ReeferMadness

Back to the OP. It seems like a little history lesson is in order. Until the early 1990's oil royalties for tar sands projects were negotiated on a case by case basis. Then in what could only be described as the act of desperate madmen, the Alberta Conservative Party anointed Ralph Klein as premier of the province. Klein instituted the great Albertan oil giveaway - a deal to good to be true. Royalty rates for digging toxic sludge out of northeastern Alberta were set at 1% (basically free) until the capital costs were paid for. Think about the implications. Essentially, oil companies get to pay for whatever the costs they sink into projects (plus interest!) with free oil. There is no incentive to be efficient, no incentive to develop other industries, no incentive to do anything besides dig up bitumen and ship it as fast as possible. Oh, of course, there was an incentive to game the system, which is exactly what the oil companies did. The Federal government sweetened an already incredibly good deal by offering ridiculous depreciation allowances to diggers of sludge. The results could have been predicted. The resulting stampede of oil companies from around the world wanting to take advantage of free oil distorted Canada's economy, left Alberta vulnerable to the price of a single volatile commodity and caused wages to spike. Instead of treating the oil like a one-time bonus, Alberta built budgets predicated on ever-lasting oil revenues, eschewing sales taxes and implementing a flat tax. In an idiotic turn of events, although national oil companies from around the world (including China) were welcomed, due to an infantile over-reaction to the National Energy Program, Brian Mulroney's ill-considered (and politically motivated) sale of Petro-Canada ensured that Canada would not share in the wealth. In 2006, former Premier Peter Lougheed said this So, the result of two decades of mindless over-development is that the price of Alberta sludge is depressed to a point where oil companies can't even turn a profit when the oil is free. And the response from Alberta isn't a recognition that they have to develop the resource more intelligently, it's a demand to pipe the toxic sludge across Canada, irrespective of the fact that nobody knows how to properly clean it up when it spills. Here is what Jeffrey Simpson with the Globe & Mail said about Alberta's governance:

Seems like you're not paying attention to the thread. The whining du jour is that federal money is being spent outside of Alberta. I'm pointing out that any money related to having the worlds longest coast line is, by definition, not being spent in Alberta and this will skew the numbers. Again, the whining du jour is that federal money taxed from people in Alberta is being spent outside. I'm pointing out that Alberta is being subsidized. Pay attention. It's neither a blessing nor a curse. It's a fact. I recently read a statistic that says that people requiring end of life care account for about of one third of the health care budget despite the fact that they represent only a tiny portion of the population. Ralph Klein? You mean the legendary Alberta premier who was so out of touch with living conditions in his province that when, in a drunken stupor, he berated and belittled homeless people, it never occurred to him that some of these guys might be working full time but still couldn't afford a place to live? That Ralph Klein? Did you vote for this fine, upstanding human being? Seems like it would be a badge of honor to be fired by him!! And I see you prefer to throw mud at Jim Roy rather than address his claims. I assume that's because you're unable to dispute his claims that Alberta collects a lower percentage of oil profits than almost anywhere else on the face of the earth.

I guess I must be listening to the wrong music, then. Hardly seems like the strongest defense.

Did we know what Harper was when he rode into power promising open, accountable, ethical governance?

Australia is already hit hard by climate change and the pain will only increase. Heat waves, massive bush fires and water shortages are its rewards for contributing to a carbon economy.

I wondered how long it would be until someone trotted out this type of self-serving whining. Assuming the numbers are accurate, they are highly misleading. Take a look at a map of Canada. Notice all that blue stuff around beyond Canada's borders? That's called ocean and the costs of defending it and controlling it are high. Alberta doesn't have a navy base - can you guess why? The numbers don't account for how the rest of Canada has subsidized Alberta. For example, when someone grows up in Nova Scotia and moves to Alberta to help mine sludge, the childhood costs of birthing, educating and caring for the child go to Nova Scotia but the economic benefit of the worker goes to Alberta. Similarly, when an Albertan couple sell their farm and move to BC to retire, BC absorbs the cost of caring for them during the part of their lives when they cost the government most. These numbers have also failed to account for the damage to Canada's other industries resulting from an artificially high dollar. This is complete patent nonsense. Jim Roy, a royalty expert who advised Alberta during the oil price downturn in the 90s, wrote this analysis (appropriately titled "Billions Foregone") on Alberta royalties. Here are a few quotes: There you have it. The gold rush mentality in Alberta's tar sands hurt Canada, hurt Alberta and even hurt the energy companies. If Albertans want to look at who is responsible for their current economic pain, I would suggest a mirror.

Well, based on a brief review the 195,000 results that come back when I google "Kanye West misogyny", I would say it has to do with his lyrics, behavior and comments, not his "ill conceived defence of Beyonce".

Oh, he's made mistakes? He's not perfect??? Here are some more examples of Ezra Levant not being perfect. And he was successfully sued for $80,000 for defamation. Here is what the judge had to say: So, you and his other fans can go ahead and tell yourselves that he's being picked on for being politically incorrect. The evidence says otherwise.

Trudeau spent part of his life in Ontario, part in BC and part in Quebec. You're seeing what you want to see when you characterize him as just being another Liberal leader from Quebec. BTW, Harper grew up in Toronto. Your whole schtick about dividing the country between east and west is tiresome and artificial.

You're saying that he's no worse than other pop stars and they're picking on him because...? Is misogyny endearing if it's part of one's professional persona?

So, I will freely admit I have no understanding of his impact on hip hop. In fact, I barely knew who he was. But in 10 minutes on the internet, I find that he's interrupted Swift on during an award acceptance speech to claim it should have gone to someone else, claimed to be $53 million in debt and urged his fans to demand Mark Zuckerberg give him money, written some misogynist lyrics (including some about Taylor Swift) and compared himself to Picasso. Maybe he is the Jesus Christ of hip hop but he also appears to be an arrogant, misogynistic, self-important a-hole with an ego that would sink an aircraft carrier.

Go look at the Canadian Association of Journalists website (the link is above) and see their integrity guidelines. Most professional associations (I belong to one) have ethical guidelines and if you break them, you can find yourself sanctioned or kicked out entirely. There is nothing special about journalists.

No, it would just make sure that journalists are actually trying to report what happened factually and objectively instead of just trying to smear their opponents and rake muck. Sort of like how we have moderators who look at posts like yours and determine that you're just derailing the thread.

You're right. It's not a slippery slope at all - it's just plain wrong for a political appointee of the premier to be deciding who is or isn't a journalist. Would you be equally comfortable with Stephen Harper's chief of staff deciding who is a journalist? How about President Trump? Or Prime Minister O'Leary? This isn't about Levant. In fact, Notley gave Levant undeserved publicity with this ill-considered decision. There should be an independent journalism body that would accredit journalists and ensure that they lived up to a code of ethics. Looking at their website, it appears that the Canadian Association of Journalists doesn't do that. It has a nice list of ethical standards but nowhere can I find any kind of enforcement mechanism. Failing that, you could have a non-partisan government organization do it but to avoid suspicion, it should report to parliament/legislature, not the government in power.

did you happen to notice waldo's post above - Ezra's collection of apologies? sounds to me like Ezra is the one running on emotion. or bs.

You're stating the obvious and doing it in a way that seems to discredit them. Most of our peer countries in the OECD have national broadcasters. There is nothing wrong with having one national voice among the endless number of for-profit media organizations. In particular, I appreciate that CBC is a voice that doesn't depend on not offending advertisers to survive.

You make a good point but it's a very slippery slope for a government to be making the determination.

Frankly, I get a little tired of gratuitous, drive-by smears of CBC. They have received numerous awards for journalistic excellence, in spite of continual right-wing-motivated cutbacks.

What "powers that be"?

They have castigated the Notley government for not allowing Rebel reporters to attend. I would say, though, that the requirements for being a journalist are pretty loose: If you work as a journalist, you're a journalist? If I started to work as a lawyer, does that make me one? Oh, and here is what they had to say about Harper:

Much as I contemn the Rebel, I think it's a dangerous precedent for a government to decide which media are or aren't journalists. There should be some sort of media association that awards accreditation.

If you're looking for justice, I don't think a tinseltown awards extravaganza is a fertile hunting ground. If this were Naomi Klein or a female Bernie Sanders being slighted, it might be worth getting upset over. But however business savvy Swift is and however talented at making schlocky music that appeals to the maximum masses, her work is ultimately disposable.

That's true, assuming comparable technology. Code breakers have a huge edge over most code makers. And for all I know, the NSA might have working quantum computers today.

That may be true today (or it may not, who knows, really) but it will last only until quantum computing comes into its own.

The LLR program is a pathetic joke. Instead of requiring companies that are making most of the money off of the well (ie when the well is young) put aside money for remediation, they wait until the well is barely producing and then they demand that whatever pathetic company owns it starts to put up money for remediation. All the LLR is going to succeed in doing is putting marginal companies out of business a little early and turning the wells over to the province.