segnosaur

Wow... you really do seem to be on a nit-picking crusade, aren't you. Electrical utilities are fundamentally different than other resource-based companies. Distribution mechanisms work differently , control is highly centralized, and not subject to the same market forces as oil/gas/mineral resources. The government in Quebec charges less for electricity than it could if it were able to sell it on the free market. This artificially reduces the revenues that would otherwise be used in figuring out equalization payments. The Albertan government does not exert the same ability to artificially reduce the price of gas to Albertan consumers. In effect, Quebec is "cheating" the system. Now, that may not have been the intention of the Quebec government (i.e. they likely sell electricity cheaply because it caters to their voter base), but it is a byproduct of their policies. If the federal government does attempt to base the equalization formula on their actual potential revenue, it will be interesting to see if Quebec accepts that or starts whining "Wah! You're unfairly targeting us".

Your exact quote from an earlier post was: Income from Québec Hydro is considered just the same as other natural resource revenues... So, as I pointed out, both you and PIK were wrong. He was wrong when he said it wasn't considered at all, and you were wrong when you said that income is considered just the same as other natural resource revenues.

One other comment I wanted to make about this issue... I already pointed out the fact that cost overruns are common here in Canada, on both nuclear AND non-nuclear projects. But consider this: in 2003 China brought a CANDU reactor on line. It was completed more than 3 months early, and came in at 10% under budget. http://www.newswire.ca/fr/story/283859/china-celebrates-5-year-anniversary-of-candu-r-nuclear-power-plant So, believe it or not, it is possible to build reactors without going overboard on costs. You just have to recognize when financial problems are due to the nuclear technology itself, or due to government mess-ups (or factors that have nothing to do with nuclear technology.)

You're right... the availability of cheap fossil fuels probably does play a part in it. (Although I'd have to say that the perception of nuclear power as dangerous/evil probably plays a bigger part in it too.) And yes, nuclear plants have a big up-front costs for building the plants (and for decommissioning them later), and that makes private investors... hesitant. (Well, plus the relatively tight regulations.) But that doesn't necessarily make nuclear power a bad choice. (After all, the "free market" is the best economic system there is, but there is no guarantee individuals will always make the best investment for long term returns.)

Some folks might disagree... Transatomic Power, an MIT spinoff, is developing a nuclear reactor that it estimates will cut the overall cost of a nuclear power plant in half. It’s an updated molten-salt reactor, a type that’s highly resistant to meltdowns. (From: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512321/safer-nuclear-power-at-half-the-price/) Now of course there's no guarantee that their technology or designs will be commercially successful, but that doesn't mean that there isn't room for other improvements. The problem is, the state of nuclear technology has largely stagnated (and this is especially true in North America, where there haven't been much done in the way of building nuclear infrastructure since 3 mile island). However, people have been working on new reactor designs (ones that are safer and/or cheaper). We just seem to lack the political will to use them.

Ah where to begin... First of all, I do have to question your reliance on a book... one that clearly has a particular bias (and one which very few of us have access to.) While its possible to track down some of their references, it shouldn't be the job of others to do your homework for you. I'd suggest if you want to argue a point, you stick to more... mainstream sources. Secondly, it is true that nuclear reactors have problems. However, some are political in nature rather than economic/technological. (Things like shutting down the Yucca mountain facility in the U.S.) And depending on the country, many sources show that nuclear power beats many forms of renewable energy. For example: - According to the U.S. DoE, Nuclear power costs $108/Mwh; solar costs $114, and Wind can cost $87 or $221/MwH (depending on if its on land or off shore). Wikipedia gives a couple of other sources showing nuclear power to be competitive with other 'green' sources of power; however, I can't track down a source that I feel is trustworthy enough. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source Now, it is likely that technical improvements will decrease the cost of generation for wind/solar/etc. However, its also possible that technical improvements would also decrease the cost of nuclear power as well. Some of the other claims in your quoted reference should be taken with a grain of salt, such as: In fact, no nuclear power plant has been built in Canada on budget or without taxpayers’ money Well... given the fact that our electrical utilities are often publicly owned, pretty much all large-scale generating stations (be it gas, hydro, or nuclear) are all going to involve taxpayer money. As for the "on budget", financial issues with government projects is sadly very common... it also happens with both Wind (Sable Island) and solar (a solar farm in Peterbourough). Granted, nuclear plants will probably have bigger budget issues than a solar or wind farm, but they will also be generating larger amounts of power. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/04/18/ns-sable-island-wind.html http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/2011/03/17/lily-lake-solar-farm-gets-power-selling-approval Electricite de France, which receives 85 percent of its power from nuclear reactors, is among the most debt ridden companies in the world. Ummm... so? The fact that its debt ridden may have little or nothing to do with its use of nuclear power. If you sell electricity at less than the cost of generating and distributing it, you will run into debt even if you use the cheapest possible generating technology. (And according to the Wikipedia article mentioned earlier, wind, solar and tidal were more expensive in France than nuclear.)

Yes, you are correct. You are also nitpicking. Yes, provinces do not "write cheques to another province". However, from a pragmatic point of view, the flow of funds from provinces like Alberta to provinces like Quebec does impact the ability of Alberta to maintain its infrastructure and care for its people. Saying that they "write a cheque" is just a handy short form of saying that. But, as another poster has said, there is no requirement on what the money is spent on. Thus, you have the situation in Quebec where they have (for example) subsidized daycare, but delivery of other social programs are quite poor. You also seem to be ignoring the issue of responsibility. Yes, PEI might have to struggle to maintain the same level of roads and health care that Alberta does, but they should at least attempt to run their economy in a way that they can do as much as they can. Quebec doesn't seem to want to do that. Rather than make use of their natural and human resources to try to maximize their ability to pay for their own roads and schools, they are more content to drive their economy into the ground (through things like Quebec nationalism, mismanagement of the economy, etc.) Now, as a province they certainly have the right to do so... but whether they can do something is different than whether they say they should do something.

This is not true at all. Income from Québec Hydro is considered just the same as other natural resource revenues, such as forest and mining royalties. May not be exactly true. From: http://o.canada.com/2012/10/10/1011-equalization/ The current equalization program calculates 50 per cent of a province’s natural resource revenues in determining its revenue-generating ability — or “fiscal capacity” — and whether it deserves an annual equalization payment. But the economic value of hydroelectricity isn’t necessarily calculated the same as oil and gas...Provinces such as Quebec, Manitoba and B.C. sell their abundant hydroelectricity to their consumers at below-market rates, meaning they reap the economic value of the resource through lower electricity prices rather than direct revenues and profits to Crown hydro-generating corporations that could be factored into the equalization program. If the true economic value of the hydroelectricity were calculated, it would amount to a larger fiscal capacity for equalization-receiving provinces such as Quebec and Manitoba and possibly mean billions of dollars less in federal payments sent to those provinces in the coming years. So, it looks you and PIK are both wrong... Electricity is considered in the calculation of equalization payments... but its under counted. If the true value of the electricity were used in the calculation, Quebec would loose out on millions in equalization revenue.

Here's the problem though... You say that "science is needed", but when actual real science is provided to you, you dismiss it. Hey, something appeared in a peer reviewed journal? Bah, dismiss it because it agrees with Monsanto. Perhaps it might be believable that you think "science is needed" if you actually showed some scientific aptitude. How does that differ from every other corporation in the world? Seriously, organic farmers are not growing food just for fun... they too want to earn a profit. As does the organic grocery store. So don't. Instead, listen to the opinions of independent experts in the field who analyze papers (some paid for by Monsanto, some independent) and find the science in them sound enough to publish in peer reviewed journals. You know, I've been letting this slide for a while. After all, as I said before, its not Monsanto that I trust, its the entire scientific process. (You know, where data is verified by independent researchers.) However, I did a little research. I'm assuming your 'falsified data' is referring to post 288, where you posted: You sound like a nutcase for suggesting that and being a mouthpiece for Monsanto. The same company that has actually been 'caught' by the United States government for falsifying data: On two occasions, the United States EPA has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate. Link So, I did some research... Those cases are referring to Industrial Biotest Labs (IBL) and Craven Labs. These were (at one point) reputable labs, and its a normal practice for a company to hire outside labs to verify their products. It was those labs that messed up the testing. However, it should be noted that: - To the best of my knowledge, not one Monsanto employee was ever charged in the falsification of the research - Monsanto was not the only company affected; DuPont, Proctor&Gamble, and even the World Health Organization were all users of their services, and all had the potential of fraudulent research being done on their behalf - The lab work has been redone, and none of their product verification relies on the faulty work And? Ah where, to begin... First of all, vice president? That's not even the guy in complete charge. Secondly... lets say he did have enough authority to give Monsanto favorable actions. So, where is the evidence that he overlooked data in giving Monsanto approval? After all, even being an authority figure in the FDA would not give him the ability to crush all research into GMO foods worldwide (or even in the U.S.)... so, where are all the studies of GMO food causing harm that he's overlooked? More importantly... so you don't trust the FDA because they have former Monsanto staffers working for them... so, what about the E.U.? They've approved some GMO crops for import and cultivation... do you think they're filled with former Monsanto staffers? What about all the other countries that have approved GMO foods? You suggesting they all have Monsanto people working on them? Oh, by the way, I asked a few questions earlier but you seem to have ignored them. So, I'll repeat them here: - You once suggested Monsanto was buying labs that might surpress unfavorable test results. Where is your evidence that they are actually buying labs for that specific purpose? - What is your scientific background? (Masters? PHD? written or read any scientific papers?) After all, if you're going to dismiss experts in the field, it would be nice to know what your expertise is. - What other conspiracy theories do you believe in? Since you seem to think Monsanto's past history of lies and its huge size mean it can "control" research and acceptance of GMO foods, do you also believe in things like 9/11 conspiracies? Anti-vaxination? moon landing hoax? - What is it about Peer review that you don't understand?

Why do people do that? And by 'that', I mean post a video on a forum, with the assumption that if we just watch some movie our eyes would be magically opened? Using videos to support any arguments you might have is a very poor way to debate. (I've seen it time and time again, with 'anti-vaxers', with '9/11 troothers', moon hoax believers, and with anti-Israeli activists.) First of all, the viewer's opinions can easily be manipulated by selective editing... the right scene cut, the appropriate music, failure to give context, etc. can give a distorted understanding of the issues at hand. Secondly, a movie/documentary is at heart an opinion piece... its format makes fact checking difficult. (You can be hit with a dozen 'facts' a minute, but without easy access to references its difficult to know if the information being presented is accurate, faulty, or taken out of context.) This is especially relevant if the video maker is either a relative unknown, or holds some sort of bias. I'm not saying that the agricultural industry is perfect. Far from it. But if there are specific issues to be discussed, by all means do so. But do so in your own words. And by providing independent references from mainstream sources. (And on the rare case that a video provides some key information not readily available elsewhere, at least tell us at what point we should actually watch.)

Nah, it wouldn't work... I actually pay for my own house.

I myself would have no problem if Pot were decriminalized/made legal. (I would have no interest in using it myself... but then there are a lot of things I would never do that should be legal.) That said, there are a few things people should keep in mind: - One of the regular arguments people make for pot is "Its safer/less addictive than cigarettes/booze/etc.". Maybe it is.... But that isn't necessarily an argument in favor of pot. Its really an argument against cigarettes and booze. If item X harms more than item Y, it doesn't make item X safe. - Any arguments about the great tax revenue that would result must be taken with a grain of salt. If taxes are set too high, you will end up with illegal trafficking (much like people smuggle cigarettes across the border... an item that is legal, but is still obtained through illegal channels. And while it may cut down police costs, you also end up needing government oversight (e.g. are the growers following agricultural regulations? Are proper taxes being paid? etc.) So, by all means, tell your politicians that you think that it should be made legal. Just make sure your arguments are based in rationality. See: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/

You don't get out much do you. There is a movie theater in my neighborhood. Its parking lot is lined by a fence with a sidewalk running behind it. I estimate that more than 2/3s of the time I use that sidewalk on a Tuesday night, you will always find a group of teenagers/young adults, standing around and blocking the sidewalk while smoking pot.

Well it may be possible that unions curtail liberties but I can tell you from personal experience that non-union shops do exactly the same thing. No, they don't. You see, here's the thing... In my opinion, you are misusing the term 'liberty'. Having a 'right' or a 'liberty' does not guarantee you a lifetime free of problems (or of having a jerk for a boss). It does not prevent office nepotism, brown nosing, or any of the other troubles you see at your work. Your 'rights' dictate what a government can do to its people, but they do not necessarily dictate how one individual can interact with another. (Now, there are activities that would be considered 'illegal'... forced unpaid overtime, etc. But, such activities are protected by legal mechanisms; no union is needed.)

First of all, as other posters have pointed out, you only went back as far as 2004... given the fact that you're comparing a relatively strong economy (from the mid 2000s) with one under a rather strong global recession, the comparison isn't exactly a fair one to make. Secondly, the chart you gave is not the only one out there. The actual deficit can vary greatly, depending on exactly how the deficit is calculated. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_public_debt#Calculating_and_projecting_the_debt) your chart has the debt/GDP ration around 85%, while other methods of calculation have it in the 35% range. It should be noted that the highest debt/GDP ratio in the last few decades (in the 65-70% range) happened in the mid-90s, under the Liberal government. It should also be noted that the last time the Liberals were in power was the mid 2000s, at which point the ration was over 35%. Currently, the ration is under 35%. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/03/21/graphic-50-years-of-canadian-debt/

Keep in mind that that's a double-edged sword. Yes, its quite possible that some of the recent economic successes were due to factors outside the government's control... but then, that means its also possible that Chretien's economic "Successes" when the Liberals were in control were likewise due to factors outside their control (such as strong global economic performance, low inflation and interest.) First of all, you do realize that there has been a global recession within the past few years, don't you? Such an event is going to negatively affect the finances of any country, regardless of the policies of the government in power. And should I point out that while some of the deficit is due to government stimulus spending, at the time such spending was introduced there was a minority government and the opposition at the time wanted even higher levels of spending. (Its frankly rather strange to say "Party X is overspending, so lets put Party Y in power because they wanted to spend even more") In fact, the NDP wants even more spending, even now with our current deficit: http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/2013/03/18/ndp-launches-budget-campaign-with-no-pricetag-attached Lastly, the rhetoric of "economic ruin" and "not paying our bills any longer" is rather foolish. The deficit (as a percentage of GDP) is lower than it was compared to the last time the Liberals were in power, and far lower than it was at its recent peak in the mind 90s.

Mulroney did not post an overall surplus during his terms. He did post an operating surplus... which meant that government revenue exceeded program spending; however, an overall deficit did remain (due in part to things like interest payments.)

So you don't think raising taxes on business would have effected if they hired employees of not? It might have. Or it might not have. It depends on a lot of factors... how big the tax hike was, if the money were used for needed infrastructure, etc. And even if tax rates did stifle hiring, sometimes a "hot" economy can hide such flaws. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that its impossible for a government's activities to affect the economy; just that sometimes there are factors outside the government's control that can overwhelm its actions... making a good government look bad or a bad government look good. Like I said... Maybe the conservative policies helped, maybe they were irrelevant, maybe this was just a short term blip. Lets wait things out and see what happens in the next few months.

Not quite right... Normally farmers wouldn't use roundup on growing crops. They would use other herbicides. Making their "roundup ready" versions allows them to apply something they didn't use before. But it eliminates the need for other herbicides. And the use of GMO foods with the bt modification reduces or eliminates the need to spray for certain insects (like the European corn borer). Now, the process is not perfect, and GMO is not a panacea for all the problems.... Pesticide resistance can occur long term. But then, the same problems can occur even with more conventional farming methods. The trick is, GMOs are valuable tools, but they often have to be combined with other methods. (Sadly, that does not always happen.)

Keep in mind that I'm a person who voted conservative in the last election... I do not think that all of the credit should necessarily go to the conservatives, and its quite possible we would have seen job growth had the Liberals or NDP been in power. (While it may be fun to bash one party while praising another, the fact is that quite often the economy will grow or shrink based on factors outside the control of the government.) Its also possible that this is either a temporary blip, or some pent-up demand. Lets give it a month or 2 to see if the growth is sustained.

Why. Can you come up with the amount spent by Monsanto? (preferrably from a reputable source... not some environmentalist web site who provides no mainstream sources.) Well, apart from the stupid claim of GM vegitables "making insects stomachs explode" (It does destroy the lining, but there is no "explosion" involved) it ignores the fact that humans and insect physiology are quite a bit different... we don't have the same composition to our stomach linings. So, where is your proof that they were "buying research labs that question their products"? You made the claim. Its your job to provide evidence. Here's the thing... nobody here is claiming that Monsanto should be given complete and ultimate trust. Nobody. What people have said is that the scientific community, which includes many independent researchers is the best judge of the safety of GMO, and they have said there is no evidence of problems. To assume each and every scientist who has looked at the data is somehow on Monsanto's payroll is to assume a conspiracy of massive proportions, right up there with NASA faking the moon landings and JFK killed by someone on the grassy knoll. Why aren't there at least a few holding up their bag of Monsanto cash saying "Look! they bribed me but I had a change of heart!" Occam's razor is the concept that (to paraphrase) the simplest solution is usually the correct one. So what is simpler, Monsanto managing to bribe thousands upon thousands of scientists, even ones in other countries, and not one of them ever had a change of heart, or even blew the whistle even before money changed hands, or that yes indeed, evidence suggests that GMO food really is safe to eat.

(Deleted duplicate)

Actually, greenpeace (you know, one of the big groups fighting against GMO foods) actually had to apologize to corporations over some of the faulty claims its made in the past. (The claims weren't necessarily about GMO, but it does show that the environmental movement is far from perfect in their presentation of data.) i.e. Greenpeace lied in the past. Now, since (according to you) lying in the past means you can never be trusted about anything in the future, does that mean you no longer trust greenpeace and their anti-GMO stance? Or do you exercise selective forgiveness? http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/06/news/06iht-brent_.html I also find it very... strange. The environmental lobby engages in activities that are borderline terrorism (e.g. risking the lives of loggers by 'spiking' trees) and downright illegal (destruction of private property), yet you somehow consider it somehow "beneath" them to try to artificially taint genetic research? That is a rather bizarre disconnect you have in your brain there. (Its rather like claiming a serial killer would never stoop as low as to engage in shoplifting.) I find it extremely hipocritcal that you would complain about me painting all environmentalists "with the same brush", while at the same time taring each and every reputable scientist in the field that happens to thing GMO has value, even if they've never accepted one dime from Monsanto, as somehow shills for the company. First of all, its not a question about whether I've questioned their findings... its what independent experts in the field think of their studies. Enough of those independent experts have verified their results. Its that whole peer review thing I mentioned that you don't seem to understand. Secondly, its rather unfortunate that you seem to be so fixated on Monsanto, suggesting everything they do is somehow tainted and self serving. Did you ever think that, because Monsanto is the one producing GMO seeds, that they have to be the ones doing much of the research into their safety? Seriously... when GM comes up with a new car, we don't expect ford to do all the testing on it... GM has to do the initial tests for safetly and performance; only then is it necessary for the government to step in and give approval. Same with the creation of GMO foods... Monsanto creates the seeds, they have to verify they're safe. Independent experts then verify their work. Oh, and by the way, their work has been verified. For example, from: http://www.medecine.uottawa.ca/bmi/assets/documents/dr_altosaar/dr_altosaar1.pdf (a study where rats were fed GMO rice).... No adverse effects on animal behaviour or weight gain were observed during the study. Blood samples...all within the normal reference intervals And you know what? Monsanto had nothing to do with the study. It was funded by the European Union. Or how about this study done on China (so, can't claim that its U.S. politicians listening to Monsanto)... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691509001392 (a study examining plants modified with bt resistance) there is a reasonable certainty of no harm resulting from the inclusion of the Cry1Ab/Ac protein in human food or animal feed. The fact is, these types of independent studies are going on all the time. But, because plowing through complex scientific papers ain't as easy as slapping a slogan on a sign or chanting "evil Monsanto", they tend not to get as much acknowledgement. Now, I have few questions for you: 1) What exactly is your scientific background? What do you have, a Masters in science? PhD? How many journal articles have you read (or written)? How many university-level courses have you taken (in biology or other science fields)? After all, you seem to be so willing to dismiss the concept of peer review... it would be nice to know whether you are doing so because you have real life experience with it, or whether you are staking a position due to ignorance. 2) What other conspiracy theories do you believe in? After all, you're quite willing to dismiss a large body of scientific knowledge regarding GMO foods simply because "Monsanto lied/they are evil/have money". Does that attitude carry though to other types of conspiracies? Do you think 9/11 was an 'inside job' (i.e. government agents planted explosives to destroy the towers)? After all, the government report showed that the collapse of the towers was consistent with the impact of a large jet, yet the government has lied in the past, and they certainly have much more resources at their disposal if they wanted to cover up their involvement. Do you think that vaccines cause autism and a host of other problems? After all, pretty much the entire scientific community accepts that vaccines are safe and effective. yet at least some research is paid for by the drug companies themselves. Do you think that the application of fluoride to drinking water is some sort of evil plot? After all, the medical community considers its use beneficial, but again, some claim that its some sort of government conspiracy to control the population. How do you feel about these and other conspracies? Do you accept the "official" stories, or do you think there is something nefarious going on? And if you decide to dismiss those theories, yet cling to your "Monsanto controls everything" theory, how do you justify that in your mind? 3) What exactly is it about peer review that you don't understand? I've tried explaining the concept to you in basic terms, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in. Perhaps the failure is on my part in not making things simple enough. If you tell my why you don't understand the concept, I may be able to provide you with proper resources to help you understand.

You sure Monsanto does not engage in the same thing? I mean along with other companies, a total of 47 million was spent to kill the GMO label proposition in California. Organic farmers don't have the millions to pay lobbyists in order to further their goal. Monsanto does Oh, I'm quite sure Monsanto does pay lobbyists. I don't think anyone has ever doubted that. However, there are a few things you need to keep in mind... First of all, you seem to be suggesting "organic farmers" are composed of smaller farms... The fact is, organic farming is actually pretty big business, and there are some rather large corporations involved. Secondly, its not just the organic farmers that are tossing around money.... Take for example Greenpeace, one of the major lobby groups fighting GMO. (Yes, they are fighting more than just GMO, but then Monsanto produces more than just GMO foods.). According to Wikipedia, they have a budget of over $300 million... While its far less than what Monsanto brings in, its certainly not something inconsequential. (And since they don't have to worry about things like actually producing a product, or paying dividends, a lot more of their money can be focused on lobbying.) Furthermore, they supposedly have over 17,000 volunteers and employees; that's almost as many people who are employeed by Monsanto, and as I mentioned before, almost all of those volunteers are available for lobbying, public relations, organizing rallies, etc; with Monsanto, most of the people are probably involved in product creation (research and development, production, etc.) Very few will be "lobbyists". And something else to consider... Monsanto earns a lot of money. They probably pay a lot for lobbyists too. Likely even more than groups like greenpeace. However, environmental groups use a lot of volunteers. Just how much would their time be worth if they were earning an actual wage for their efforts? Here's the problem... science is hard. Many people don't understand the basics. So, when you talk about things like peer reviewed studies, the concept goes right over people's heads. So, its easier for a group like Greenpeace to rally its people to fight the "evil Monsanto" because they can be easily swayed by simple dogma and slogans. Monsanto pays for its public relations... that's because it has the more difficult task. (People are less eager to stand behind "big business".) I would love for this whole issue to be resolved by science. (It would be a pretty clear victory for GMO foods.) But, until the general population is either 1) Better educated, or 2) willing to realize the limitations of their knowledge and avoid supporting causes they don't know anything about, we're stuck with large scale protests by ill-informed (even if well meaning) dupes, expensive lobbying by big corporations, and politicians trying to cater to both sides.

While I don't deny knowing the "trigger" or underlying causes would be valuable, I think it could be argued that either: - Such cases would be common enough and you would have plenty of opportunity to study other individuals who weren't killed - Such cases are extremely rare, and whatever the 'trigger' is, it would not be applicable to other people Of course, the fact is, people lie. Even if the guy was questioned, would you really trust what they say? Remember, Ted Bundy (while on death row) suggested an addiction to pornography was the cause of his tendencies as a serial killer; this is generally seen as a false attempt to gain sympathy.