If you haven't seen this video, it's worth a watch - for Hedges' example of handling a shallow and insulting interviewer, while still getting his point across. Below is a more recent interview by The Straight, which includes his current perspective on his experience at the CBC.
GS: Last year you were ambushed by the CBC. Were you aware of Kevin O’Leary’s reputation before you went on?
CH: I never heard of the guy. And it was really depressing because it was the CBC, and if it was the CBC that it used to be—the CBC or the BBC—and they wanted me, I would go, because I thought they were a first-class news organizations. And the next thing you know, I’m on with an idiot who should be on Fox News. And I was furious because I was in the middle of a huge Occupy demonstration in Washington, and I walked to the CBC studios from it, and it was a waste of my time. And unfortunately I think it’s just emblematic of Harper’s assault against journalism that somebody like this would ever be on a current-affairs program.
GS: We interviewed him here shortly after. He doesn’t think he did anything wrong.
CH: Well, these guys are idiots. They’re really idiots, and because they can’t compete with you on ideas they descend to insults and character assassination, because that’s the only level of discourse they can engage in. That’s why I don’t go on Fox News. I don’t put myself in those positions, because it doesn’t contribute to public discourse in any way.
The most serious public violation of Canadian civil liberties is still unresolved. What's needed to ensure accountability and that it doesn't happen again?
This is an update on a post from 2007. I think most of what I wrote and reproduced on the blog still stands. But apparently the Canadian Government doesn't think so. It has removed all the information I copied from their web site (available below). Pretty much all you find now is information extolling the virtues of compact fluorescents. Yet, still no comprehensive plan to dispose of damaged and expired CFLs (they contain toxic amounts of mercury).
A few updates and additions, courtesy of Wikipedia:
CFLs produce less light later in their lives than when they are new.
The current price of CFLs reflects the manufacturing of nearly all CFLs in China, where labour costs less.
Because of delays when used outside in cold weather, CFLs are not suitable for motion-activated lighting.
If individuals are exposed to the light produced by some single-envelope compact fluorescent lamps for long periods of time at distances of less than 20 cm, it could lead to ultraviolet exposures approaching the current workplace limit set to protect workers from skin and retinal damage.
In the past decade, hundreds of Chinese factory workers who manufacture CFLs for export to first world countries were being poisoned and hospitalized because of mercury exposure.
In some places, such as Quebec and British Columbia, central heating for homes is provided by the burning of natural gas, whereas electricity is primarily provided by hydroelectric or nuclear power. In such areas, heat generated by conventional electric light bulbs significantly reduces the release of greenhouse gases from the natural gas. Ivanco, Karney, and Waher estimate that "If all homes in Quebec were required to switch from (incandescent) bulbs to CFLs, there would be an increase of almost 220,000 tonnes in CO2 emissions in the province, equivalent to the annual emissions from more than 40,000 automobiles."
Buy incandescents while you still can. The price is already going up as demand is exceeding supply. Despite resolutions and requests from many representative bodies, many governments seem determined to go ahead with a ban on incandescent bulbs.
A Canadian government that claims to believe in minimal interference in our lives is telling us how we can light our homes.
An interesting video showing CFLs perfom worse than incandescents in many situations:
-------------------------------------
HERE'S WHAT I POSTED IN 2007:
I'm up there when it comes to minimizing energy use but remain leery about the much-touted compact fluorescent. Interestingly, it took a fair bit of online research to find out the difference in colour spectra of the two. In the end, it was a Government of Canada web page that told me that the old incandescents continue to provide more accurate colour rendition.
The Colour Rendering Index (CRI) of a lamp reflects how accurately the colour of an object can be determined under a given light source. Compact fluorescent lamps have a CRI of 82 (out of 100), which is considered excellent for fluorescent sources and good for artificial light in general. Incandescent lamps have a CRI of 97. Incandescent lamps provide excellent colour rendering because of the full spectrum of colour wavelengths present in the light they produce.
and that compact fluorescents, are affected by temperature, getting less efficient as the temperature moves above or below 25°C
Low temperatures pose the greatest problems for CF lamps. Not all compact fluorescent systems are equally susceptible to low-temperature problems, but in general, as temperature drops, so does light output and efficacy. At very low temperatures (below 32°F or 0°C), lamp output can decline to one-third the rated value or less. It is important to note that some CF lamps will have to warm up a while before producing sufficient light under cold conditions, some may take several minutes to ignite, and some won't start at all.
High ambient temperatures can be produced around enclosed CF lamps in interior lighting applications. In addition, less-efficient ballasts will introduce more heat into fixture enclosures. The IES Lighting Handbook points out that a 1% loss in light output (for fluorescent lamps in general) can be expected for every 2°F (1.1°C) above the optimum ambient temperature of 76°F (25°C). Efficiency can also drop, to some degree, at these higher temperatures. Ventilated fixtures for CF lamps remove excess heat from the enclosure.
. . . and that compact fluorescents deteriorate quicker with increased frequency of on-off switching.
While incandescent lamps do not suffer any reduction in service life from switching, fluorescent lamps do to a small extent. Consequently, the costs of shortened lamp life should not be overlooked when considering CF lamps in applications requiring frequent switching.
Recycling of ballasts is another issue. Is this the old nuclear energy argument in a nutshell: great energy but serious pollution/disposal problems?
So, while I want them to succeed, I'm being very conservative in switching, presently having only two: one in our crawl-space and one providing supplementary lighting for some indoor plants.
Investments and vested interests can cloud vision. Maybe there's enough in this video to break through a few hardened hearts, hardened to the state of our planet and its people.
I think I'd have more respect for someone who said, I know it may be hurting our planet and its people but I still think it's the best thing to do. Instead most support for the tar-sands seems to rely on smoke and mirrors. Meanwhile, true to the pattern of addiction (money, oil . . . ), it is the addiction that drives. And, of course, the whole family suffers; in this case, the human family, starting with the most vulnerable:
The evidence is clear. Even though you may dismiss some of it, the dictatorial and dismissive way in which Stephen Harper regards those he is supposedly serving is unprecedented in modern Canadian democracy. Along with this go many decisions and practices that treat people, the legal system and the parliamentary system with disdain and even contempt.
• To raise funds, the Tories promoted the HST, which moves the tax burden from corporations to consumers, increasing the cost of essentials like food and heat. The Ontario government has admitted that this will cost citizens at least $500 a year per family.
• Harper and Company earned a reputation for heavy-handed stonewalling during the UN Climate Change negotiations in Copenhagen. In Cancun, they lobbied against an extension of the Kyoto Accord - which they have continued to ignore in spite of the 2010 weather horrors, estimated to cost $220 billion globally.
• More stonewalling and what some saw as "contempt of Parliament" led to an extraordinary ruling by Speaker Peter Milliken, condemning the government for a breach of parliamentary privilege because it refused to release uncensored documents. Thanks to Harper's manoeuvres, however, the torture issue is now lost in the complexities of an ad hoc parliamentary committee.
• Crime rates are down and the population is ageing, but the Harper government claims it must introduce tougher laws, incarcerate more Canadians, and spend $9 billion for more prisons - some of them American-style super-prisons - because of an increase in "unreported" crime.
• A new report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives think-tank says that harsher prison conditions, longer sentences, and more crowded prisons will increase the chance that criminals will re-offend. Already, prisoners have to wait too long for rehabilitation programs and are being crowded into cells, contrary to United Nations standards.
• Harper has helped stop the UN from declaring asbestos a dangerous substance, and still promotes exports to poorer countries.
• Harper abandoned our internationally praised development partnership with eight of the poorest countries in Africa. Instead, he is focussing on Colombia - a militarized, right-wing country with government death squads.
• Prime Minister Harper campaigned on accountability and transparency. The Information Commissioner has found the Harper government the most secretive ever when it comes to Access to Information requests; one senior government aide was caught interfering with the process.
• There is an atmosphere of "trench warfare" and "disdain" as the government refuses to co-operate with parliamentary committees. Staff members, who should be accountable to the public, are no longer allowed to testify before them.
• Contrary to his position as an opponent of the unelected Senate, Harper used his new majority to recently stop a climate change bill passed by the elected majority in the House of Commons.
• Elections Canada is battling with a few former Tory candidates; police have raided their offices, over what are considered systematic attempts to hide national campaign expenses during the 2006 election.
How long will we voters take this "beating"? Will enough of us break the spell and leave this abusive leader? Or will we continue to rationalize his behaviour and put up with the abuse?
Watch his behaviour through this perspective and you will see how much of his "leadership" is based on fear, including inciting fear of the alternatives to his rule.
The opportunity is getting closer: an election and the ballot box could be the opportunity to elect a party with social vision and respect for our democracy.
Bad news and good: the cavalry ain't coming - but this is not a job for the cavalry.
Richard Heinberg's been putting this stuff out for a very long time. I know this in more detail than most because I ran his web site for a few years. Sad to say, while his message is updated, it's not that different from what he was saying ten years and more ago. Scientists have known for a lot longer that we are heading for a fuel crisis that is threatening the foundation of most developed economies and cultures as well as the viability of our planet as we know it. But, what do scientists know? Just find one doubter with a degree in something and we can dismiss the seriousness of the situation and continue heading in the same direction.
Solutions are around but, for now, here's a little tool that may help us face the facts. Gotta do that first. My names Jeffrey and I'm a fossil-fuel-aholic. A 12-step process for governments? Maybe. My country's Canada and it's a fossil-fuel-aholic.
Whether you agree with the issues represented or not, this is the kind of interface where our Canadian democracy is eroding: unprecedented restrictions on freedom of expression.
Citizens want justice and those accountable are taking small steps back as slowly as they can. It seems that the wronged demonstrators won't let them get away with it. The police reason for arrests was protection of the public yet they acknowledge there was not a single recorded incidence of violence against the public. Virtually all of it was police assault on civilians, most of whom were doing nothing illegal.
"On Tuesday, the civilian oversight board for the Toronto police force agreed to the parameters for the public inquiry. Victims of the police actions aren't enthused about any of the official paths ahead of them, and are finding their own forms of accountability."
National Post, Two years later: June 10, 2012. ‘Embarrassment to the Canadian government’ considered security threat at Toronto G20 summit: documents "Along with terrorism and organized crime, 'embarrassment to the Canadian government' was considered one of the threats facing security forces at the G8 and G20 summit meetings in Ontario 2010, according to newly released military records." Read about it at The National Post
Legal fallout from police conduct at Toronto's G20 continues and legal implications loom:
Clayton Ruby defends Charlie Veitch, second person charged under Public Works Protection Act. Clayton C. Ruby is one of Canada's leading lawyers specializing in criminal, constitutional, administrative and civil rights law. He currently practices law with the firm of Ruby & Shiller in Toronto.
Comments?
All original material © JN Web Design