takeanumber

Where does the energy for the process come from? The Sun? Meh. You'd have to transfer the radiation into energy, then into batteries, and then back into electricity to run heaters.....that's a lot of wastage. Geothermal? Sure. BioOil also emits Co2. I like the hydrogen option....use nuclear at the top of the chain...build the pipelines (obstacles be damned) to transport the hydrogen to 'gas stations'. That's the way to go.

Anyway... 1. Hats off to her. It's a nice choice. Why? She seems decent. That's all. 2. Will it make much of a difference in Quebec? Meh. Probably not. 3. Role of monarchy in Canadian society? Meh. Another time. It's not that important to me.

LOL Funnay. It's a moot point. I don't believe they stand a chance.

An arguement can be made in favour of personal freedom. However, this type of freedom has a direct hazard to the life and liberty of others, and as such, I can't support the use of cell phones in the car. To head off any pro-cell phone while driving arguements: I am opposed to the eating of hamburgers or any food that requires two hands to eat properly, or a knife, fork, or spoon. I am opposed to DVD displays in the front seat. I am opposed to most GPS systems. I am pro-audio cue GPS systems. I am opposed to children screaming in the backseat. When you pose a direct threat to people's lives through an action, you shouldn't be allowed to do it.

Sorry to hear that Newb.

How can you decry the Liberals while ignoring the provincial government. The core difference between provincial cons and federal libs: the federal media isn't completely co-opted by the government. There's certainly more corruption in Alberta, you just never hear about it. Government is responsible for government policy. Demanding that firm policies in place is hardly 'socialist'. I don't believe that a private system has a lower incidence of malpractice. If anything, it means that the poorest get more malpractice due to inferior care. Moreover, as shown in the United States, malpractice litigation would severly drive the price up for everybody. I maintain my point, anecdotes aside: a family should not have to be ruined by illness. You can't possibly refute this basic point. The Wheat Board is a subsidy mechanism. A majority of prairie farmers love the wheat board. You shouldn't confuse a vote for the cons as a vote against the wheat board. It doesn't work that way. You still imply that terrible things should happen to the elderly because they're "too stupid" to go to a 'bad home'. Why should we tolerate 'bad homes' as you imply? Why should be tolerate elder abuse? Does anybody deserve to be abused? Pork is Pork. Common sense dictates: if land isn't meant to be farmed, government shouldn't be dishing out the pork to keep that land farmed. Of course, this leads into the entire 'subsidy of lifestyle' arguements. Again, it's so easy for you to advocate the free market (as in healthcare) when you're living totally off the tit of subsidies.

Your sense of humour: making fun of minorities.

Agreed. Let him try to defend it. I'm glad that Newbie and myself arn't the only ones who can see through it.

Whether it's the portuguese and spanish off the grand banks or the Danes in the North, we gotta stand up for ourselves. It's symbolism. That doens't mean all out war.

So what you're saying is that either you'll beat them to death or you'll demean them by calling them queer. Thanks for the clarification. Of course, the option of 'neither' would never occur to you. Your only intent is to demean them. Your previous statement prooves that. I say that you are. And your attitude towards them is very disrespectful, in fact almost criminal, as evidenced by your first quote.

Alberta's record on spending, especially over the past 10 years, nothwithstanding the Getty years and the waste of the Lougheed era, is nothing to be proud of. You can't wiggle out of this one, references to the 'shoot them all and let God sort them out' aside, government is responsible for hiring public servants, after all, they're called public servants. How is demanding that people be screened rigorously socialism? It isn't. It's just common sense, red herrings aside. You can't keep the current system while brining in another tier. You have to starve one system to fund the other system. There is a finite number of people who can actually BE doctors, who can actually BE nurses, who can actually DO healthcare. This is something that many from the Fraser Institute just can't seem to get their heads around. The market does a very, very poor job with respect to healthcare. We see the results of a such a system in Britain. The public system crumbles while the private system prospers. No thank you. I repeat, a family should not have their finances devastated by illness. Oil: 99% private. Agriculture: festering black hole of pork and subsidy. Agriculture in this province is a good example of a model NOT to follow. (incidentally, how many people got drought assistance in non-drought areas? Do you know the figure?) You assume that you actually make enough money to make a difference. lol. I seriously doubt that you do. I pay taxes throughout my entire life. I'm eating/living/exercising very, very well, and hopefully I'll be able to die at home of a heart attack like generations before me. Should I not be so lucky, I'd like to go to a nursing home -- the fact that you acknowledge that they're terrible places speaks volumes about the value you place of elderly life....that somehow they deserve to be treated that way. Shame on you. And you have the nerve to call yourself a conservative. Disgusting. And what about the drought relief before that? And the locust bailout before that? And the floods before that? It's amazing just how much 'relief' agriculture gets in this province. And what about water subsidies? What about grain subsidies? What about milk subsidies and quotas? You know, it's easy to be a radical individualist gung-ho on the free market when you're sucking from the urban tit of Canada.

You need not require my help to do that. *some* of them call themselves that. That does not make it right to disrepect the whole group by you yourself using that word.

Yes, as the spending on the plastics industry, hundreds of abandoned tourism checkpoints, and unkept parks that went up during the 1970's testify. And what, we managed to put away just 10 billion for the heritage fund? Investments paying off my ass. We're blowing this boom just like we blew the last one. Would you blame the government if YOUR child was molested by a teacher who was had a criminal record for peadophilia? OF COURSE it's governments responsibility to enforce strict HR policies for PUBLIC employees. Illness should NOT bankrupt a family as it does down in the united states. The second tier is only available to the top two quintiles. You will never be able to get such a loan. What bank it in its right mind who put their hands on an ill train wreck that might not make it through? Moreover, you assume that you'd survive. You'd really leave your family in that much debt? Who would be left holding the bag? Plastics subsidies. 'nuff said. It's individualism that's driving the nursing home phenom. You really want to abandon the idealogy of individualism? I sure as hell don't want to be a bother to my kids when get old. I don't want to be a burden. And really, who does? Nursing homes is the result of such a culture. I for one defend the North American model and reject whole heartedly the Chinese Communist/Traditonalist model. If you want to be a Maoist, you go right ahead. I stand for the individual right to choose, and if I choose a nursing I home, I expect, and demand standards. It's always so rich listening to an Albertan complain about the nanny-state. Say, how much money did y'all get for BSE and the droughts...and then the floods? Nanny state indeed. Nanny state indeed.

The thread was about 'rednecks' and 'anti-gay', and you and argus have demonstrated that you're both certainly anti-gay. Now we're onto tying respect for homosexuals into respect for society. I know it's difficult to keep up, but do try.

Let's go through Yaro's replies to find examples of victimization: I'm sure you can find thousands of instances outside of rural Alberta prior to 1975. I don't see how a law that is 30 years old is 'incredibly outdated'. This case was the catalyst that changed divorce laws. In fact, it was one of the first instances of 'judicial activism' by the Supreme Court. Recall that this was before the Charter...in fact, the S.C. was becoming actvist as early as 1972. Morton and Knopff have written quite a few books on this subject, check them out. There's an evidence gap there. Most of the records are sealed, so I really can't judge. Divorce rates began to take off in the early 1960's. Did I read this right? LOL You're not priveledged and aboriginals ARE priveledged??!?!??!?!?! You don't get grants for your race/sex? What about farm subsidies, corporate welfare, sweat-heart golden parachute deals, stock options, preferential employment treatment, preferential consideration for promotion. There are plenty of all-white minority groups: the Mormons don't recruit minorities (I've had plenty of Mormons approach me but not none of my minority friends, even when I'm walking with them.). There are a number of other churches which are completely white. There are plenty of law firms and medical practices that entirely white. There are plenty of restaurants that are 99% white, with one token minority on purpose (Earl's Restaurants, Cowboys, Chicago ChopHouse, Coyote's.) Are you complaining about family owned businesses that are all Chinese or Muslim? Well, I can name a number of other family owned businesses that are ALL WHITE. So, don't try to portray yourself as somekind of 'victim' here. Moreover, there are no quota's for white people because most white owned companies have no problem filling seats with white people. That said, I don't agree with quota's either, but I know of no mandatory regulation that demands quotas. You claim that: Men get paid more because they're genetically superior. Men SHOULD dominate families because they're genetically superior. Yet in spite of this genetic superiorty, women still enjoy massive advantages.... Then you say something telling: society doesn ot owe equality of outcome, just equality of opportunity. I agree. To equalize opportunity, certain practices need to be abolished: Women continue to be discriminated in the workforce..they get paid a lot less for equal work, they get promoted less often over these fears of 'getting sick' and 'having children'. Certain minorities are discriminated against during the hiring process. I know it happens. We all know that it happens. Equalization of opportunity doesn't mean that so long as everybody gets a good education it's alright to go back and discriminate...it means that the playing field is levelled so everybody has a fair chance to compete. Moreover, to advocate discrimination based on gender because of 'child bearing' and 'getting sick' is just wrong. Men take maternity leave too. But lets take your arguement here and lay it out for everybody to see: So, why don't employers go in and look at family medical history to decide who gets hired and who doesn't? Oh, what about overweight people? They get sick too. Oh, and smokers... Hell, how about to get equal treatment during the hiring practice, we subject everybody to a physical exam? You know, your arguement about health/costs would be almost convincing exept that there are so many fat, overweight white male smokers who get employed over a younger, healthy woman that your assertion just doesn't hold water. I thank god we have privacy laws to prevent people like you from digging into our genetic profiles. More white male priveldged bullplop. As a white male, I'm privy to a lot of white male chatter when minorities and women arn't around. I know how first hand how we talk, and how we behave in the workplace. Double standard indeed to decry equalization laws while simultaneously undermining them, and then justsify the undermining by upholding equalization. Prostitution laws are overwhelmingly skewed towards the Johns. There's one legal mechanism. Yes, they are. The progress made during a marriage that continues after is a perpetuity. A woman might not be entitled to 50% of ALL of a man's income after the divorce, but entitled to 50% of the perpetuity. So, if a wife invested 100 grand plus in a husbands' law degree, the white man would argue she should only get 50 grand, however, that 50 grand investment is going to pay out 500 grand over 20 years, and as such, she's entitled to at least 250 grand. Make sense? The abscense of intelligent people who make pre-nup's means that the justice system must become involved. So, which way would you have it? Let the courts decide after the fact, or mandate that everybody get a pre-nup before they get a marriage liscense? Which one to you means that the 'government will have no intervention' whatsoever?

It's called 'civil society'. Maybe your parents didn't teach you about that concept? Maybe you skipped that week in social studies/civics? ----------- "Redneck" is a term that I won't use. I was at the rodeo during Stampede. I had to go because it was a work function, so it wasn't by choice that I supported it. However, I'll defend rural Albertans, and Calgarians, right to have such a function. It's part of their culture. To them, animals are truly animals, and really, that's their way of life, who am I be an anti-liberal and prohibit them from doing it. That doesn't mean that I have to support what they do...I'm free not to support it, but you know, tolerance goes both ways in this country. I prefer to use the term 'rural Albertans', however, one of my closest cohorts is from rural Alberta and she's an NDP'er, as orange as orange could be. Still, I feel as though the term captures nicely the attitudes of most rural albertans. However, I do request that rural Albertans do one thing though: show urban-liberals the same respect that you show your rural-Albertan neighbors. What conservatives like Argus forget, which is especially damming because they claim to be conservative yet don't follow its doctrine, is that communities prosper because of common respect. While you certainly have the RIGHT to be disrespectful constantly, you certainly have some RESPONSIBILITY to be respectful, if not for the sake of the community, but to set an example for the children who enivitably witness such behaviour.

Yaro has it wrong. Current divorce laws were rewritten in 1975 following a very nasty divorce in Alberta. Prior to 1975, this scenario was standard: A wife helped her husband on the ranch. The ranch became worth many millions of dollars because of both of their efforts. Everything was in his name though. When they divorced, the judge ruled that since all the property belonged to him, he would get all of it (which was standard at the time) and she got something like 300 dollars total. This specific case outraged many people, and as a result, the divorce laws were changed to give her an equitable amount of the effort she put in...hence the entire notion of "50/50". Prior to 1975, women were treated incredibly poorly by divorce laws. Since 1975, I feel as though a vasts majority of cases have been settled equitably. Incidentally, people in Southern Alberta who are old enough to remember this case still resent it (yet another chip for the white anglo-saxon males to brood about). I'll take today's system over the pre-1975 one. ------------- It never ceases to amaze me how any Canadian, even one in an incredibly dominant and priveledged position in society, can still make themselves out to be a victim. I suppose, it is a fairly Canadian trait, this entire theme of being a victim. Men, specifically white men, get paid more, promoted more often, often have the best jobs reserved-by-right for them, and often, by tradition, have superior positions in their families. We dominate politics. We dominate business. As a white-male, I know this. I'm a beneficiary of the fact that not many women enter my field, and when they do, end up getting stuck with a specific firm that pays them inferior wages because no other firm will hire them. Why do you think we have a large body of laws to protect women? Sexual harassment (which now defends men as well), divorce laws, prostitution laws (Alberta), equity laws..., and hate laws (which protect women as a subset). Why do you think those laws had to be brought in? I'll let you think about that one yourself, I know you'll eventually get it. Men, especially white men, but also visible minority men, have it soooo incredibly good in society that they figure that they're entitled to everything. You see this reflected in this post: "Hay, I earned the millions of dollars, and now I have to give my wife 6 grand a month! (72K a year)" Wow...you're SO RIGHT, you are SUCH A VICTIM of the system. Truly. Sorry, I'm tearing up right now. God dammit, be a man. Seriously. Morally women are privy to 50% of everything in the marriage, and guess what? Assets in a marriage such as education can continue to appreciate AFTER the marriage, and EITHER spouse in entitled to go after such appreciating assets as well. A marriage was supposed to be for life. Don't want to pay out 50%? Get a lawyer, work out a pre-nup. See how she reacts to your demand that it be unequal.

I wonder where that stereotype came from. Any ideas? It's never black and white. I wonder if there are instances where the woman was beated and she got a lot of money?

I'd say that your attitude is actually part of the problem. A woman works full time to put her husband through business school. He graduates. Cheats with his associate. He dumps his wife and goes onto make millions. Now, where's the justice in that. Should she get nothing? Give me a break. There are common mitigating circumstances. A big part of the problem is that both men and women think that a marriage isn't for the rest of their lives, and that somehow a divorce is like a bankrupcy...they should be scott free for the rest of their lives...just like you said. Wrong attitude buddy. Be a man. Take your responsibility to your kids and wife seriously.

The Liberals have already made systemic changes. The Cons have never made any systemic changes, and in fact have not changed their party's finance mechanism. If anything, the Cons are regressive with respect to systemic change. Moreover, if you want a good example of the Conservative method of keeping politics clean, check out Alberta's record.

Just because you agree with the outcome in this one, narrow instance, doesn't make it a good precedent. It's a bad precedent, especially in light of Arar etc...as it diminishes our ability to resist the incroachment of the American theocracy.

I don't trust most of those stories. I'm sure there are many, many mitigating circumstances.

The Conservatives don't like to admit it because it has an important implication. The implication is that it's no so much that entire political parties are bad, but rather, there are elements in all political parties that attract the likes of Guite and all those who exploit the public purse for their own gain. Such an element existed under Mulroney, and it was tolerated. Such an element existed under Chretien, and it was tolerated. What the Cons really don't want to talk about are the actions taken by Paul Martin. I believe that Martin's fate hinges on actually making fundamental changes to governance in this country. What is the Conservative plan? Well, the Cons plan is nothing. They argue that corruption is a 'character' issue. Reading the Conservative line is a lot like reading Chinese policy documents during the 1950's when ultraleftists argued that socialization should take place before economic development. The Conservative plan: trust us because we're good people, is ultraleftist in this context, because it aims to change the culture of government. We've seen in the past that such socialization drives don't work. That's because the problem is systsemic. One only has to look at the graft and corruption of Alberta's Conservatives to see that so-called 'good people' are still capable of intense corruption. Since the problem is systemic, the system...not the culture, needs to be adjusted. As such, the action taken by Chretien (financing reform) and Martin (whistle blowing, contracts, ethics reform) has addressed many of these systemic problems. Any additional suggestions by Gomery should also be implemented as well as furthur efforts to turn parties into public utilities. Incidentally, the Conservatives are not even compliant with the new financing laws, and the hammer just might come down this time. It has to do with the nature of the Con apparatus...local control versus national control. Yeah, the party has big problems when it comes to the issuance of receipts. In effect, the Cons won't even respect recent attempts, and have made no attempts in Alberta to make any sort of systemic corruption reform. (Want to find out who's donating to the con party of Alberta? It's not online...government won't do it. You gotta go down to a office in Calgary or Edmonton and ask to see the book. Why isn't it online? Well, because then we could actually see who's contributing, of course!) I'm giving the liberals a chance here to make real systemic reform. You won't get any sort of transparency with the Cons.

Why don't you use the word that connotes the proper amount of respect? Or is respect no longer a conservative virtue anymore? If you know Brown v. Board of Education, you'd truly realize how simplistic the logic really is. The simplest logic is often the hardest to break. This quote matches well with the previous statements regarding Brown v. Board of Education.

July has been quite the month of Alberta's Conservative Party. Here's a recap: 1. Lyle Oberg, Alberta's Minister of Infrastructure, Rural Pork, and Propaganda, stated that Alberta has a 7 billion dollar infrastructure debt, and proposed going into debt to fund these infrastructure projects. Would Klein have any part of it? Why yes, yes he would. The next day, Oberg and Klein argued that Alberta really wouldn't really be in debt. Borrowing from Enron's accounting practices, the pair argued that they would be 'borrowing from themselves', borrowing from the Heritage Foundation AND, hillariously enough, the banks. Klein furthur argued that 7.2 billions dollars spent on infrastructure would result in 7.2 billion dollars in assets, and as such, no debt. Klein has not responded on the point that such assets, even if they did hold such value, could not be cashed in immediately for equity. 2. Just a few weeks after scathing reports of family being barred and slapped with trespassing charges at eldercare facilities for challenging the way that their parents were being mistreated, and reports of elder abuse and poor conditions in these homes (baths once a week, etc.), the Alberta Conservative Government took strong action. They appointed three MLA's to tour the province, and then report back to the Health Minister by the end of the summer. (Wow. I'm impressed. A society that values its elders certainly moves quickly doesn't?) This week, an 84 year old woman with dimentia at Wentworth Manner here in Calgary, an eldercare facility, was raped by an orderly. And the Province's response? Mute. And the Public's response? Tepid. At best. The Conservative media, and by extention much of the Conservative public, just don't care. They should. Most boomers are heading for the eldercare homes sooner rather than later based on the eating habits and excercise that I'm observing. No response. No acceleration of the report. I guess the link between HR policies and elderabuse are just too difficult for the policy analysts in the Conservative braintrust. 3. Two-Tier Health Klein released yet another vow to expand two-tier healthcare. The mechanism? Private health insurance...with a twist. If you can afford it, you can jump the queue. How can the middle class afford such a jump though? Private health insurance of course. The problem with the past Klein models was that it only benefited the top quintile of society. Now through this mechanism, the people in the top two quintiles of society can afford it. The wonderful thing, from Klein's point of view, is that many Albertans have deluded themselves into believing that they are in fact middle class, and can afford such insurance. So, here's a more basic question for the Alberta Cons: there are only so many Liver transplants in Alberta; does this mean that if somebody can afford it, they should be able to jump in front of the line to get a liver? If the answer is no: consider this: there are only so many doctors, nurses etc....finite resources, just like livers. Now, no amount of additional money is going to generate more doctors and nurses, we've seen this in Alberta already though those massive, massive pay hikes. So, why should the rich be able to get access to such finite services ahead of poor people? Because they're rich? Is that really the only justification? ------------------------------ So to recap July: 1. We're gushing with oil cash, yet....lo and behold, not enough money for infrastructure. We're going to go into debt! So much for fiscal conservatism. 2. Elder abuse (not just assault, but incredibly horrible living conditions) continues while the government drags its feet. So much for traditional Conservative values. 3. "Popular" two tiered health care. So much for collective security.