kimmy

I do. I think that at the end of the day, the oilpatch knows that they're better off dealing with Harper and friends than waiting to see who gets elected next time. Does Mr Alvarez think he's going to be better off waiting for an Ontario Prime Minister and a Quebec Environment Minister to be in power to reach some sort of environmental agreement? I doubt it. I think they're smart enough to see that they're better off coming to an agreement with this government than waiting for the next one. -k

O RLY? Sun news I think August's point regarding the inevitability of legislation is a good one. The industry is probably well aware that they're better to get this done while the Harper government is in power than to put it off until some hostile regime has taken over in Ottawa. And, Ricki Bobbi's comment that how pissed off Albertans are depends on how it's implemented is also on target. The chief irritant regarding the Chretien/Martin gang's Kyoto implementation "plan" was the fact that automobile manufacturers had been promised carte-blanche exemption before any discussion of the implementation had even begun. -k

Yes the laws of physics govern the collapse. Some say the building peeled like a banana, that would expose a core with those 47 beams would it not? The steel beams were pulled down by the floors that were anchored to them. Fireballs? hmm? What is this in reference to? So you admit there would be resistance to the collapse? Air would have to be pushed out, floors pancaking on top of each other. That would have taken longer than the 10 seconds to completely, and I mean COMPLETELY destroy the two towers. Yes, there was resistance to the collapse. Air resistance, and the remaining steel structure. Which, in comparison to the mass of the falling portion of the building, would have been inconsequential. The buildings fell like they were in free-fall because essentially they *were* in free-fall. You said earlier that if you jumped off the roof of a 110 story building, you'd hit ground in 10 seconds. I haven't actually verified this (either through experience or research) but ok. So, why would you assume that a building would take any longer to collapse? Use some perspective. The air resistance and remaining structure of the building are as trivial in slowing the rate of descent of hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and steel as the air-resistance a human jumper would encounter. Proportionate to the falling mass, the opposing force was miniscule. All that debris was blown outward as the natural consequence of a large building being turned into a small building in a matter of seconds. The air wanted to leave, because it knows that pressure is not his friend. Air resistance would have been such a negligible factor in determining the rate of collapse of the twin towers. I can't see any basis for claiming that the rate of collapse shows that the air must have been evacuated beforehand. Whether there was still air in the building or not, the difference would have been insignificant. Let's do a little grade 10 physics on this just to explain why I keep stressing the word *proportion*. Start with some basic Newton to find out how fast the building accelerates downward. F=ma or a=F/m a=acceleration, F = the net force on the building, and m = the mass of the falling object. To find the net force: the force downward, obviously, is gravity. That's equal to the mass of the falling portion times the acceleration of gravity which is roughly 9.8m/s^2; we note this as "g". The force downward, then, is F=mg. The force opposing it? That's equal to the air resistance (let's shorthand that as AR), plus the resistance of the remaining steel structure (let's call that SR). So, let's put it together: a = F/m and F = +mg -AR -SR a = (mg -AR -SR)/m Simplify and you get: a = g -(AR/m) -(SR/m) So, AR might be a big number-- a sail, or a blimp, or a parachute have lots of air resistance... but because it's AR/m, and m is such a gigantic number (we're talking about literally hundreds of thousands of tons falling), AR/m will be tiny regardless of whether there was air in the building or whether the building got blown out before hand. -k

This would be relevant if anybody were claiming that the force of the plane had pushed the building over. However, since that was not the collapse mechanism, the ability of the buildings to withstand windsheer is of no consequence. Why did the buildings fall more-or-less straight down? Because of the way they're built. (comparing them to some 5-story apartment in Malaysia is pointless.) People don't have a frame of reference to understand what it was like, so they come up with something along the lines of chopping down a tree. If you chop a tree on one side, that side can't hold up the weight anymore, so the tree falls toward the side it was chopped at... so the same thing should have happened to the twin towers, right? Except the twin towers are built a lot differently from a tree. The twin towers were built more like... picture one floor of the WTC tower as a drum, or a trampoline, or a cot... a flat surface supported at the edges. When one of the supporting walls was damaged, the weight of the floor put extra stress on the remaining walls. As the floor starts to sag from the heat and the initial damage, it starts to pull *all* of the walls in toward the center of the building. Finally, the weight of the floor pulled the remaining walls of the tower in. Now that those walls have been pulled inward at that point, that floor of the building isn't strong enough to support the weight of the floors of the building that are above it. So the top of the building starts to move *downwards* (not to the side)... and when that much weight begins to move in a direction, it keeps moving in that direction-- no structure built by man would have been strong enough to halt the momentum of the top of the building once it started moving. Well this one is easy. The buildings would have fallen at the same rate whether they were destroyed by the airplanes or by a controlled demolition. The same laws of physics control the rate of descent in either case. The same forces (air resistance inside the building, and the remaining building structure) oppose the fall in either case. You're not proposing that in addition to planting explosive devices, the Black Ops people also found some way to vacuum the air out of the building and transform the remaining steel into Jell-O, are you? -k

But then where will I go for herbal breast enhancement and foreign exchange investment advice? -k

Indeed. I thought the same when I read that as when I read Eric Margolis' articles on the situation. Rue and Margolis claim that the Taliban fighters will force Canadian soldiers out and take the entire country back... ...but the fact is, when the Taliban has engaged Canadian soldiers in combat, the Taliban has had its asses handed to it. These confrontations have been completely disasterous for the Taliban. The only successes the Taliban has achieved against Canadian soldiers have come from the suicide bombings. Not to trivialize the casualties that have resulted from the suicide bombings, which have ensured that this mission is not painless for Canada... but do Rue and Margolis really propose that the Taliban will be able to take back the entire country with suicide bombings? -k

CTVNonsense. When Trudeau's wife ran off with Mick Jagger, everybody was laughing at Trudeau or sympathizing. Back when I first joined the forum, I wrote about how I thought Belinda.ca received a type of scrutiny that most politicians don't face. Otherwise-serious articles covering her press conferences would describe her hairstyle, her makeup, the height of her shoes' heels, the color and cut of her clothes, whether she was wearing skirt or pants... as if scrutinizing her fashion choices was an integral part of scrutinizing her message. And, of course, her personal life. She's a young, single, fairly attractive, high profile Canadian politician... and her personal life has been a target of the tabloids since she entered politics. Peter MacKay is a young, single, fairly attractive, high profile Canadian politician... and the press never said a word about his personal life, at least until he became involved with Belinda. However, in this case, I have no sympathy for her at all. This isn't a double standard. Stronach's nationally famous, Domi is nationally famous, and even if this affair weren't at the center of Domi's divorce proceedings, it would still be fodder for the celebrity gossip pages just because of the fame of the principles. And, Stronach should ask her friend Bill Clinton if he thinks that her indiscretion has received more publicity than a male politician's would have. Something else that I wrote about Belinda.ca back in my early days on the forum is that she would have a unique ability to get apolitical people interested in politics. And, I think I've been proven right. -k

I'm quite curious-- how was this determined? How were the buildings' natural frequencies of vibration measured between the time they were hit and the time they collapsed? This strikes me as a rather odd claim. -k

Do people really have such short memories about what the Taliban were like? Public stonings of women accused of adultery? Beheadings in the soccer stadium? Driving over accused homosexuals with a tank? Girls banned from attending school? Females unable to receive medical care? A quick refresher for people who've forgotten what kind of assholes our troops are currently fighting: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...60925?hub=World Our soldiers are fighting the Taliban to buy time for Afghanistan's new, less evil regime to establish the means to provide law and order in the country. -k

I don't think it's necessarily "a great deal" unless the money is actually used for something useful. Borrowing money just because the interest rate is low doesn't seem to make a lot of sense... -k

How'd we get from "tangiable benefit to a significant portion of the community" to "you're only after the money"??-- by your own admission. You define things to legalize theft of somebody else's property. My example of everybody ganging up on you matches your "tangible benefit" yadda yadda. I'd have thought that it would be clear from what I've already said what I meant. Pretty foolish, actually. If you expropriate my property (or somebody who actually has property to expropriate) and "divide up the spoils" among everybody in the community, you don't actually have anything to divide up. Whatever "spoils" you'd be dividing up have already been more than spent in compensating me for the loss of my property. Moral: don't expropriate somebody's property unless the land is needed for something really good. I do. You are sure??? Congratulations. I blindly trust all of the bureaucrats too. You're aware that there are laws? This is city hall we're talking about, not the CIA. They can't make people "disappear". BC's act, for instance, not only specifies fair market value, but also compensation for expenses, disturbance, and loss of business resulting from relocation. ( http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/E/961...1.htm#section31 ) The act indicates that the land valuation is to be done by an independant appraiser, not by bureaucrats. There are legal remedies available if the party feels they haven't been adequately compensated. So to be honest you're coming across as a paranoid nutjob here. -k

Explain that one to me. Everybody pays the interest on the national debt, through taxes. The interest is payed to people who hold government bonds. It's a fair bet that the large majority of those government bonds are held by wealthy people, either directly or through investment funds. -k

I was right. You are only after the money. More money in your pocket means good policy -- screw the loser who pays. Sounds great. How about everybody in your city ganging up on you and robbing you blind and dividing up the spoils. I vote for it so long as I get some of the share. How'd we get from "tangiable benefit to a significant portion of the community" to "you're only after the money"??I don't see any talk of robbery... I'm sure that whoever is having their property expropriated is being very well-compensated for their inconvenience. Yes, I do. If you'd scrap a necessary project like the LRT extension because somebody didn't want to move, then I'm glad you're not the mayor of my town. Yes: the victim of theft has to give.Don't worry, grandma is going to be well compensated for her sorrow, but make no mistake: if it's a choice between the needs of the city or grandma's attachment to her home, grandma has got to come second. -k

My earlier statement poses the argument that I'm sure August will make later (more elegantly, no doubt) which is that the market can be a very efficient arbiter of what is the best use of an asset. Since I'm already fooling around with imaginary real-estate as if it were Sim City (Kim City?) let's make another imaginary street in Kim City. Say you've got a block that's got some crappy slum apartments near downtown. Over the past decade or so, changing traffic patterns and demographics and economic growth and so-on have turned this into a prime location. Except it still has slum apartments on it. Real estate developers are willing to buy the property at a price that's far higher than the value of the slum apartments. What will they do with that land-- parkade? shopping plaza? business offices? newer houses? Does it even matter? The fact that they believe there's profit to be made reflects, in effect, that society appears to have a need for the service or product they intend to provide at that location. Of course I recognize that there are social values that the market doesn't put a price on, which is why I can't support expropriation of property whenever the market says it would be convenient to do so. The other thing is, it's not really even necessary. The property taxes on those slum apartments would rise to a point that the owner can't make a profit providing crap housing on that property, and sell the land or convert it to more profitable use anyway. I tend to agree, actually. Peoples' right to their homes is one of those social values that market forces don't take into account. I generally wouldn't want the city to go around strong-arming people for the sake of profit. And, it's probably not even necessary. If valuable land is being used for purposes that just aren't valuable, the property taxes should rectify the situation. -k

Do you own your own home August?What if I want your property to build a highrise? Your house may only fetch $300,000 but if I buy (force you to sell) your property I can build and sell 20 condos for $150,000 each! I win! Because my idea for your land has it with the "highest value" and the court should encourage me to force you to sell your property to make way for the "highest value". Still think all property should go to the use where it has the "highest value'? Or would you rather keep the home you worked hard for? Land should only ever be expropriated for public use. A road, an overpass, a park, whatever. But not private use such as a condo complex or office building. Well, in your example, it's quite possible that *everybody* wins (except August, perhaps.) You've replaced one expensive house with more affordable housing for 20 families. The city is able to collect 10 times the property tax. The building undoubtably delivers better per-unit heating efficiency and lower per-unit costs of delivering utilities than August's single-family dwelling. In your example, the higher market value does happen to coincide with what would generally be considered the greater social good. Of course, it's easy to come up with an example where the opposite happens. Suppose there's a building with 10 $150,000 units and somebody wants to bulldoze it and build a single home worth $3 million. -k

You just have to use a little creativity. Like the time when I got my review of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith into the Federal Politics section by likening Anakin Skywalker to Paul Martin and Darth Sidious to Jean Chretien. -k

Wait a minute. What will compell you? Is it just a question of "85 cents" is not enough??? What if it was more? Would you be complicit in confiscating your neighbor's property for your own benefit? As I mentioned earlier, what I'd find compelling is something that's of tangiable benefit to a significant portion of the community. The example of building the LRT corridor, for instance. If some old coot on the required route says "I've lived in this house for 40 years and I'm not moving," what do you do? Scrap the project? Something's got to give, and given the choice between the city's transportation needs and future growth, or someone's sentimental attachment to a piece of property, I have to choose the needs of the community at large. -k

Interest payment on the national debt remains the single biggest expenditure of the Canadian government, doesn't it? Larger than healthcare, or education, or social programs? I recall reading that over 1/3 of the annual budget goes into interest on the national debt; imagine the tax reductions that would be possible in the future if the national debt were substantially reduced or eliminated. Using the surpluses to give miniscule tax cuts right now, or wasting it on vote-buying type shenanigans, is the kind of thinking that will prevent *real* tax cuts in the future. Riverwind wonders what investment funds will do as government bonds become scarcer... well, I'm sure that there are lots of other governments that would love to pick up the slack. Our neighbors to the south, for instance. -k

They are burning canneloni in Prince George as we speak! Volpe was the guy who wet his pants in rage over the "Libranos" gag, so there's a certain symmetry in him blaming this on anti-Italian prejudice and receiving an endorsement from that other persecuted Italian, Alfonso Gagliano. -k

Here in scenic Edmonton, I believe some houses were expropriated for a Light Rail Transit corridor along 114th street between 76th (?) and 61st (?) avenues, for the much-needed extension of the rail line south from the University. I'm not sure how or when this was accomplished; I'm not even 100% sure that homes had to be removed to make room for the rail line. However, I do believe that if the city expropriated homes for this purpose, it was the right thing to do... I approve of the idea that there is some mechanism that allows the public to obtain land when it's necessary for the greater good. The people forced to sell had better receive at least fair market value (or perhaps higher, due to the inconvenience of being forced to leave). I guess in an abstract sort of way, one could argue that an expensive new housing development serves the greater good too... when the new development is complete, the resulting property taxes will presumably be much higher, giving the city more revenue, allowing the city to perhaps improve services or reduce taxes. However, I'm not fond of the idea that somebody could be compelled to sell their home just because somebody else has the money to make them do so. The LRT extension, or similar projects, I see as being of such major importance to the community as to justify it. A marginal boost in revenue (and for a city of any significant size, even a large housing development is only going to yield a marginal boost, in a big picture sense) to me doesn't justify evicting people from their homes whether they're compensated or not. If the city is acting in my name by using its legal means to evict the family down the street and the old lady and the barely-making-ends-meet young couple next door, then I want to know what *I* get out of it. And if the only answer they have is "well, the resulting revenue will knock a 85 cents off next year's property tax assessment!" then I don't find that particularly compelling. -k

More than likely, they're right. The calibre of coaching, and competition, and refereeing, and organization, in a typical girls hockey league is pathetic. Young Canadian men who have the ability and ambition to achieve anything in the world of basketball attend college in the United States, not Canada. Why? Because by comparison with its US counterparts, Canadian collegiate basketball is pathetic. If they want to develop their skills, receive top quality training, compete against elite competition, and have the opportunity to become a professional, playing college basketball in Canada just isn't an option. Same deal for a girl in hockey. If she has ambitions of becoming a top flight player, maybe getting an athletic scholarship, playing at a higher level... playing on a crappy team in a crappy league won't help her. So what are the options? Move to someplace that has a higher-quality girls hockey league, or play with the boys. I don't recall ever hearing of a girl wanting to play on the boys' basketball team, or the boys' volleyball team, or boys' soccer team. Why is that? Probably it's because in most places basketball and volleyball and soccer are well-established as girls' sports, and the available programs at their schools or community leagues do not suck as badly as girls' hockey programs presently do. Maybe some day in the future, when girls' hockey is more widely accepted and more widely played, the calibre of girls' hockey programs will not suck so badly. Until then, girls with ambitions of achieving something as hockey players will probably continue to seek to play with the boys. -k

Tie has just retired from professional hockey, so his level of income will be a shadow of its former self. Belinda.ca has managed to find a way to keep her name in the headlines... but man, Tie Domi? She must be really desperate for the publicity. -k

Congratulations, BBM! While all of us here talk a lot about how things ought to be, you're actually getting involved! -kimmy {I'd get involved too... but that totally smacks of effort...}

It's about time. She never had any chance. I don't know... I hear she's huge in Prince George.... -k

Not at all! I love Halloween! I am definitely one of those big kids who look forward to Halloween as a chance to dress up in something that would get me arrested on any other day, get silly, and drink lots of "witches' brew." It's one of my favorite days of the year! But that doesn't mean I don't see it for what it is. It is (as geoffrey euphemistically puts it) a "day of excess". Unless maybe you're a Wiccan, Halloween's cultural significance begins and ends with being a specially designated day devoted to fun, much like Grey Cup Sunday. -k