Here’s Charles Adler’s take on the Atlantic Accord mix up.

Fascinating article. More to come.

I just read the preface and introduction of The Physics of Immortality, by Frank Tipler. This is going to be an interesting book. He points out that where the Bible quotes God as referring to himself as “I am that I am” it is really a mistranslation of the Hebrew which actually uses the future tense and should be “I will be that I will be”. Interesting in light of LDS doctrine of that eternal life = eternal progression. Even God is in the process of becoming.

Interesting to compare this with a literal and absolute characterization of God as “unchanging” and all that implies for his ability to experience, perceive and feel. It requires that every instance ascribing emotion to God be taken figuratively or that any temporal context be disposed of. The latter is not hard to accept. But God told Moses that it his work and his glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Does his glory not then increase as he accomplishes his work?

Maybe he doesn’t change but his power increases. That’s an interesting thought. Being omnipotent he can do as he will. But he chooses to restrict his power to allow us our freedom. We thus become a means by which his will/work is accomplished. As our efficacy increases so does his - albeit only due to this self-imposed limitation. So again, he remains unchanged though important characteristics/attributes such as his glory/power do change.

Here’s a little skit that captures the gist of the current controversy:

Rodney MacDonald: “Hey Stephen, where’s the desert and ice cream you promised me?”

Stephen Harper: “Coming right up Rodney… Here it is, apple pie and ice cream just as I promised. Hey, but maybe you’d prefer a piece of this chocolate cake I found - your choice.”

Rodney: “You mean chocolate cake and ice cream don’t you? You promised me desert with ice cream.”

Stephen: Yes, and that’s what I gave you - apple pie and ice cream - but surely you don’t object to me offering you something you might like even better.”

Rodney: “I don’t mind at all, I just want the ice cream you promised along with it.”

Stephen: “I never promised chocolate cake and ice cream. I promised ‘desert and ice cream’ and that’s what you got. But if you’d rather the cake, you can have that instead.”

Rodney: “You’re breaking your promise.”

Stephen: “How? By offering you another option you might like better and letting you choose?”

Rodney: “By not offering me the cake with the ice cream too.”

Stephen: “Listen, I promised desert and ice cream and that’s what I delivered. I thought you might rather the cake and that’s why I offered that instead. You don’t have to take it if you’d rather the pie and ice cream. But don’t tell me I broke a promise of cake and ice cream when I never promised that to you.”

It is ludicrous to believe the province negotiated away the right of the federal government to make it an even better offer than described by the Accord. It is grasping and miserable for the province to demand both the better terms of the new offer and all the benefits of the old one.

The Accord promises the money due under the equalization formula “as it exists at the time” plus 100% of the money deducted from including offshore revenue in the formula. The feds have not created a new formula - they have only offered to do so if the province would prefer it to the old one with the top up. If the province chooses to reject the new formula it doesn’t exist. If it accepts it, it is without the top up.

The provincial MLAs, the premier, and his Ottawa henchman should grow up and stop acting like spoiled brats.