playfullfellow

MS, have you ever lived in Alberta? Have you worked 18 hour days pushing a shovel through grain so the rest of the country can have cheap grain? Have you ever spent a day on an oil rig platform grunting to make sure the ROC has cheap oil? Have you ever tried to make equipment run at 30 below with a wind chill of minus 50? I highly doubt it. You know absolutely nothing about what makes Alberta tick. We may be a province full of rednecks and roughnecks but we are not bloody well scared to take a chance and we do not believe in getting something for nothing. Yeah, we are "get in your face" when we are pissed off. We are a province that is used to building something out of a pile of dirt and grass. We are a province based on strong family values. But it seems that when we speak our mind, we are called whinners while you tout yourself as the enlightened one. Get off the bloody high horse, you don't live here, have never lived here so you know nothing about Alberta. Come and spend a few years walking though cow shit or losing your limbs on a rig, then you can spout what ever rhetoric you want to.

Get real Caesar, the NEP had absolutely nothing to do with the environment. 60 billion dollars was taken from Alberta in less than 4 years and spent in Ontario and Quebec to save their industries during financially difficult times. It was also Ottawas attempt to keep foreign ownership out of our resources. About the only good investment that Ottawa made with that money was Petro Can but now the Liberals are selling that to gain the short term money.

You share in the prize in the following way: 1: Alberta is a net contributor to the equalization payments. Alberta has not received any money back since the late 60's. This is all part of the agreement Alberta has with Ottawa. 2: Wages all over Alberta are on the rise because the oil patch is paying such high wages hence the increase to income tax folders is increasing. 3: Ottawa's tax take at the pumps is increasing each time the price jumps. Alberta can't help it that Ottawa pisses this money away instead of fixing our roads like this money is supposed to do. 4: Alberta is in a strong enough financial situation that we do not have to run to Ottawa everytime we have a disaster in the province. Ottawa generally only pays percentages that have been in agreement for several years with all the provinces. 5: The number of jobs available in Alberta right now is through the roof. The majority of employers I know can use more people but can't find them. They don't even advertise a lot of the jobs they have because it is so hard to find people who are willing to sweat for a living. If people in the ROC want to benefit, get a job in Alberta. People from the Maritimes, especially NFLD have figured this out. Why do you think so many companies have moved their head offices to Alberta? Alberta has tried to become as business friendly as possible. Yeah, these companies enjoy a tax break for a few years but look at all the jobs created. It has already been established that Alberta is a net contributor to equalization payments because we get to keep our own royalties. So we know we are only talking about an extra 2 billion dollars that the ROC would receive. This money would just get pissed away on some stupid program Ottawa would think of. What would happen when the oil prices drop again? You have taken a province that can look after itself and made it into a province that has to rely on Ottawa for everything again.

The question could be "does the government really want to simplify taxes"? Under the current state of confusion, it is pretty easy for mistakes to be made and not be caught. Generally when the mistake is on the tax payers part, then they get their fingers slapped right away if they owe money but it can take months if they over paid. Under the current system, it is almost impossible to not have an accountant if you are a small business. I agree with August, let's get rid of useless crap in our tax system and simplify the damn thing. Set the personal exemption limits and anyone under those limits shouldn't have to pay taxes at all. I don't know about the CPP or EI rolled into general taxes collected. The feds would forget what those taxes were collected for and use them to give themselves a raise. I think EI should be based more on a user pay more system. That way the people who never use the system can get a break over time. I figure that since I have started paying into EI, I have paid over 6000 dollars into it and never collected a cent. If that 6000 were put into an account specifically for me, then I would have quite a few bucks set aside now.

Without a doubt, the government in BC is in a mess and needs stability. I just get my info from family out there or the news but it doesn't seem like there are any decent choices for you guys which sucks. There has been one scam after another and it doesn't seem to matter which party you are talking about. We have our problems here in Alberta but they are miniscule compared to the crap you guys have to put up with. Unforunately, politics has become such a back stabbing, coniving way of life, it is hard to get decent people to run for office. And if you do finally get a decent person running, they get slammed with inuendos and crap from the opposing party. Guess that is why I swing a hammer and paint brush instead of being in politics, I would be too tempted to slap some sense into these people.

Thats a very interesting question. It would probably boil down to who is at fault and if anyone was negligent. In the case of the noisy club, there are always public meetings before a new permit is issued when a company changes what it does. The thin line would be whether the pub has a right to become a club without getting a new permit. If there was indeed a public meeting, then this is where you have to show your opposition. It may also boil down to who was there first, you or the pub. A lot of cities also have noise bylaws now and these may be pertinent to a final decision too. In the case of you getting sick, it would boil down to whether the restaurant followed the health code to prepare your food. Chances are if they did, you should not get sick unless of course you ordered a blue rare steak. If this is the case, then you should be more or less responsible for your own actions because you ordered the chef to bypass recommended cooking methods. Chances are though when so many people get sick, then there is a problem with the preparation of the food in the first place. So all the sick people sue the restaurant, the restaurant sues the supplier and the supplier sues the packing plant. In the end though, it is only the lawyers that benefit from all of this crap. Another way to look at whether the names of the restaurant should be publicized or not. If you have been eating at the same restaurant for the past 5 years and never had a problem but all of a sudden, several people get sick. Chances are you will avoid the place for a while but eventually you will go back when it does not make the front page anymore. As for people who have never tried the place, well they will avoid going there but eventually they will forget all about what they read in the papers and might pop in there for a meal in the future. If the restaurant offers good food, good service at a reasonable cost, then people will go there as long as no one else gets sick. The bottom line is that the restaurant is ultimately responsible for ensuring the food they serve is safe. If they fail to do so, then we should be informed of such.

Ummmmm, MS, I read the article and I have to say "where's the beef"? There is absolutely no coorelation between this and what is going on in the beef industry. There is no conspiracy here because the two are two completely seperate markets plus I do not think the sushi market is as vital to Canada's economy as our beef industry is. As for the contanimated beef problem, that is a crock of hooey. The current ban is strictly protectionist ideals of the US government and the fat cat US beef farmers who are getting rich at the cost of Canadian beef producers and US beef consumers. Alberta alone has tested well over 15,000 animals to date and has found nothing else. How many more animals do we have to test before you will say there is no contanimated beef? I have no problem with tests or rules making our food safer, these are not protectionist conspiracies like you like to imply, they are simply people trying to do their jobs.

Quebec is definately a unique culture which is fine. I do believe that if we work together for a common goal, to enrich Canada, we can do so. Unfortunately, Quebec has become used to doing things their own way so they have enacted special rules and laws to protect their culture. In the end, these rules and laws have made big business and corporations look elsewhere to set up shop. These jobs inheritantly go with them thus there is not much in the way of job creation. Quebec has to rely on the ROC for transfer payments and money to keep their infrastructure running. If they do not get this money, then they threaten to separate, hence blackmail. In all reality, Quebec has to sit back and figure out if they are going to continue to be a welfare case or whether they are going to develope industry friendly rules to attract new jobs to the province so they can become more independant but yet be a vital part of Canada.

MS, this may have been a viable argument if such events have never happened before but the US was hit by 3 hurricanes in less than a month 40 years ago from what I have heard. If the hurricanes were indeed caused by global warming, then I would dearly love to see the evidence. Mt. St. Helens can definately not be blamed on global warming. But if she blows, she will add to the cause of global warming. Hopefully if she is going to blow, people will heed the warnings and get the heck out of Dodge before they get blasted to pulp this time.

Face it, companies are going to go wherever they get treated the best and right now Alberta is offering some pretty good incentives. Generally, Alberta is a pretty good place to live despite what some people here like to believe. Our standard of living is pretty good and our cost of living not too bad. So we get 1500 more direct jobs and probably around 200 residual jobs from that. Our tax base increases and we get a few more bucks in our coffers. Ontario has just lost out on another 1500 jobs, more empty office space and how many more residual jobs will be lost? I guess being nice to large companies isn't always that bad.

Hugo, I agree with you that both drugs and alchohol can be very destructive in peoples lives. I have seen both tear apart families and even kill people eventually. The main difference between the two is the rate at which it takes to destroy a life. Drugs usually can see a person hit rock bottom within a year or two. Alchohol takes about twice as long. This is just from watching people in my life. Some of the people who had their lives destroyed by drugs were not street drugs but perscription drugs. These drugs are legalized and fairly easy to get but just as destructive as street drugs. Perhaps not as dangerous because there does not tend to be poisons mixed in to make processing cheaper. As for the prohibition stance, it really doesn't fly. Look at Muslim countries. There are a lot of them that do not allow alchohol but yet they don't seem to have a raging alchoholism rate. The reason prohibition didn't work is that you took an acceptable part of life, drinking alchohol and made it illegal. People rebeled because it was a case of the minority ruling the majority.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't part of the reasoning the feds control NFLD resources that most of them are off shore and the feds control all offshore resources? This might be a bit of a stickler to get around in those negotiations.

So we have to change every map to accommodate some peoples love affair with PET? Doesn't bother me as long as I don't we don't have to pay for it. I didn't live in Alberta during PET's reign, I lived in BC. Didn't really do anything for me. The man is not a true hero though, there are others who gave more for this country than he ever did. As a politician, he didn't take any crap from anyone which may be very admirable but doesn't make him a hero. Kimmy is right though, name something in Ontario after him, people in out west wouldn't really care one way or another.

I lived in the Kootenays at the time of the eruption. I was pretty young but can clearly remember hearing about the eruption and then the next day the ash came. The sky was pretty grey for just over a week and everything was covered in ash. It took a few weeks for all the ash to finally disappear. I don't think there was much long term effects from the eruption. But I can still remember seeing all the devastation on the news. I don't really want to see it again.

Probably because he is scared crapless of the revenge people would take on him in the next election if they vote themselves a new raise now. Besides, a 10% raise is a load of crap when the rest of us are happy with a cost of living raise. Besides, it is not really the wages they make that we should be looking at, I think their expenses are what we need more scrutiny in. This is one area where there are not enough controls.

I work with a newfie who is pretty well right off of the rock so I get ot hear a fair bit of the crap newfoundland has to put up with. You guys definately have been given the crappy end of a stick when it comes to your resources. It seems that everytime NFLD has a way of maybe becoming self sufficient, then some bone head higher up signs it away to a third party or agrees the feds should look after it. Hopefully you guys can get someone who doesn't bend over so easily in the future, cheers to ya out there.

If by allowing people to inject crap into their system and destroy their lives even further is being progressive, then I prefer the old staid way. This sort of stuff has been tried and failed in Switzerland and Holland. It just leads to more problems for these poor souls who are hooked. Obciously you have never had a close friend or family member destroy their lives with these drugs or you would not be so positive about it's use in certain areas.

In todays society of being run by lawyers, unfortunately, we see a situation where when the names of the said restaurants are released, they may be able to sue for loss of business even though I am sure that all the people who got sick told all of their family and friends who in turn will not go the place anyways. Ultimately, the responsibility falls on the restaurant to ensure their food is safe and cooked properly. We do not eat out often but when we do, I always ask for my meat well done. Same thing at home, our food is thoroughly cooked.

This is very true Kimmy, you forgot that the final step is properly cooking the meat, I guess this could fall under processing in a long about way. Meat has to be cooked thouroughly to kill bacteria in the meat. There are plenty of rules and regulations the whole way through the system to try to ensure that there is no contamination, even all the way back to the farm. Food processing has come a long way in the last 10 years. With new tests and technologies, most instances of e coli are caught before they hit the shelves. Of course no system is fool proof. Personally, I figure that naming the restaurants is for the better of the public. Then if people who had been there are feeling a bit funky, they can get it looked after. But then again, if more people stayed at home and had a family meal, then the pressure would be off the cooks in restaurants and they could prepare meals properly for people do eat out.

In one sense you are right MS, it is a tv stations prerogative to sell ads, it is the only way they can pay for the shows they have. The only other alternatives are PBS or state run television. I have seen PBS, not bad but you can get tired of the asking for money. I have also spent several years watching state run television and that is definately not the way to go. You get to watch what ever the government deems alright for you to watch. So you end up watching lots of political debates that are totally one sided. You get to watch some beaurucrats favorite opera over and over. Not a very pleasant experience. I can even remember that once or twice a year there would be a John Wayne movie on or something and whole families would go to whom ever had the best television and watch it. Made for a nice evening but only once or twice a year. Sure, the commercials suck but a person can always change the channel or just tune them out. At least now there is more variety and choice, trust me, big brother does not always know best.

Don't forget that it is also their divine right to charge service fees for every little detail, decrease services and give management astronomical wage increases and bonus for coming up with these money making ideas. Banks have come to expect to make a certain amount of profit each year and they are in a situation where they can write their own rules to make money. As long as we don't have a repeat of the 80's, there isn't much we can do about it except to shop around for the best deals in town.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the parents to limit the amount of tv their kids watch and whether they should read a book or not. There is also a responsibility of the parents on what shows their kids watch. Brainless fluff is of course not very good but there are some pretty good educational shows out there too. Unfortunately, the tv or nintendo are too easy a way to keep the kids quiet for a while.

Ancient Egyptian cultures had honey beer or mead I think it is called. Ancient jewish culture made wine. I don't know how long it has been around but the Japanese culture uses Saki a lot. There are plenty of cultures that used alchohol in ancient times that are not "white-people". Aside from that, I agree with your statement Kimmy. I also think that drugs, not so much marijuana, in general scare the crap out of people. We have all seen the effects hardcore drug use has on people and the lives it has destroyed. Alchohol has destroyed just as many lives if not more but it seems that the effects of drugs are much quicker. It seems now every town or city with over 10,000 people has a seedier section of town where the addicts hangout. Almost every family has an addict in it now be it booze or drugs and it still scares people. I do not consider weed a gateway drug as some people say it is but where will we draw the line in the ground as to which drugs are acceptable and which are not?

I wouldn't call it paranoia really. Throwing a pie in someones face was started by one person, now you call it acceptable protest. What happens when some moron leaves that pie in the oven for an extra hour or two or is a crappy baker and the pie is rock hard? Would it still be funny, nah. All it takes is for one moron to take it one step further and then someone gets hurt. Keep up this sort of stuff, and no one will have close access to politicians, you will have to get through a glass shield and several big dudes named Bubba to get to see them.

That's a pretty good question MS. One no one will have a definite answer for. Could be something along the lines of that we deal with enough addictions now so why add another one to the equation that the government will ultimately have to poor for too. Aside from that, it's probably that the older generations, 50 plus, still consider most forms of narcotics taboo.