WIP

That still sounds a little cryptic! Maybe some clearly defined terms would help. First, I get a little irritated by atheists and believers of all stripes when they talk about what's good or bad about "religion" and never get around to defining what aspects of religion are beneficial or harmful. I didn't say religions are just social systems, although that is an important aspect of religion. "social control" implies coercion, which may not be the case. When it comes to social causes, religions can be acting to help people, or to cause increasing division and hostility to outside groups. A religion may be trying to use sermons, rituals and outreach to motivate people towards good ends, such as charitable purposes and making a personal effort on a local level to assist those in need. Most secular humanist organizations say these are worthy causes also; but it's one thing to talk about charity and doing good for others, it's another thing to put it into practice. Which is why gathering together and focusing on a common cause is more likely to lead to action than just talking about it online or in a tavern or coffee shop....which is the extent of most secular humanist organization! I'll give you an example....Covenant House, is the largest charitable organization running shelters and programs specifically directed towards homeless youth. Started in the 60's by the Franciscan Order, and operating shelters in Vancouver and Toronto, here in Canada, they are providing a much needed service that could be further expanded....as we here in Hamilton, have a homeless youth problem, since existing shelters are mostly towards adult men and women, and youth, who are too old for group homes and may be at risk in an adult shelter, simply fall through the cracks. Anyway, a podcast show I listen to regularly on Itunes is Equal Time For Freethought, hosted on independent public radio station WBAI New York, featured an interview with Tina Kelley -- author of a book on homeless kids who have gone through Covenant House shelters across the U.S. with Covenant House International president - Kevin Ryan. The interview discusses some of the case stories, including how a sizeable number of homeless kids are gay, and were turned out from fundamentalist Christian homes. So, in many respects we have a religious organization that has a good portion of their social outreach devoted to helping kids damaged by certain religions! According to the interview, Covenant House does not allow an aggressive push for pastoral care, especially since many of the youth have developed a hostile attitude towards religion because of their background. But, what is relevant here, begins at about 36 min into the interview and occupies the remaining minutes of the interview, when the host shifts focus to the role religious faith plays in Covenant House outreach, and whether some kids might be put off by religion; and asks why there can't be a purely secular, non-religious alternative. And that would raise the question: WHY aren't atheistic and secular humanist organizations doing it already? Part of the reason may be due to the fact that dropping out of religion is a non-conformist action, and non-conformists are more likely to focus on individual, self-oriented pursuits. And if an atheist is not part of any organization that provides a little prodding every now and then to focus on others, professing concern about peace and goodwill to others can be nothing more than catch-phrases. Not sure where this is going either! Even fundamentalists don't explain "everything" through their religion. They likely think their religion explains everything that's important, and in today's age when science challenges traditional religious beliefs on so many levels, the fundamentalist is inclined to avoid science and avoid hearing anything that weakens faith and inspires doubt. I can't accept religious doctrines as truth on any level other than as allegory for important lessons in life. Many times the fundamentalist obsession with making the Bible an historical document, detracts from the value of the story. When Jesus casts the money changers out of the Temple, the argument over whether it is an historical event diminishes the message therein. Same with the intervention against the mob who were following the Law by stoning a prostitute or adulterous woman. The story with the famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," changed the course of the development of Christianity, although the story is not found in original texts and is considered by modern textual scholars to be an addition that was inserted, not to advocate for mercy, but to make a complete break with adherence to the Mosaic Law. The story's importance doesn't matter whether or not its origins are sketchy,. I'll assume that you are saying that the act of deciding which theory is most likely is 'creating a universe' in some respects. Could be, who knows. All I know is that science tries to build an objective case for how we and the universe got here, while the religious explanation is little more than conflation, or making up an explanation when an answer is demanded, while knowledge is limited. This is a natural part of human psychology. Behavioural psychologists refer to it as a telelogical approach to answering a question. We begin our lives as children, applying teleology to everything we see. The sun is up in the sky to give us light, and every other answer a child gives will have some sort of personal reference. Gerontologists inform us that at the other end of life, if we develop dementia of some sort, our minds lose our critical and analytical thinking capacity and go back to teleology again. Every hunter/gatherer tribe I've ever heard of, has had some creation myth about where the world came from and where they came from...and just like the one in the Bible, they had no concept of what the universe actually was or the scale of the universe. The world was just what the eye could see, and many things, like stars in the sky, were just lights suspended from a giant ceiling and not other suns like our own. Ultimately, I believe we have choices about what we choose to believe in, but once those beliefs are formed, we don't have a choice to believe or not to believe....whether the subject is a creator, an immortal soul, an everlasting paradise etc. The feeling of certainty is just that - a feeling, or a sensation. It is likely part of our neural development and served a purpose in rewarding our efforts to understand things about the world that were necessary for our survival. People can have great knowledge on a subject and feel uncertain about conclusions, while many can know absolutely nothing and still feel certain. So, maybe mine and other skeptics' mental demands for certainty are greater than most who are quick to jump to a conclusion. Whether it's good to be a believer or an unbeliever is a subjective choice, based on a persons individual needs. And since our minds are all different, and not identical as intuition leads us to believe, I prefer to go with my suspicions that evidence for design and designers in nature is more of the same jumping to conclusions that we have gone through every time something in nature has been explained when the science was able to develop enough to provide real answers. But, I am aware that some people seem to have a strong belief that their lives have a purpose that is important in the grand scheme of things. Some feel a need to believe in personal immortality, which can lead to a lot of bad choices in life, but may be overcome with despair and anxiety if their beliefs in life after death are vigorously challenged. I'll just be happy with can agree on the basic things that are important to maintain a functioning society. Some, would call me a doom-and-gloomer, while I would say the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible that human race is consuming too much of the resources of this world and changing the climate - forcing it towards a hotter state that humans never had to deal with before. The fact that our total population is still growing at a time when the world is already overshooting available resources, and we have a global economic system that demands ever-increasing energy and resource consumption....I would say that's reason enough to be pessimistic. Being a realist means being a pessimist at this point in time. I would say the optimists are irrational in their faith in human ingenuity and waiting for one of those Hollywood endings where some great scientist invents something or does something to save the day. I have choices over my own life, if the small community of like-minded people who are thinking along the same line, cannot influence others enough to change course, we will have to just do what we can in our own lives to survive. The sustainable community movement is an example of environmentally conscious people getting together at local level and trying to provide their communities better odds of survival. But, I don't live in Vermont...or one of the areas where sustainability is catching on. I'm living in a city that will be a disaster area like most cities, if I live long enough to see the worst of system failure and a breakdown of civilization. So, I own some land up north, and I intend to put it to use after I retire...if not before then.

Well, the Alberta brain trust is in Ottawa now, running the country! And as everyone is well aware, they are hell-bent on expanding tar sands development to the max come hell or high water. And oil, like every other commodity that is exported, will raise the value of our dollar in comparison to the U.S. dollar, or other currencies. From my understanding, Canadian oil sold to the U.S. is priced in U.S. dollars. And the world price for oil determines whether Canadian oil prices rise or fall. When oil goes up in price, the oil companies receive more U.S. dollars. Oil companies operating in Canada, pay their employees in Canadian dollars, they need to exchange U.S. dollars for Canadian dollars. So when they have more U.S. dollars, they supply more U.S. dollars and demand more Canadian dollars. A greater supply of U.S. dollars lowers the value of the U.S. dollar. And, the Canadian dollar goes up in value because of the increase in demand for Canadian dollars. A rising currency value is going to have mostly negative impacts on manufacturing exports. The upside is that it lowers the costs of imported machinery needed for upgrades. But, since employees are payed in Canadian dollars, a higher dollar means higher export costs and a downward trend in manufacturing exports. Canada benefited from this situation in automotive manufacturing when our dollar was worth 60 to 70c U.S.. U.S. production in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana declined in favour of lower labour costs in Ontario and Quebec. Now....especially with what has been essentially a complete collapse of the UAW as a bargaining agent, $14.00 hr. U.S. wages, makes the U.S. the go to destination for building cars at cheaper prices. Worth noting that globalization (just wait till we get stuck with this secret transPacific Partnership deal) that allows money to flow freely across international borders, has the overall tendency to drive wages to bargain basement prices. And automotive manufacturing hasn't been much more immune to this trend than textiles. The only reason why outsourcing of automotive has been slower to act, boils down to the fact that cars and most of the components they are made of are bigger and heavier than clothing and electronics etc.. So, shipping cars from China has higher per unit transportation costs than shipping Iphones and cheap shirts. Worth noting that China's new state-of-the-art steel mills that were built mostly with foreign investment, with the intentions of flooding the market with cheap steel, have turned out to be the first casualty of the new age of high oil prices that started taking hold five or six years ago! This is part of the reason why the talk in China started shifting to creating their own consumer economy. Higher transportation costs will take down one globalization scheme after another, as we discover that these so called brains who are the captains of industry, are really stupid, shortsighted egotists, who can't see further than the next quarterly report! And the silver lining for the rest of us, is that high oil prices will do what our politicians have had neither the courage nor the integrity to do -- stand up and refuse the parade of globalization free trade agreements that have been forced on the nations of the world by bankers and businessmen working mostly behind the scenes. Eventually, transportation costs get too high to ship products half way around the world from central locations set up on the basis of cheap labour. The problem for us in wide scale development of unconventional oil - like tar sands, is the environmental costs. Harper, and all those who are looking at the dollar signs to be made selling crud across the border or to China, aren't factoring in the billions of dollars in environmental damage that will be done if they get everything on their wish list - like the two pipelines needed to ship it out to foreign markets. Whatever money can be made from these operations won't be worth the incalculable costs of trying to survive in an increasingly hotter, more volatile climate.

mmmmm. If I had Emmylou to come back to, I would have made damn sure I would have stayed off the drugs! re: Gram Parsons, if that sounds a little too cryptic.

That's a good one! My favourite track is still "I'm Amazed." I also like Gideon and Evil Urges, which show that they can play more than straight ahead southern rock.

Good Idea, but since it flew over everyone else's head, better explain to the young'uns that this is a real logo...not something you made up. But you have to be old enough to remember the Average White Band from the era of disco fever in the late 70's to get the reference.

Which one of the questions you asked, was the one you wanted me to answer, then?

No, they don't have to keep rising! And they cannot keep rising indefinitely because, if nothing else, we live in a finite world with finite resources. The Earth cannot just grow larger and put more stuff in the ground to meet our expectations and demands. Nor can the Earth keep recycling more and more of the crap that we are dumping into the commons for nature to just recycle somehow and keep the place liveable. One very old scientist - James Lovelock, who is in his 90's now, but still writing and publishing research, has been considered a crank ever since he came up with the Gaia Hypothesis with biologist - Lyn Margulis almost 50 years ago. Supporters and opponents thought they were trying to resurrect goddess-worship or something with the claim that the Earth's ecological systems are part of a cooperative, rather than a competitive system. A lot of the findings generated by the Gaia approach to studying planetary systems is considered conventional science today.....like the generally accepted theory now that temperatures, and air and water circulation systems move up and down rapidly by reaching "tipping points," rather than gradually moving up and down. The Earth is alive and reacts like a living organism to change. And the reactions are often unexpected and unpredictable from just looking at a simple analysis of the major inputs into the system. Point being: if we were smart, we would be very, very cautious about all choices we make which increase the demands we place on the Earth's biospheric systems. We won't know whether we have pushed the planet into a dangerous, fatal positive feedback cycle until it is too late! So, if that's not good enough reason to put a halt to demands for more and more growth of all sorts, I don't know what is! Could be right! But, option 2 means eventual total collapse of civilization and survivors returning to some sort of hunter/gatherer existence of our ancestors. The difference is that, during the long era of the Pleistocene, hunter/gatherers were constantly on the move because of cold weather causing dramatic weather changes. Future survivors would be trying to do the same thing and avoid the stresses of living on a hot planet. Trying to survive that for the following 100,000 to 1 million years would be a venture into totally unexplored territory. Don't ask me! But some apparently do. Refer to paragraph one I suppose! Because my thinking on economics and politics is framed around the fact that we are already in an emergency caused by growth in consumption and population. I might have been moving left already because I was starting to see the shift to the right as a move towards the extreme, but most of my recent shift to radical left and steady state economics is because the conventional conservative and liberal capitalist ways of doing things are unsustainable. If we're talking of the undeveloped world, we could have brought them on board 20 years ago by leading through example. But, instead we've allowed our corporations and bankers to plunder the undeveloped world for resources and outsourced many of our polluting industries to foul their environments. I don't have Canada's numbers off the top of my head, but even with the outsourcing, the U.S. still consumes 25% of the world's resources while being less than 5% of world population. The western demand for energy and products is at the center of this problem. If the West had scaled back, and refrained from economic colonization of most of the third world, it wouldn't be an issue today. The tailing ponds that are growing in size and posing greater and greater potential dangers, are exhibit A for how counter-technology solutions often lead to even bigger problems. Sure, the companies can say they are trying to develop ways of reprocessing those tailings, but how likely is that? They are full of heavy metals and all sorts of toxic chemicals. Aside from the carbon-intensive aspects of going after unconventional oil sources, the problem still remains that demand for oil keeps increasing! Until steps are taken to stop increasing demand for energy, there is no permanent fix. Again, economic growth and the demands for more and more energy has to stop. That is non-negotiable; because the negotiating partner is ultimately Planet Earth, not political adversaries.

Thanks, I'm glad somebody noticed it! Because a lot of people will just look at the last page of a thread they've been following and miss any posts that have linked sources and have taken a substantial amount of time to write. But, that's the whole strategy behind sandbagging on internet forums! Just blather back and forth between a two or three friends with chatroom level comments and rebuttals become unnecessary. I notice this happen a lot on other popular threads, where a few highly motivated frequent posters want to drown out their opposition with quantity, rather than quality. And yes, this isn't 1993! The science is in and settled on AGW; so those arguing against evidence have to follow the same strategy that evolution-deniers go to: provide no alternative explanatory theories for the evidence, and just attack the accepted theories around the edges - looking for discrepencies. Why anyone would consider it a big deal that climate modelling isn't an exact science is beyond me. The Earth's biosphere is an extremely complex system that is not going to be fully understood for a long time. But, the basics, such as the Greenhouse Effect and that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases has been understood for centuries. In more recent times, the rapid and accelerating rates of increase in atmospheric CO2 and methane have added urgency to do something about it. While the few oil and coal-funded scientists who churn out muddled studies claiming that CO2 has an upper limit in forcing temperatures....defying the physics of these gases....are always on the lookout for data that is below predicted limits, while never commenting on the stacks of data showing IPCC and other reports have dangerously underestimated temperature increases and ocean acidification. We've been warned for years now that there will come a time when tipping points are reached, and permafrost and methane hydrates will start to surface and enter the atmosphere. We are probably into this stage already, and dealing with climate change is going to become an issue of trying to manage and minimize future increases, rather than stopping the increase in carbon entirely....the horses seem to be already out of the barn on that one! And that's why a lot of brave scientists like Michael Mann and James Hansen have gone beyond what their jobs ask of them, and sounded the alarm about the present business strategy of exploiting the last and most carbon-intensive sources of petroleum (shale oils and tar sands), at the risk of legal harassment, political interference and even death threats. Considering all the carbon that's being added already, putting all of this sequestered carbon into the atmosphere, really could be the end of the human race as Hansen warns.

And finally, the NRA really doubled down on the stupid yesterday when they put Obama's children in their gun rhetoric: http://nrastandandfight.com/

I don't go to CNN very often for news and analysis, but I recalled hearing about this a few months ago: Analysis: Fewer U.S. gun owners own more guns (CNN) -- A decreasing number of American gun owners own two-thirds of the nation's guns and as many as one-third of the guns on the planet -- even though they account for less than 1% of the world's population, according to a CNN analysis of gun ownership data. The data, collected by the Injury Prevention Journal, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the General Social Survey and population figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, found that the number of U.S. households with guns has declined, but current gun owners are gathering more guns. Yes, that ought to make everyone feel a little more secure! Fewer gun owners, with the guns being more concentrated among the nuts who already have too many to start with, and are looking to 'stand their ground' and shoot anything they see moving out in the bushes! And the NRA declined the opportunity to comment and explain why their rhetoric about the growth in gun-ownership is a sham: "We asked, 'Where'd the guns go?' The answer -- it looked like the people that had lots of guns were buying more guns," Hemenway said. The false perception that there are more gun owners has helped bolster a political narrative, emboldened the National Rifle Association and left politicians worried about losing support, gun policy experts say. "...It gives them more power to say they are representing more gun owners and there are more gun owners," said Hemenway. Sugarmann agreed. "There is a myth pushed by the gun industry, the NRA and the trade associations for gun makers that gun ownership is up," he said. "[That] there are more gun owners, when the opposite is true, gun ownership is declining." The NRA did not respond to repeated requests from CNN for comment.

I don't visit here very often, but once in awhile I notice something new to add to the "they'll get my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands" thread. Previously, we learned that the constantly trotted out claim by pro-gun advocates that 'Hitler banned guns in Germany' is a myth! We discovered a week ago when a historian sifted through the records that the Weimar Republic was the one which had the crackdown on German gun-ownership, and the Third Reich actually relaxed gun control laws. And yesterday, I came across a piece liberal radio host - Tom Hartmann wrote for Alternet on the real issues behind that 2nd Amendment....which gun nuts consider more important than the first! It seems that there is a strong case to be made that the reason the 2nd Amendment was ratified was to get southern, slave-holding states on board with federation: In the Beginning, there were the Militias. In the South, they were also called the “Slave Patrols,” and they were regulated by the states. In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed Militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias, and even required armed Militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings. For the rest of the article, go to: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/thom-hartmann-second-amendment-was-ratified-preserve-slavery?paging=off This mania about having everyone walking around with a gun....guarding schools, movie theatres, carrying a gun in the car at all times, "Stand Your Ground" laws, have to be looked at through other lenses than the typical analysis of individual rights. Starting with Hartmann's piece about the origins of the militia movement, and tracking it through the slavery and post-reconstruction Jim Crow laws era, it's unmistakeable that the emphasis on guns for protection is about law-abiding, property-owning middle and upper income whites, defending themselves and their property against blacks and any other lower classes looking to steal or rob them. For some reason, the path to legitimate gun ownership doesn't move as smoothly in the most dangerous inner cities where you would expect the highest gun ownership and the greatest demand for guns! Blacks and latinos have lower rates of gun ownership than whites, and poor people who have to live in the places where crime poses a real threat, rather than imagined hysteria, also have fewer guns. Gun ownership still skews towards wealth and whiteness.....just as it did in 1755.

I didn't post them as a presentation of the "real truth" or something of the sort. But, they likely present a better starting point to find the truth on these issues than the sources motivated by a covetous desire to get at resources on native lands that aren't being fully exploited yet. I am just getting sick of reading endless copies of regurgitated propaganda that is usually sourced at one of the NP or Sun blogs. That's why I said I find it very alarming that the right side of MSM here in Canada has unmistakeably started to plot a course to denigrate the character of native peoples and the legitimacy of their land claims. The tactics are exactly like the dog whistle racist appeals that more respectable right wing sources engage in in the U.S.. They try to avoid stating the obvious, in case they are called before a hearing of some sort; but there is no mistaking where the trail of breadcrumbs leads to when you read how those articles are read and interpreted by re-posters here! Like I said: I can't recall the business-funded right wing making these kinds of hostile moves against natives before. They may have always thought about native peoples along these lines, but they avoided attacking their legitimacy and preferred to focus on other subjects. Like I said, the issue now is that mining, oil and other resource companies are in a state of urgency because the continued increasing demand for energy and resources has exhausted much of the resource base that isn't on contested land, so the resource industries are moving in to the final frontier....so to speak. Much of the success of right wing slander against natives is made possible by the colossal ignorance of Canadian history of most people. Although our history classes were extremely Eurocentric years ago, we still got the basics; such as the fact that we did not fight Indian wars up here to drive natives off their lands. Canada was filled with big, open spaces, and there were only about 10% of us compared to the Americans invading the U.S. in waves of immigration, so we had to be a lot more generous in writing and applying territorial agreements than the Americans. I prefer posting text, rather than video links on subjects, but this 7-part collection of the John Ralston Saul lecture: would be a good place to start for those who have the time and the inclination for a more well-rounded look at early Canadian history.

On the subject of rightwing media, I noticed that there is a rally planned for this Saturday at the Toronto Sun, for those who live close by and would like to let Sun Media know how they feel: Activist Communique: Putting Racism to Rest:! A Rally against the Toronto Sun media! - Saturday Putting Racism to Rest: A Rally against the Toronto Sun media! - Saturday The Deets: Saturday January 19, 2013 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm The Toronto Sun 1-333 King Street East The Call Out: A few bullet points in the article which can be followed up on by more indepth research: Myth #1: First Nations (FN) chiefs are rich. Truth: They earn an average of $36 K; less than the Canadian average of $46 K. Myth #2: The cause of the FN problems are the chiefs corruption. Truth: First Nation governments have the lowest level of corruption in Canada 3%. The federal government has over 10% corruption. The cause of the problems instead come from chronic underfunding and several centuries of racist attempts at assimilation and genocide by the Canadian government Myth 3# Canada subsidizes the FN who always has their hand out for more money. Truth: The First Nation subsidize Canada by tolerating resource extraction (lumber, fishing, mining, oil)) from their land. Compared with the - $500 billion annual takings of these industries, the meagre - $9 billion the FN receive from the government is insignificant. Myth #4: Native people of Canada are a thing of the past and should just assimilate like the rest of us. Truth: The First Nations in Canada have never gone away, despite centuries of oppression, including genocide. They are alive and well, and do not want to assimilate into a racist and genocidal society. They add more to Canada by not assimilating and will reject all attempts to do so.

Thanks, I try to present the obvious: that there's another side to the story. But, I haven't read much on aboriginal issues prior to this controversy that followed the Idle No More protests. I would have preferred to just leave the issue to those who know more about first nations, and treaties and all of the issues; but there just isn't enough push back against what I consider a deliberate smearing of natives by right wing media here in Canada. This is something unprecedented, as far as I am aware of. I've always heard people...especially those from up north, bitching about lazy, goodfornothing indians; but it was always a submerged talk that only went on among like-minded. I don't recall hearing it on a 24 hr news channel, or found in opinion pieces and comments in major newspapers belonging to SunMedia and Canada.com. What these house organs of the corporate world have done is made racism legitimate, by putting it on the front page and editorial pages of their newspapers. This is what is the most scary right now: what is behind this new aggressiveness and belligerence by oil, mining and other business interests in Canada? Looking at the big picture....especially the problem of trying to keep up oil production levels....it looks like a push against stubborn native reserve communities that have not welcomed unbridled exploitation of their lands. If that's not the reason, the circumstantial evidence sure points in that direction! Well, if they were smart, they would not have tried to create a crisis in the first place! I wouldn't be surprised if they started strategizing by working to isolate and smear their opponents....that's how Harper has dealt with Liberals, NDP, environmentalists, unions, and others who stand in the way of Conservative objectives. But, this time they have bumped up against a better organized, and united target. So, there's a lot of people cheering from the sidelines, hoping that the natives can do what other groups have failed to do, who have been steamrolled by Harper and his ruthless corporate cohorts. But, like I said, the low information rabble-rousers don't have to get their arguments from a few isolated, rightwing bloggers now, when it's part of the news and opinion on the majority of private media in this country. That sounds a little ominous! What sort of crackdown might be on the way?

And, that's why I say to hell with their dictating the terms! Before the first globalization agreements and the increased power of GATT and WTO, each nation was free to set their own tariff, import and foreign ownership laws....yes, we used to have that in Canada! Hard to believe now, but a long, long time ago, U.S. and other multinational corporations couldn't just waltz in and buy up things like Potash or the steel mills here in Ontario. We listened to the bleating all through the 70's that tariffs and foreign ownership restrictions were causing high unemployment (which was bullshit) and that removing tariffs and laws against foreign ownership and outsourcing would free our economy and the people to work more productively and more profitably. How's that been working so far? OPEC only sets the price of oil for its members....which means in real terms it is Saudi Arabia and friends. OPEC is not able to set the prices anymore....which you should have been grateful for, because the Saudis worked to keep the prices stabilized for many years. The recent spikes in oil demand that weren't matched by Saudi increase in supply has been taken to mean that the Saudis are already over the curve of pumping out the giant G'war Oil Field, and didn't increase supply because they couldn't, and none of the other friends in the region could increase their supplies enough to prevent runs on oil in the futures markets.....and that's why the world ended up in a recession five years ago that it will not be able to grow it's way out of. But, with a decline in conventional oil, has that inspired the industry and governments and business in need of oil to go easy on petroleum? Not that I can see in most places in the world! The oil industry has gone hogwild into tar sands, shales, deep sea and Arctic drilling, with no thought for what comes next. And that's the insanity of modern day capitalism....which just flies by the seat of its pants, extracting as much profit as possible along the way. Sounds like Saskatchewan has more sense than other provinces! What sense does it make to use up non-renewable resources in a matter of years or even decades...leaving nothing for future generations who might have other, less intensive resource requirements? And, what's galling, is that so many Newfies are bitching now about paying into the pot that they were collecting from ever since they joined Confederation in 1949. The oil will run out, and I wonder if Newfoundland is doing much of anything with this bounty to establish a long term post-oil economy! It doesn't have to go in waves! The boom and bust cycles are a primary feature of capitalism, and the main reason for reforms that started in the early 20th century to smooth out the cycles and even things out a little. And, of course today we have had about 30 years of a deliberate, organized strategy by banks and business to roll back all of the taxes and regulations that limited obscene profits for a few at the top, and demand that governments at all levels, all around the world, hollow out their social support programs that were instituted to minimize the harms of capitalism. Right now in the U.S., they are about to do the unthinkable....and it's not just Republicans doing it...it is a coordinated, bipartisan action to start defunding their Social Security and Medicare systems. Well, I would say the actual reasons go beyond the business cycle to include regional disparities like some provinces just having much more limited resources than others. The equalization payments should at least provide a minimum of support to have not provinces so we don't end up with gross inequities like in the U.S. -- where there is great wealth in some places, and third world poverty in others, like Louisiana, many de-industrialized cities, and some native reserve communities.

Controlled doesn't mean squat! All the controls do is apply reserve limits to how many loans the banks can create. Who makes the money from the new money loaned into existence? When a government, including the Canadian Government, needs to borrow money, they don't create it in the Bank of Canada. They could, if they wanted to; and they wouldn't have to pay interest to the bankers. And, this is only if we're talking about the Canadian situation. The U.S. doesn't have a central bank. The Federal Reserve system is a cabal of powerful banks who get together and make the rules. And, since this HSBC story is about the U.S. Government's unwillingness or inability to prosecute any executives at a major international bank, the U.S. system of having no central bank is most relevant. It was noted a year or two ago, when Congress treated Jamie Dimon with kid gloves....obsequious Republicans apologizing for calling him before a hearing, that Dimon had been chairman of the New York Federal Reserve.....pretty much meaning that he was in charge of investigating his own malfeasance! And that's the system you want to defend, I presume?

I'm sure a lot of the new artists who have put time and a little money into producing their music would like to make at least a modest return on their work. The sad fact is that, except for a scant few, most recording artists were totally ripped off by the record companies, and some of the bands that I got to know a bit back in the 70's and 80's, didn't see a dime after the companies deducted a laundry list of expenses....including inflated billings for video production and even getting billed for parties thrown in their honour by the record company! The only money that actually came their way was from the touring. And, if the only way to make money is performing, this is a big problem now with the decline in venues that are supporting live entertainment. Also, back in the 70's, there were studio artists who only made records and never performed live. Mike Oldfield is one who comes to mind....I think the first time he stepped out onto a stage was in the late 80's. A lot of the progressive bands of the 70's, like Pink Floyd, would have been too busy touring to spend the time and the money on state of the art albums like Dark Side Of The Moon, and The Wall. I think there is a big difference between how my sons and me relate to music, and how I related (or didn't) to my father's music. Especially since parents were older than those of friends in high school, the cultural divide was like the Grand Canyon! But, that may depend on what sort of niche kids are in today. Back when I was young, everybody was mostly listening to the same stuff. Although, those of us into prog rock or headphones music were a minority. We got labeled as stoners, even if we weren't really into the drug scene. But, today, if I had kids listening to rap or hip hop, or whatever blend of the two this homogenized commercial pop music is, I would be acting like my father! Instead, since my boys learned guitar....better than I did, they both gravitated more to rock music, and my youngest will pull up The Stooges for inspiration. In my day, there wasn't any music more than 40 years old that I would want to listen to! I seen a concert movie by Rush recorded last year....I think. I can't believe these guys are 60 years old now, and still doing what they did 35 years ago! Back then, it would have been inconceivable to imagine a 60 year old rocker. Many of them have burned out....if they're not already dead from the hard living. But there seem to be a lot of them still around and able to bring it on stage. Now, I have to wonder if Rush will be doing an album and a tour 20 years from now! Who knows!

You're welcome! I noticed that the index I copied doesn't work unless you open the video on the Youtube page though. I discovered this band the same way I find most new music: my youngest son says "here's something you might like," or "you'll like this" if it's something really retro....like My Morning Jacket...who look and sound like they were transported here from 1975.

The stupidity level in this thread has got too high to bother posting any more rebuttals. What's the point of getting sandbagged with idiocy?

Banks create 95% of the money in circulation in Canada: if "money" is thought of as the combination of issued money and bank-created credit, then presently, the Bank of Canada "issues" less than 5% of Canada's money, with the remainder (95%) being "created" by commercial banks through the process of fractional-reserve banking.[ ...nice try rightster! Wikipedia's money creation entry Here's an example of how they earn their undeserved rewards from the fractional reserve banking system that even a child could understand: http://cms.yesmagazine.org/issues/the-new-economy/how-banks-make-money

The sensible response to a crisis would be to set the baseline at what needs to be done to avert disaster; not how can we tweak the dials of our present economic system to minimize the damage we're doing right now.....and that's where the light bulbs come on! Big Green responses to climate change and related environmental degradation, is to go the route of energy efficiency and build windmills and solar panels. If the core problem is that energy and resource consumption has to keep rising to feed economic growth ( more correctly it would be to feed the growing share that bankers and currency manipulators carve out....but, that's another issue), then all of the big green, feel good solutions won't amount to a hill of beans! At best, they will just delay the inevitable for a few more years. What we have are two choices: 1. organize now to make the changes necessary to move towards permanent, sustainable human societies or 2. just keep doing what we're doing now, and wait for it to collapse. Option Two, not surprisingly, is the most likely scenario. But, if that's our future, odds of individual survival in the coming decades are going to depend largely on expectation and preparation. In other words, the people who are really F#$%^& right now, are the ones who think the good times will never end. and make no sense combined in the same post, let alone following each other! If you acknowledge global warming, what sense does it make to advocate tar sands development? A source of petroleum that's more than twice as carbon intensive as conventional oil, and will leave behind huge, toxic tailing ponds for future generations to deal with. Just recently we learned: Canadian researchers have used the mud at the bottom of lakes like a time machine to show that tar sands oil production in Alberta, Canada, is polluting remote regional lakes as far as 50 miles from the operations.................. Smol says he worries that as the industry ramps up production, the contamination will get worse, and he's hoping that the industry will install more pollution controls to prevent this. This pollution wasn't picked up by the industry-funded monitoring program that was supposed to track environmental risks from tar sands over recent decades. http://www.npr.org/2...sands-pollution Further evidence that the full extent of the damage caused by exploiting tar sands deposits won't be fully realized for years or decades into the future. WELCOME TO MORDOR Really! You mean the converted want to dig up tar sands to recover the oil? I'd hate to know what the unconverted have in mind. Realistically, the first step is carbon taxes, and nothing less than a serious tax on carbon will begin the shift away from carbon fuels consumption. The present system, which has allowed the growth of carbon fuels over the last 150 years, has been to externalize most of the pollution costs onto the commons, and 100% of the costs of increasing greenhouse gas levels is externalized without a carbon tax. If carbon taxes are punitive...which they will have to be to be effective...there will be a shift away from policies like moving to suburbs miles away from work, and shifting from private automobile use to mass transit. There already is a shift in patterns for people who are among the working poor. Many of them have already had to give up their cars and take buses or trains to work. And that's why a civilized society should be planning to meet everyone's needs, not just the rich and the powerful! Because, those people who have become dependent on transit so far, have the least amount of economic and political clout in this system. So, local governments have no incentives to reduce the cuts they've made over the decades to transit, even as riderships increase. The Big Green environmentalists who talk windmills and solar panels never get around to discussing the problem of transportation fuels. At best, there may be the odd comment about electric cars....which would presently add to the already strained electrical grids and have prohibitively expensive batteries made with large quantities of rare earths. The long term solution is going to require a shift away from the building of millions of cars and miles of highways, to mass transit and re-localization and de-globalization of economies. A lot of the solutions will be simply a matter of whether we can unwind alot of bad choices made when energy and resources were cheap...and were pushed through by lobbyists for oil companies and car manufacturers. A permanent, sustainable economy will not be possible as long as we have the present banking and monetary systems. In brief, fractional reserve banking leads to the necessity of creating more and more debt by banks....which are payed back through continued inflation of the money supply....and that means economic growth is forced to increase or the economy stagnates....and the bankers earn their profits by seizing property and assets of borrowers, whether they be mortgage-holders or entire nation states! Governments have to get back into the business of creating and managing the money supply that they are ultimately responsible; and it has to be taken away from the banks. Imagine if you were teleported 50, 100, 200 years in the future! In a world where the remaining ice has melted or will soon melt...accompanied by sea level rise that will eventually top out at about 270 feet; global average temperatures are anywhere between 5 and 9 degrees C warmer than now; the oceans are dying from the anoxic effects of the slowing of the thermohaline circulation, acidification and declining oxygen levels; the Earth's Tropic Zone is often averaging temperatures above 140 degrees F (which will be lethal to all plant an animal life in that zone); most of the world's animal species are extinct or endangered....including humans......what are you going to tell them about why it was so important to extract petroleum products from tar sands in 2013?

What makes a lot of baby boomers cranky about the state of popular music today is that it has gone full circle, right back to being the carefully managed crap that most kids had to put up with prior to about 1965. The Industry lost control of the artists for awhile. There was a long period that started with the British Invasion, where bands said I'm not selling my songs to the record companies so they can hand them over to their stable of artists. We're going to do them ourselves, and if no one likes it - good, and if people buy it - great! And, around that time, the artists started dressing the way they wanted and acting outrageous, and giving the talent development people at the record companies heartburn and heart attacks. But, the chaos provided a lot of the best music that was ever put down on record. And now....since at least the time of American Idol, we're right back to where we started, and it's even worse, because the new bands can't make a dollar off of records or videos, they have to tour to make the money; and that's why so many Indy bands just post their music online as a kind of advertisement to get people to the concerts.

If we had any sense, we'd shut down the TAR sands and disregard payed hacks like Bjorn Lomborg, who just say people will just have to adapt to 2, 4, or 6 or more degrees warming in the coming decades. There are a lot of human-created crises converging on us now, and nothing other than a complete, total overhaul of our economic way of life will ensure a future for any of the coming generations. As for this piece from England that tar sands official house organ is trumpeting as proof that global warming doesn't exist and we can dump whatever crap we want into the atmosphere, oceans and the land -- it would make a lot more sense to err on the side of caution. But, people motivated by greed and avarice are not noted for a cautious approach, even when required.....BP's last two chief executives would serve as case in point. And, as usual, the Corporate Post is misrepresenting findings, in this case the Met Office Report to claim that it means global warming has stalled....which is not in that report....just the NP headline! So, what we have with the Met Office Report is a forecast that decadal temperature increases (air temps) may not be as high as previously forecast....so does that mean Open the Sluice Gates and go gonzo on tar sands? No....not if you have any sense! Because, we do know that the worst environmental damage being done by increasing atmospheric CO2 levels may be the effects of carbon being absorbed from the atmosphere by the world's oceans. Even if atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 and other greenhouse gases is less than expected, warming will continue, ocean acidification will continue, species die-offs will continue, and that should provide lots of reasons for recognizing that the planet is headed towards disaster. And atmospheric sensitivity doesn't mean a whole hill of beans when more than 90% of the heat being absorbed on planet earth is in the oceans. This is why thermal expansion is starting to raise sea levels significantly in many regions, and sea ice is melting so fast in the Arctic that we might see ice-free summers by the end of this decade. It should be noted that the extreme, volatile weather we are experiencing with these dramatic temperature shifts, is also connected to the loss of sea ice in the arctic. My only question is do you have to sign a pact with satan to become a national post columnist?

Thanks to Bell for providing RT among the regular news channels, I get to watch the Keiser Report whenever I notice it's on.

Did all that come from the original texts, or has something been added or embellished in the story? Either way, if they had some intuitive insight into nature, they may have realized that our world is not perfect, and everything in it decays and dies, so it would only make sense that the universe itself would eventually die. What we do know now, courtesy of advanced astrophysics, is that the expansion of the universe is acclerating....not slowing down as long suspected. I remember for years, when I read books on astronomy and cosmology, or heard the odd interview with an expert on the CBC, that the debate had long been argued over how much the rate of expansion was slowing down. Was the expansion slow enough to cause the expansion to stop, and the universe to collapse back together? Or would it the expansion be too rapid for gravity to pull it all back together in the distant future. But, measurements first taken in France about 15 years ago, and then confirmed by later measurements all around the world, confirmed that the expansion was accelerating....driving the universe apart faster and faster! This unexpected finding led to the dusting off of Einstein's Cosmological Constant, and the proposal that a "dark" energy pervades the universe, and makes up about 70% of the stuff of the universe. There is an alternative approach to explaining the acceleration without a dark energy from a string theorist who hails from the Republic of Georgia, but it doesn't matter in the long run, because whatever is causing the universe to fly apart, will keep on going until the universe essentially dies a heat death, or alternatively - it's possible, according to some physicists, that the fabric of space-time itself may just disintegrate, or go poof once the density falls below a critical mass. Either way, it means the end, or the death of the universe. And that should put to rest any thoughts transhumanists might have of achieving immortality through scientific discovery....although living for a hundred billion years would seem like an eternity! It should provide a little humbling to the egotists who literally and figuratively work to leave monuments behind of themselves as some kind of permanent legacy...but it likely won't....because they will be the last to figure out that everything about our lives and everything else will vanish with this universe at the end of time. But, there's always new universes popping into existence elsewhere. And all this is why a Many Worlds cosmology has to be taken as the norm, rather than the idea that this universe is a singular, one-off event that will never be repeated. For people looking for God, or a creator that will provide real meaning and purpose to all of this, that would make the cosmological framework that would be needed to support an infinite multitude of universes, the thing that is eternal and the possible location of the real designer. But, that would make the creator even more remote from humans than a God who has to watch over this world and billions of planets. The God of the Metaverse would have an incalculable number of universes to manage.