Wild Bill

What has Harper got to do with the lady in Windsor? The OPP officer reports to Dalton McGuinty. The wind turbines are a Dalton issue, not a Harper one. Lord knows Harper has his faults but if you're going to blame someone you should really get it right! Why blame Harper for something Dalton did? Why should Dalton get a free pass?

Ah, but even LESS voted for the OTHER guys! If we go by your criteria for support then the alternatives have even less of a mandate. Unless you wish to claim that ALL who didn't vote for the CPC would cheerfully put aside their differences and support a coalition that could not help but be dominated by the Liberal Party...

Am I the only one to notice a media bias in favour of Obama? I've been watching CNN, (who we used to call the 'Clinton News Network' during the Lewinski scandal) and it sure seems like they wish to focus 100% on the 'chain of command' and the disrespect shown by a general. This points are quite valid but they are ignoring half the story! Yes, the general was wrong to do what he did but there is also the question, are any of his criticisms of Obama valid? Presumably, this general was experienced and competent or Obama would never have given him the job. Now he apparently has no respect for his president's policies and the advisers around him, to the point where he has cheerfully thrown away his career! WHY?

You're moving the goal posts again! The initial premise was that we should put a LOT of money into wind power RIGHT NOW, trusting that the necessary new technologies will happen precisely when we need them! I'm not at all suggesting that we shouldn't invest in research. I'm not saying that the necessary technologies are impossible or not cost-effective! They MAY be, but until we research the issues enough we can't say for sure! What I am saying is that we are putting the cart before the horse. The fact that Europe has had to shut down some turbines because they are not economically self-sustaining shows what can happen when you take invention for granted. Things get invented on their own time. You can help it along by adding resources to the problem. JFK showed us that by getting America to put a man on the moon in less than 10 years! However, he didn't have astronauts sitting on a launch pad in an expensive LEM while waiting for someone to invent a powerful enough rocket and build it under them! So yes, we can help speed up the time frame for what we need to upgrade our grids and such but that's NOT what's been happening! Everyone who has swallowed the koolaid blows any questions away with references to 'compressed air'. Except for Bonam, virtually everyone in this thread keeps ignoring the problem of having to build backup capacity for when the wind doesn't blow, in any practical sense. Wouldn't it make a lot more economic sense to have a research program FIRST and THEN start building things?

I dunno about any awards, but who WOULDN'T have taken after Davies? What Libby did was disgusting!

Other countries have the technology? Are you comparing the problems of a grid for eastern Canada with one for a country the size of Germany? Or Grand Fenwick? Do you have any proof that they have actually solved the problems? I keep reading reports of wind turbines being taken out of circulation because the subsidies have run out and they've turned from a profit into a draining loss! As a techie, it sure sounds like the European situation is a politically subsidized clusterf**k! Actually, if McGuinty is right that the cost of wind power will fall so much, why is he offering 20 year contracts in his MicroFit program? Wouldn't that make his subsidies even MORE expensive? People in this thread are bandying solutions like compressed air that might be cost-effective and practical on the individual user scale as if they would also work as easily and as simply with systems that have to supply cities! Things just DON"T scale up that way! Once again, it sounds like a bunch of academics talking. They've read the book for the simplified examples and have no idea of the actual practical details involved. Or, as a wise man once said, "Everything looks easy to the man who's never done it himself!" We're not getting engineering here. We're getting faith in a dream! I'm not saying its wrong to pursue a dream but with alternative energy generation I'm seeing too many politicos who never took any science in their schooling pushing ideas that any high school physics student knows are just pipe dreams.

Silver, and gold. Silver and gold. Why do I keep thinking about an elf from the North Pole who wants to be a dentist?

Good point! Reminds me of the movie "Roadhouse" with Patrick Swayze as a 'super bouncer' brought in to tame a roadhouse experiencing out of control violence. First thing he did was to stop the bouncers from fighting as much as the rowdies and work to defuse situations! The mounties in this case do seem to have come from the "Wyatt Earp" training school. In my opinion, tazering 5 simultaneous blasts was manslaughter! It was an expression of sheer, bullying ignorance of the consequences. For that reason, I'm betting that Vic Toews was their training instructor! It's totally his style! It was quoted in yesterday's Post that not only is Vic not liked by most of his caucus, even Harper thinks he's a dictatorial dink! Watch for a change next cabinet shuffle.

TM, if I understand you correctly, are you saying "If you build it they will come"? You seem to be saying that we should just go ahead and put up the wind mills, trusting that the new technologies will come along when we need them. Sez who? You remind me of the manager in the Dilbert cartoons who tells his engineering staff "The new flow chart says that a technological breakthrough is expected on this date!" Invention doesn't work that way. First off, not everything you want is possible. Second, not everything that is possible is cost-effective. Third, Inspiration comes when it comes and couldn't care less when you think you need it! This seems to be a common part of human nature. I have musician customers that bring me a guitar amplifier to repair and ask "How long will it take you to fix it?" How can I possibly answer such a question? It depends on how long it takes me to find the problem! What am I supposed to be, psychic? Are you really saying that we should go ahead and blow all the money on zillions of wind turbines that might sit there for years before someone invents the technology and spends the money to upgrade the power grids?

You're technically right, Dre. BUT...! Ancillary costs are not direct costs. Yes, in the long run they add up and are paid for by the taxpayer. However, they are NOT immediately seen on a citizen's electric bill! To dump those costs into an electric bill all at once in one 'swell foop' would shock the hell out of a consumer! Probably, he could no longer afford to use electricity! We've spent over a century going down a wrong path. There's no way the average joe can afford solutions trying to fix things by next weekend! If you try to force him it's guaranteed you will totally lose political support.

I think you're wrong on this point, Argus! I would agree with Dre. The pertinent point IS that they tasered the poor man 5 times! I raised this point months ago. Most people, including cops, are not that technical. Putting a new plug on a lamp can be a stretch for them. Many if not MOST of the people issued tazers seem to believe that they are like the Star Trek phaser, where if you set them on 'stun' no one is ever really hurt. This is absolute balderdash! We can argue about one tazer shot being dangerous to some individuals but really, 5? I'd be more surprised if many people DID survive 5 simultaneous tazer shots! I don't know if this 'phaser" idea comes from their training or if cops just make the assumption on their own but SOMEBODY should be hammering it into their heads the way things REALLY work!

Well, I believe him! Certainly, more than I believe you! I can understand why you won't believe me, however. I've been following your posts for some months now and it's obvious that you don't accept that people can have different beliefs. In virtually every post where someone has expressed a different belief than yours about an issue you have flat out declared that they are lying! This is a very interesting philosophy to hold. It presupposes that you must be absolutely right in what you believe. It defines anyone who disagrees with you as dishonest. It certainly explains your incredible lack of courtesy and manners! Now you tell Bob that no one believes him. Who made you the spokesperson for everyone? I don't recall you ever asking me for my opinion. I do recall that when I expressed a belief in a thread you promptly called me a liar! You might want to google up "Dale Carnegie".

Why? She's an NDP'er, for Pete's Sake! Have you never heard the expression "howling like a commie lawyer"? Some would say the very definition of a socialist is to be all passion and little reason, not sure what they stand for but caring deeply about it! Or as we used to say in the old hippy days, "heart" people, not "head" people.

You know, I've always tended to avoid the company of homosexuals. Not because I care a whit about them being gay! It's just that so many of them are so obsessed with their own sexuality and social issues that it can become boring after a while. Not to mention some of the music! Non-stop Disco! Still, after reading Oleg's rants on this subject I think that if I were in a bar I would choose a table full of gays to sit with rather than our "resident schitzo"! It would likely be quieter and more sensibly entertaining!

Well, if he ever does win power let's hope he breaks with Liberal tradition and continues the Tory policy of playing catchup with our woefully obsolete military equipment. When trucks break rims because they've rusted through... For years I was sickened watching Chretien seize the photo-op to send our troops out on UN missions, armed with bows and arrows against lightning!

And who would stop them? Who would hear the case? Who would, if necessary, send in "police" to enforce any ruling? Do you really think that if some UN committee told them "NO!" that they would just say "OH! So sorry! We will of course abide by your ruling!"

I have a similar story. I was fast tracked towards academia because I was considered bright but the entire process bored the hell out of me! I was made to study books for English that I had read for myself years before. Meanwhile, I had an interest in electronics. I built my first radio when I was 11. Everything I learned about electronics I had to learn on my own! My elementary school taught nothing and my high school little beyond basic electricity. When I was finishing high school I was considering a community college for electronics rather than an Arts course at university. When I got a look at their curriculum I realized that I would have to pay tuition and sit through classes FOR TWO YEARS before I started to learn anything new! I never would have lasted. I chose university instead and bailed within my first year to go work for a rock and roll band! We have set our schools up as some sort of assembly line to ensure a consistent baseline of the mediocre. We churn out lots of lawyers, accountants and poli-sci majors. Many personalities that would have been ideal for a good trade education are discouraged by the stigma that trades are for the "less intelligent". The real purpose of any school should be to teach someone how to learn! Give them exposure to the basics and instill a passion for their chosen subject! If they know how to learn and how to think then they will educate themselves in a process that will continue for their entire life! I can't being to count the older doctors I have met who are woefully behind the times or the engineers that have been sitting on their butts while new technology has passed them by. Or the academics that quite frankly COULD NOT become good tradespeople! Their inherent personalities are such that despite their innate intelligence they simply were not practical enough in their thinking to master plumbing or electricity! Watch the show "Canada's Worst Handyman". Pay attention to what many of those inept participants actually do for a living. There are some high level academics there who earn good incomes! All we seem to be doing with our schools is providing a good living for a large number of teachers!

We're not arguing the same point, Machjo! You are arguing about what could happen to an independent Quebec and I am arguing about what an independent Quebec might actually DO! If you'll allow me to cross-thread a bit, the separatistes in the BQ and PQ have always struck me as strong academics. They may be intelligent people but they are pursuing emotional goals and supporting their methods with rationalizations. Like most academics, their raw intelligence makes them very good at these rationalizations but they can be dangerously wrong on many ideas as to what would actually happen if they achieved their goals. They could really use a few tradespeople in their caucus! A tradesperson instinctively knows that if you put the big stuff on top of the little stuff it will likely fall over. An academic thinks it's all a matter of political will and if it does fall over it's no big deal as long as you have someone else to take the blame! That is the danger of having too exclusively an academic education. School text examples tend to use simplified models, often from areas not pertinent to the problem at hand. Everything has its own details and usually trying to apply simple solutions from a book model means inappropriate approaches that don't work or can make the problem worse. "Raised in isolation" from the "real world", academics can often be blissfully ignorant of their ignorance! If you never experience the details of such problems you can too easily believe that you understand and are capable of handling many situations that are outside your actual skill sets. A high intelligence may mean you can be very logical but you can logically prove anything if you lack any contradictory factors to your premise. No cat has eight tails. Every cat has one tail more than no cat! Therefore, all cats have nine tails. Perfectly logical, if you have never seen a cat.

Your post is full of unsubstantiated premises. First off, who says BP drilled there because there is no other oil available? There a HUGE numbers of oil and gas reserves already mapped that are much closer to the surface! They drilled in the Gulf because techology has advanced to the point where it is not that big a deal to drill that deep. Once you have the oil flowing you save a fortune in shipping costs to get it to your land-based markets. Louisiana is much closer than shipping in an oil tanker from Saudi Arabia. The problem in the gulf occurred not because it was such an iffy technical challenge but simply because BP wasn't conscientious about using the safety technologies we have had for some years! They were slackards and idiots, pure and simple. Second, the Gulf is a VERY big volume of water! There will be negative effects but it will NOT be poisoned until it is dead across it's entire area! There will be a lot of dead birds and dead sea life but eventually it WILL recover! BP may not, however. It will be financially responsible for all the damages and losses of the people who use the Gulf. Rightly so! It will be a good object lesson to any other company that drills in the area to not be so slack. When I hear people go on about how these oil spills and such will cause such vast devastation I can't help but wonder if they ever heard of WWII? Ships were sank right, left and centre with bunker oil spilling out into the water. What about Tobruk? Huge supplies of fuel were exploded! Yet we are still here. So are the flowers, sea otters and the birds and bees. Mother Earth is HUGE in comparison to Man and it is the height of arrogance to always assume that Man has the capacity for destruction that so many trumpet.

Why? Quebec would likely simply ignore the Canadian Constitution! They could simply claim that as a sovereign nation they are not bound by another country's laws and institutions. Of course, the First Nations peoples in Quebec would have their own feelings about such matters. It would be interesting to see how an independent Quebec would handle them. Oka and other issues have shown us that Quebec tends to lead with a heavy hand and then whine to the feds when the situation escalates to a dangerous level. If they were independent there would be no Mounties or federal army to call in! Likely they would eventually be forced to cede some land but it would be a nasty situation.

I don't believe you are accurate when you say that trades are a default path for those who can't handle academic courses. Maybe here but not in Europe. I would say that this impression is one of our society's faults that holds us back! I've been down the halls of academia. I've also had some exposure to the trades. A good tradesman is often far more intelligent and certainly much more practical than someone with an Arts or Poli-sci degree! Most trades demand a fair bit of knowledge. Even home renovations constantly demand different solutions to different problems, since every home is different and every situation has its own peculiarities. This arrogance among many academics is constantly shown to be unsupported. Most academics are totally lost when confronted with even the simplest carpentry, plumbing or electrical problems. It's a good thing they tend to make good money, 'cuz if they couldn't hire tradespeople they likely would have their homes eventually fall down on them! "Academics" might be able to tell us we need a bridge. They may also be good at telling us what colour to paint it so it will be "environmentally friendly". However, God help us if we let academics BUILD the bridge! Some of us naturally prefer to deal with the physical world and enjoy working at practical problems more than more esoteric pursuits. In terms of intelligence they are likely SMARTER than most academics!

Quite true, Kimmy! I think perhaps Machjo and others are too young to remember the Referendum of 1980, when Trudeau cut through all the lies and outright misrepresentations of the BQ and PQ to clearly tell Quebecers that separation meant they were ALL the way out! No EI payments, no old age pensions, no nothing! A quick google supports the fact that huge numbers of Quebecers have a "buffet" idea of any "after the fact" separation situation. Here's one of the links: http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/index.asp?lang=eng&Page=archive&Sub=speeches-discours&Doc=20000519-eng.htm "In May 1980 a poll indicated that only 46% of voters understood that a sovereign Quebec would no longer be part of Canada. In October 1995 a poll revealed that the same proportion of voters, only 46%, understood that the question meant that Quebec would become independent even if the negotiations on the political and economic partnership were to fail (Maurice Pinard, "Confusion and Misunderstanding Surrounding the Sovereignist Option," brief submitted to the parliamentary committee on Bill C-20, February 2000). The separatist leaders claim that the high voter turnout in the 1995 referendum is proof that the voters understood what was at stake. That claim is, of course, erroneous. It is obvious that many voters went to the polls believing in good faith that sovereignty was linked to a successful agreement on political and economic partnership. Any proper referendum process requires a clear question. That is true everywhere, in Quebec as elsewhere. In 1980 and again in 1995, the question was not clear. Indeed, that was the opinion of the voters themselves. According to sociologist Maurice Pinard, "Just before the 1995 referendum, only 46% [once again, 46%!] of the voters asked said that the referendum question, which had just been read to them, was ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ clear; in fact, 53% said on the contrary that it was ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ ambiguous." This is the basis for the Clarity Act, first proposed by the Reform/Alliance Party and then "stolen" by the Liberals, implanting a legal constraint that any referendum question on separation must be absolutely clear. Separatists were angry, of course. Part of their approach had always been to make Quebecers believe that TROC would be calm and rational about any separation, that logic would dictate that everyone would act in their own sensible interests. The very idea is ridiculous, of course. Separation would be the mother of all divorces and who could imagine such a divorce not being highly emotional! Citizens in TROC would be hurt and angry. Woe to any MP who advocated giving anything to Quebec, fair or not fair! He would be trounced at the next election and run out of town on a rail! No, Separatists implied to the citizens of la belle province that separatism would only mean that they would totally run their own country but all the money, customs and federal benefits of before would still be in place. They were not worried about having to deliver. As Parizeau said during his referendum, when asked about what would happen to Quebecers if and when a separation meant financial difficulties. He just smiled and replied " They will be lobsters in the pot!" IOW, it would be too late. They would be committed and unable to go back.

Exactly! One of the basic definitions of a country's territory is to actually have a presence in a region and be doing something there! Harper had made some grand talk about building military bases in the Arctic, icebreakers capable of breaking ice during the Arctic winter and not just the "warm" summer months and expanding or building cities in conjunction with the Innuit peoples to benefit in more than just the military area. Somehow, everything seems to have been scaled back to the point where essentially we are doing the usual...nothing! Still, I repeat my point that it seems senseless to me to have a military consisting only of nukes. Suppose someone DID lay claim to an Arctic oil/gas field or a fishing area. Remember that during Tobin's "Turbot Wars" the foreign fishing fleets virtually had ignored any diplomatic complaints from Canada. It was only when he sent out a couple of our warships that they finally paid attention! A country needs the ability to give a measured response. If Spain and Portugal refuse to stop over-fishing in our waters it seems crazy to have only nuking Lisbon as an option.

Having a few nukes can be a good deterrent to an all out invasion but you don't have many options. It's like you have one huge hammer to use both for charging rhinos or swatting mosquitoes. Sometimes it makes more sense to respond on a smaller scale to smaller disputes. Somehow I can't see us trying to nuke Russia just because they seized and developed a northern island with gas or other resources.

Already the OTF is backpedalling. I think in this case we likely had ONE teacher/bureaucrat working in the union who acted on his own, without consulting the rest of the gang. Not that the rest of the executive weren't as fanatic as him or her, but they surely wouldn't have been so stupid as to open themselves up to such public criticism for looking so fascist! My guess is that the OTF is gonna back off from this as fast as they can.