"Writing will be a sort of work. They say work makes man kind-hearted and honest. Well, here is a chance for me, anyway."
-Fyodor Dostoevsky
Thursday, January 17, 2008
What Keen's Firing Says About Harper's Tories
I think the most straightforward lesson to take away from the tarring of Linda Keen as a Liberal hack and her subsequent firing is that we have yet another example of how the Conservatives view everything as a partisan opportunity. This is the Karl Rove strategy perfected in the US.
What I'm going to suggest to the Liberals and the NDP and the Greens is that, by Harper's rules, everything is fair game. Every time you can score partisan points, recognize that, if Harper was in your position, he would not hesitate. I don't know that this is the most tasteful way that politics is done, but you've got give as good as you get, right?
I heard this on the radio in the early morning hours, but Harper has canned Linda Keen, the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission for, um, doing her job? Embarrassing Gary Lunn? I don't know, but imagine what would have happened if Paul Martin had fired the auditor general, Sheila Fraser for embarrassing his government. Of course that would be unthinkable - an outrage in the opposition's eyes, Fraser was exposing a slush fund in Quebec! This is just about, you know, nuclear fucking safety!!! No big deal, eh Steve?
Apparently there is work being done on some kind of US-led nuclear power agreement. From the Star article:
"The initiative, called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, proposes that nuclear energy-using countries and uranium-exporting countries band together in a new nuclear club to promote and safeguard the industry.
Central to the plan is a proposal that all used nuclear fuel be repatriated to the original uranium exporting country for disposal.
That should be big news in Canada, the world's largest uranium producer."
Oh, I feel good about that. Best of all, the article says that Harper is being characteristically tight-lipped about this. Perhaps he hopes that no one will notice that we are signing on as a nuclear waste-dump. A great deal of Canada's economic history has revolved around harvesting resources, exporting them to other countries that add value, and then buying back the value-added final products. Now we may be agreeing to harvest resources, export them to other countries who add value and then we will be forced to take back the waste. Stand up for Canada, eh Harper?
Of course "green" means whatever an author wants it to mean, so perhaps it is for Taylor. You can call a car "green" but it's not as green as walking. I'm not sure what Taylor thinks is going to happen with all those incredibly radioactive fuel rods for the next several centuries. Can we keep them at his house?
Don't worry though, this is the best part:
"From an engineering perspective, we want select[sic] methods of energy production that maximizes output, minimizes cost and minimizes waste."
HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's funny, Stephen, ever heard of the Darlington nuclear plant? It ended up costing over $14 billion dollars. At the time it was often said that the only megaproject that had cost more was the Channel Tunnel. How about the cost of refurbishing the Pickering nuclear reactors? A billion here, a billion there and soon, as they say, you're talking about real money.
Of course maybe this is just a problem with CANDU reactors and Ontario ought to let free market competition determine whether France's Areva (among others) has a more reliable, cheaper product. But wait, Taylor's own party seems to want to insist on a sort of CANDU monopoly in Ontario. At least that's what I gather from Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn's take on any new nuclear construction in Ontario. That sounds like a great way to minimize cost and waste. Given enough time, between this and all the no-bid military contracts, the Conservatives are going to make adscam seem like a bargain.
