dlkenny

Well, it was. Ralph Klein struck a very unique balance. He was ruthless early on and empowered a very strong conservative budget that ultimately got alberta out of debt and into a very enviable fiscal position. He was a strong leader and didn't waiver, he was willing to press forward with the changes that were necessary and not be concerned about the people he angered in the process. He knew alberta would be better for it. When the fiscal ship had been patched and brought back into the black he began using the newly available funds for social programs and infrastructure. The trouble is that the PC has been in a leadership vacuum since Ralph left. His successors have reverted to standard politics, creating legislation designed to boost popularity and to avoid losing an election rather than making hard decisions that are right for the province. Sometimes the right thing isn't popular and Ralph knew that. Danielle Smith is a strong leader but unfortunately the wildrose has too many hard right, social conservatives to be a logical choice for most people. Redford isn't a leader, she doesn't have a grasp on the fiscal realities of her promises and she doesn't have the guts to make a decision and press forward in the face of adversity. The reason why the Wildrose became so popular is because of Smith's leadership ability, but the reality of the hard right in her party scared average albertans enough that tthey came out to vote against them. That is the reason why we have another PC majority.

I have no issue with allowing people to carry a gun for self defense. I had a discussion once with a police officer who was teaching a PAL course about this issue and one sticking point is the idea that the gun needs to be a person's LAST line of defense. Lethal force cannot legally be used unless there is a clear, imminent threat of lethal force. This implies that the person possessing the firearm would need to be highly trained both in the use and handling of the firearm, and other non-lethal options because obviously not every threat is that severe. The current laws do not allow lethal force as defence against sexual assault, nor do they do not allow lethal force against being robbed or physically assaulted. As a result the training requirement for carrying a concealed firearm would need to include training regarding the law, threat assessment, assertiveness training, hand to hand combat training and tactical training involving the firearm. This kind of training would permit the carrier the ability to assess the situation and react with an appropriate level of resistance.

So you would rather your children not know gun safety? That to me is irresponsible considering 26% of Canadian households have guns. Just because they might not come across guns in their own homes doesn't mean they will never come across them. Guns do not kill people, people kill people and ignorance breeds misinformation. Ignorance, coupled with curiosity while in the presence of firearms is a recipe for disaster and is a major reason why accidents involving firearms happen, especially when children are involved. Perhaps the minister went too far in suggesting everyone should be armed, but the idea of educating people from a young age in firearm safety can only help to save lives. We teach our children how to safely handle knives, we teach them as teenagers how to safely handle a car, we teach them how to use power tools and how to use a great many things that can be potentially dangerous. Why is the notion of teaching firearm safety so taboo? Maybe the idea isn't so crazy.

Well, 16 does work on Duodecimal quite well, its an even 1 & 1/3rd. The farenheit scale you're right wasn't developed in any way regarding the duodecimal system. The 8 pints in a gallon though, 8 is 2/3rds of 12, its a round number. The mile is an anomaly though and if you look at the history has been changed a number of times. The imperial system was developed from duodecimal, just like the old monetary system in Great Britain. 12 pence in a shilling, 20 shillings in a pound (1 2/3rds). In any case, that's the explanation I was given and it seems to make sense.

Actually the old system is based on an entirely different way of counting called the duodecimal system. At one time everything was measured in 12s (or virtually everything), that's why we have 12 eggs in a carton (and has a name - a dozen), why the number 144 has a name (gross), why there's 12 inches in a foot, why there's 36 inches in a yard (an even 3 times 12), why we round so many things to the closest factor of 12 (we recognize 3's, 6',s and 12's visually). Did you know that you can count to 60 by counting the bones in your hand? 60 of course is 12 multiplied by 5. At some point the world stopped counting in 12s and started counting in 10's, but it took just as long for the world to realize how silly it is to have units of measurement in systems of 12 while counting in blocks of 10. We are just getting to that now with the popularization of the metric system. If you think about it, with a 12 digit system (if we had separate mononumeric symbols for the numbers 10 and 11) the old system makes more sense: 3 is a quarter, 4 is a 3rd, 6 is half, 8 is two thirds, 9 is three quarters etc...the system makes sense to use fractions because the common fractions refer to whole numbers. In metric we use decimals because it makes more sense. Using imperial measure while counting in 10's is silly. 1/3rd of 10 is 3.3333333333.... and a quarter is 2.5, which seems simple enough until you're doing an engineering problem or science problem, when too many significant digits get rounded off. Start adding and subtracting those and it really is silly and it's why the metric system was created. The metric system is based on the earth's dimensions and water. The meter is defined as 1/40,000,000th of the way around 1 meridian on earth. (It's actually 1/40,007,836 because of an error in calculation many years ago, which amounts to about 1/15th of a millimeter for each meter measured.) One millilitre is also one cubic centimeter, which is 100 cubic millimeters, one litre is 1000 millilitres and weighs 1 kilogram. The celsius scale also is the temperature difference between the freezing and thawing of water at standard atmospheric pressure divided into 100 equal degrees. So water freezes at 0C and boils at 100C. As long as we count 0 through 9 before going to a polynumeral (more than 1 digit) then the old system is just silly and the metric system is simpler and makes far more sense.

Well, here's a different take on this. I work in the oilfield in Northern Alberta and a few years ago a very close coworker of mine was on location while someone was operating a Nitrogen Gas pump. There was a very serious explosion which killed one person and severely injured two others. My coworker explained that the ambiguity caused by having two different measurement systems (imperial and metric) was the primary reason for the explosion. An N2 pump has many gauges, several of which show pressures in various components in the unit, and some which show the pressures on the well and the treating iron. The pump works by drawing liquid nitrogen from a holding tank using a boost pump which then pushes the product to a high pressure pump. That pump in turn pushes the liquid N2 through a series of heat exchangers which gasefy the liquid (expanding it 692 times) and then the gaseous N2 can be discharged and used to do a great number of things. (N2 is inherently stable and will not allow combustion, making it ideal for use in the production of oil and gas) On this particular unit the boost pump pressure gauge was in pounds per square inch (psi), the treating iron pressure tolerances were indicated in Megapascals (MPa) and the treating iron pressure indicator in the unit was set to Kilopascals (KPa) because the particular well they were working on had a pressure tolerance indicated in KPa. As the job went forward there was some confusion over what was correct and they attempted to push 1000 times the allowable pressure onto the wellhead which resulted in a very serious explosion. It seems to me that for many things like temperature and speed the change only causes minor inconveniences like burnt food in the oven and having to watch the inside gauge in the car when driving in the US, but for industrial uses it clearly must be one or the other and there should be a universal standard. In the case of the N2 pump, it was manufactured in the US so all of it's components were configured in PSI but it was being used in Canada where the jobs are done in MPa. The aviation industry uses one system for safety reasons and my opinion is that this is the correct thing to do. If the whole world has gone metric then it's time the US goes metric too, if the whole world wants to do as the US does then the whole world needs to be on the imperial system. It is simply foolish and dangerous to have both.

I couldn't agree more. These supposed wars for democracy are little more than wars over religion, power, and oil. Until the day Iran starts to lob rockets and ICBMs at Canada and its allies I think we should just stay out of it.

Who said it works? Farmers in the east are not bound by CWB regulations and they have not been squeezed out of existence. In fact the farmers in the west have been paid 1960s prices for grain for more than 40 years now and are still in existence despite the constantly rising costs associated with farming. An open and fair market will provide farmers with options and that is good for everybody.

Do you seriously believe that? Do you think Harper is that much of a moron to not realize that his political future rests solely on him not bringing religion into politics? He has a mandate to make government work, that's what Canadians gave him. They did not give him a mandate to reopen issues like gay marriage, abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, etc. Those issues are far too divisive for any politician to touch and would be akin to political suicide. As for his law and order stuff, I personally believe that there is a time and a place for everything and to lock up gun smugglers, cocaine dealers, and gang leaders is a pretty good idea. To be sure there needs to be some balance there with social programs being introduced to provide intervention and help (instead of incarceration) for people with addictions and mental health issues. Contrary to what the CPC haters want us to believe there are not going to be armed soldiers in the streets, and it's not going to become a country of Sharia or Canon law. Get over yourself.

The question that needs to be asked is why is the healthcare system not working? What is wrong with it that makes it dysfunctional? There was a time in Canada when central health care worked well...I remember from when I was young, getting to see a doctor wasn't a problem. Bottom line is we do not have the resources; doctors, nurses, equipment, or money to make the system work. The reality is whether through taxes or from our wallets we are going to have to pay to acquire those resources or we will continue to have a lacklustre healthcare system. A two tiered system could help reduce wait times but having a parallel private system does nothing to improve the resources available in the public system. I think we need to keep the public healthcare system. However, The Harper government stands for smaller government and more streamlined, efficient utilization of resources so I think the first step is to stop the bureaucratic waste and make healthcare more efficient. Second, eventually someone will have to introduce a healthcare tax that goes directly into improving access to healthcare through more resources. People will disagree with me but there simply isn't enough money available to bring about the large scale changes that need to happen. Adding 6% a year merely keeps up with inflation and when you factor in the aging population and increased strain on healthcare we are actually losing ground. Nobody likes more taxes but people don't mind paying when they're getting a good service in return. I think it's a step that needs to be taken. One idea I've heard for the recruitment of medical staff is to utilize a similar strategy as the Canadian Forces uses for recruiting pilots. The government could offer to pay (or reimburse a graduate) for some or all of the costs associated with medical school in return for signing on to serve a given community for a set period of time. I know people will disagree with me on some of these points and I know the issue of a new tax is always a prickly subject but I believe it's what needs to happen.

I don't want to see it become nasty. It's a good thing to have someone with a majority government to make progress. It would also be wise for Mr. Harper to take a good look at what happened in Quebec. Jack Layton clearly struck a chord with Quebecers and it would be very prudent for Harper to listen to the message that was sent there. I think the Conservatives do have some policy issues to get passed but I think it needs to be a balanced approach.

I listened to CBC radio one last night because I was on the road. During the talk after the election the term "they" was the term used when referring to the Conservative party and "Canadians" was used when referring to the Liberal party. They explicitly said several times, after Harper had more than 60 seats that they "were not in a position to declare a Conservative majority" and claimed that the vote was too close to call. Somehow the CBC sees the Conservative party as not Canadian. They talked about the defeat of the liberal party being a defeat for the canadian people, that the absense of the liberal party would lead to right/left polarization and US style politics. The commentators were clearly upset, the tone of the program had a very somber tone, and one commentator in particular had a quivering voice and had trouble composing her speech. There is no question in my mind that the CBC has a very strong liberal base. They call themselves a "Canadian" broadcaster but somehow they equate "Liberal" with "Canadian" and they carry the opinion that people who don't vote liberal somehow don't hold Canadian values.

Call him what you want, for better or worse Klein made things happen. Eddie hasn't accomplished much of anything except smiling.

Has anyone stopped to consider that the registration of firearms does not save lives? It cannot, it is simply a serial number with a name attached. Whether a shotgun has a registration number doesn't impact how that firearm is handled, stored, transported or used. The sole purpose of the registry is to find out where each gun is in Canada so that they can be seized at a later date. As Allan Rock says he doesn't want people in Canada to want or need a gun, in other words he doesn't want Canadians to have guns...the purpose is abolishment. Case in point is the handgun registry. More people are killed in Canada by lightning each year than by legally owned handguns, yet the government's response to gang violence is to "ban handguns." Two points here, one...handguns are already effectively "banned," they are severely restricted and require permits and documentation to simply transport one to a shooting range. The second point is that by having these guns registered the government has complete control over the confiscation of these weapons, they know where each and every legally owned handgun is located and how it is stored. They could simply walk into our homes and sieze our property. The trouble of course is that it doesn't take even one gun off of the streets and won't save lives. The long gun registry is no different. As of right now, a person must undergo licensing and background checks to legally acquire a gun. In addition, those guns have strict laws surrounding acceptable storage and transportation practices. The people who are taking the time to follow these laws are not using their weapons to kill people, they are not intimidating women, they are not "shooting up everything that moves". Hunters and farmers use their weapons to feed their families and protect livestock from predators, much like people plant gardens to feed their families and install security systems to protect from intruders. One could argue that hunting is not necessary in today's society. To be sure it is not, however many hunters prefer wild game to domestic meats, in addition game meats are not laden with artificial growth hormones or injected with drugs to help them become "well marbled." Fatty meat is not natural and is a product of domestication. In any case, I divest. The point of my rambling is that the long gun registry does not save lives, it cannot and will not. Contrary to what non gun owning citizens think, they do not register ballistics or anything that might help connect a gun to a crime, it is simply a serial number in a registry. The registry doesn't prevent a firearm from being used in a malicious way, it does not stop a person from committing a crime, and it doesn't help the police trace murder weapons. It also does not help police because it is not the gun they know about but the one they don't know about that poses the biggest threat. The registry is a billion dollar waste of money, it does nothing aside from build a database of locations and owners of weapons so that the guns can be seized at a later date, effectively disarming law abiding citizens and leaving people defenseless against those who do have guns.

I have to think that this shouldn't be such an issue. There is no harvesting of "baby seals" as the media would like people to believe. In addition, the seals are no longer killed with a club as animal rights groups would like us to believe, they are killed instantly. What I find disturbing is the same people who oppose the seal hunt have no problem to go buy a steak for supper at the supermarket. What is the difference between killing a seal and killing a cow? The difference is that the killing of cattle occurs out of sight, within the confines of a farm or slaughterhouse. If the seals were killed within the confines of 4 walls like cattle, there wouldn't be any outcry. If anything the seals have a much better quality of life leading up to the harvest, unlike farm animals which if people understood how they're treated would truly cry foul. In reality there's nothing inhumane about the seal hunt, the animals live a free and healthy life and are of considerable abundance. It doesn't make it cruel to kill an animal simply because it is aesthetically "cuter" than another species.

Unlikely. Just because the company is owned by the Chinese doesn't automatically implicate Chinese workers into the equation. Japan oil has been operating in Alberta for a number of years already and they simply employ Canadian workers. What is important here isn't where the development dollars come from but that the investment is there at all. Without investment there is no development, no jobs created, and no tax dollars paid. If the chinese have the ability to make it happen while employing Canadian workers and following local labour protocol then I see no issue with it.

What bugs me about this whole issue is that if the seals were raised on a farm and killed indoors like cows or pigs, and kept out of sight then we would hear virtually nothing about it. I know PETA stands against this too but you don't see them in the face of farmers and ranchers like they are the sealers. The whole thing is overblown.

Right, but it wouldn't replace the public system. It would co exist, which would indeed bring wait times down and create business opportunities. That I have no problem with.

I have to say that he does have a couple of good points. There is no doubt whatsoever that if a person has money that the health care received in the US is FAR superior to that received in canada. It's like getting a name brand product vs. a generic product. The healthcare in Canada is very generic, with the intent to offer the same level of care to all Canadians, regardless of socioeconomic status...A good analogy is of cars, in Canada the idea is a Chevy Cavalier will get you to work equally well as a Cadillac, even though the Cadillac is more comfortable. In the US you have the choice based on what you can afford, in Canada we are all given the Cavalier. The other point that is valid and perhaps more pressing is the equipment at the clinic he visited wasn't working. That is a sign of an ailing healthcare system...what good is equipment that doesn't work? In the US, the system is for profit and so it's critical to a health care clinic that the equipment is in good working order or they lose the business. In Canada there is no such pressure so there isn't the urgency on the part of healthcare professionals to ensure that they have the best equipment in proper working order. This is an issue that quite likely isn't isolated to the Manitoba clinic Brock visited. How can we expect docs to do their jobs efficiently without adequate equipment? The victims here are the patients waiting in ever increasing queues for care, the wait times being compounded by malfunctioning equipment and inefficient use of time. I'm not suggesting we should go to for profit healthcare as that simply isn't a good model overall and I don't believe people should be denied care over socioeconomic status. I do, however think that this illuminates some issues that need to be addressed.

Right, because they don't believe in overtaxation. It backfires though because those same taxpayers have to pay the deficit. Six of one, half dozen of the other...

Yeah, I know it's been around for a while but I've heard Dr. Lindzen on various radio stations since then and thought it was worth re posting. I know that these guys have been accused of being in the pocket of "big oil" but come on, do you really think that the former leader of Greenpeace would work for big oil? Somehow I doubt it. There are much bigger problems associated with the use of fossil fuels for energy than just CO2 emissions, and they're not arguing that...they're simply exposing the lies being fed to us by the IPCC. The IPCC by the way is a Left wing group from the UN which is inherently political, not scientific, with an agenda of their own.

Have you ever seen the documentary by the BBC called the Great Global Warming Swindle? There are a number of scientists and professors, some of which were disbanded by the IPCC for being skeptical who give not only a skeptical analysis of the science but hard data to back up their skepticism. Professor John Christy who was a lead author of the IPCC report was kicked out of the IPCC for suggesting that the data didn't back up the claims being made. Some other notables that appear are Professor Tim Ball of the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Ian Clark from the University of Ottawa, and Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT. Here's the link, it's a 9 part video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs

Right, and that will make the product more expensive because of increased production costs. When you consider supply and demand it snowballs and makes $200 oil a realistic prospect. The oilsands are indeed a very large and mostly untapped resource but they are also very cumbersome and expensive to operate. Certainly I can agree with the comment made above about the $400 Billion annually and how that put towards science in this area could do much more good than putting it into a dictator's pocket. I don't doubt that there is still a sizable quantity of oil to be discovered and tapped, it is estimated that Russia holds up to a quarter of the worlds oil reserves and to date the Russians have not developed the resource to anywhere near it's potential. Much of the problem is political with trade issues between the western countries and the supply (Example: Russia, Iran.). In the end, there is no doubt oil will become more and more expensive and I do agree that more viable alternatives need to be developed. One of the options that is largely ignored is that of Geothermal energy. There exists hot spots all over the globe that can be tapped for energy production and that along with wind, solar, wave and nuclear energy have the potential to significantly decrease our dependence not only on oil but on fossil fuels in general.

It's not possible to tax the rich as it is the average person because the rich usually do not have much of anything in their own names. The rich intentionally try to not own anything but to control everything. Rich people keep most of their assets in corporations and trusts. More than that, they utilize highly skilled tax lawyers and accountants to minimize taxation through the same loopholes that are available to everyone, though they are not commonly known. It is very important to our society to allow tax breaks on money borrowed for investment purposes, it promotes growth but in the case of the very rich and of corporations can sometimes offset a very large percentage of that corporation's profits. From the government's point of view, these investments create jobs and incomes which can then be taxed and so the tax write off becomes a tool for the government to take in more money. It's a somewhat complicated system but it does make an uneven playing field, especially for high income working class people who already pay more than their fair share in taxes. You're right though, governments must tax because it's their only source of revenue. If governments were smart in the boom years they would invest surpluses in income producing assets instead of spending it all. In reality a certain percentage of our tax dollars should always be invested for the future. Imagine if the founders of this nation had done this, instead of a $500 Billion deficit that we're paying interest on, if we had $500 Billion in assets that was compounding and paying us. Imagine how that would reduce the burden on the taxpayers. Instead though we get greedy politicians who use programs like the gun registry and the sponsorship scandal to siphon off these excess dollars into their pockets and their friend's pockets. EI is one example, Paul Martin never balanced the budget...he changed the UI system to EI and put the money into general revenue to create the illusion of a balanced budget. If the money in the EI fund had been properly managed we wouldn't need an increase in our EI premiums because the assets in the fund would pay for it. Someday we need to get someone with some gonads in government to make some changes, some changes that might upset people in the short term but will make life easier for everyone in the longrun.

The HST already exists in Atlantic Canada so there obviously is nothing stopping the provinces from implementing it. It is a way for the provincial governments to boost their coffers by increasing taxes and lowering administration costs (by transfering the responsibility of tax collection to Ottawa) all in one go. We all know that the provinces aren't going to give us a tax break for that reduction in costs and so we're getting hosed. The federal government will have to increase taxes somewhere to pay for that responsibility. It doesn't matter to me who taxes me for the administration costs, its the same either way but I don't like paying twice.