hitops

When the leader of your religion reports that women make up the majority of hell's occupants due to being ungrateful to their husbands, that their witness is worth 1/2 the witness of a man due to a deficiency of their mind, and that the role of women in the afterlife is sexual servitude, then yes the religion is part of the problem. That view of women directly extrapolate from Muhammed's own words.

Billionaires like him can easily move their money. I am certain, like any other person of his stature, his personal wealth (beyond the businesses of course) is invested almost entirely outside Quebec. Of course their credit rating is good, they are a government backed entity and can always use the public purse to cover debts. If I was a lender, I'd see that as a great debt servicer as well. It's Quebec's credit rating that is the issue. Quebec has proven amply, that even with 8B in handouts, they cannot balance a budget or even come close. Too many people who want free stuff and give nothing for it.

You see world trade as a zero-sum game, that is short sighted. You believe that by liberalizing our trade, we hurt ourselves because you don't see the economy as a fluid machine but only as monolithic parts. It's no different than people who think immigrants coming in means less jobs. It's the exact same thinking, that does not recognize the constant motion and re-organizational capacity of a free economy. We benefit from free trade, even if other countries are protectionist. Protectionist countries lose in the end. Allowing Hyundais into Canada doesn't only mean less Fords. It means that the thousands of people who can now get their Hyundai's for $5000 (take any number you want) less, have $5000 more to travel, puts their kids in swimming, buy millions more Tim Hortons, or get extra upgrades on their Hyundai at the after-market body shop. All regulatory regimes require enforcement. When you free up trade, you not only benefit the sectors that were previously subsidizing (being forced to pay for) whatever sector was protected, you also gain the natural advantages of capital flowing to it's more efficient point, and eliminate the cost of administering the regulatory system. It's a net gain. The answer to auto industry fears of competition is not to protect them from real competition, it's for them to become more competitive. It's not far to make the rest of us pay more to subsidize a union that cannot compete, just as it would not be fair to make everyone pay more for food so that horsemen could still have jobs taking it to market in covered wagons. If Koreans are more competitive and make better products, they deserve the right to sell them to willing consumers and not penalized for being better. We have conclusive proof of the effects of protecting the domestic auto makers. They have needed to be bailed out many times. The unions have repeatedly killed the domestic auto sector, not helped it. Politicians have kept it alive with everyone else's money. If the US had let those companies pay the consequences of the their union activism and fail, the big 3 would be making quality vehicles today, not the Koreans.

Take your own advice. The entire point of the NYT article, was the increases in oil traffic and the hazards therein. You grabbed one graph and focused on it to the exclusion of all other information, missing the entire point. Given the hazards of all methods, this very thorough article clearly explains why diverting oil to rail is a large and growing problem and many accidents and injuries/deaths and directly the result of lack of regional pipeline capacity. The manhattan institute article has numerous tables with data that clearly shows the advantages of pipe over rail. It also explains that much of the oil spilled in pipeline accidents is recovered, a fact not corrected for in the comparative volume numbers. There are clearly, with no dispute, far more incidents per unit moved on rail, far more injuries and fatalities, and far more things blowing up and burning (and thus enviro damage). To add insult to injury (pun intended), it also costs more. But why focus on that right? Let's just keep talking about how statscan data is wrong when put into blue bars.....

I gave you statscan data, and you don't like it. To avoid dealing with it, you are fixated on who made the graph, as if that is in any way relevant. Deal with the point. In the article, they cite statscan RIGHT IN THE BOTTOM OF THE GRAPH. Because.....that's where the data is from. That graph represents statscan data, I don't know how much clearer this can be. I could take your logic and say the NYT graph on pipeline spills is somehow wrong because the graph was made by journalists and not by the source providing the data. But unlike yourself, I like to make points salient to the discussion and not just bizarre attempts at distraction. Actually I did, but reading is not your strong suit. That's great but has nothing to do with the point. Railways are more dangerous in terms of lives, injuries and damage (including environmental). The ONLY advantage railways have over pipelines is volume of oil spilled per unit moved. You are fixated on that single issue, because of a desperate need to feel like you are right. Every single source linked by anyone so far demonstrates pipeline is superior on the critical questions, you just don't like it. But anyway, distraction is your preferred tactic. You believe it doesn't matter that only 2% (your number) of railway goods are oil. But it does matter, because rail is suddenly now having to take up more oil traffic, leading to massive increases. There were more oil spills in 2013 that the previous 4 decades, as indicated in that article. We are also seeing and hearing about tons more accidents. These are not unrelated issues, and it takes willful blindness not to see the connection.

You've pointed out that a graphic, using statscan data, was created by a news reporter. The shame! I'm doing my best to figure out what your point is. Let me give it a try - "any bar graphs using statscan data, must only be produced by a statscan employer or the stats magically change to become false." I guess you think this is a legitimate argument. Regarding your NYT assessment. Obviously pipelines will have more spills, they carry far more oil, far faster and further. The issues is the massive spiking of train accidents due to the spike in train oil traffic, and their consequences including environmental. Rail accidents kill people and burn things, pipelines generally just spill oil and kill very few. Rail incidents cause 30x more injuries. That might actually be seen as a plus by enviros, I don't know. But I doubt the resultant explosions, fires and use of equipment for rescue and cleanup (and their consequent greenhouse emissions) would. For your consideration: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=20750 Another great data-rich article. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ib_23.htm#.UyRoZijXF94 Rail is the worse choice, it is far more dangerous and damaging.

Is this a serious point? Your point quoting a figure of 2% as if all is well, is like saying we should carry liquid tnt on trains because the amount is so tiny it would amount to less than 0.00001% of cars. This problem is known and accepted everywhere, including in the US. Maybe the NTY can get through to you: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/business/energy-environment/accidents-surge-as-oil-industry-takes-the-train.html?_r=0 Or maybe statistics Canada: http://cf.datawrapper.de/BAk5N/1/ Let's take your 2% number (assuming as you do, that the best source for information on a controversy is the spokesman representing a company in the middle of that controversy). With only 2% by rail, volumes of oil spilled are 5x greater than spills from pipelines. Rail transport of oil is massively increasing. Ergo, pipeline blockage is the worst possible environmental strategy. I'm not saying environmentalists care much about protecting the environment, I fully realize it's mostly just about emoting, feeling important and the sex appeal of the pipeline as a opposition symbol. Also a good place to meet girls. But those few who really do care about the environment and not just a sense of self-importance, would be stupid to oppose more pipeline capacity.

You consistently miss the point. Nobody likes to lose their job, progress marches onward. We can't ban cars because that took work away from farmers who raised and sold horses, nor will we cut your electricity because by using it, you are oppressing the innocent folks who need jobs delivering kerosene oil to your house. Those ideas sound silly, yet you are making the identical argument in the modern context. Economically speaking, you need to make an effort to see beyond the 3-4 feet in front of your face.

Our efforts in Afghanistan were noble, unfortunately if the culture wants to abuse it's women and values ignorance and suppression, there is little a nation that spends as little on it's military as we do, can do about it. I can only pray that these women one day gain some control over their lives.

The folks who don't think much would change if Quebec separated, probably don't pay much attention to markets, currency or provincial finances. A few realities if this were to occur: 1) The CDN would fall. Investors don't like instability or sudden change, and would sell CDN and pull money out of Canada/QUebec. It may eventually rise once our national financial stability is improved absent the liability of Quebec. 2) Quebec would be a financial failure, they are dependent on leeching off TROC, and have been for a very long time. The other reason is that given they still want to use the CDN, they would be unable to devalue it as means to afford vote-buying, and be in even worse shape, similar to some European nations currently stuck on the Euro. 3) A huge number of people would leave Quebec for elsewhere, for the same reason a huge number of people are leaving Spain, Portugal and France for Germany. 4) Right now, Quebec as a province can sustain a credit rating since TROC subsidizes them. They would go away if they leave. 5) The French language nonsense is sustained only again because TROC participates in creating a fantasy world where that kind of thing can survive. If they leave, the realities of the real world will suddenly force them to change or lose their workforce.

The solution is so brain-dead obvious that it's almost laughable. We need more pipeline for oil. That frees up capacity for grain and everything else. The fact that environmentalists oppose pipeline capacity, and thereby increase the risks to the environment, is all the proof we need of the illegitimacy of this stance. They will continue to do everything possible to stop pipeline expansion, and therefore continue to increase the number, severity and environmental consequence of spills.

This is just tunnel vision. Free trade is not a zero sum game. Some people in Ontario will not like the erosion of their subsidized position. Many, many others in Ontario will benefit from cheaper products. Cheaper products means more money left over to spent in other parts of the economy. Arguing for less free trade is incredibly short-sighted. It hurts everyone in the long term, for the sake of helping a small portion of people in the short term. It's extortion of all, for the benefit of few, who eventually lose their jobs directly as a result of that short-term benefit. Senseless. Exhibit A: Detroit The people who argue for protectionism are the same people who argue to ban dishwashers because it puts dishwashing staff out of work. Our economy is best served by maximum efficiency, not make-work projects to satisfy small, loud interest groups at the expense of everyone else.

This is exactly why we need more pipeline capacity. It's safer, faster, more reliable, cheaper, more environmentally friendly and more profitable for the province. The other thing that could happen would be building out more rail capacity or maybe even new rail companies.

Yet another reason arguing in favour of more pipelines.

Nobody's knows what to do, including you. The extent of ignorance you are talking about, includes yourself.

I'm not sure what you point is, or even what your question is. What I do know based on your response, is that you consider claims alluding to the current existence of the internet, media saturation, social media etc and thus increased awareness of events as 'unsubstantiated opinion'. This tells me where you want to position yourself in terms of objectivity in the discussion.

Nonsense. It does not depend on them being truthful, it depends on them producing research which is favorable to the source of the funding and to the overall political climate. In this type of science, that means government. Wrong again. But you do have to understand basic human and incentives. Climate science funding has increased from world bodies many fold in the last few decades. The increase in money, reputation, financing and importance is a powerful incentive, functioning exactly how we would expect it to. If you think that scientists are somehow emotionless robots who don't respond like normal humans to those kinds of incentives, you are naïve. Not when the financial benefits are contingent on a particular conclusion, it doesn't. You're assuming doing something about it is the best choice for the next generation. That assumption has no basis in reality, and there is nobody who has any way of proving that. It's far more likely that 'doing something' about climate change would hurt the next generation far more than help them.

My point is exactly that they do. With the current high wages and generous benefits, there is an abundance of applicants nearly everywhere. The wages and benefits should be brought more into balance with the supply of applicants. It's not fair to the consumers of the service (the municipal taxpayer), to be forced to pay a premium when the same service is available for less, or a nearly equivalent service is available at a far lower cost.

Could always try.

The main difference between storms now and storms 100 years ago are such: - Today, everyone knows about them and gets instantly updated every 5 seconds - No 24 hour news channels existed 100 years ago - There are far more people to get hurt, and far more stuff to get wrecked today, and thus both happen far more. - Its far more expensive to repair broken stuff and people today than 100 years ago - Bad weather is threatening to a much larger percentage of the population who can realistically expect to live to age 85, compared to one where most won't make it much past 65 - Today, there are literally 10's of thousands of people who's academic reputations, research funding and livelihoods depend directly on saying things about weather that are scary We are actually having a fair bit fewer hurricanes than in past decades, a 'drought' in hurricane activity. Nearly double the previous drought. The pendulum is gradually swinging away from alarmism. Today extreme weather events are linked to AGW, simply because now we have the theory of AGW and need stuff to link to it. Real weather is impossibly more complex than the models, and the assumptions you put into the models predict what you will get out, just like any model. The difference with these models is that that are many variables we don't understand or just don't know about.

Since this thread started, the dollar has fallen another several cents. I've never seen it lose value this quickly.

"Dupes" are those who oppose pipelines, and therefore force oil onto the far more hazardous and risky method of rail transport.

Your graph shows falling wages since 2008/09, and ends in 2011. Regardless none of this has anything to do with the point - more economic activity from us means more economic activity for them, which means development and an escape from poverty. Reducing our consumption of fuel, reduces that activity, and adversely impacts poor countries. Poor countries are particularly dependent on rich countries prosperity, in the same way that poor, low-education workers are the most dependent on a good economy at home. When times are bad, they are the first to get laid off. Restricting our consumption requires times which are bad, or at least worse than without restricting. The US had a fuel consumption slowdown in 2008-09. Why? Because they had the housing collapse and massive loss of personal wealth. Less wealth = less disposable income = less buying gas. Did this help other countries by reducing demand for fuel and lowering prices? Not even close, the overall decline in economic growth gave almost everyone a real beating.

By purchasing power I think you mean your profits. Your purchasing power declines if your revenue is in CDN. While a high CDN doesn't make your utilities cheaper, neither does a low CDN. In real terms perhaps utilities must pay more for natural gas from the US depending where you live and charge you more, but for most nothing changes in practice as most of us get our energy domestically. It does cause an increase in cost of living for most people however, particularly wrt food.

Not sure if this is really political, but the dollar has taking a severe beating over the last year, eroding everyone's purchasing power by about 10%. This is largely because traders know Canada is going to do very poorly, very soon. Now that the US is picking up, our resource-based currency doesn't look as good. Secondly and probably even more importantly, we are about to get murdered by the housing sector. There may be other reasons as well, thoughts?