Spiderfish

How can you misinterpret the bold headline "Stop The US Demand For Canada's Toxic Tarsands"? How about "Stop and/or delay tar sands pipelines and refinery expansions." Maybe you prefer "Greenpeace is calling on oil companies and the Canadian government to stop the tar sands" Either you can't read, or you're in such denial about what these organizations stand for that you can't comprehend the facts.

No, I'm saying there's some people who need to dispense with the hypocrisy, Mulcair included.

I agree. Don't people in this country who criticize Alberta oil realize where the bulk of the transfer payments come from (as they are driving their SUV to work in the morning)? I don't have a problem with environmental movements as a whole. I think the environment needs to be protected and development needs to be weighed from a balanced approach to environmental impact. But when you label an inert gas such as CO2 as a toxic substance, blame all your problems on it, try to tax it, and put your whole environmental effort into controlling the release of something that is naturally occurring, I see it as more than just environmentalism. By the way, the bitumen is trapped in the sand and has been for a long time, the oilsands projects are extracting the bitumen from the sand. One could say that the oil sands is a massive clean up of the contamination, making it one of the largest environmental initiatives on the planet (to me, this line of thinking would fall in the same logic as demonizing co2.)

Ever heard the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds you?" Its hard to sit in the heart of Alberta and criticize the main source of their prosperity. These silly messages and tactics play well in Ontario, not so much in AB.

A little research on your own into any one of these organizations would go a long way to answering your own question. But since it's always easier to have someone else do the leg work, here you go: Corporate Ethics International – has put up anti oil sands billboards comparing the oilsands to the gulf oil spill. Their campaign title is “Rethink Alberta”. Tides Canada – “The Tides Canada Energy Initiative is bringing together a diverse array of mainstream organizations, businesses and others to build support for a bold and credible vision of a near-zero-carbon future.” David Suzuki Foundation – Stop the Tar Sands! How exactly? Greenpeace – taken from their web page:” Greenpeace is calling on oil companies and the Canadian government to stop the tar sands and end the industrialization of a vast area of Indigenous territories, forests and wetlands in northern Alberta.” Pretty self explanitory, no beating around the bush with them. Ecojustice – Is fighting against all movement of oil through pipelines and tankers. No movement of oil means no oil production. The Sierra Club – “Our team is working together to accomplish the following: 1) Educate our communities about the tar sands 2) Stop and/or delay tar sands pipelines and refinery expansions 3) Promote laws and regulations that will move America away from dirty fuels and onto cleaner transportation options. Join us and let’s tell the tar sands industry "thanks, but no thanks." Water Matters – Being an Alberta initiative, is a little more subtle about their messaging. Their concern is more about the negative impact on Alberta watershed, something I can agree and side with. Though their overall message is mainly negative about the oilsands, their message is tempered. World Wildlife Fund – “The answer isn’t just about taking cars off the road; it’s also about taking cars—and everything else we use—off the carbon. And there is no better place on Earth for this to happen than Canada.” The Oak Foundation – Has issued grants to Tides Canada, Greenpeace, Environmental Defense Canada for various stop tar sands campaigns. Grant Database Forest Ethics - Stop the tar sands Hope this clears it up for you.

Yes.

Really? Corporate Ethics International Tides Canada David Suzuki Foundation Greenpeace Ecojustice The Sierra Club Water Matters World Wildlife Fund The Oak Foundation Forest Ethics ...to name a few.

You and I know that will never happen, but that doesn't stop some of the environmental groups from wishing it so, and doing what they can to make it so. There's perception, then there's reality. The reality is that safety has become the number one item on the agenda of ALL oil sands projects, followed very closely to environmental sustainability and improvement. These two aspects of development have become the dominate focus over even the actual bitumen recovery. They have become an industry all their own. There have been great strides toward improving both the size of environmental impact, and the image or perception of what is happening. Unfortunately, no matter how many resources or how much money companies in Fort Mac put into the matter of environmental sustainability, there are many out there that will never see it as doing enough.

I see it as trying to counter some of the extreme positions that many opponents of the oil sands has taken. Sometimes it takes a hammer to deliver the blow, and the bigger the nail, the bigger the hammer required. And when you say "us", who are you referring to, because I'm pretty sure you don't speak on behalf of myself or many Canadians who may not share your opinion (you know, the thousands of people who rely on Alberta oil for a living, and maybe even some of the students in Quebec who realize the importance of transfer payments to pay for the free education they are protesting for). Harper has made it fairly clear that his mandate is to protect the Canadian economy. It was a main plank he ran on in the last election and helped him get his "technical" majority. I think maybe he has it in his mind that to shut down one of the biggest drivers of the economy right now may in fact not be good for the economic state of the country.

I agree, fortunately for Quebec (and the rest of Canada), this is not the case.

I can only imagine the Harper comments if the package had shown up at the Liberal or NDP office. It's only natural for the governing party and leader to take the brunt of criticism while they are in power, but the amount of vitriol and rhetoric does seem to be increasing. I'm not sure if it can be chalked up to the change in political parties, or just the overall change in the attitude of people these days. Entitlement and self seems to have won out over unity and selflessness, and it shows up in spades in politics.

Hey PIK, I think that was a shot.

You don't have to license a gun... never have, so they are legal. However if YOU don't have a license, but possess a gun, you're possessing it illegally.

There is some merit to this hypothesis though, if you look at it from a slightly different perspective. It's easy to hold to idealism when you don't have a lot to be responsible for besides yourself. As responsibility grows and there's more to lose on the table, ideals are compromised in favor of pragmatism.

What about condom machines? Will there be a rash of teen pregnancies resulting?

Love the pun . The problem I had with the cover wasn't so much the message, but the delivery. It was obviously meant to be controversial, I believe it was supposed to portray confidence, but instead it seemed more like defiance or arrogance. The whole track-suit thing and the kid standing on the chair begging for a suck from his master just seemed to go against the actual act of feeding a kid. I have no problem with breastfeeding, but I think this one missed the mark.

Sure, deflect accountability, avoid consequence. Where do you think our kids are learning it from? Of course, someone has to be held accountable... When someone gets hurt playing ball, it's the ball's fault, no problem. However when someone's feelings get hurt and the teacher is blamed, it gets a little more complicated because the teacher can talk back and give their side of the story (once they have been informed of their perceived infraction).

A grade 5 student lying or showing poor judgment? You've got t o be kidding, kids don't make mistakes these days, haven't you heard. It's unfortunate that school boards are so reactionary nowadays. I really think it's dong our kids a disservice deflecting accountability. If a kid gets hurt playing ball, we ban balls; if his feelings get hurt by a teacher trying to instill values, we ban the teacher.

Yes, we've been over this. Thanks for the recap.

Relax, it was an attempt at sarcastic humor. You guys are to much. You've convinced me; Ford the fat liar is a loser. Feel better now?

Sounds like it's a good thing the National Post reporter never got caught. Anyhow, since the matter has been cleared up from a legal standpoint, there's nothing stopping the Star reporter from going back and completing his story, although I think he's already gotten more mileage out of this incident than any boring property purchase column ever would. Everybody wins, the Star got a headline, the reporter got notoriety, and Ford got a new phone.

Agreed.

Yes, this is surely a blow to the credibility of the Ford supporters, and a boost to the haters. Let the fat jokes proceed. I can see now that the measure of integrity and justification of a persons actions is whether it's legal or not. I guess Menzies did the right thing after all, to hell with respect for others. Glad we got that cleared up.

Bias? I said I don't condone what either one of them did. How can that possibly be considered biased? Where did I say Dale had his privacy breached?? And I never said he was a moron, I said he would have to be a moron not to know his actions would likely spur an altercation. I don't know how I could make my position more clear. The only conclusion I can come to is that it's not the message, but the comprehension.

Given the fact his altercation occurred in August 2011 before Rob Ford's incident, I would imagine it would be in his case, don't ya' think? According to him and two eyewitnesses, an assault DID take place. According to the story, the fact that she struck Menzies is not in question, her motivation for doing so is (ie. she meant to hit the camera instead of him.) If Ford had physically assaulted Dale, I would expect charges would rightfully be laid and pursued, just as I believe should have happened to the woman in Menzies case, but wasn't. As I have already said, I don't approve of Menzies tact in the situation and I'm not defending it. I also don't know the motivations of Dale or the Star, so I can't comment on that either. There are two separate issues here, whether someone has the right to take pictures of whatever they want in public places and invade someones right to privacy, and whether that invasion of privacy excuses assaulting someone. My opinion on the first point as I have stated is whether Menzies had the right or not, he should have put the camera away if it did bother the woman as much as it apparently did (and likewise for Dale, who should have known that what he was doing was an obvious breach of privacy). Also, a factor that is not insignificant, is that Menzies didn't know what he was doing was offensive until after he was approached by the woman. Dale on the other hand, unless he's a moron, had to know that going over to Ford's house was quite likely to spur an altercation if he got caught, which he did... and it did. On the second point, physical assault laws are pretty clear, or at least I thought they were. And nothing, you wanted citation of where it was said an assault had occurred, which I provided. We only know one side of the story because the officer couldn't be bothered to investigate the matter further, so that's as far as it went.