Is Harper Really Trying Save Our World?

VS.


Introduction

Harper has recently announced that Canada will join The Asia-Pacific Partnership. This firm created in 2006 is a cause nearly half of the worlds Greenhouse Gas emissions. The Partnership consists of Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea and the United States. for years Harper has clearly showed his dissaproval for the Kyoto Accord. I was interested on what aspects he didn't like so i looked at an article posted by CBC.ca.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html
This shows that Harper had opposed the Kyoto accord when it was introduced in 2002. In the Liberals attempt to discredit Harpers goal, a letter written by Haper when he was the leader of the Canadian Alliance party, was posted on their site a few months ago. "He writes that it's based on 'tentative and contradictory scientific evidence" and it focuses on carbon dioxide, which is "essential to life.'" Harper is clearly ignoring the alarming rates at which Carbon Dioxide is being produced. It is true that there is no absolute certainty or proof that Carbon Dioxide is the reason for Global warming. However it is almost agreed among many scientists that there is a direct correlation between the two.

My stance is that Harper chose to join the Asia-Pacific Partnership so that he would not be obligated to join the kyoto accord as well. The United States and Australia, two of the Partnerships members, both openly stated that they wanted to have no part in the Kyoto's goal. Harper is also pushing to create a new "flexible" plan for cutting gas emmisions. He also shows his strong distaste for the kyoto accord. Although he is entitled to his opinion, it does not give him the right to ignore an "International Law" such as the Kyoto Accord. The deal that Canada has promised is not scheduled to be completed until 1212. This means that Canada must continue to follow the Kyoto's rules and guidelines until then.



There is no better man to ask about the environment than David Suzuki so I added a clip of him doing an interview discussing Harper and the Canadian's government involvment in the environment.



http://youtube.com/watch?v=U-zxxQQQlVA
If the clip work go to this link

THE HPV DILEMA...Why I am Right.

This is basically the HPV dilema.



This video shows my stance on the HPV vaccination. Although there are other factors that he is not thinking of. Such as possible side effects of the vaccination. There was the case in the 1960's where Bendectin was given to pregnant women who had morning sickness. Everyone had considered it a safe drug until in 1969 reports were beginning to surface of babies being born without limbs. This vaccine could serve a similar defect. The truth is we could be giving these children the vaccines without knowing what side effects are possible. Aside from this knowledge it is still pretty obvious that the church's view of this subject is pretty irrational. Just as Bill Maher said, "...but will they have sex with anything that moves jsut because they know there's a vaccine. People don't get the vaccine for typhoid and say great now i can drink the sewer water in Bombay." Everyone knows that with proper knowledge girls will not think if this vaccination as a "free card to have sex." Even if they do have sex at that age, it probably means that they would have had sex anyways.

Hello World...Mom

This is my first blog ever. To be honest I hate blogging, and anyone who continues to write blogs voluntarily. Personally I find them to be inaccurate opinions blurted out by over "opinionated" idiots trying to preted to be true literary critics. The fact that someone without even a highschool degree can type blasphemy about any certain subject without even reading the details shows how little our society values truth. What is even more aggravating is that true literary "professional" critics are actually struggling to attract a decent audience. Professionals are being threatened by no names. The worst part about my entire blog about hating bloggers is that my blog is also overly biased, completely filled with spelling mistakes and poor grammer (I'm assuming), and worst of all I ranting on angrily without using a single bit of evidence to back up my argument. The reason I didn't back up my blog with citations is because i didn't read any other essays about this subject, I didn't study the bloggers effect on true analytic writters, I didn't even read any other blogs to see if what i accused bloggers of is actually true. Yet this blog can seem as true of a blog as any.