Scroll down to the interview of Brad Wall.
Nov 052011
Sandra Finley
Nov 052011
By Satya P. Sharma, The StarPhoenix November 5, 2011
University of Saskatchewan president Peter MacKinnon owes an apology to the university community.
As a private citizen, he can endorse any political candidate, but as president and CEO of the university, he is speaking publicly on behalf of all the members of the university community.
With an election on the offing, he made a serious error of judgment in publicly endorsing Rob Norris. As a former professor and dean of the college of law, MacKinnon ought to know better.
I live in the constituency of Saskatoon Greystone and I feel offended. As a professor at the U of S for the past 41 years, I urge the president of the university to publicly acknowledge that he made a mistake.
Satya P. Sharma Saskatoon
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
Nov 052011
The Green Party of Saskatchewan is opposed to all new nuclear development in the province. It regards government funding of Hitachi’s “small reactor” programme and of a “Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation” as a dangerous and irresponsible waste of taxpayers’ money.86% opposition to nuclear waste disposal and storage, only 12% support
Deputy Leader Mark Bigland-Pritchard noted: “In the wake of the still continuing Fukushima Daiichi disaster, it is amazing that anyone is still taking the nuclear option seriously. Instead of listening to the nuclear PR men, we should recognize that it is an industry with no long-term future except for the need to manage its highly-radioactive, highly-toxic and very long-lived wastes. Besides the risks posed to human health and ecosystems, it is also very expensive – 20 cents per kilowatt-hour according to the quote given by AECL in Ontario two years ago. And it is irresponsible to generate nuclear waste when nobody has secure knowledge as to how to store it safely.”
In 2009, the Government of Saskatchewan initiated a consultation process, chaired by well-respected former public servant Dan Perrins, on the findings of the Uranium Development Partnership, a nuclear industry panel convened by the government. The results of that consultation process were:
- 70% opposition to expansion of uranium exploration and mining, only 25% support
- 70% opposition to uranium upgrading, only 24% support
- 42% opposition to nuclear research, a further 19% specifying support only for medical isotope research, only 32% general support.
- 88% opposition to the UDP’s overall strategy, only 12% support.
- 93% considered nuclear development a net cost, only 6% a net benefit
- 98% support for more development of “alternative” (i.e. renewable) energy technologies, only 1%opposition
At the time, the Saskatchewan Party government described this overwhelming signal of opposition from the public as an “orange light”. Bigland-Pritchard’s response: “No means no. It doesn’t mean maybe and it doesn’t mean yes in a few years time.”CCNI Business Framework, the main task of this body is to “foster investment in nuclear research, development and training in the nuclear sector…. The province expects the CCNI to focus on value-added nuclear technologies” – not (as has been widely suggested) the production of medical isotopes. “Value-added” appears to be code for so-called “4th generation” reactors such as fast breeders, and the dangerous, costly and weapons-proliferation-prone reprocessing technology on which they would depend.
In March this year, the government announced $30 million taxpayer funding for a new, largely industry managed and directed Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation (CCNI) at the University of Saskatchewan. According to the
Despite 60 years of development in seven countries, no commercially-viable fast breeder reactor has ever been developed, and several prototypes have been put out of action by serious accidents.
In August this year, the government announced a memorandum of understanding with Hitachi Canada to work on the development of “small” nuclear reactors – whose mostly likely application would be in expanding the climate-threatening operations in the Alberta and Saskatchewan tarsands.
According to Bigland-Pritchard, “The Saskatchewan Party has clearly decided to ignore public opinion. There was a clear message of opposition to non-medical nuclear research in the 2009 consultation process, and an even clearer message of opposition to the sort of reactor development which is being planned both with Hitachi and under the pretext of U of S research. The Sask Party are using the backdoor route of the U of S to support special interests against the public will.”
A Green government would cut off such tied funding, but would restore general funding to enable the U of S to become once again a place where knowledge and understanding are prized above commercial interests.
The Green Party would legislate against nuclear waste dumping and transportation in Saskatchewan, and would pursue energy strategies to shift rapidly away from fossil fuels to safe clean renewable sources such as solar, wind and forestry residue.
Greens still support medical isotope production, but generated in particle accelerators, not power reactors.
Contact: Mark Bigland-Pritchard 249 4101
Nov 052011
Nov 052011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHzYZLlkzXw
- The video shows part of an on-going effort to take back the University, to serve the public interest.
- The Government is using the University to provide backdoor funding for the nuke and (indirectly) tar sands industries.
- Nancy Hopkins is the chair of the Board of Governors.
- She has been on the Cameco Board since 1992. As at the end of 2009 she had $1.8 million in Cameco shares.
- Cameco has a 30% financial interest in Bruce Power (nuclear reactors and high-level radioactive waste).
- Premier Brad Wall, SaskParty (Conservative) Govt of Sask gave $30 million to the U, ear-marked for the nuke industry (‘small’ reactors for tar sands expansion and for high-level radioactive waste disposal; also gave $10 million to Hitachi/GE for ‘small’ reactors).
- The video shows a reasoned attempt by Senator Hande to address a very real problem at the University.
- President MacKinnon took a significant portion of the 10 minutes allotted for debate to vociferously and inappropriately instruct Senators to vote against the motion.
Nov 042011
George Soros, “the best fund manager in history, a stateless statesman, and an original thinker”, turned philanthropist. From his book, “Open Society [Reforming Global Capitalism]”, published in 2000 by PublicAffairs.
p. xi, “… Perhaps the greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the world today comes from the formation of unholy alliances between government and business.”
(2006-04-12 Real-life experience. PPP’s and corruption in action. Government-University-Chemical Biotech. Canada’s international reputation.
Accountability, “Government fronts”. Chemicals and health. Request to Board of Governors, University of Sask.
I request that you re-evaluate the University’s partnerships with business.
The Federal Government through Agriculture and Health has partnered with the biotech companies. So too have universities, including the U of S.
The outcome is predictable: corruption. A list of quotes from authorities that make the connection (Galbraith, Soros, Jacobs, Ralston-Saul, Krever, Ho) appears below. You may also find the well foot-noted article “Science under Siege” helpful – about the undermining of “science” through corporate funding of research. . . . more http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=1970 )
Nov 042011
Questionable move
By Jim Pulfer, The StarPhoenix November 4, 2011
It’s been said that being a university president is a bit like being a high wire artist with a Spandex problem. And so it would seem for Peter MacKinnon.
I write not to add to his woes but to seek reasoned clarification for some of the issues currently being raised at the university. For example, on the surface, MacKinnon’s fulsome Rob Norris endorsement seems to compromise both the president and the autonomy of the university.
I wonder what was really going on in his mind when he gave permission for its use after the election writ had been dropped?
It may well be that he is acutely aware of his imminent departure from the presidency. As both the Wall and Harper governments are undoubtedly going to continue in power for some time, MacKinnon could easily have made a calculated decision in this regard to ensure good fiscal and personal relations for his successor.
That is a justifiable worry when leaving office, and one can have compassion for a leader wanting an institution, of which he has been a stalwart champion of for many years, to continue to do well: A valid legacy.
Unfortunately, it’s a flawed legacy in this instance, and one would hope that this trend will not continue, for the sake of the university and for all the good it is doing – and has yet to do – in this wonderful world of unfolding ideas and ideals.
Jim Pulfer Saskatoon
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
Nov 032011
SENT: 2011-11-03
The second link is all in German.
The first link has some translation but is somewhat disjointed?
Hart – – do you have some time to take a look at it?
It is the same story as at U of S, also at Virginia Tech – based on my experience at the hearings that were held in Saskatoon re lifting of uranium moratorium in Virginia. See http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=2565 2011-06-24 NUKE Letter, solidarity with Virginians. Should 30-year moratorium on uranium mining, milling & processing in Virginia be lifted? Sask health data informed B.C. Moratorium.
– – — – – – – – – – – – – –
Hello Sandra,
Here’s something you might be interested in given the same thing has occurred at the U of S.
Regards,
Travis
Nov 032011
The letter requests that the President be censured and that Nancy Hopkins, Chair of the Board of Governors, be asked to permanently step down from the Committee to select the next president of the University.
To Board of Gov of U of S re President endorsement of Political candidate
REPLY RECEIVED November 15th, from University Secretary Lea Pennock, dated November 8th.
“I am writing to let you know that your email correspondence dated November 3, 2011 has been received and will be shared with members of the Board of Governors of the University of Saskatchewan.
Sincerely, …”
Nov 032011
Occupy Oakland protesters shut port, disrupt banks:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
(From a forwarded message, not sure who wrote it:)
The city of Oakland was NOT parallyzed, which is why I left. When I left there weren’t any cops inside the bart station, there had been four of them when I arrived, but they weren’t paying any attention to the people going or coming, with or without signs. Traffic in the city was light but there was traffice on streets other than the ones that were taken over by the large crowds. The banks were we passed were generally empty, and in the two hours that began with the noon demonstration, I saw none of the undercover cops that are normally mixed throughout the crowd – and no one obviously took my picture. In the demonstrations I’ve been in, beginning with the one against Cheney at the Fairmount Hotel, police photographers are always a major part of the police lines and are also in the crowd. I saw none of that yesterday – just the four helicopters above us. I walked a lot, around and through the march, from front to back and back again – looking for reality – and could not find it. Shops were generally open, and the protestors routinely stopped for snacks or drinks, as if they were just taking a tour of downtown Oakland, on a rather unusal day. 14th & Broadway was a bastion with lots of sings and some noise, they called it music, but I never did see any of the anarchists that are shown trashing Whole Foods – they descended on that place and then disappeared back into the crowd – the face masks would have stood out, had they been part of anything else.