msj

Sure, but my wife would face it. Despite that we have discussed travelling there but, due to many reasons, have not been compelled to go. I know my wife will gladly wear ninja pjs to visit Iran. If anything, I'm the one who tends to be the "militant atheist" in the family. At a Buddhist temple in Thailand we were offered to take part in some ceremony. I declined because I did not want to bother to take off my shoes to enter the space and then do whatever they wanted to be done (I don't recall exactly and it was trivial but I really do not like participating in religious events). My wife chose to do it because the anthropologist in her wanted to experience it. I know my wife would choose to go to Iran to play chess (because I have asked her about this). Yeah, it's annoying as hell but the opportunity is otherwise so awesome.

No, it's a terrible idea. Nothing wrong with borrowing money to pay for infrastructure. It is absurd to "save" up funds to pay for a highway or bridge etc.... These assets last decades or longer and can be funded by borrowing over similar time periods. Then we have the softer infrastructure - the "social" kind. Even here the benefits are intangible - we can't see them all that well when that person on EI gets new skills and goes on to a successful new opportunity they otherwise would not have had. This idea that we need permanent austerity until the debt is zero will not serve past generations nor future ones and is a product, once again, of people spending too much time counting up the liability side while completely ignoring the asset side. Of looking at the sunk costs and projected future costs while ignoring all the opportunities now available due to those investments that were made decades ago. Now, I know you're an accountant so you probably get accused of this just as I do but it is largely true - these people behave like they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. This is why I recommend more people spend more time doing what Warren Buffet does - read companies annual reports - not just the GAAP stuff but the forward looking stuff too. Then place some of your money into some of these companies and take the time over many years to ride out the investment. It changes how you see the world - you start seeing value and you begin to understand the price that needs to be paid to get that value. Sometimes you get lucky and the price gets bashed down so you pick it up on the cheap. Yet, that is exactly the opportunity government has now - record low interest rates. In some countries negative interest rates. Opportunity being squandered because it is easier to comprehend the value of debt than the value of opportunities.

Sure, and I have already suggested many options to challenge them in at least one post above. But what if a woman is not political, just wants to travel to see another culture, says to herself "sure, I would rather not wear ninja pjs but it's a small thing for the opportunity and when in Iran .... " and then goes? What if she has a good time while wearing the ninja pjs? What then? It is an individual decision and if they can get enough of them together to force a change of country then all the power to them. If enough of them decide that the benefits of going outweigh the negatives associated with respecting the customs of the host nation then all the power to them. Either way, an argument can be made and it is all so... petty.

Once again, if a person chooses to be a member of some sort of religious order then they choose to wear the religious dress then what should we do about it? Sure, I understand that many of these people are indoctrinated from a young age so consent is unlikely to be genuine (no matter the religion) but why should the state do more than simply be secular and give people the benefit of the doubt and the freedom to choose what they want? We are not talking about children get vaccinate nor blood transfusions here - we are talking about what individuals wear.

Or I could say when in Iran do as they do. Or when in a mosque do as they do. You can choose to not go to Iran or that mosque. It is hardly an imposition to wear ninja pj's, imo. Sure, I don't like it, but it is just not a big deal as a visitor. Yes, I do think it is stupid for Iran to force people to wear this and for countries like France to force people not to wear that. I hope Iranian women are successful some day to get back to that time when they can wear whatever they want. I hope the same thing for people in France too. As long as Canada does not go down this crazy road of the state forcing people to wear/not-wear clothes it really does not matter much.

Other than making the papers and being discussed here I doubt very much the story has legs.

Yes, a country like Canada would be a good place for these SAG's since they could wear whatever and nobody would care.

I don't fail to see it. I just say that there is not much that can be done about it other than: 1) Blast the association for their stupidity for picking Iran in the first place. 2) Herd socially awkward geniuses (SAG) to lobby/boycott for a different location. 3) Herd SAG's to create a new association. 4) Choose to go to Iran - perhaps some of the men could sarcastically wear ninja pj's too? Maybe some of the women could do what some Iranian women already do and get their picture taken without the ninja pj's on while in Iran and put it up on social media? There are lots of things a politically astute (yet SAG) could do to have fun with this while making a political statement. Etc etc 5) Recognize that it is not the end of the world to follow the customs of a foreign country in such a minor way. As for accusations of Islamophobia - I am sure people like Argus will come on this forum and accuse progressives of saying just this. He may even be able to find a few idiots that would actually say this and are otherwise progressive. But, as usual, most people just go "meh" and "when in Rome...."

Exactly. But can socially awkward geniuses be herded?

They should take it up with their association for choosing to go to a country that insists on this. Either go and wear the ninja pj's or don't and make political hay out of it. Everyone has a choice and it is hardly the end of the world to put on the outfit nor to boycott. I know it's hard to understand that choices have consequences and all but the consequences here are pretty small potato. So, yeah, meh.

Awfully nice of you to suggest! I will take you up for that. Maybe you can scrape up enough money to send my wife and myself there for a month. Alas, it is Cambodia us this year, probably India/Sri Lanka next year. But I'm willing to go to Iran next year if you pay for it. My wife is willing to suffer wearing ninja pj's to see Shiraz.

Well, St. Ambrose did say "When I am in Rome I fast on a Saturday, when I am in Milan I do not...." [or you may know this as "when in Rome, do as the Romans."] Don't like Iran's customs then easy - don't go to the country. I would love to go to Iran to see all that history/archaeology but for various reasons, including my dislike over things like this, I am waiting. So, meh.

Isn't this more of stating an opinion rather than calling a spade a spade? I mean, I know we live in a post factual world now, but should the test not be "why, yes, objectively, that is a spade and you are, in fact, calling it a spade" rather than " I think this is what happened, don't really know, results could come in differently, but, yeah, I think this is what happened"? Reminds me of that flight a few months ago that went down near Egypt. Lots of people stating it was terrorism as if that was a fact. Dog on Porch was very particular on this point. Sure enough, wait for facts to surface, and they suggest some sort of fire/accident. Not sure why people can't wait for those facts. Not sure why people, if they do comment prior to the facts coming out, will complain that others may call them out on their speculation. If I speculate call me out. But don't call what you're doing "calling a spade a spade" when it is, in fact, the same baseless speculation with a different conclusion than mine.

I think this is the point. Since only a few know how to do it, it is only the few who write the script to vote thousands of times for whatever reason they think it is worth their time to do it for (obviously they place a low value on their time).

With Clinton you get one. With Trump you get both. Remember, Trump does not understand the concept of a blind trust. He thinks as President it's okay for his kids to run his companies and there is no conflict. At least one of his sons agrees with this position. They are buffoons who would inflict so much graft on the US that I would gladly tolerate his election although no doubt I would get fat from all the popcorn eating.

BC currently has 3.6 million registered vehicles. What will it be in 2050? More? Less thanks to autonomous vehicles (after all, why own a vehicle if you can rent it and save 50% + per year)? Turn most of those vehicles into electric by that time and I think we will more than offset PNWLNG. As for the incentives costing lots - that will be one price to pay for reducing GHG so whether we get the PNWLNG or not I suspect that those incentives will be available. But we'll see.

I answered the Paris question previously: other countries will exceed the targets so why not Canada? Or, hopefully, Canada will implement a carbon tax, tax the crap out of coal/oil within Canada and move us to electrify transportation. This may be enough to squeak by. But I would prefer someone like Bonam to do the math. Maybe ?Impact could do it as he seems capable. Now, do you expect a carbon tax and/or incentives for conservation/electric vehicles?

So you are not expecting some kind of carbon tax?

Good link. However, I'm more interested in seeing if there is a solution to this as I have suggested (or something better not already suggested). If the world ends up moving towards renewables/hydro/NG/nuclear at the expense of coal and oil then I prefer Canada to be moving in that direction too. We are already behind on LNG so either get it built or don't bother with coal/oil/NG at all and see what that does to our economy and government programs. At least we will have cleaner air and water. Oh, and we can say we have met our targets while the rest of the world exceeds theirs.

So, with carbon taxes, if BC electrifies its fossil fuel transportation over to more efficient hydro, renewables, & NG and gets, say, 3 million cars by 2050 switched over then we're probably all good? Possible? Someone like Bonam or someone else trustworthy enough to do the math?

Then better look it up for China and Japan because that is where the NG is going to be consumed. That's the bigger picture: displace coal in China and arguably nuclear in Japan (nuclear is not as efficient as people let on when exploration to emissions are considered) and the net GHG is reduced. Yes, will require the use of carbon taxes too. Around the world. That's what I'm talking about, not just what may happen in little BC. Nice framing of the issue there though.

Does it change for the exchange rate? I'm talking about efficiency and you guys [no not you ?Impact] have to dumb this discussion down to this level? Seriously?

Ok, sure. I'm talking about how much CO2 is produced from coal, oil, gas, NG etc. And also how much is produced to generate a kWh of electricity.

I think you have no idea what those link link to.