GPC Policy and Campaign Focus

I’m one of many GPC members who believe we are often too negative and harp too much on Climate Change. It’s not that I don’t believe it’s important but it’s not an easy topic to use while trying to capture someone’s attention at the door or in a 20 second sound bite. (Yeah like most GPC candidates ever get to give a sound bite, bwahahaha!)

So why bother trying to sell it? We have lots of policies and many of them resonate with what people claim are important issues to them. Greens stand for many things and I believe we forget our guiding principles because we ourselves are panicked by the coming Warmageddon! (new word, I like it)

I think Vanessa Long, GPC candidate of record for Newmarket Aurora has the right idea of what we should really be trying to sell.

.Recommend this Post

Can the Pope be Impeached?

Let's face it, this man has just lost all credibility as the moral authority for the Catholic Church.

It's bad enough that he can get away with the stupid claim he made in Africa that Condoms make the HIV/AIDS epidemic worse but now there is proof he knew a convicted pedophile was once again working with children and yet he did nothing.

While his loyal minions are more than willing to take the fall for him, this new document firmly put the blame on his office while he was still a Cardinal in Germany

Like our secular society I think Catholic Church needs more transparency, accountability and democracy.

Perhaps the CAPP folks can help them out.
Catholics against Pedophile Priests. It has a nice ring to it and it's something that any true believer should be able to support against a church bureaucracy that does not give a shit!

As to my question; short of causing a schism and being declared anti-pope is there anyway for the Ecumenical Council to actually boot Ratzy out of office?

.Recommend this Post

Iggy at his Stupid, Out of Touch, Americanized best

Once again Iggy adds another issue to the list of things that don't make him progressive, don't differentiates him from a Conservative and just don't make sense.





Great talk to the kids, Iggy

No discussion on the costs involved in enforcing laws people don’t support and will continue to ignore.

No discussion on the relative harm pot causes vs. legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol. Hint, a UN study says says that pot is less harmful and addictive than tobacco or alcohol, the study also shows that legalization causes less harm to both society and individuals than our current laws.

No discussion on the possible tax revenue that could fund the treatment for the users of hard drugs and lower deficits

No discussion on ensuring a safe product for our citizens who use, like no contamination from fertilizer residue, pcb, paraquat,etc

No discussion on defunding crime syndicates.


Yes to giving up our sovereignty to U.S. concerns

Yes to more jails filled with people who have hurt no one but themselves, if anybody!

Yes to speaking down to kids. Kids who in ever increasing numbers will never bother voting , or at least not for Iggy.

Is this the great leader who will lead the Liberals from the wilderness? Yeah right!

And before someone comments, yes I can pass a blood test.

.Recommend this Post

Citizens Engaging Democracy - event Videos

On Feb 25 the Newmarket-Aurora members of CAPP held their first event as CEDNA , Citizens Engaging Democracy, Newmarket Aurora. The keynote speaker for the function was Doctor Marco Fonseca, Professor of international Studies at York University. Dr Fonseca discussed our democracy, the threats against it and need to make it part of our daily lives not just a blip that shows up every 4 years or so when an election is called.

Dr Fonseca’s talk runs about 30 min and from the reception he received from the local crowd I’m sure you will enjoy it.


part 1


part 2


part 3


part 4

While seeing the videos is great, those who couldn't attend also missed the opportunity to watch MP Lois Brown scowl for 30 minutes straight. She was scrunching her face up SOOO! hard I honestly though she would crack the bridge of her nose.
I wished we had a second Camera to catch her reactions, they were hilarious

For anyone in the area who’d like to help organize, fund, promote or even just attend more such events Contact CEDNA
on facebook, or contact me and I will get you in touch with the organizers.
.Recommend this Post

Stephen Harper's New National Anthem

Looking into O Canada's history I've found that the song has had several vastly different variations before it was finally set as the one we know with the National Anthem act in 1980, so I guess it's not too shocking or offensive that Harper wants to make a change, it's just damn unbelievable that he gives a shit about the issue.

What I would like to know does the line "in all thy sons command" actually offend anyone? I've never heard my most feminist friends say anything about needing a gender neutral anthem, have you? I believe they are more concerned with the loss of funding for women's groups, the lack of pay equity in government jobs and the fear that reproductive rights will reduced.

Either way all Harper is likely to do is change one line, which in the big scheme means next to nothing. So let's ignore Harper's little distraction over nothing and create our own Conservative versions of the anthem, Something you think Harper would really like, here's mine feeble attempt as an example.

O Canada
On stolen native land
True patriot love but not between two men
With glowing heart we see the rise
of big oil subsidies
From far and wide
O Canada, we stand on hypocrisy
God keep our land, mostly Muslim free
O Canada we stand on hypocrisy
O Canada we stand on hypocrisy

.Recommend this Post

Should Greens consider Thorium reactors?

Debate topic for pragmatic GREENs

Thanks to a tweet by Enviralment I just read an article on Thorium reactor technology that I think people should read. Thorium reactors have been around for quite some time but because of their inability to be weaponized they never received the same funding or hype that conventional (uranium) reactor technology received. I've looked at thorium technology a number of times not only as because I love tech stuff but also as GREEN compromise position to the outright moratorium on nuclear plants.

Thorium has a number of major advantages or Uranium reactors

1. Fuel is 10 times more abundant and readily available in the waste streams of existing metal mines. This will ensure a good supply without additional mining of any kind especially Uranium mining. Thorium technology will also keep fuel prices low compared to what will happen if a major build out of new Uranium reactors is begun. Ur prices have been suppressed for decades because of the availability of reprocessed Russian warheads taken out of service in arms control deals, this supply stream is ending and Ur prices will skyrocket in the next decade if major new projects come on line.

2. Thorium reactors are self regulating and don't need expensive and dangerous high pressure systems, lower costs and lower risk.

3. Thorium waste is only hot for a couple hundred years and contains fewer exotic and toxic materials. While still a major storage problem this fact greatly improves the long term logistics of nuclear waste.

4. Thorium reactors can be built without worries of weapon development, You can't make a bomb from it so places like Iran can build them without threatening their neighbours.

5. Thorium reactors can be used to downgrade the toxicity of other nuclear wastes containing plutonium while using them as part of the fuel mix. This reduces dangerous waste and weapons grade fuel, win/win.

So, if an increase in nuclear reactors is inevitable as many people including some environmentalists now believe would it not make sense to throw our support behind a more earth friendly nuclear alternative (thorium) rather than stubbornly demand no nukes at all?

In a energy deficient future were we may lose the all or nothing argument against Uranium reactors, is thorium both viable and comparably safe enough that greens should consider this technology a compromise position to a nuclear moratorium?


I'm realistic/pessimistic enough to believe we may well lose the nuclear argument in a energy starved future, I'm also pragmatic enough to think we should at least debate a lesser of evils compromise where both sides can claim a victory?

I'm torn but would still like to see it debated by real environmental and nuclear experts

What do you think?

.Recommend this Post