Jack Layton: Fish Out of Water (The flip-flopping is spectacular!)
February 20, 2009 · By Sean
It is no big secret that I’m not a fan of Jack Layton. I openly smile any time I see him make a fool of himself, and I make no apologies for it. His most recent penning is no exception. Now I know I’m not the first to comment on this, and I’m sure I won’t be the last. I just couldn’t resist.
What amazes me is that this man actually believes that people take him seriously these days, not that there was much stock in that to begin with. As I’ve said in other places, The NDP has been banished to obscurity in the House of Commons, and Jack has only himself to blame.
First, it’s fine and dandy for there to be a “Coalition“, just so long as the NDP are in and the Conservatives are out. The bitter comments about a “New Coalition” and his attacks on Michael Ignatieff only make him a fair-weather friend to anyone who speaks to him, and he’s put out both the Conservatives and the Liberals with his actions here. I’d argue that he continues to push the Liberals into the arms of the Conservatives.
Second, Jack Layton and the NDP insisted that Canada adopt a “Buy Canadian” policy in the wake of the “Buy American” flap. And yet, in his Open Letter to President Obama, he goes on to extol the virtues of maintaining open borders and markets. “By working together, our economies can come out of this recession faster, greener and stronger in a more prosperous North America.” This coming just after his speech to Parliament. I’m laughing.
Third, Jack Layton must be confused. There are no Tar Sands in Canada. Alberta has a widely known and currently-being-mined Oil Sands, but there are no Tar Sands. You’d think that after all his speechifying about the evil oil-based economic engine in Alberta where “Big Oil” is making a fortune, he’d know better. But maybe I’m expecting a little too much from Jack.
Forth (and probably finally as I think my point is being made), Jack Layton goes on to magnanimously offer Canadian assistance in the future of the campaign in Afghanistan:
“We support your call for a full strategic review of the mission in Afghanistan and the adoption of a much more comprehensive approach that respects human rights and places dialogue at the centre of a comprehensive peace process.”
“Canada can help you in charting a new path in Afghanistan“
The reality is, Jack Layton and the rest of the NDP have been aggressively antagonistic as they continuously insist that Canada immediately withdraw it’s troops from Afghanistan and that we have no business being over there. Now it appears that Jack Layton wants to assume the role of a blushing Canadian Bride to the Obama Administration. Hell, Jack Layton has lifted the NDP skirt and kicked off it’s knickers for everyone else, why not give the Americans a spin?
What’s the difference between tar sands and oil sands? As far as I can see they’re different terms for the same thing.
Simply put, they are not extracting “tar” from the sands. “Tar” requires far more refining than oil does, and the differentiation to the environmental groups is a large one.
Wikipedia Source here:
Ok, so we’re halfway there:
“Tar sand deposits contain various mixtures of sand (or rock) with bitumen or heavy crude oil and not tar, as does the Tar Tunnel in Shropshire. ”
So now we know what tar sands are.
What’s the difference between tar sands and oil sands? As far as I can see, they’re different terms for the same thing.
I thought it was pretty self evident. Calling somethng that contains bitumen and oil but does not contain tar “Tar Sands” is inaccurate. Why should they ever be called Tar Sands when there is no tar present in the sands where oil is present?
Unlike the Tar Tunnel in Shropshire, which does contain tar.
How is that so difficult to understand?
The reason, I believe, that Jack Layton and others (radical environmental groups) specifically use the word tar is to promote a dirtier image of the oil sands in order to further their own agenda. The dirtier and more polluting they can make it look, the easier it is for them to turn other, less knowledgeable people against it. They are knowingly taking advantage of a falsehood in order to push their agenda. That’s a platform based on lies in my opinion.
He wrote tar sands instead of oil sands… Considering Jack’s blundering body of work, this is neither unexpected or impressive.
I agree that it is neither unexpected or impressive; merely consistent in his incompetence and another nail in the coffin of the Leadership of Jack Layton.
Sean, I didn’t ask you why you objected to the name tar sands, I simply asked you what the difference is between tar sands and oil sands. Maybe you’ll be able to explain on your third attempt. As far as I can see, they’re still different terms for the same things.
P.S
Are you also upset because rock candy doesn’t contain any rocks?
Sean said this:
“The reason, I believe, that Jack Layton and others (radical environmental groups) specifically use the word tar is to promote a dirtier image of the oil sands in order to further their own agenda. The dirtier and more polluting they can make it look, the easier it is for them to turn other, less knowledgeable people against it. They are knowingly taking advantage of a falsehood in order to push their agenda. That’s a platform based on lies in my opinion.”
Sean, thank you for your explanation. It makes perfect sense to me. I’ve no doubt that the likes of Jack Layton would put the Suzuki spin on anything to do with oil.
Okay C, I’ll give it one last attempt and simplify it as much as possible because I want you to be able to understand the difference and hopefully educate others as well.
Tar Sands = Can have Tar, Bitumen and Heavy Crude.
Oil Sands = Can have Bitumen and Heavy Crude, but NOT tar.
If you can’t see the difference now, I don’t know what else to say.
PS
If someone wanted to make a political issue of there not being rocks in rock candy, I’d likely be brushing them off as idiots….
Sean, thanks for the explaination. I think I’ve got it now. From your last reply it looks like tar sands have everything the oil sands do, but they also have tar… but now that I look, in your first answer you said that “Tar sand deposits contain various mixtures of sand (or rock) with bitumen or heavy crude oil and not tar”. So now I’m confused.
So, again, just to be clear on this: what’s the difference between tar sands, and oil sands?
The whole quote is under a single heading, C. “Term Misuse”
I’m getting the distinct impression that you’re now just baiting me for the sole purpose of being contrary. In which case, the discussion is over. Thanks!
Sean, you’re mistaken, the whole quote is under the heading “Wikipedia Source here:” The “term misuse” comes inside the quote. What you’ve done there, you see, is term misuse. Which is to say that although your meaning is clear enough, it’s technically incorrect. The la brea tar pits are commonly called, well, the la brea tar pits. It doesn’t matter if they don’t actually contain tar, in the same way that it doesn’t actually matter if rock candy contains rocks — they’re common terms, and everyone knows what you’re talking about. The quote that you provided originally even highlighted this fact — tar sands contain no tar. They’re just another term for oil sands. If you look elsewhere on wikipedia, you can even find an article listing tar sands, along with extra heavy oil as synonyms for oil sands.
Behold:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands
Where you’ll also find this quote:
“The name tar sands was applied to bituminous sands in the late 19th and early 20th century. People who saw the bituminous sands during this period were familiar with the large amounts of tar residue produced in urban areas as a by-product of the manufacture of coal gas for urban heating and lighting.[3] The word tar to describe these natural bitumen deposits is really a misnomer, since, chemically speaking, tar is a man-made substance produced by the destructive distillation of organic material, usually coal. Since then, coal gas has almost completely been replaced by natural gas as a fuel, and coal tar as a material for paving roads has been replaced by the petroleum product asphalt. ”
All you had to do was to actually check during one of the first four times I asked you.
I’m thrilled that you chose, this time, to participate and contribute to the discussion instead of simply asking for an explanation.
And I’m also pleased to see that you recognise that my “meaning was clear enough” although I thought I was being technically correct. Had you chosen to correct me and back it up as you did so, it would have prevented this unfortunate back and forth, as you seemed to have already been aware of the difference.
[edit]
The problem with assuming that everyone knows what you’re talking about when using “common terms”, is that once it starts becoming politicized and over-analyzed, what was once a common term may no longer have a common meaning that is widely accepted. Take for instance the recent flap over the tongue-in-cheek political cartoon connecting someone saying that the US Stimulus package might as well have been written by a monkey with the incident where police officers had to shoot a monkey that attacked and mauled a woman. What was clearly meant as a tongue-in-cheek reference to those who are familiar with current news, was warped and twisted by some to mean something completely offensive by someone else in order to further their own agenda. I’d argue that these days, there really isn’t anything that can be so commonly accepted as to be called a “common saying”.
[end edit]
Thank-you again for contributing to the discussion!
I certainly wasn’t aware of the difference at the start, and as one of the main points in your article was to attack layton for using the phrase tar sands, it seemed likely that you knew what it meant. I didn’t, so I had a quick look on google, and as I said back in the first comment “As far as I can see they’re different terms for the same thing.”, so I asked you to clarify. Obviously the more you failed to clarify, the more it looked like obfuscation and the more I began to try and figure out what, if any, difference there was between the two.
I’m really not sure why so many bloggers think that asking questions is such an offense in a discussion. It’s got quite a history, you know:
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.2.i.html
[...] Now Jack Layton is coming out (again) flopping around like a fish out of water. [...]