you will show your fellow citizens that you are no hypocrit and drive no faster than the speed limit to ensure you emit minimal greenhouse gases. Right?
Touchy, touchy,
“Tories to spend $300M on renewable energy
Series of initiatives similar to proposals in Liberals’ so-called Green Budget of 2005 ”
Attaching “so-called” before an adjective isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement in common paralance. If you’re going to work yourself into a lather over something I’d look for something more substantial.
Kitchener-Waterloo Record, 23 February, 2005
Liberals to unveil ‘green’ budget; With $11B, environmental projects top list; Kyoto, urban infrastructure get $5B each
http://moreresults.factiva.com/results/index/index.aspx?ref=TKWR000020050223e12n0000n
Just one mention, hardly enough to enter the common parlance.
Hard to figure out this article in SDA.Is it intended to suggest that
1.The Cons did not, so far, offer a number of things previously offered by the last liberal gov.
2. The Cons had watered down, or reduced, every one of them (so far)
3. Considered all together these are a bunch of little good things.
4.None of them touch the interest of the big emitters.
5. Considered all together they do not suggest any overall plan.
6. It does not make much sense to go after residential emitters while doing zip about industry and transport.
7. If there is to be cap and trade the evidence so far is that the adoption of the “trade” part results in virtually no reductions while the big emitters and most others go on with business as usual. Just the other day we saw the badly discredited European carbon “trade” price tank. All the carbon cap and trade mechanisms have been failures to date. See Carbon Trade by L. Lohmann pub by Dag Hammerskold Institute. Available on the net for free.
The answer to all the above is “yes that is so”
Are we not going to at least try to do better in Canada?
All references to Green Budget have been removed from the story.
Garhane-
I’m skeptical of cap and trade myself in light of the fact that a) it involves spending a lot of money without reducing any emissions and b) encourages countries to undereport and outright lie about their emissions (it’s suspected for instance that the UK’s emissions might be 20-30% higher than official estimates).
Cap and trade might just be a scheme whereby large corporations bilk the government out of their environment and alternative energy budgets.
Plus you also have the travesty of rainforests being cut down to grow palm oil for biofuels which promises to be profitable for the produces but which makes zero sense environmentaly.
Big money equals big corruption, the only antidote is due dilligence on behalf of the voting public.
Who measures emmissions and how do they measure them. I have never read how they do that.
“Who measures emmissions and how do they measure them. I have never read how they do that.”
I can’t say for every country but the UK basicaly goes by estimates by industry (based on industry reporting) and simply adds everything up. The problem with that system is that everyone involved is incentivized to low ball if they can get away with it.
However there are new techniques for measuring emissions. Simply place a number of sensors around the place, get readings for how much C02 and methane are blowing off a country, do some math and you can get a better estimate of how much a country is really emitting. The UK at least is emitting a lot more than it says it does. I suspect most countries are.
I am trying to contact a Sandra Steeves, originally from Nova Scotia. Daughter of Jean Knickle Steeves. May be living in Ontario presently.