Uncategorized
Allegations against Kavanaugh pose test for #MeToo movement
NEW YORK — Nearly a year old and still making headlines almost daily, the #MeToo movement faces a dramatic test of its impact and staying power in the sexual assault allegations against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Leaders of the movement suggest that Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, might have never found the courage to come forward publicly about an alleged assault from her high school days without the examples set by women worldwide who’ve spoken out about past encounters with sexual assault and harassment.
“Time and time again, people have been inspired by the people who came before them,” said Fatima Goss Graves, president of the National Women’s Law Center. “They are willing to take on the risk of retaliation.”
Goss Graves is heartened by the fact that numerous senators of both parties say Ford deserves a chance to be heard on Capitol Hill — in itself, she said, an indication of the #MeToo movement’s staying power.
The movement exploded worldwide in October 2017, sparked by detailed allegations of sexual misconduct against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. Across the U.S., and in many foreign countries, it has toppled powerful men in a wide range of fields — entertainment, journalism, politics and high tech, among others. Celebrity chefs, TV hosts and members of Congress are among those who have lost their jobs.
Almost from the start, it also fueled a backlash among those who felt the movement sometimes led to excesses and injustice. Ford’s allegations have rekindled that resentment.
Conservative actor James Woods, in a subsequently deleted tweet, depicted hers accusations as one of numerous “#MeTooLynchings.” The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial Monday titled “The #MeToo Kavanaugh Ambush.”
“Letting an accusation that is this old, this unsubstantiated and this procedurally irregular defeat Mr. Kavanaugh would also mean weaponizing every sexual assault allegation no matter the evidence,” the editorial said. “It will tarnish the #MeToo cause with the smear of partisanship.”
Actor Sean Penn chimed in, suggesting it would be good for #MeToo “to just slow down.”
Even aside from the Ford-Kavanaugh showdown, this has been a tumultuous season for the #MeToo movement. Among the most recent developments:
—Two of the most powerful men in the U.S. television industry lost their jobs at least partly due to sexual misconduct allegations. Les Moonves stepped down as head of CBS Corp. and the network fired “60 Minutes” executive producer Jeff Fager. Both men have denied the accusations.
—A video of Harvey Weinstein aired on TV showing him propositioning a woman who later accused him of rape, repeatedly touching her and stroking her arm and back during what was supposed to have been a business meeting.
—”The Tonight Show”
—Comedian Bill Cosby is scheduled to be sentenced Sept. 24 on three felony sex assault charges. He was convicted in April of drugging and molesting a woman at his home in 2004, and faces up to 10 years in prison on each of three felony counts.
As these cases indicate, much of #MeToo’s high-profile impact has been in the entertainment and media world. Noreen Farrell, executive director of San Francisco-based Equal Rights Advocates, said more work is needed to persuade employers in other sectors to crack down on sexual misconduct.
“While we have seen some celebrity-level public shaming over serial harassers and enablers, employers seem to be digging in and resisting change,” said Farrell, noting that the business lobby in California has been fighting hard against proposed anti-harassment legislation.
Among the many women in politics who have embraced the #MeToo movement is Gayle Goldin, a Democratic state legislator in Rhode Island who has campaigned against sexual misconduct.
She said the Ford-Kavanaugh case will be an important indicator of how public attitudes have changed since 1991, when Anita Hill was treated dismissively by senators of both parties when she
Reflecting back to the 1990s, Goldin added, “The MeToo movement is not one moment in time, it is the culmination of pain by generations of women.”
“People are seeking justice, but that is not necessarily about the individual,” she said. “We are ultimately talking about culture change.”
David Crary, The Associated Press
Uncategorized
Mortgaging Canada’s energy future — the hidden costs of the Carney-Smith pipeline deal
Much of the commentary on the Carney-Smith pipeline Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has focused on the question of whether or not the proposed pipeline will ever get built.
That’s an important topic, and one that deserves to be examined — whether, as John Robson, of the indispensable Climate Discussion Nexus, predicted, “opposition from the government of British Columbia and aboriginal groups, and the skittishness of the oil industry about investing in a major project in Canada, will kill [the pipeline] dead.”
But I’m going to ask a different question: Would it even be worth building this pipeline on the terms Ottawa is forcing on Alberta? If you squint, the MOU might look like a victory on paper. Ottawa suspends the oil and gas emissions cap, proposes an exemption from the West Coast tanker ban, and lays the groundwork for the construction of one (though only one) million barrels per day pipeline to tidewater.
But in return, Alberta must agree to jack its industrial carbon tax up from $95 to $130 per tonne at a minimum, while committing to tens of billions in carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) spending, including the $16.5 billion Pathways Alliance megaproject.
Here’s the part none of the project’s boosters seem to want to mention: those concessions will make the production of Canadian hydrocarbon energy significantly more expensive.
As economist Jack Mintz has explained, the industrial carbon tax hike alone adds more than $5 USD per barrel of Canadian crude to marginal production costs — the costs that matter when companies decide whether to invest in new production. Layer on the CCUS requirements and you get another $1.20–$3 per barrel for mining projects and $3.60–$4.80 for steam-assisted operations.
While roughly 62% of the capital cost of carbon capture is to be covered by taxpayers — another problem with the agreement, I might add — the remainder is covered by the industry, and thus, eventually, consumers.
Total damage: somewhere between $6.40 and $10 US per barrel. Perhaps more.
“Ultimately,” the Fraser Institute explains, “this will widen the competitiveness gap between Alberta and many other jurisdictions, such as the United States,” that don’t hamstring their energy producers in this way. Producers in Texas and Oklahoma, not to mention Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or Russia, aren’t paying a dime in equivalent carbon taxes or mandatory CCUS bills. They’re not so masochistic.
American refiners won’t pay a “low-carbon premium” for Canadian crude. They’ll just buy cheaper oil or ramp up their own production.
In short, a shiny new pipe is worthless if the extra cost makes barrels of our oil so expensive that no one will want them.
And that doesn’t even touch on the problem for the domestic market, where the higher production cost will be passed onto Canadian consumers in the form of higher gas and diesel prices, home heating costs, and an elevated cost of everyday goods, like groceries.
Either way, Canadians lose.
So, concludes Mintz, “The big problem for a new oil pipeline isn’t getting BC or First Nation acceptance. Rather, it’s smothering the industry’s competitiveness by layering on carbon pricing and decarbonization costs that most competing countries don’t charge.” Meanwhile, lurking underneath this whole discussion is the MOU’s ultimate Achilles’ heel: net-zero.
The MOU proudly declares that “Canada and Alberta remain committed to achieving Net-Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” As Vaclav Smil documented in a recent study of Net-Zero, global fossil-fuel use has risen 55% since the 1997 Kyoto agreement, despite trillions spent on subsidies and regulations. Fossil fuels still supply 82% of the world’s energy.
With these numbers in mind, the idea that Canada can unilaterally decarbonize its largest export industry in 25 years is delusional.
This deal doesn’t secure Canada’s energy future. It mortgages it. We are trading market access for self-inflicted costs that will shrink production, scare off capital, and cut into the profitability of any potential pipeline. Affordable energy, good jobs, and national prosperity shouldn’t require surrendering to net-zero fantasy.If Ottawa were serious about making Canada an energy superpower, it would scrap the anti-resource laws outright, kill the carbon taxes, and let our world-class oil and gas compete on merit. Instead, we’ve been handed a backroom MOU which, for the cost of one pipeline — if that! — guarantees higher costs today and smothers the industry that is the backbone of the Canadian economy.
This MOU isn’t salvation. It’s a prescription for Canadian decline.
The cost of the bureaucracy increased by $6 billion last year, according to newly released numbers in Public Accounts disclosures. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney to immediately shrink the bureaucracy.
“The Public Accounts show the cost of the federal bureaucracy is out of control,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Tinkering around the edges won’t cut it, Carney needs to take urgent action to shrink the bloated federal bureaucracy.”
The federal bureaucracy cost taxpayers $71.4 billion in 2024-25, according to the Public Accounts. The cost of the federal bureaucracy increased by $6 billion, or more than nine per cent, over the last year.
The federal bureaucracy cost taxpayers $39.6 billion in 2015-16, according to the Public Accounts. That means the cost of the federal bureaucracy increased 80 per cent over the last 10 years. The government added 99,000 extra bureaucrats between 2015-16 and 2024-25.
Half of Canadians say federal services have gotten worse since 2016, despite the massive increase in the federal bureaucracy, according to a Leger poll.
Not only has the size of the bureaucracy increased, the cost of consultants, contractors and outsourcing has increased as well. The government spent $23.1 billion on “professional and special services” last year, according to the Public Accounts. That’s an 11 per cent increase over the previous year. The government’s spending on professional and special services more than doubled since 2015-16.
“Taxpayers should not be paying way more for in-house government bureaucrats and way more for outside help,” Terrazzano said. “Mere promises to find minor savings in the federal bureaucracy won’t fix Canada’s finances.
“Taxpayers need Carney to take urgent action and significantly cut the number of bureaucrats now.”
Table: Cost of bureaucracy and professional and special services, Public Accounts
| Year | Bureaucracy | Professional and special services |
|
$71,369,677,000 |
$23,145,218,000 |
|
|
$65,326,643,000 |
$20,771,477,000 |
|
|
$56,467,851,000 |
$18,591,373,000 |
|
|
$60,676,243,000 |
$17,511,078,000 |
|
|
$52,984,272,000 |
$14,720,455,000 |
|
|
$46,349,166,000 |
$13,334,341,000 |
|
|
$46,131,628,000 |
$12,940,395,000 |
|
|
$45,262,821,000 |
$12,950,619,000 |
|
|
$38,909,594,000 |
$11,910,257,000 |
|
|
$39,616,656,000 |
$11,082,974,000 |
The “Disruptor-in-Chief” places Canada in the crosshairs
UK Police Pilot AI System to Track “Suspicious” Driver Journeys
Judge Declares Mistrial in Landmark New York PRC Foreign-Agent Case
Canadian government launches trial version of digital ID for certain licenses, permits
World-leading biochemist debunks evolutionary theory
Ottawa-Alberta agreement may produce oligopoly in the oilsands
Warning Canada: China’s Economic Miracle Was Built on Mass Displacement
-
Haultain Research1 day agoSweden Fixed What Canada Won’t Even Name
-
Business1 day agoWhat Do Loyalty Rewards Programs Cost Us?
-
Business21 hours agoLand use will be British Columbia’s biggest issue in 2026
-
Digital ID9 hours agoThe Global Push for Government Mandated Digital IDs And Why You Should Worry
-
Business6 hours agoFeds pull the plug on small business grants to Minnesota after massive fraud reports
-
Energy22 hours agoWhy Japan wants Western Canadian LNG
-
Business19 hours agoMainstream media missing in action as YouTuber blows lid off massive taxpayer fraud
-
Business18 hours agoStripped and shipped: Patel pushes denaturalization, deportation in Minnesota fraud