Patron-Age

When Howard Roark was first hired by Keating, he was hired because Keating new him- he ignored the fact that he got kicked out of architecture school, and he hired him because Keating new that he would “build things the way he would have wanted them built.” To be honest, it was probably the only good decision Keating made throughout the book. It was nepotism, pure and simple. Nepotism is for the private sector that patronage is for the political system.

I had a nightmare last night- I was nominated to the Supreme Court of Canada. During my "Parliamentary Review" the questioners kept asking me why I left private practice. When I said it was because I liked GR more, they all scoffed. To think, one heckled, that a judge could be involved in politics. Ultimately, when I did ascend to the bench, they didn’t have a Santa outfit that fit me so Bev lent me hers. How emasculating.

In the real world, the Justice Minister just appointed the co-chair of the Tories New Brunswick team as a judge. Patronage is screamed by every person who wants you to listen. Patronage is bad, and it flies in the face of the spirit of accountability. This is the second example the Tories have faced in as many months. The last one was an outcry over the appointment of a long-time Tory donor to a post that paid a whopping $1 per year. That investment did not pan out so well, did it?

If, g-d forbid, I am ever in a position of authority that allows the appointment of people to important positions, not only am I going to rely on patronage, I am going to make the case that defends the existence of it. The first line would be something like “Oh, you should have seen the collection of my slimy friends who didn’t get a job.”

Of course, there are limits, and I am specifically NOT talking about the awarding of contracts. I am talking about positions of trust where people, not their resumes, are important. I know a lot of people, and it is only because I know them that I am confident that they could do these jobs. Most positions that require judicious decision making require a “je ne sais quoi” that only the appointor can truly appreciate. You want the appointee to make the same decisions that you would make if you had the time to make them. It is based on trust. I trust the people I know to do that.

Ironically, there are a lot of people I know who I would specifically NOT trust to do those types of jobs. In a shocking turn of real world events, they are often foisted into positions of significant public trust and when they are asked questions by Senate Committees they say things like “Oh, we don’t count those as donations.”

When you are in charge of something, and somebody asks you about something else entirely, your answer should be “well Senator, that is not in my official purview.” Who gives this guy advice?

One nation, two nation, red nation, blue nation

If it was only about language, Newfoundland (or is it Newfoundland?)would be a nation too.

So, Gilles Duccepeticon (BQ - Laurier) plants a question about Quebec’s status as a nation, and Stephen Harper falls for it hook line and sinker. He says “it really is a semantic debate.” Interestingly, today is officially “multiculturalism day.” I suspect that word will change soon- sounds too much like muslim.

While true (and most of my friends and colleagues are in agreement), it has always been my understanding of politics that when in Rome, you don’t call the Romans Turks.

An interesting analogy is the number of presidential aspirants who have made the “ethanol” pledge in Iowa during the caucuses. In 30 years, over 200 prominent legislators, governors and Cabinet secretaries have made the pledge knowing how silly it was. But, you want those Hawkeyes to vote for you, don't cha.

The same is true in Quebec, who interestingly have the same national colours as Israel. Surrounded by those who are hostile to it and always working to protect its way of life. Jews flee Quebec for Toronto, and cheer for the Maple Leafs...coincidence?

Seriously, why would Harper say what he thinks? Why wouldn’t he just cave and avoid the tempest in the teapot that compact theory has created in modern Canada. Others lament that the R.O.C (Rest of Canada) and multiculturalism of its diverse peoples have evolved beyond the compact theory of Canada.

I believe we have a compact theory, but not the same one that existed prior to confederation. I think Canadians are either a) inwardly focused on their communities or b) externally focused on larger international ideals. I barely care what happens in Vanier, let alone South America

That isn’t to say that externally focused folks don’t care about their communities, or vice-versa, but the first concern is what happens at home, or away, as the case may be. It is my belief that the further you get away from a Starbucks, the more likely you are to be focused on your community. And, coincidentally, the more likely you are as a community to vote Conservative. I am still working on what I call the "latté factor" and the findings are interesting to say the least.

As for Quebec, its political culture is like my cousin’s hair- it completely changes every once and awhile and is in no way consistent or predictable based on previous trends/styles. Who knows how many will say “Franchement, le tête carré a raison. Vive le market libre” and abandon the old axiom of “Je me sovereign.”

I'm sorry

Apparently the over zealous use of colours in my previous post was annoying. I will use the feature more judiciously in the future.

Non-NBA fans were very confused as to why I was colour coding the names of teams and players. I was trying to match players/teams with their team colours. Sadly, some players have played for many teams and it got very confusing.

It applies in more than just the sports world...David Emerson, Scott Brison, Bob Rae and Belinda Stronach. Where they start and end...The best ones are Lucien Bouchard and Stephen Harper...But don't forget Jean Charest. He has one more change to make.

Five Questions about the Miami Heat

I have been a Miami Heat fan since they drafted UNLV Centre George Ackles with the 28th pick of the 1991 Draft. Though furious George never played, I bought a hat and the custom made shirt, so I figured I would stick with them.

On June 20th, 2006, after a seemingly endless string of exceptionally crappy teams, the Miami Heat finally captured the title that I have been rooting for three eons. I will admit that my love for them had died when Zo left the first time, and my revolving allegiances for the Bulls, Lakers and Knicks often ran at odds with my love for the Heat (and each other). I have always cheered for players in the NBA- and when O’neal was traded, I started to hate the Lakers and fell in love with the Heat again.

So, Is Shaquille O’neal the most dominating centre to play the game?

While you can’t compare across generations for obvious reasons, I think we can conclude that if the league changes several rules as a result of you, and other teams resort to specific defensive strategies because of you, the impact that you have had on the game is significant.

People lament Shaq’s inability to hit free throws as a defining characteristic as to why he isn’t great. Two words: Wilt Chamberlain. I understand why people think that the inability to do something so important is career limiting. Gretzky couldn’t play defense either.

Shaq is bigger, stronger, scarier and just plain better than every other centre in the league, and he has been for a long time. Unlike Chamberlain, Shaq plays against people who were taller then 6-9. Shaq changes every game he enters. He force fed the title to Kobe for three years in LA and came to a new team and won a title in two years. Two years. When the Lakers pinned their future on Kobe- that was a wise move, wasn’t it?

Shaq is dominating the NBA in a league with players bigger than him in it. Wilt never had to do that. Shaq is dominating on both defense and offense. Bill Russell wasn’t. Ewing never did win, Robinson had Duncan, Baylor had West and Wilt, Hakeem Olajuwon won his titles in the NBA’s asterisk years (Jordan’s Baseball years) but did beat a 14 year old Shaq in one of his finals. In my opinion, the only person you can compare fairly to Shaq is Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul Jabar) who did it for two teams on both ends. The all time leader in points. Pretty elite company, even if Kareem played in the 70s and 80s when there were not many other seven footers. They certainly didn’t have “hack a kareem.” That baby hook would be in the fifth row in today's NBA.

I am sure they will say the same about Shaq in twenty years when every team as a 7.6 footer on their team.

Is Dwayne Wade going to be the greatest of all time?

Two more words- Michael Jordan. Win six rings on your own and then we will talk. There is no doubt that Flash is currently set to be the next great one given the exposure to big games that he has already had in his young career. Luckily, he will have Kobe and Lebron to compete with for a decade to show how great he is. Russell had Wilt. Magic Had Bird. Jordan had Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Thomas, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Miller and the Chicago White Sox organization. I think he still holds the edge…

While D-Wade was certainly the best player on his team in the finals, and was certainly it’s most valuable, without Shaq he would not have come as far as fast, and without Shaq he would not have won the title. He is still in Scottie Pippen world.

Is Alonzo Mourning the most inspiring athlete of all time?

Yes. This mother fucker is crazy. Less than two years ago, Zo had one of his kidney’s transplanted and had focal glomerulosclerosis. He was traded four times, and after rightfully refusing to go to Toronto (the graveyard for washed up superstars) he landed back on his old team, which had become Shaq’s team. When the heat were up 20 in his first come back game, the ref had to stop the game because the chants for “Zo” were so loud that no one could hear the whistle. Zo got into the game, blocked a shot and the place went bananas.

I saw him practice a few months ago. He was the first on the floor and the last to leave it. His biceps are bigger than my legs. He blocks people’s heads when he misses their shots.

When he retires tomorrow (and now that he has a ring, he has no reason to keep going except the fact that he is crazy), he will retire as probably the most menacing defensive presence in the league.

When he was first drafted by Charlotte, he was forced to play centre because they already had a power forward named Larry Johnson (another UNLV alum, of whom I was a big fan). It wasn’t until he moved onto Miami that he really became the first option, but he never got to be the power forward he was designed to be. I believe that if Zo had played power-forward like he did at Georgetown behind Dikembe Mutombo (seriously, he has played for every team) he would have had a career that rivaled Karl Malone’s. Except this way, he has a ring, something the Mailman never got. I love Alonzo Mourning even though he played for New Jersey.

Will the Heat repeat?

Not a chance in hell. While they are very old, they will have too many people gone. I am not entirely convinced that Shaq will even be back. Gary Payton and Zo are gone for sure, and the long list of goofs that they have on their bench does not a championship team make. However, in terms of free agency draws, the chance to play with D-wade and Shaq has to make them pretty attractive.

Are the Heat a team for the ages?

Sadly, no. They won two series against two better teams. It is likely that they will have four hall of famers (Shaq, Zo, GP and D-wade) while the teams they beat will not, but this was not a team. When they were bad, my Saturday afternoon golf group could have given them a legitimate run. They are, however, the professional sports team that I have loved the most and have followed the most intensely in years. I will miss them.

Punishing Perfection

It seems unfair to do something absolutely perfectly and be punished for it. Rearden did it. Roark did it. Thousands of golfers do it every day. I am of course talking about hitting it into a divot, and not building a rail line or a building.

There are a lot of problems with the rules that govern golf. Best described, it is a civil code that fills gaps with “decisions.” These decisions are about as consistent as the length of the chancellor's foot. I could go on for hours, but I won’t.

This Sunday, on the 72nd hole of the United States Open championship a young man (Ogilvie D Australia) hit his ball straight down the fairway and it came to rest in a divot. A divot is a small hole created by a previous golfer’s shot. The general rule is that a player must “play the ball as it lies.” If FIGJAM Mickleson (Fuck I’m good, just ask me) (R - Arizona) hadn’t totally screwed up, this young golfer could have been denied the U.S. Open because of a stupid rule. I guess it was Karma.

Rules are rules. The reason you aren’t allowed to move it is because “you should play the ball as it lies” and allowing people to move it would create a slippery slope about when it is ok to move it.

The problem is that there are already lots of exceptions. For example, ground under repair, immovable obstructions (buildings), staked trees, sprinkler heads, yardage markers and the list goes on. You will note that in most instances, you have to hit a bad shot to get relief from the above list. I think my point is pretty obvious- if the R&A/USGA is willing to allow you to circumvent the first rule of golf club (pun intended) in these instances, why are they unwilling to grant relief when you hit a perfect shot? I could argue that a divot should be deemed as ground under repair- the repair is just going to take little longer.

You might think I am nuts, but this is actually a serious problem. It is a huge issue on short par fours and on par fives where people are laying back to specific yardages. I was watching one aerial shot of the course, and certain parts of the course looked like it had highly concentrated acne from all the filled divot holes. To make matters worse, most people don't know how to fill divots properly, and so it is even harder to hit a shot out of an improperly filled divot. Basically, you are forced to rely on luck after hitting a perfect shot. It’s stupid. Unfortunately, the analysis doesn’t get much deeper. I could recount the 500 hundred times it has happened to me, and for some odd reason, usually in tournament play. But I digress...

Sadly, the rules are replete with other examples where good shots are punished. For example, you can fix a ball mark on a green but not a spike mark. What is the value of that rule? Luckily, as a direct result of this stupid rule, the golf shoe industry has moved to spike-less technology and most courses have banned golf spikes. As a result, on wet days I sometimes fall down when I swing too hard.

G.A.F.F.

How do you get people to care about animals? Release a few wild predators into the city of Ottawa, and you are sure to get a heightened sense of awareness. In case you didn’t know, it has been three days. 3 DAYS and they still haven’t found the bear that was sighted in Westborough. That is like five minutes from downtown. A freakin’ bear.

And then there is the cougar in Gatineau. I am not talking about the pack of 36 year old single women that descend on Maxwell’s to feed every Friday.

So, how do you get anyone to care about anything? “Everyone in Ottawa has an agenda” is the most overused phrase in the business, but the truth is that everyone with an agenda is in Ottawa. For the most part they follow the same boring formula. Write to an MP, call a Minister’s office, have a reception, take an official on a tour of a facility, etc. You provide decision makers with information, they chose selectively what they will use - I fully realized this on Tuesday when a parliamentarian read an email I sent him pretty much verbatim at a Parliamentary committee. I call it decision based evidence making.

This has significantly reduced the effectiveness of issue advocacy in Ottawa. Decision makers expect you to provide them with a “deck” and a one-pager on every issue under the sun. But, do they actually care?

I call the magic threshold the GAFF (The Give a Fuck Factor.) There is a magical nexus that is very simple to explain by saying “well, this will affect me” but few people actually know why or how it will affect them. For example- Climate change affects me because it will make stuff more expensive and significantly increase the likelihood that I will wake up to an ocean-front view in the Province of Alberta. As if they need something else to make property more expensive.

There are lots of ways to increase the GAFF. It is part of the cube. Want people to start caring about Muslim extremists? Fly a couple of planes into a building. You have to do something that will make people take notice.

GAFF is the first and only question that every advocate should be able to answer. The biggest problem is that most people won’t ask it. Decision makers will patiently wait for you to finish your presentation, say they will follow up with you, and usher you out the back door while the next group is meeting their staff at the front. The first sentence out of any advocates mouth after “nice to see you” should be “the reason this is important to you and your constituents is… I tell clients that if they can’t explain the problem, the effect and the solution in three sentences, they are in trouble.

But sometimes, you convince them too early and they stop listening. No solution is ever achieved by making something that is already illegal more illegal. For example- street racing will not be solved by changing “reckless driving” and “criminal negligence causing death” to “racing without a license.” And there is the delicate balance- you need an issue which can be solved by a simple policy but you also need a policy that isn’t so simple that it won’t accomplish anything.

Nostra-damn us

Just for the record, I am willing to bet a significant amount of money that "An Inconvenient Truth" wins an academy award for best documentary, and while it is unlikely, the idiots in the academy are just dumb/crooked enough to have it get some votes, if not a nomination, for best picture.

Imagine the speech afterwards...

"Ladies and Gentlemen,
Now that I am in the distuinguished company of one Michael Moore, I feel that is in incumbent for me to lambast the President of these united states..."

Or declare his candidacy in his acceptance speech.

And suddenly, all of Hillary's money in Hollywood will dis-a-pear.

Oh, You will know...

On Thursday I was able to reach out to elected officials and discuss the merits of free trade. On Friday, I dealt with senior executives (in French) about new environmental announcements in Quebec. Saturday, I couldn't convince a three year old to eat.

I sat with Liam (3) and Maia (1) for three hours on Saturday night. Not the most exciting plans in the world, but adventuresome for sure. I had three jobs:

1) Feed them
2) Put them to bed
3) Make sure the house didn't burn down

Before they left, I asked a lot of questions and the answer was "oh, you will know." It didn't seem that comforting at the time, but as the night progressed, it became very clear what they meant.

For example, when I asked how I would know when Maia was done eating and her mother said "oh, you will know" I figured a light would come on or something. Not that she would throw peas and yogurt at me. Similarly, when I asked how I would know that Liam had to go to the bathroom, I figured he would just tell me. I did not count on the song "It is time for me to pee" sung in F. The lyrics were pretty cool.

Imagine a grassroots communications strategy that was that simple. Adults have an uncanny ability to take very simple messages and make them virtually incomprehensible. Even the government with its five priorities have taken very clear messages and nuanced them to the point that they don't actually mean anything.

Adults are also very adept at taking very complicated messages and boiling them down to trite and unrelated thoughts. For example, "Free trade creates high paying jobs in Canada" is a very simple way of expressing that which is described in endless volumes of economic analysis about the virtues of liberalized trade. Except they leave out the part about high paying jobs leaving the jurisdiction for a couple eons to be replaced with different high paying jobs that require new skills that most 50 year old assembly workers don't have.

In other words, why is it that I can always figure out fairly quickly what a child is trying to communicate while adults who allegedly have the power of language can't be so easily comprehended? Maybe it is because kids only need four things: Food, love, sleep and toy trains, apparently.

Cat People in Government?

I knew there was something about that guy I couldn't trust.

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=5&id=1147

It is official- this government does more for homeless pets than it does for homeless people. Bravo.

So, is this an attempt to make the PM look nice and fluffy? Good Lord, does anyone actually buy this tripe? It worked for Lyndon Johnson (D? - Texas) - but he was actually beating the dog. Given Mr. Harper's (C - Calgary Southwest) recent media...unavailability, it makes me wonder if he uses Mao mix to feed these furry beasts.

What is it about having pets that humanizes politicians? Does it make them more like you and me? Well, personally, I hate animals. Especially dolphins. They are plotting to take over the world and once they get their flippers with opposeable thumbs we are totally screwed.

Instead of wasting valuable time taking pictures with allergenic disenfranchised felines who are a draw on the economy, I wish the PM would take a few minutes to meet with some actual stakeholders.

Beyond Borders

Nobody realizes that Speedy Gonzales (D - Warner Brothers) was really just a border jumper. He ran really fast in one direction. What was he running from again?

I want everyone to watch as I actually oppose a policy on environmental grounds. Really.

The construction of the fence/ditch combo along the American and Mexican border is well underway, and despite some architectural problems, the logic seems pretty simple

Dig a deep ditch, build a fence on the other side. Repeat once.

There are lots of principled reasons as to why this is a bad idea, but to date my favourite argument is how this will affect the Road Runner (D - CA) and Wilye Coyote (R - NM). He will catch her/him, corner her/him, and eat her/him. Seriously- a large ditch and fence will interrupt the nomadic migration patterns that are particularly important to desert carnivores. Because it is hard enough to get a decent meal in New Mexico as it is.

Similar arguements in Alaska/Yukon are not as convincing. The reason for this is that the carnivores (R - not PETA) along the wildlife preserve actually eat people. That's bad.

Carnivores. I have always believed that species erradication could be accomplished safely provided that the species being erradicated was a) an apex predator or b) one of many middle pack carnivores and c) scavengers. The perfect example is sharks (I - HI). There is something else in the ocean that can accomplish the role they play and not eat humans by accident.

Carniovers have the best PR in the world. If their name didn't sound like carnival, I am sure we would be more interested in hunting them down and killing them. Their defenders (D - PETA) lament their trials at our hands and defend their majestic nature. I admit, if you want to just walk around and look majestic, I will leave you alone. Try to eat me or one of my friends, and we will have a problem.

Taking carnivores will not have an impact on the ecosystem at all because they prey on the weak and the sick. You know what else will kill the weak and the sick? Their weakness and sickness. By killing the weak we keep the heard strong. That combined with other smaller carnivores and human game hunters. There is nothing that helps me feel more like a man than using a semi-automatic weapon to kill a small rodent.

So, what does this have to do with borders? Apparently the key sticking issue in the ongoing pipeline debate(s) is the effect that the construction will have on carnivore migration. I'm sorry- you want me to go up north to Alaska and build a pipeline knowing full well that a pack of wolves might eat me? I concede their environment to them and will buy an electric car.

The part I don't get is how these carnivores have survived so long without pipeline workers to feed on. Eating Santa's elves I suppose.

Silly Season

No more analysis- it is officially silly season.

What is silly season you ask? It is the time when people stop caring about the message and start fundraising so that they can afford to have a message next year.

Golf tournaments, rubber chicken dinners, cocktail parties, lobster boils, taffy pulls- normally these occur on a fairly ongoing basis, but there is a concentration of these events in the early summer for two reasons. First, everyone is still in Ottawa. Second, no one is on vacation yet.

Is silly season important? Yes because a) it is a great opportunity to meet people (a cover charge for politics?) and b) it reminds everyone that these "icons" are really just people. People who get drunk and fall down just like you and me.

It is also an entire economy. No matter how you change the relevant acts, money will always drive politics. There is a cottage (pun intended) industry that caters to these types of events and without them, I daresay the second tier beneficiaries (caterors, golf courses, wait-staff agencies etc.) would totally fall apart in Ottawa. I know at least 80 people whose livelihood is directly tied to these events and they in turn employ hundreds of others.

There are also 308 "second" silly seasons, or silly season roadshow, that happen when the MPs go back to their constituencies. These are usually not as flush with corporate sponsors and high end prizes- but they are engaging nevertheless. I can remember hosting a constituency event a few years ago where the normally articulate MP transformed himself into a hick so as to communicate with his constituents. It was like acting, but now I didn't know which was the real thing.

It is easy to be cynical about these events and buying access to decision makers, but to be honest, the proliferation of these events has gotten to the point where it is impossible to draw a straight between them and access. Obviously, as I have noted before, the organizers of these events are in political demand, and they will have their phone calls answered, but frankly, the monetary value of attendance can't be seen as buying influence because there are not enough hours in the day to sell to spread evenly between the would be purchasers. In other words, the focus of political contribution laws are ill-focused.

But, you will be "seen" there. BS. That is why everyone wears a name-tag- because we all blend in together and no one can remember us.

That is, until they send out the invitations for next year's event.

A convenient set of otherwise unrelated facts

I was fortunate enough to be invited to an advance screening of “An Inconvenient Truth” last night. The highlight was where I was sitting. In the seat in front of me was punked out luddite- white streaks in his hair and metal in his face, and a girlfriend with an equally unappealing visage and a Greenpeace patch on what was left of her jacket. The seat directly behind me was the former Prime Minister (L- Not my father's windsor) and at least two members of his campaign team that I recognized. It was a bad Agatha Christie novel gone bad- ten little environmentalists.

In eight years of working experience on the climate change file, I have never seen a better piece of advocacy. Al Gore (D- Tennesse/Antartica) is the best environmental lobbyist I have ever seen. This is indisputable. It is too bad that most of his would be colleagues lack the articulate and convincing style that he has.

His presentation is perfect in what it includes and leaves out- for example (a particularly germane one, give a few recent conversations I have had) when dealing with scientific uncertainty on the impact of climate change, he said “there is virtually no serious disagreement remaining on any of these central points that make up the consensus view of the world scientific community.” What he doesn’t tell you is that the consensus position is:

a) we need more study;

b) there are about 50 other important variables that we actually know about that have to be factored in and;

c) the central point to which he is referring to is that climate change is happening.

The "consensus" does not suggest that humans are contributing to it, nor does it suggest that the alleged greenhouse effect is causing it, or that the alleged greenhouse effect is caused by CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide and HFC/PFC and SF6. It is a “choose your own scientific adventure” of “if not NOx then why?”

The last time Al Gore wrote a book on this issue, the main thesis was the United States had a moral obligation to export a revolutionary environmental policy in the form of a “global Marshall plan.” One chapter was dedicated to how Senator Gore (D- Tenneszzzzzz) (as he then was) believed it to be un-Christian to do otherwise. Earth in Balance also made Gore a millionaire. In government circles, however, it was almost entirely ignored.

This new foray is not directed at the government directly, though it is critical of the current administration on many levels. The thesis of this newest work is that the problem is with you, the viewer. He says it is a political issue, a moral issue. I couldn’t agree more.

In fact, taken in the abstract, there were only three sentences uttered in the movie that I did not hole-heartedly agree with. Ultimately, it is how the droid pulled them all together that is the problem- not just with his piece, but with the movement in general. What Al needs is a lesson on the three C’s: causation, correlation and coincidence.

Of course, he did take a shot at the Oil industry and claimed by proxy that they killed the electric car. Malarkey. EWE (you, the new environmentalists) wouldn’t spend an extra $12,000.00 on the electric car, which is what killed it. If only about 20,000 more EWEs wanted to spend the money, then repairing it wouldn’t have cost $650 an hour. Market. Forces. Drive. Change. Period. If I could own a hydrogen car at the same price, I would. Alternatively, if I could write off the full value of the electric car, I would own one tomorrow.

This movie is also not an add for the flawed Kyoto protocol. Kyoto is an unworkable framework for future reductions of GHGs. If Al was serious about Kyoto, he wouldn’t have allowed for the third world exception when he wrote it. In fact, he shows how the third world is/will be the key source of the “problem” in the future.

I truly believe that CO2 emissions should be reduced. It is, by even the most liberal definition, waste. Waste is bad for the economy. He said that we can do something to curb our waste, and we have worked politically to solve an environmental problem before- his example of CFCs is perfect. I agree with both statements.

CFC’s are not, however, the same as GHGs. Carbon Dioxide is a necessity for life. Our planet creates more CO2 in a minute then all of the oil industry does in a year. When I say that to environmentalists, they say “but we are the straw…” And here, Al breaks from the pack. He says that CO2 levels are way above normal, and will be three times the highest peak they have ever been in 45 years. The problem with this analysis is that it is taken in the abstract and is defined to show a problem that hasn’t had a chance to heal itself. Yes, you heard me. Heal itself. Our planet is the most awesome force on it.

That said, I am going to do the things that Mr. Gore said- I am going to tell everyone that I know to see this film. Why? Because this movie is really just a 90 minute advertisement for clean, safe and underdeveloped nuclear power. If Al had said that at the end of the movie, most of the luddite classes head’s would have exploded.