Molly

Oh, that's truly priceless, Small-c. You see, I'm bred, born, raised, and lived the first half-century of my life in Saskatchewan, before packing it is as a lost cause and moving to Ontario. (Thanks, Red Roy, for making my home a place where I no longer wanted to be.) Whoop-de-do that they've been ramping up production for a decade... That number should be 4 or more decades, and not just one. Potash, yes, has underpinned the increasing wealth, but again, it only took this long to realize that wealth because 4 decades ago, when potash was already booming, Al Blakeney put the run on anyone who wanted to invest honestly in the provinces resources by offering to expropriate the potash industry. Saskatchewan and Alberta began as twin provinces-- if a choice was to be made, probably Saskatchewan would be considered the more richly endowed. The true divergence in their fortunes began NOT when oil was discovered in Alberta (there was also oil in Saskatchewan, and coal and uranium, and potash, and gold and.. and.. and...), but rather it occurred when each of those two provinces elected, and took on the long-term philosophy of a populist preacher.

Excuse me.... fisheries observers travel aboard the working boats, and are not dependent on the coast guard for a ride.

Wild Bill-- I'm standing, applauding. Very well said, and about 4 pages overdue. I've long tired of hearing about the NEP and about the amount of money Albertans bring to the table, but western alienation has only ever been about money issues insofar as they represent the routine outright disenfranchisement of western provinces and audible contempt for western people and their participation in confederation. As long as that dynamic remains, this country is in grave danger of an east/west rupture. For the record, that neck of the woods won't whine about it for decades, milking it endlessly 'til they are forced to put up or shut up. They'll just do it. Small-c.. Saskatchewan started to make money on oil when Alberta raised their royalty rate. While Saskatchewan oil has a tendency to be heavier than Alberta oil, deeper, and sour, the technology to retrieve a lot more of it has existed for an awfully long time. Alta-4-ever is completely correct in saying that governance/attitude has severely restricted Saskatchewan's prosperity.

Don't worry, Shady... it'll be tonights lead story for every news outlet in Canada.

Fascinating that having mega-buckets of energy for sale can be cited as a reason to offer no respect at all to Alberta, and yet is presented as an excuse for Quebec to be in hock up to it's neck. Strange how that works.

Also the EU added to the problem by overfishing our waters for decades if not centuries, should they not be held somewhat accountable, therefore is it right for them to ban this product? This got very short shrift in this conversation, and should be repeated with emphasis. I was disgusted to read, in articles that claimed (and likely intended) to be balanced and unbiased wrt the seal hunt, references to Canadian overfishing leading to collapse of fish stocks, yet nary a mention of the ongoing European outright vandalism of fish stocks. Popular wisdom as sold by fund-raising anti-sealers has simply drifted that far from truth.... Such things jaundice my view of those who support the ban for ethical reasons (or think they do).

Charming. We were a little surprised and disappointed to make that assessment of the folks from here in Ontario-- that most, rural or urban, are disappointingly unsophisticated: backward in so many ways- sheltered, thoughtless; downright parochial. Nice people certainly, and good neighbours, but, well... simple. We were amused by the rampant, in-your-face sexism; amazed at the almost complete absence of analytical thought and/or practical skills; horrified not to find a single soul who could name their/our MP or MPP nor their parties, apalled by the proportion who have never been beond North Bay, much less out of the province.... Rural Albertans are cosmopolitan by comparison.

Of course. Parties are completely private entities, each vying for the approval of voters. Those voters merely find the failure of proportion interesting, and wonder whether the CPC has acted irrationally, or whether there's more of the story to come. I'm torn, but would have to bet on the latter.

Just another "Animal Farm" experience.

Oops.

Not at all! But when evaluating a cabinet minister, or even ones member of parliament, the ideal candidate would not be someone who is demonstrably either a petty shyster or a fool.

What? First... perhaps we should figure out why so few mammals feature couples parenting!

I just checked out your 'Brown Retort', Robert.

I find the Ontario lists ruefully amusing... Helena Guergis is #2 on the list at $532 grand, and her next-door neighbouring MP, Patrick Brown, is #4, shaving under half a mil by less than a weeks pay at minimum wage. A person really has to wonder whether that's good value for the money spent.

Uh.. yes. Yes he did.

Right- no takers, because it's a false choice-- a little along the lines of you giving up all reasonable legal protection from fraud in order to gain the privelege of entering into a contract and so guiding your own affairs. One has the right not to be unfairly used. One also has the right to make decisions in ones own interest.

No, Bill. What we agreed on is that the CPC performance falls far, far short of hope or expectation. For you, that may mean a tie. For me it's a stone-cold, yelloow-dog 'anybody but'.

Bill... I think you just explained why Harper falls short of majority: "It's not enough to besmirch a choice. You also have to prove that your alternate is better! Otherwise, why change?"

My reference was to a 'realistic' sense of morality vs. emotionalism wrt the killing of animals. Those who have raised animals have generally explored their souls wrt which animals to save, which to kill and WHY. They may have privately wept over the necessity of offing a sickly piglet... recognizing that morality demands it even while emotionality recoils. So... I put it to you that imposing some necessity for an animal to have the option of escape is very specifically not rational. It is, first of all, more costly and difficult to chase animals around in order to kill them-- and it is far less humane, being both extremely traumatic to the animals, and much more likely to result in injury instead of quick death. The only thing I can see that might be enhanced by such a requirement is 'the thrill of the hunt' aka killing for entertainment. Folks have played semantics with slaughter vs. hunt, but a more apt word would be 'harvest'.

That is true only if you are killing for entertainment.

You appear to have found one though Lord knows why.... but we are suggesting that you should maybe check up on how well your sniffer is functioning. After all, Adscam was three leaders ago, while In-out is but one on a long and growing CURRENT list of moral lapses.

I'm in. I suspect a few others here are as well. However, I figure anyone who has raised animals for commercial purposes would tend to have a realistic handle on the morality vs. emotionalism of it, too. That would, no doubt, include several others. I've yet to hear a criticism of the seal hunt that wasn't irrational, irrelevant, or false. Nothing here has altered that perfect record.

Yes, there are some crooked Tories. A couple of years ago, the line was that only Liberals were crooked, so everyone should buy the Conservative pig-in-a-poke. Now the line is "We're no worse than they were!" Alas, that's a lie, too.

...or Dion...