ReeferMadness

Your post assumes much. "unsustainable entitlement program"? What is that exactly? Forget about money for a moment - it's an abstraction. Focus on reality. If the US is finally able to move forward from its obsession with building machines that kill people,that would be a good thing. I'm still skeptical, though.

A politician caught in an ethically-compromising position? I'm shocked.

In fairness, the Democrats have not much more interest in the welfare of American citizens. The billion or so dollars that it takes to get elected ensures that anyone who seriously intends on tipping the rich-poor balance will never get close to holding power.

My handle is based on the movie of the same name and the lies that fascist elements of governments tell citizenry; not so much on the drug itself. When people start to make fun of it, I know they've run out of intelligent things to say. In your case, it didn't take long. I don't know (or care) to what you have to listen. It wouldn't really be fair to hold them accountable for the damage their administrations wrought. I suspect they only had a vague understanding of the bills they signed into law and the decisions they claimed to have made. An over-the-hill, crappy actor (whose dementia had started well before he left office) and a pampered rich boy who constantly mangled the lines his handlers wrote. They would have made a lovely pair. That this mentally challenged pair could get elected just speaks to just how deeply large swaths of the American public distrust intellectualism. If by bigger government you mean more military spending and corporate handouts, I agree.

Oh, and the reference to Jimmy Savile? Truly beneath contempt. Dig up some evidence - put up or shut up!!

This whole episode is a non-event. If Levant thinks that Suzuki is a sleaze-bag, let him prove it. All he's demonstrated is that Suzuki has charged for a public appearance and asked to be escorted by female body guards. All this has done is lower my opinion of Levant and show how desperate people are to have something to hang on Suzuki. Truly pathetic. All I can say is get a life.

Where to start with this???? First off, I should start by saying that presidents aren't kings (and that's by design). There is this thing called separation of power that constrains presidents from just acting unilaterally. There is a tendency to attribute everything that happens to the president. Wrongly, in my view. Second, it would be a mistake to attribute much of anything to Reagan himself. He was a second-rate actor and a doddering fool and that was before he got Alzheimers. Reagan was a figurehead who did what his handlers wanted. Bush Junior was and is a complete fool, Cheney was the real president. Third, the entire political spectrum has slid significantly rightward (in economic terms at least) over the past 40 years. Obama has done practically nothing to slow it, much less reverse it. The loss of the manufacturing sector to globalization, the decline of unionization, the cutting of government programs - all of these things have combined to result in the evaporation of the middle class.

If Harper has a secret plan, he's keeping it so secret even he doesn't know about it: Harper assures HoC that all senators meet residency requirements How does he know this? Can he personally vouch for the living arrangements of each senator?

Ah, yes. It's all about the money, isn't it? As long as it's someone else's money being used to pump poisonous chemicals into the bowels of the earth, nobody should care. And if this portends a world where energy prices skyrocket because we are wasting time trying to go down a false trail, well, it's OK because (for now at least), it's only someone else's money. That's the idiocy of laissez faire economics.

Do you have a source to back that up? I've read in multiple places that shale gas wells decline rapidly and that recovery rates are quite low. For example: link

That's a good point. However, I think it's true that most people don't really understand the voting system that we have, much less any others.

I don't know what happened in Ontario. In BC, however, the no side ran a completely negative, mostly dishonest campaign. Practically nobody understood STV either before or after the campaign. Ironically, voting systems are one of those things that make voters yawn. Relatively few people understand how 40% of the votes get you 60% of the seats. People only know that "whoever gets the most votes wins".

I agree this is often true of political parties. The NDP federally, for example, supports proportional representation. Provincially, they've been in power often but have never made any move to implement it. Individually, however, there are lots of people who are in favour of proportional representation purely on principle. There is also Fair Vote Canada, an excellent organization lobbying for electoral reform.

It was actually a false economy. And if you think that the reactions of the Democrats is somehow relevant, you'll have to point out how. They were supposed to be protecting the system from collapse, not accelerating its tailspin into the dirt. So, your view is that all borrowing is wrong?

No, of course not. We think that everyone should work for crappy wages.

What figures would those be?

Depends on where you are. I was unable to find figures for the world but in 2011 (latest date figures available) in Europe, 70% of new capacity was renewable. And most of that was wind or solar.

Exactly. People have assumed that shale well production would decline at the same historic rates as conventional production. It just ain't so.

bc, you're trolling - I'm not going to waste my time on an answer.

Yes, Clinton repealed it. This supports the contention that there is really only one political party in the USA, with two wings.

And so how do you account for the fact that renewable energy installations are the fast growing in percentage terms? The reference didn't come from the nation. They came from a group of concerned scientists. Is it your contention that everyone in the USA thinks exactly the same? Did you sleep through the same logic class as TimG? Sadly, Canada is currently governed by a gang of mental midgets who are as anti-science as they are pro-oil. Many Canadian scientists are finding themselves muzzled or out of work. However, I'm sure I could find some good stuff from Andrew Weaver given some time. I just don't see any point in spending that time since the work done by the National Academy of Sciences will do just fine. How much have you read?

I'm not sure that the regulators couldn't stop it but they didn't. There wasn't the political will to do anything about it. Greenspan and his successor Bernanke drank the coolaid and couldn't believe in anything other than their misguided notion that the market would police itself. What nonsense. Fractional banking was responsible for the depression and both world wars? Where do you dig up these tin-hat theories?

Past experience shows that you rarely post links to support your views - you seem to prefer to just babble on. So, it's an open question as to whether you actually believe in reading things or not. Still, I'll take the chance that you do. Why don't you go back and read the National Academy of Sciences report. Or maybe just a few sections. Or even a page. Then come back and tell me what you don't get. Fossil fuel production, transmission, storage and usage are incredibly damaging and costly. And yes, the NAS is an American based source. And no, that doesn't automatically discredit it as a source. Because, you see, the USA is a big country with all kinds of people. Lots and lots of them can read and use information and understand important concepts. I'm sure if you ask around, you might be able to find one who can help you understand this stuff. Good luck with that.

Or someone who might actually be paying attention. Link

I can tell you're desperate when you're reduce to arguing for fossil fuels on environmental grounds. Of course there will be environmental effects from anything we do. But the National Academy of Science wrote a document almost 500 pages long on the catastrophic effects of fossil fuels. And they couldn't even properly quantify the worst effects. Are you seriously going to argue that we should keep using fossil fuels for the sake of migratory birds? Could anyone remotely familiar with your posts take that seriously?? Give it up.