ReeferMadness

The few worth having. Really?? And you speak from what pinnacle of authority in saying that? First of all, you claim to agree with what she is saying. I didn't hear her say there were only "a few worth having" when it comes to Muslims. Second, she speaks from a position of knowledge, having lived there and not just read things in the media. Third, just because she disagrees with the conservative a-hole who is interviewing her doesn't mean she is going to turn around and agree with you about her culture or her faith. There's a big difference between her criticizing her own culture/religion. and outsiders who know very little making sweeping denigrating comments about the whole of Islam. Nobody is going to mistake her for a bigot when she says these things. I don't know how you can fail to get that.

Just because it isn't there doesn't mean it's missing. As I was trying to point out in my original post, IMHO pop stars and other pop cultural icons including sports heroes, actors, and other celebrities are vastly overrated and over-rewarded both in terms of media attention and money. If Taylor Swift is undervalued relative to her male peers (and I don't know that she is or isn't), I can understand how she might not like that but it isn't going to rank in the top 10 problems in the world. Furthermore, if the world were to suddenly change and award her her "due" in terms of parity of fame, fortune and respect with her male peers, I don't think that would do anything for the vast majority of women in the world. IOW, I think that Taylor Swift has a lot more in common with other elite members of the cultural community (of all genders and races) than she does with "ordinary" people who share her sex. I know that unfair discrimination exists in the world and I am not at all insensitive to it. But I also know it exists along an unlimited number of dimensions. We focus on the most visible ones (like sex, race and age) and all that does is blind us to deeper realities. What I'm trying to say is Taylor Swift may not be as privileged as her male peers but she still is part of a very privileged class of people. If I could change the world, I wouldn't start by fixing her situation.

And they probably both are loving it.

My eastern ass? lololol :rolleyes:

I get that and my comments were really aimed more at cultural industries in general than her in particular. She's smart and tough and I respect that. And her music is catchy and not in an annoying way - I just don't expect to hear much of it in 10 years. But for every Taylor Swift in the world there are 50,000 others who are equally or more talented musically but lack the toughness/business savvy/looks/ruthlessness/connections/agents/luck/whatever else to make it at that level. Cultural industries are incredibly stratified versus most other types of work.

I've never been able to get too worked up over spats between pop culture icons who owe their success more to branding and image than talent.

Anyone else think the setup looks weird? She's seated as far from the host as possible, at the end of a long couch. There are two people to her right saying nothing - are they her bodyguards?

I hope she has personal protection. If there is one group of people that believes more in "you are with us or you are against us" than the extreme right wing, it's religious fundamentalists. Unsurprisingly, they're often one and the same.

I agree that drugs should be legalized and that's why these stories, if true, would be a huge scandal. IF senior politicians (or even senior government officials who are in a position to influence policy) are involved in drug smuggling, their intent isn't to undermine drug laws, it's to use those drug laws to generate profits for some illicit purpose. So, in fact, this illegal activity (if true) would actually motivate those same people to reinforce drug laws and make them even more draconian (which, incidentally, Harper did). This would represent the worst form of corruption. The real issue here is that these allegations have been around for decades (remember Air America?) and either nobody cares or there hasn't been enough evidence to give them legs. Once you start following these conspiracies, they lead both everywhere and nowhere. You get lost in a maze of trails. Until a high profile whistle blower with real proof comes forward, this will continue to lead nowhere.

Conservative supporters hopes and prayers for Trudeau to fail.

I don't believe this is a case of the government "getting involved in market controls"; rather I think it is a case of a government-owned entity (CMHC) adjusting the amount of risk it is prepared to take on. Look at this article. It makes it clear that this is a change to CMHC rules, not legislation. Legislation requires that all high ratio mortgages be covered by insurance and CMHC insures most of the mortgages in Canada. Here is that the NDP had to say This will mainly impact Toronto and Vancouver, both of which are overvalued and increasingly poised for a market readjustment. So, to me it is perfect reasonable for the government to readjust the CMHC rules, both to limit the number of people that will be wiped out when the downturn happens and to protect Canadians from losses via CMHC when that happens.

You mean that wealth is in the hands of multinational oil companies - since Canadian right wingers kicked up such a stink that Mulroney sold Petro Canada. We allow state owned oil companies from other countries to invest in Alberta but not Canada. And even the amounts that did trickle into the hands of ordinary Albertans - how much is left after it's spent on dual-wheeled pickup trucks, holiday trailers, ATV's and snowmobiles? Let me reword that for you to make it a bit more.... truthful. Albertans are suffering a downturn (although, by your own admission, it still isn't that bad) and are lashing out at other provinces, saying, in effect, "hey - you OWE us!". Meanwhile, we have Quebec, which has had its industries hurt by the irresponsible over-development of the tar sands, being asked to accept a major pipeline running along the river valley of its major waterway, through its economic heartland, and through or adjacent to its major metropolitan areas. I lived in Alberta. I get how Albertans have rationalized the enormous environmental destruction they are wreaking in exchange for a few extra bucks. I even get how, shamefully, Albertans have allowed their regulatory agencies to be captured by the oil and gas industry. But Alberta needs to get that Quebec might see things differently. Yup. Suncor is betting the price of oil is going to go back up, at least for a while. And probably, they're right. But here's the thing. If Suncor bets wrong, the worst that can happen is it goes under. And the Suncor executives that are making these decisions probably all have enough money that they aren't going to lose their houses and be lining up at food banks. They'll go somewhere else and land on their feet. They're not going to have to deal with the employees that lose their jobs and do wind up homeless. They're not going to have to worry about the local populations that wind up with rare forms of cancer from the toxic pollution. You won't find them in Fort McMurray after the bust cleaning up the mess. So, the exposure of Suncor (at least the people who are making the decisions) is very different from the exposure of Alberta.

The price of oil was around $20 per barrel (inflation adjusted dollars) for decades and the oil companies did just fine. So, what happened? As with any resource extraction, the cheapest and most valuable resources are extracted first, leaving the most expensive, least valuable resources in the ground. Technology improvements help but inevitably, the cost of extracting resources grows over time. The real problem with oil production is that the EREOI (energy returned on energy invested) inevitably sinks over time. I don't know of any peer reviewed numbers but I have seen figures for bitumen EREOI as low as 3:1. As you approach 1:1, you reach a point at which production will become uneconomical at any price. Slashing wages to protect your economy is a lot like staying warm by ripping boards off you house and burning them. You're just cannibalizing one part of your economy to save another. I didn't speak to the rest of Canada because I don't know enough to speak to it. I would say that Alberta has (over the last 20 years) attracted younger economic migrants, which would also drive the participation rate up. I think you have that backwards. Cod are renewable - unless they become extinct. Oil is not. Again, I ask. What will these exports be? I lived in Edmonton and I know that a LOT of 'non-energy' economic activity is just spin-offs from the oil industry. Atco trailers for rig pigs. Nisku. Refinery Row. What would REALLY be left without oil? Agriculture. Some softwood. Edmonton has a small biotech industry. BC has a diverse economy. And in addition to exporting stuff, it imports money. In the form of retirees, immigrants, the film industry, tourism. And no, you can't deduct coal. Most of the coal mined in BC is metallurgical coal. lol. You want to use the Gretzky example? lmao. I used to be an Oilers fan - the Gretzky sale was one of the things that soured me on the game. It became all too apparent that the game was less about sport than about money. So, now I only watch when the Oilers make the playoffs. I don't watch a lot of hockey. Just because you could produce oil for $30 30 years ago, doesn't mean you can do it today. The real new reality is that the oil you have left is less valuable and more expensive than the oil you had. And that's a trend that will continue. And I keep asking what those other commodities are.

You think Canada should be more like Venezuela and Russia? Check out how they're economies are doing right now and get back to me.

They're completely in denial. If they were being honest about things, there would be some reflection on how they've blown their oil wealth and how they've allowed themselves to become utterly dependent on a non-renewable resource that is becoming increasingly seen as a major world problem. But I've not heard any of that from prominent Albertans like Naheed Nenshi. They're too busy pointing fingers at Montreal. Look at the statements that have been made about Energy East. It's as if approving Energy East is going to offer some way out of today's problems. If Energy East were approved today, it wouldn't be done for another 10 years! Unless the price of oil jumps, it will never be completed - there won't be enough of an oil industry left. As near as I can tell, Alberta's only plan is to try and stay busy until the price of oil comes back. What if it doesn't? Where is plan B? There isn't one. Nobody is pouring billions of dollars into sludge mining unless they're confident the price of oil is at least double its current price.

I agree that the numbers in Alberta aren't that bad compared to other areas - yet. Check again at the end of the year if the price of oil isn't over $40. But that's not the mess I was referring to. I meant the fact that the Alberta economy is a house of cards built on a single volatile commodity. Who in Alberta has a plan besides "let's sit back and wait for the price of oil to recover"? BC is a destination for retirees and families of wealthy immigrants. So comparing participation rates is misleading. When the pendulum swings, it doesn't necessarily stop where you'd like it to. Maybe it brings Alberta to national standards, maybe Alberta starts to look like Newfoundland did a few years ago. There is no telling at the moment. Given the level of angst that has been generated by the downturn, I have to guess that these guys didn't save a lot of the big bucks they were making. There's still a lot of money sloshing around in Alberta and it would take time for it to drain away. All depends on the price of oil. If you think 10% - 25% of the remainder is worst case, I think you're dreaming. Alberta has little in the way of manufacturing of finished goods so you need to import them. The only way you can do that is to export something. And look at what you export. The top 3 are all oil or its derivatives. In the absence of oil, what, exactly is the basis of the Alberta economy? If oil stays at $30 for an extended period of time, Alberta's #1 export is going to be people. Fort McMurray will become the world's biggest ghost town and Calgary will start to resemble Detroit. That's not likely but it isn't impossible. What I consider smart is not to base your economic future on one commodity. And when you have a commodity that's non-renewable, get maximum value from it. And save some of it to cushion yourself when the inevitable bust happens.

This was flagged by the auditor general who noted that the clean-up hadn't been completed. Auditors general aren't known for setting environmental standards so it's reasonable to assume she was only reflecting that fact that the clean-up hadn't been done to the environmental standards set by the province. Are you arguing that under Premier Wall, Saskatchewan's environmental standards are too high? So, I guess you're saying that Premier Wall is just wasting federal money.

I suspect you're talking about whatever went on in Ontario. I believe there is already a thread for this and I think you should cover it off there. However, there are 4 things relevant Ontario that I recently read: 1. The situation had a lot more to do with the tens of billions spent on nuclear energy 2. The cost of renewable energy (particularly solar) has dropped considerably over the past 5-10 years 3. The costs are are due to renewables are due as much to bad negotiating with independent power producers as with any cost inherent to renewables (we have the same issue in BC re: run of river electricity) 4. Ontario has very high peak prices but overall electricity is competitive with other similar jurisdictions In fact, Ontario is bordered on both sides by provinces with large amounts of hydroelectricity and should be partnering with them.

I think that's an ad hominem comment. Do you have something to add to the issue?

You'd have to take that up with the Americans that are proposing it. Worried about your day trading?

You didn't read it all - read the second quote in my OP.

A new study has found that by connecting grids across North America, renewable energy could supply cheaper electricity with lower emissions without grid storage. As we squabble over pipelines in Canada, study after study shows that they will be white elephants long before they are paid off. It's bad news indeed for those who deeply invested, financially or emotionally, in fossil fuels.

The FBI has surrounded the final 4 Yeehawdis Fry, from Ohio, tells the FBI they should get out of Oregon.