ReeferMadness

Since when is the NDP the government? And the only way the NDP got as far as they did was to tone down the message on on business and taxes. In provinces where they get elected, NDP policies are mostly indistinguishable from Liberals.

In fairness, it's really mostly a matter of degree. In Canada, nobody is ever going to get elected if they are opposed by big business. In the US, the presidency and congressional seats might as well have a pricetag on them. And a hefty one at that.

CTK, welcome to MLW. You seem to be smart enough to see through the BS tossed out by all the true believers around here who don't seem to give a rats ass what happens to the country, as long as their taxes are low and nobody is counting their guns. A couple of points about Harper that have been missed or inadequately covered: 1. Sound economic manager - depends on what you mean. Harper is draping himself in glory for balancing the budget but the enormous deficit is something he created by cutting the GST. How much credit should be get for fixing a problem he created himself? And by focusing on resources, he has created a dangerous dependency on commodities, which are known for being wildly volatile. And now, since the price is oil, is killing the economy (because of the dependence on commodities he helped foster), he's attempting to change the channel by introducing controversial terror legislation. Which brings us to: 2. Less government - again, depends on what you mean. He has certainly cut back on government programs, from the environment to scientific research to foreign aid. If you think that oil companies based in China should be able to determine for themselves how much risk to take when it comes to destroying Canada's environment, Harper's your guy. On the other hand, he is making changes that make government far more intrusive, allowing a wide variety of "security agencies" to essentially spy on you at will, with minimal oversight. Careful what you type - someone could be watching you. And what of the huge increase in people that are being sent to jail, often for minor crimes? How does that square with less government? Instead of less government, it should say different government. One more focused on military and crime than helping people. 3. Partisan politics - this is an area that hasn't been covered enough. From the parliamentary budget office to the supreme court to Elections Canada to the Governor General. Harper is constantly fighting with or using what should be non-partisan bodies for partisan purposes. How about giant "Action Plan" cheques with the conservative party logo? 4. International reputation - another under-appreciated aspect of Harper's disgraceful legacy. Repudiating Kyoto (and undermining of every climate conference his government has attended). His arrogance in dealing with the US on Keystone. His one-sided support of Israel. International embarrassment over the muzzling of scientists. 5. Political gamesmanship - every major party plays political games (which is why I tend not to vote for them) but he's pushed it to a whole new realm. Negative attack ads similar to those previously seen only in the US. Wedge issue politics like long gun registry and terrorism. A completely unnecessary and disenfranchising "Fair Elections Act". Recently changing the law to better enable his attack ads by allowing political parties to use news stories for free.

It isn't just religion, either. There is an entire sub-culture that has essentially immunized itself to scientific knowledge. They'll believe what they want to believe and they'll find an expert to validate whatever that is. I know several people who don't believe in "conventional medicine" and their minds are made up. You can't argue with them. The second child's allergies showed up around the time that she was immunized so the third child got no immunizations. In fairness, the medical industry hasn't done itself any favours. Many doctors are little more than pill pushers. Overuse of antibiotics has been ridiculous. Many treatments are toxic, ineffective or have side effects worse than the original ailment.

The anti-vaxxers come out of the same school of thought as climate change deniers. These days, if you don't like what the experts are telling you, you can always find a doctor or a scientist who will tell you what you want to hear. Truth is now a consumer choice. Welcome to the internet age.

that's the best you can do? your CIA teaches torture techniques and you have a picture of a party tent? Sure, that's practically the same thing.

You'll have to do better than that. What mining interest? And how does some company that happens to have its HQ in Toronto doing business internationally compare with the CIA teaching dictatorships how to torture people? And helping choose which people need torturing. You're reaching, buddy. As I said, it's obviously accomplices you're after, not allies.

And she did it without even becoming president. I guess $2 gas is as close to the rapture as she gets.

I think the word you're looking for is "accomplice", not ally. And that is exactly what the US looks for every time it feels the need to attack some dark-skinned people in a poor part of the world. But I don't think you have much reason to implicate Canada in supporting the brutal Saud regime. You're on your own.

You mean markets don't care about anything - they are jam packed with people looking to make a quick buck. People who, like those CEO's are too short-sighted to see past the next quarter. Doesn't bode well for survival of the species.

Sure but that won't stop them from whining and accusing gas stations of price fixing when the price inevitably goes back up. It wouldn't be the first time the geniuses in the Pentagon shot themselves in the ass trying to get the Russkies. Don't forget, they essentially underwrote the creation of the Taliban to go after the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Saudi royal family is just the last in a long line of brutal dictators supported and propped up by American administrations going back to the end of the second world war. Others (including Saddam and Noriega) went from being supported by America to deposed by America. It's not out of the question that could happen to the House of Saud.

And this is some kind of revelation? It doesn't exactly take a keen sense of observation to see that market prices stagger back and forth like a drunk wandering down the street. Of course, even this blatantly obvious statement is lost on right wing market worshipers. It's completely short term. Short term gain for long term pain - on several levels. Of course, when you believe in a system that rewards CEO\s with millions of dollars for short term run-ups in stock prices, I guess the implications are lost on you, too.

Yes, let's all devote our energy to digging toxic substances out of Alberta's sludge. Because the oil will last forever and always be worth lots of money.

This thread contains so much baseless smugness, I hardly know which balloon to pop first. First off awarding the nut bar Bachmann with any credit for either predicting or, even more outrageously, somehow contributing to low oil prices is so ludicrous, it can't stand any serious examination. Second, the celebration of low fossil fuel prices only goes to show to what extent people have a short term bias. There are lots of sources of information that show that the current price is not sustainable because it's lower than the lifecycle production costs than much of the current production. Even now, projects that will be necessary to maintain current production are being cancelled. Even worse, the lowered oil prices will drive more wasteful energy consumption such as purchases of larger vehicles, a trend that has already started. The longer term results of both of these trends will be dramatically higher energy prices. Worst still is the impact of this additional energy waste on the environment. It will undermine the necessary investments we need to make to get past the scourge of fossil fuels. Third, how can oil be worth only half of what it was a few months ago? Either markets are being manipulated or they don't work. Most likely some of both. Capitalist apologists take note.

That link works. The first one gave me a web page with a single word - "forbidden". I would echo the question raised about Uber. If you are making money on a spare bedroom and your guest burns your house down or steals from you, where does that leave you from a standpoint of insurance? From the insurers standpoint, are you now running a B&B? And what happens if your guest trips on your front step? Will your insurer be there for you? There are insurance, regulations, taxes and other expenses that contribute to the costs of taxis, hotels and other businesses. You may agree or disagree with them but they were put in place for reasons. Part of the reason that the costs of these services appear so attractive is that they circumvent these costs. If these services are allowed to displace the traditional services, we may find ourselves just relearning (the hard way) the reasons why those expenses exist in the first place. I'm not saying do or don't. I am saying do the research.

Jacee, the link doesn't seem to work. The whole Uber vs. cabbies fight is emblematic of a deeper struggle that is playing out across different trades and industries. For example, it has been going on for years in journalism. What is happening is that technology is undermining a traditional business model. On one hand, progress demands change for everyone's benefit. On the other, our current mode of heartless capitalism makes the change enormously stressful and often impoverishing for those affected. An Oxford study released last year says that 45 percent of current jobs in the US could be eliminated in 20 years. I'm sure that some of these jobs can be replaced by new types of work but I see a time coming soon where we should either be scaling back the hours worked or looking at a work optional model (or both). The alternative will be unemployment rates that will be politically destabilizing. Interestingly, the current Uber fight is only the tip of the iceberg. Within a decade, look for self-driving cars to eliminate the cabby entirely. This one technology advancement could be enormously disruptive, allowing automation not only of cabbies, but truck drivers, delivery drivers and other transport employees. Not only could it eliminate the drivers but the associated dispatchers, managers, HR professionals, etc. And even that is only the tip of the iceberg. Once you eliminate the human element, cabs will become cheaper than private car ownership, decimating the auto industry. Autonomous vehicles will have far fewer accidents than human drivers. This should be a good thing but it will be disastrous to the insurance industry, the vehicle repair industry, tow truck drivers, the list goes on. Our leaders are mainly short term thinkers because people are genetically predisposed to worry more about what will happen tomorrow and next week than what will come in a decade. But we need to get our heads out of the sand if we're going to get on top of the tsunami that is coming.

Real leadership isn't about being a genius - it's about building a team where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. We've allowed the American cult (not to mention myth) of exceptionalism to become so ingrained in our thinking that we've forgotten this basic truism.

The New York Times calls for a criminal investigation. No doubt the people around here who are rushing to defend torture would be OK with waterboarding Cheney to extract a confession. Otherwise, they would just be hypocrites.

The Federal election will be held on the date scheduled? Martin's really going out on a limb, isn't he?

I see the Wall Street Journal appears complicit in what is looking more and more like a massive coverup. By writing what essentially amounts to a puff piece on how attorney Richard Elias took down the big banks, the WSJ is showing itself to be a true friend of big business to the bitter end. Here is a quote from the article: A J.P. Morgan employee?? Why didn't the article mention Alayne Fleischmann by name? You could argue it was just more lazy journalism but a more logical answer would be that Fleischmann herself would be in profound disagreement with the premise of the article. The fines were not a huge blow to the banks, they were chump change to these behemoths. Most of the cost was borne by others (mortgage brokers, the government itself) and what was borne by the banks was paid by the shareholders. The perpetrators got off with no consequences. And what of Richard Elias, the "hero" who supposedly brought Wall Street banks to their knees? He has left the DOJ to join a private law firm, which will no doubt pay him much more. Welcome to the new America where the government is just a tool to help funnel more money to the wealthy.

What you provided was unsubstantiated opinion. You want the names of scientists who agree that C02 causes climate change, they're easy to find. The IPCC. All of the major national and international organizations. You assure me that there are hordes of engineers and economists who think that the answers lie in natural gas fracking and nuclear energy but you can't tell me who they are or even where to find them. Nice ad hominem attack, by the way. Shows what you have to debate with.

Some kids have imaginary friends. Tim has a whole imaginary cabal of engineers, economists and scientists who agree with him. He just can't tell you their names.

It's funny that you pick apart the evidence supplied by OGFT. You've repeatedly spoken on behalf of economists and engineers and I haven't seen anything to back that up yet.

First of all, your characterization of my views is a straw man all by itself - so I won't comment further on it. I have never said the science is settled and I believe that to be a political statement, not a statement of science. Science is about the investigation of the unknown and that investigation is a process. Through that process, there will be a lot of mistakes made. Those mistakes don't undermine the value of the process - they are inevitable and will lead us to the truth. However, when large numbers of some of the most brilliant and educated people on the planet warn us that the path we're on may lead to dire consequences, and when we know that the changes we're making could take centuries to reverse, it's takes a special mixture of foolishness and arrogance to write them off because the initial models haven't been perfect. The prospect of climate change is only one of a long list of reasons to phase out the use of fossil fuels. The others include air pollution, ocean acidification, habitat destruction, the loss of a hydrocarbon resource that could ultimately prove much more valuable in other ways and the horrible consequences of the politics of oil. But even the focus on fossil fuels is only one part of a much bigger mosaic. As technological capability, population and the size of the economy all grow, we steadily increase our impacts on the planet. Each of those impacts can over time erode the ability of the planet to support 7 billion humans. If we aren't able to exert effective control over our own propensity to damage the systems that support us, sooner or later, we will cause the collapse of our own societies. I see the debate over climate change as a test case. Are we able to pull together for the common good or will a mixture of self interest and apathy undermine efforts to make things better. If it's the latter, that doesn't bode well for the long term survival of our species.

Oh, yes. Let's wait 40 years for the data to become clearer. And let's ignore all those "alarmists" with PhDs who are so readily eager to sacrifice their credibility to suck a few more research dollars out of the government. And if it turns out that Antarctica, which contains enough water to render my house inhabitable only by crabs and dogfish, really were to melt? Well, that's OK because it turns out that there is a secret cabal of engineers, that, known only to you, have a secret plan to save us with gas fracking and nuclear power. That's great, Tim. Please do continue to shower us with your wisdom and secret knowledge. I'm truly sorry for not just trusting your superior knowledge and having the audacity to ask for evidence.