ReeferMadness

US Ignored Warning to Tighten Lending Rules You & Wild Bill are plain out to lunch.

To sum up: We have 4 parties in the House of Commons, all of which are putting their own interests ahead of the country's. Worldwide, capitalism is in crisis and these people are playing brinkmanship games. A pox on all of their houses. We need electoral reform but it has to be in a manner that will greatly reduce the power of the parties.

Canadians who want to break up the country should dig their heads out of their anuses long enough to take a look around the world and see what real problems look like. Not that I think it will happen anytime soon. The current round of party bickering isn't a reflection on the country as a whole as much as on the machinations of party politics. If the country did split, the same problems would manifest themselves in the regions.

Peace v. Liberty? Trick question. Neither of these will ever really exist in this world.

Or you could change your lifestyle to be less dependent on fossil fuels and thumb your noses at them. But if you like spanking, go fly over there and do it. Don't forget that their death penalty is beheading. Speaking of entitlement, why does it seem that almost everyone in North America think they have a God-given right to burn fossil fuels that took 500 million years to accumulate at whatever price they think they should pay? It seems to me like the Saudis aren't the only spoiled brats.

Oh, yeah. Ya caught me. I'm not sure what the 'ad hominem' comment is about. You told me to do my own research so I went out and found something that supported your point of view. And it had roughly the same amount of technical depth as your link. Sez you. As I said before, I think it's a fantastic idea. Tell me when it's going to work and we can ensure that we stretch our remaining resources until that time. I've read so many science magazines that talk about how wonderful our life is going to be by such and such a year. How many percent of these brain farts actually materialize in any reasonable amount of time?

You might as well give up, msj. Blueblood is a true believer. Logic and facts can't penetrate blind faith.

Gee, thanks. I appreciate you not confusing me with too much technical detail. To return the favour, here's a link to a documentary film that proves that we don't have to worry how bad we mess up this planet. Just jump on a giant spaceship and let robots do everything for us. I can see now why you have no fear that your actions might wreck the planet for your daughter. Given your obvious mastery of the topic, I'm a bit surprised you didn't post this link yourself!

You're kidding me, right? This is the basis of your "Don't worry - be happy" posts? Aren't you missing a few things - like viable plans and resources? All I see are a bunch of sci-fi dreams. And where are all of these people who are going to pony up the trillions of dollars to make this work? Hey, I think it's a fantastic idea. Tell you what - once you've gone up and mined the first ton of ore, we'll all have a parade for you. What's that? It won't happen in our lifetimes?

Blueblood, did you by any strange chance actually read the links you put in your posts? If you did, you might have noticed that Government Policies (inlcuding the CRA) was mentioned as only one of nine factors contributing to the sub-prime mess and even at that there was controversy over how much of a factor it was. Why don't you take an honest look at the evidence before you post more of this drivel?

Maybe technology will save us from ourselves again. Or maybe not. History repeats itself except when it doesn't. Meanwhile, we're throwing the dice on some future generation's lives. With respect to Wild Bill, I don't see anyone mining asteroids nor has anyone claimed that what's on them will replace all of what we're currently suing up down here. As mentioned previously, you need to learn what Socialism is before you try to criticize it. Venezuela is a basket case from way back so I don't think it's a fair comparison. If you're claiming the average Albertan has a much better lifestyle than the average Norwegian, why don't you back that up with facts? In particular, maybe you could compare the lifestyle of low income Albertans vs. low income Norwegians. The Community Reinvestment Act was enacted in 1977. Why did it take so long for it to cause problems? Read this link Stop droning on about things you know little about and get yourself an education. The USSR was simply another way to achieve privilege for a few while the majority toiled away. Over time, people became aware of the big lie that it was all about socialism and the system withered away from within. Read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Automobiles are recycled but a lot of other things aren't. Over time, the richest sources of scarce materials will gradually be dispersed by human action. If, by "the system", you mean capitalist markets, they're incredibly myopic. They don't anticipate shortages in time for conservation to occur. By time the prices go up, the materials are in short supply. Really. Who granted the loans? Who bundled the loans into securities so nobody could understand what they were buying? Who then bought those securities? Brilliant. Let's just wait a few hundred million years for more oil to be produced. Anyone who thinks the former Soviet Union was a good example of Socialism should invest in some better quality education. And markets didn't survive the depression, they caused the depression.

The ability to continue economic growth based on a dwindling base of natural resources will depend on technology's ability to get ever more functionality from ever less resources. For example, today's automobiles are lighter, more fuel efficient and require less metal than those of 3 decades ago. Yet, they are in most ways more functional. How far can technology take us before real world limitations overtake technological progress? I don't think anyone understands the answer to that question and this is a huge source of risk to our species. The current economic crisis is an artifact of a system that can't control itself. The crisis is psychological and has more to do with wealth distribution than anything real. If we lose sight of the real issues, however (peak oil, global warming, environmental dgradation), we will find ourselves in a world of hurt that won't be solved just by world leaders getting together and spending their way out of the mess. Why don't you prove that the supply of oil in the ground is infinite? That would be the alternative theory to peak oil. And I thought it proved markets don't work. They overreact on short-term stimuli. resulting in wild, bizarre price fluctuations. The fact is, though, that oil was too cheap for too long. Much if not most of it was wasted and it continues to be today. People communting 100 miles daily, mountains of cheap plastic goods, wasteful packaging, stuff being manufactured and then shipped thousands of miles, the list goes on and on. Ultimately, peak oil will hit and our children will look at us and say "What the hell were you thinking?". The only correct answer will be "We weren't".

I thought the Conservatives were supposed to be the business-savvy party. Only a dumb-ass would sell assets in a downturn unless absolutely necessary. Somebody tell Flaherty to grab a brain.

I think that the problems with voter turnout are the canary in the coal mine when it comes to the whole political system. I have deep suspicions that most people are voting because it's the 'right thing to do' as opposed to a belief that they're getting results they want from the the system. Casting a ballot isn't in itself, democracy. The leadership, organizational and communication skills; the drive and commitment required for a top level political political position (prime minister, premier, even a large city mayor) would earn you millions in the private sector yet we expect politicians to work for some small fraction of that. If we want the best people in the top political jobs, either we need to offer politicians more of fix it so CEO's earn less. Next let's talk about working conditions. How would you like to work in a situation where the company hires someone to follow your every move and do everything they can to try to make you look bad. That's the job of the leader of the opposition. We have two institutions in this country (and in most western countries) that are based on adversarial relations - politics and law. Both are in continual states of disrepute. Go figure. Consider expectations. Nepotism, influence peddling, interest conflicts, and questionable ethics are part of life in the private sector yet they are considered scandalous in government. Joseph Marie de Maistre said "Every country has the government it deserves." If we don't like what we see in our governments, maybe we need to clean up society, not just focus on the government. Government bashing is a sport for a large portion of the population. People need to complain less and get involved more. I know this isn't easy. Capitalism is so grossly inefficient that many if not most people pour almost all of their creative energy into work. They have no energy left to take on additional challenges.

The opening rant is largely a collection of stereotypes and non-sequitirs. It's so much easier to debate positions that you simply ascribe to a group of people rather than debating real ideas put forth by real people. The kindest thing you can say about it is it's intellectually lazy. 1. What an idiotic statement. Everyone can tell the difference between Israel and it's enemies. Israel is the one that is given high tech weapons and subsidized to the tune of billions annually. Ever notice that people who feel their interests are protected by the latest in high-tech weaponry tend not to become suicide bombers? Why would they? On the other hand, people who are desperately poor, feel unfairly treated and see no hope for change tend to be easy pickings for those who would use them as cannon fodder. Go figure. 2. Let's start with a blanket, absolute statement, follow it with a bunch of non-sequitirs, half-truths and commonly accepted assumptions. Then you can build the implied case that everyone is picking on the poor old Americans. Of course all of this conveniently igores the regular invasions and/or bombing of other countries, the frequent support of ruthless dictators (only right-wing ones of course), and the frequent blocking of UN resolutions (in 1986, they vetoed a UN resolution to recognize that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran - how's that for hypocrisy?). Oh, sorry, am I magnifiying some tiny mistakes? And if the war on Vietnam can be dismissed as a "mistake", was 9/11 merely a mistake on the part of the perpetrators? 3. Whoever claimed that all cultures are equally valid? Nice straw-man argument. 4. I've found it interesting that in each of Iraq and Yugoslavia, the U.S. went in and destroyed the armed forces of regional powers that weren't kowtowing to Washington. Of course, even making that statement instantly relegates me to the tin-hat brigade because the U.S. is the first-ever super power that is only interested in doing good in the world. 5. Silly me. I've been taught that killing people and blowing things up is just plain wrong. Of course, when it's accomanied by plenty of jingoism, that changes everything. Plus, you need to restrain yourself from idiotic left-wing thoughts such as "could the rise of Nazis have been avoided had the west been more reasonable after World War I" or even "why did Hitler have so many fans in the rest of the western world?" 6. Let me see. Take a tiny country with virtually no natural resources. Impose a fifty-year trade embargo. Then compare it against weathy, industrialized countries with lots of resources to demonstrate how hopelessly backwards its leader is. Whatever you do, don't compare it with similar-sized countries run by right-wing dictators supported by you-know-who. 7. Hmmm. Do you think that leftists have a monopoly on conspiracy theories? 8. I believe that science isn't perfect but it beats the alternatives of superstition and ignorance. So, let's act on the best information we have. Can you find a reputable scientific organization that says there is no such thing as global warming or that it is not man-made? No? Then let's act to limit our impact on the planet. There are plenty of good reasons to lighten the impact on the planet even if it turns out the global warming theories aren't exactly right. 9. If you believe there are only 2 alternatives, this might sound intelligent to you. 10. I don't even understand what people mean when they say they 'support the troops'. Does that mean they hope the troops come home in one piece? In that case, I support the troops. Does it mean they have those stupid yellow ribbon bumper stickers on their cars?

Sometimes I wonder why our democracy works so poorly. Then I read postings like these and I marvel it works at all. Maybe if we had a economic system that did a better job of distributing the wealth equitably, we'd have less need for wealth redistribution. And you guys could worry about something more important.

So, if someone is sick and they're rich, they can take personal responsibility by paying for care themselves. But if they're poor, the only way to take personal responsibility is to die. Does that sum it up? Person A never works a day is his life because his parents are stinking rich. He has been educated at a private school and goes to private doctors. He lives in a 5,000 square foot house, drives a hummer, owns a yacht, and just cleared 45 acres of forest to build his own personal racetrack. Person B works but doesn't make a lot of money and so relies on government subsidies and programs like medicare. He takes public transportation and lives in a modest apartment. Which of these individuals is the real drain on society?

I hope that's not true because it means I have neither heart nor brains Seriously, though, when I was a starving student, living below the poverty line, my ideas could best be described as far right wing (even as I cashed my student loan). I was a product of growing up in a conservative rural area - good government was no government. But that was how I thought before I learned to think. Today, although people call me a leftist (and in truth I sympathize with much of what the left is about), I don't think there is a place for me on any recognizable part of the political spectrum. No party represents the things I believe and any that tried to would be dismissed as kooks. I think we should be looking to shrink the economy as much as possible while still maintaining as much as possible of our standard of living (think 80-20 here). of course this is pure heresy - everyone "knows" that we are all better off when the economy is growing. Somehow, we all are better of if people are "working for a living" whether or not the work is of any real value. I believe that Capitalism is an enormously wasteful and inefficient system. People draw enormous salaries for adding little or no value to the products or services they sell. Advertising. Marketing. Legal. Can anyone defend the huge salaries the executives on Wall Street have been drawing? And what about all the shoddy products that are only built to last a short time so they can be replaced again? Why can't we build refrigerators that last 25 years anymore? Are we better off now that we replace them every 5-7 years? And what do economists mean when they speak of efficiency? Say a Canadian company has a modern, automated plant with 10 employees drawing a decent wage. They dump the high-tech equipment, move to China, hire 100 people each earning 2% of what the Canadian workers made. They can still ship their product back to Canada and sell it cheaper than when it was made here. Economists call that efficiency which is why I'm more inclined to listen to real scientists. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, business process re-engineering was all the rage. Essentially it consisted of taking a business process (procurement, for example), mapping out the essential goals and coming up with new ways to eliminate the parts that didn't add value. Whole departments were eliminated or outsourced. I think they had the right idea but they were thinking too small. If they were to do this on a nation-wide or world-wide basis, market Capitalism as we know it would disappear. When I hear people complain of the waste in government, I think "compared to what?". When Alberta's liquor stores were publicly owned, people would have howled in self-righteous indignation if there were stores on every corner. How wasteful! How inefficient! Now there are private liquor stores on every corner and everyone thinks it's great. Is it better to have 50,000 people working at a low wage than 20,000 working for a living wage? And to those of you who are about to say something about what the job is "worth", I refer you back to the CEO's on Wall Street and the Stock Market in general. Capitalism can be just as arbitrary in defining "worth" as any government bureaucrat.

It's wrong for the government to decide what people can and can't put in their own bodies. You can't compare that to murder or stealing where you're doing something to someone else.

The PR schemes I've been familiar with have allowed for some type of riding representation - it's just different than in FPTP. For example, the Single Transferrable Vote (STV) system that received 57% approval last election would have had much larger ridings with multiple MLA's per riding. One advantage to that is if you didn't particularly care for one of your representatives, you'd have others to choose from. What drove me crazy about the vote (aside from the fact that the yes side got 57% but still didn't pass!!) was that it was opposed by many in favour of PR who insisted on MMP instead. There are a lot of party insiders out there who don't want STV because it will weaken the parties' monopolies on power.

The Harper victory has been responsible for a major surge of religious fervor in this country. When it became clear he wasn't going to get a majority, people all across the country said "Oh, thank God!!"

Supporters of FPTP should get honorary memberships in the flat earth society. The system Winning 40% of the popular vote shouldn't give you 100% of the power - ever. Personally, I prefer STV to MMPR. More power to individual members of parliament, less to parties.

Our wasteful ways have had many harmful consequences from peak oil to global warming, from pollution to a society addicted to work. There will come a time when it all catches up to us. Our planet is a closed system and nothing can expand indefinitely within a closed system. It would be nice if we found a way to do it out of wisdom instead of because of a crisis. Unfortunately, there isn't much reason to believe that will happen.

The two statements are contradictions. If you were truly level-headed, you would know that statistically, people are much more likely to be injured or killed by guns already in the homes than by strangers breaking in. Keeping guns in your house against the possibility of a stranger breaking in makes about as much as sense as packing a portable lightning rod. In general, I find that people who want to have guns to defend themselves are paranoid individuals with a strong anarchist streak. Many are impervious to facts or reality. Not sure whether that applies to you or not but that's the company they keep.