SF/PF

Necro!

There is a lot of truth to this, IMO.

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this issue. On the one hand, unsigned editorials often leave me feeling a little annoyed and unfulfilled. But do I think that there is some truth that anonymity may expand the discussion to some degree. That said, I usually find the unsigned editorials to be far inferior to signed editorials. In the non-anonymous editorials, the author usually tries to some use some sort of argument or provide some facts or data to back up their claims. Unsigned editorials tend to be mere collections of assertions and talking points, with no attempt at argumentation or fact finding.

I grew up in a suburb just outside of Edmonton, and I don't remember ever learning anything about Canada or Canadian history in my 12 years of public school. The pre and post-confed history courses I took in university were a real eye opener! One can only hope that the Alberta curriculum has improved since then.

Yes.

The Case of the Pope I'm currently reading this book and I'm finding it pretty depressing, to be honest. I am curious to get some thoughts on a particular issue raised in the book. Should the Pope, by virtue of being the leader of a "sovereign state," be protected from prosecution in other nations for crimes committed by people under his direct command, or for his own crimes in concealing said crimes? I'd rather the topic stay on the issue of political immunity rather than turn into a debate on the veracity of specific accusations.

Which is.. "Kids, say no to drugs."

Democracy in action?

Again this claim, with nothing to back it up. It has been pointed out in several threads now the differences between the schemes that various parties participated in. Not all "in-and-out" schemes are created equal.

How so? Do you have information on the details of this incident that no one else does?

None of the links provided in that thread show that other parties participated in the same scheme. They used in and out schemes to secure additional campaign cost rebates, which is certainly unethical. The illegality is in the deliberate violation of federal campaign spending limits by trying to hide the money in riding associations. Not in transferring funds to secure larger than deserved rebates.

Was she reinstated as a result of the appeal? Was she ever actually told that she was fired? We don't know.

If it's an "ironclad fact" that other parties have participated in this scheme, I'd sure love to see evidence of it. So.. how 'bout it? Despite all the talk that "everyone does it" and "everyone knows everyone else does it," it sure seems to be tough to produce actually evidence for that claim. Seeing as no one has produced a shred of it.

I'm having a hard time understanding why this concept is so difficult to grasp. Whether a charge is a criminal charge or not is determined by what act it falls under. "Criminal" and "non-criminal" have no bearing on the severity of the crime, or the severity of the penalties if convicted. They're "housekeeping" distinctions. So claims that the charges "are not criminal" are basically meaningless.

Within the limits and rules set out. If you have evidence to the contrary, you should forward it to Elections Canada. But then, if you had such evidence you would have already done that, and we all would have seen it on the news by now.

Either Kinnear is correct in his claim that TTC management is trying to incite the union, or TTC management is made up of rules-oriented thinkers that just don't "get it." Or both. I don't find it especially hard to believe, though. I've seen dozens of people fired for having a cell phone on them, or even a powered off cell phone in their lunch bag in the lunch room. I suppose it depends on what sectors you've worked in.

It really depends on how many producers have a stake in keeping the US economy solvent, I suppose. The only thing the US has going for it, frankly, is that the US dollar is still the global financial currency.

Anyone that is paid more than a couple bowls of rice a day is probably "over-compensated" in the global labour market. Most people, even anti-union types, realize thats its impossible to compete with third world slave labour. And even if you somehow manage to compete, you'd still be the major loser in the competition.

This is ultimately what its about. I saw this first hand during the last oil boom here. Companies were going to the far reaches of the world to recruit temporary foreign workers and pushing the government to recognize their credentials. Many of these workers were given translators to write their examinations for certification here, because they were unable to complete the examination in either of Canada's official languages. They were permitted to work for 6 months before being forced to write that examination, and were often permitted two or three rewrites if they failed. Ultimately, they were permitted to work in safety and quality critical jobs for up to 8 or 9 months with no qualifications whatsoever. Which leads to situations like: Charges laid in oilsands deaths... And: Chinese workers paid a tiny fraction of the going rate... Meanwhile, many American tradesmen were trying to get visas to work here, and were being turned down. These were workers who were, for the most part, already trained and tested to the same standards of tradesmanship and safety. This goes far beyond academic debates about the economic performance of immigrants by region. In some cases, peoples lives depend on it.

Modern refineries are capable of producing transport fuels out of what would have been heavy residual oils in the past via cracking and reforming units. But yeah, in general, refineries are built to convert a specific type of feedstock into whatever combination of refined products is the most profitable in a specific market area. Modifying a refinery to accept different feedstock can cost billions.

Increasing oil production isn't as easy as opening another valve. A 2% global increase in production to offset Libya's lost production is really a lot to ask for.

I don't much care where Canada pulls immigrants from in the future, as long as they do a much better job in ensuring that the credentials that they recognize are up to the standards of Canada. In that regard, other first world nations are going to provide, on average, the best trained and most competent workers.

If Big Oil Co bought out a bunch of competitors one year and ended up shelling out more than they earned in revenues that year, wouldn't it be just a little misleading to claim that Big Oil Co. lost money that year? I mean, I suppose it may be technically true. But it certainly wouldn't be a very accurate or meaningful representation of the situation.

Do your numbers account for this? Short term profitability is greatly reduced when shelling out large amounts of cash to buy up competitors. What do you suppose it does for long term profitability?

The S&P Energy sector includes more than just the oil sector, chief. But I am interested in hearing your theory on how an industry with an alleged 10% profit margin can absorb wild fluctuations in commodity pricing that far exceed 10%, yet still remain consistently (and massively) profitable.