?Impact

Then create more "public" operating rooms and staff

Trump lost the friggen election by 2.9 million votes and Trudeau won by 1.3 million votes, Trump lost by 2% where Trudeau won by 8%

Sorry, but he did. Your link does nothing to dispute that iron clad fact.

Harper tore up the Navigable Waters Protection Act in one of his scum sucking omnibus bills.

Nanticoke is where American terrorists invaded Canada, serves you right. b.t.w. Emissions from Nanticoke were cut in half in 2009, and then to just 15% in 2011, and finally shut down completely in 2013. The US still gets 33% of its power from coal, many orders of magnitude more pollution than Nanticoke ever put out.

Apply that to all labels, and we might make some progress. Like I have said many times before, the other label outnumber the racist label thousands to one.

Yes, all those eastern dollars that built the west are abuse.

Yes, that is the fear that the ignorant uninformed buffoon with the ill temper and itchy trigger finger would respond military to any situation, damn the consequences.

Probably the most significant outcome of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was that large banks did indeed get larger. The argument however is other factors such as bad mortgage underwriting, poor work by the ratings agencies and a securitization market gone crazy were far more significant. All of those would have happened regardless. Some of the financial institutions that fared the worst (Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual) weren't part of large bank holding companies at all. Certainly poor regulation is an issue, but Glasse-Steagle was not the solution here.

I think that most people who take offence it is because they are being called something they don't relate to. If you call someone a he/Mr. and that person doesn't consider themself a man, or similarly she/Ms./Mrs./Miss and that person doesn't consider themself a woman then offence is taken. While the third person plural is a bit awkward for an individual, I doubt many would seriously object. The whole point of xe was to try and establish a gender neutral third person singular, kind of like some people use M. as a gender neutral replacement for Mr./Ms./Mrs./Miss.

In Montreal during the month of July there is a large fireworks exhibition twice a week at La Ronde. The Jacques Cartier bridge is closed to traffic, and 10's of thousands of pedestrians line the bridge (and other nearby places) to view it. Generally there is only temporary light wooden barriers, and perhaps a cop car or two only partially blocking it off. The final night (maybe final two, can't remember) this past summer they placed two massive tow trucks to entirely block the entrance to the bridge, slightly staggered so that pedestrians could pass but vehicles would have a very difficult time getting through. I don't know if that was related to any specific threat, or if someone just decided it was a good policy.

In Ontario, Ornge costs about $175million/year, and transports around 18,000 patients. That works out to about $9700 per patient transported. While it is a significant cost per patient, it represents less than one half a percent of total health care spending. I can't find numbers for total patient transport in the province, that would be the most relevant to compare to. There are numbers out there for EMS services, usually paid by the municipalities, but they are not relevant for comparison purposes.

Two words that don't belong together

Really, you get that all from a piece of clothing. Did you burn your bra sister?

It is highly debatable what effect Glasse-Steagle would have had on the sub prime mortgage disaster. Remember that Glasse-Steagle was created during the Great Depression, and has been highly modified by legislators and loosely interpreted by regulators since at least the 1960's. In fact Senator Glass himself tried to repeal certain parts of the act in 1935. The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which Clinton signed into law, effectively repealing Glasse-Steagle was the work of Congress since the early 80's. It was a Republican sponsored bill. ...but of course the rewriters of history somehow portray it differently

Very true, and my exact problem with terms like 'leftist' or 'progressive'. Neither convey enough information, and often suggest much which is totally incorrect. You cannot resolve conflicts using a single word, that is exactly what I am pointing out.

There are two international courts in the Hague. The International Court of Justice is a part of the United Nations, and is where disputes between nations are heard. A wide range issues are decided here, for example boundary disputes between nations. Technically the decisions of this court are advisory, although the UN security council often gets involved in their enforcement. The obvious weak link here is that the security council is subject to veto by any of the 5 permanent members, as was done by the United States in its covert war against Nicaragua. What the Hague is more well known for are the criminal trials against individuals (leaders) for things like mass genocide. It was here for example that the trials of NAZI war criminals took place, a separate tribunal in Tokyo dealt with Japanese war criminals. While there was interest in a permanent court, nothing could be established during the cold war. There were ad hoc tribunals set up to deal with the war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. It was only about a decade ago that enough nations came together to establish the permanent International Criminal Court, and its first judgement was in 2012 (child soldiers in the Congo). While the ICC operates outside of the United Nations, there are some obvious close ties. The fate of the court is questionable. Some major countries like China and India are not signatories, and African states are threatening to withdraw as they see the court as biased against them. Of course anything that is part of the United Nations or associated with them is 'tainted' in the small minds of the ignorant. Far too many people only hear about the General Assembly or Security Council, and somehow associate these with the whole of the United Nations. Yes they are high profile parts, but only an extremely small percentage of the workings of the UN. Things like the ICAO and ITU to which these same individuals are highly dependent on in both their personal and business lives they are completely oblivious to.

Only in Canada - pity. Inuit is only one of several northern people, mainly those in Canada and Greenland. The other major groups are the Yupik and Iñupiat. Eskimo is still a common term in places like Alaska. There are other northern cultures like the Aleut that are considered distinct. One of the suggested origins of the term Eskimo is that it might have been derived from the word askamiciw which roughly translated means eater of raw meat. Probably some overly white politically correct Conservatives think that eating raw meat is something only savages do, and equated it to a derogatory term. Of course that is complete nonsense, nothing wrong with eating raw meat. I love sushi, and while I am very cautious of steak tartar it is delicious. I hear seal eyeballs are a great treat, although I might have some reservations about trying them. Of course Eskimo might have been derived from many other words as well, rendering the above argument moot. Some of the alternate suggestions are "snowshoe netter" (ie. one who makes snowshoes), or simply people who speak a different language.

Eskimos have 50 some odd words for snow, and you are worried about a few extra gender pronouns. The first one on the list might interest many here. Snow particles (1) Snowflake qanuk 'snowflake' qanir- 'to snow' qanunge- 'to snow' [NUN] qanugglir- 'to snow' [NUN] (2) Frost kaneq 'frost' kaner- 'be frosty/frost sth.' (3) Fine snow/rain particles kanevvluk 'fine snow/rain particles kanevcir- to get fine snow/rain particles (4) Drifting particles natquik 'drifting snow/etc' natqu(v)igte- 'for snow/etc. to drift along ground' (5) Clinging particles nevluk 'clinging debris/ nevlugte- 'have clinging debris/...'lint/snow/dirt...' B. Fallen snow (6) Fallen snow on the ground aniu [NS] 'snow on ground' aniu- [NS] 'get snow on ground' apun [NS] 'snow on ground' qanikcaq 'snow on ground' qanikcir- 'get snow on ground' (7) Soft, deep fallen snow on the ground muruaneq 'soft deep snow' (8) Crust on fallen snow qetrar- [NSU] 'for snow to crust' qerretrar- [NSU] 'for snow to crust' (9) Fresh fallen snow on the ground nutaryuk 'fresh snow' [HBC] (10) Fallen snow floating on water qanisqineq 'snow floating on water' C. Snow formations (11) Snow bank qengaruk 'snow bank' [Y, HBC] (12) Snow block utvak 'snow carved in block' (13) Snow cornice navcaq [NSU] 'snow cornice, snow (formation) about to collapse' navcite- 'get caught in an avalanche' D. Meterological events (14) Blizzard, snowstorm pirta 'blizzard, snowstorm' pircir- 'to blizzard' pirtuk 'blizzard, snowstorm' (15) Severe blizzard cellallir-, cellarrlir- 'to snow heavily' pir(e)t(e)pag- 'to blizzard severely' pirrelvag- 'to blizzard severely'

Not sure I follow. What does a NAZI concentration camp in occupied Czechoslovakia have to do with post '79 Iran?

Well the TÜV (Technischer Überwachungsverein) is certainly well respected, they are the equivalent of Underwriter Laboratories or CSA. I expect it would be hard for Finland (population 5 million) to recreate anything even remotely like them.

That is a lot of synagogues, but I thought there were only on the order of 10,000 Jews living in Iran. Since '79, the Jewish population of Iran has decreased significantly. As I understand it now, that population has stabilized and is even beginning to slowly grow. Of course most of them might belong to a synagogue, unlike the normal population in Canada were only a small percentage attend a place of worship. While not insignificant, it is a very small percentage of world Jewish population. 80% of the worlds Jews live in Israel and the US. Canada has a large population, but still less than 3% or about 400,000.

Government pension only applies to a small percentage of Canadians, as obviously you are not trying to imply CPP with your fat, warm, and comfortable characterization.

While that is certainly true to an extent, Canada is quite unique in the world of having very high focus on large urbanization. Perhaps it has more to do with population density, but I have seen far more developed rural communities in Europe and even the US compared to Canada. We tend to concentrate industry in major centers, and there does not seem to be any effort to reverse that trend. It was not always so in Canada, follow any of the old waterways like the Rideau canal and see how many once thriving communities have dwindled away. Renfrew Ontario used to be a major concern, it even had a hockey team in the National Hockey Association (precursor to the NHL that included the Montreal Canadiens and Toronto Blueshirts which became the Leafs.) but you hear little about Renfrew today. In Europe these small communities are thriving, but here they are dying. I believe that mass transit has a lot to do with it. At one time that meant waterways, and then rail, and now it is either planes or bus/subway in large metropolitan areas. Europe and the US managed to maintain rail transit in more rural areas, but we quickly divested and that caused these communities to stagnate. Health care professionals see these communities as dying out and that is why they don't want to be caught there. In Europe, there are still many smaller communities that host world renowned medical research where here it is concentrated in the few major urban areas. Even those doctors that just focus on patient care want to be involved in a growing are and not just preside over the demise where a larger and larger percentage of their patients are retired; nothing wrong with that by itself, but they want a wider cross section.

Certainly Canada and the US have a good track record of taking in permanent refugees and helping them integrate into a new environment. We should not however dismiss the many countries on the front lines that are dealing with hundreds of thousands or millions of refugees on an urgent basis, but don't have the resources or bandwidth to address the long term consequences.