kimmy

Winnipeg radio station practical joke causes anarchy and rioting in Toronto? I guess this is not too surprising. Somehow, when chaos breaks out in this country, it usually traces back to Winnipeg in some way. -k

My, that was constructive. Your histrionics make it seem like you've been drinking ScottBrison and I Miss Trudeau's Kool-Aid. I've heard it suggested before that Canadians have endured an artificially low exchange rate for years, for the benefit of supporting the manufacturing sector. I've also heard it suggested-- by yourself, I believe-- that the change in the exchange rate might spur increases in productivity and modernization of equipment. I will have to go dig up good old Syrup's "rising dollar" thread to see what exactly you wrote, but it seems to me that you were not so negative on the subject until it suited your argument to be so. -k

uh-oh. What am I being nominated for this time? -k

If fine discussion were fine dining, your messages would be Ken-L-Rations, Scott. Welcome back. Now we have a lefty who's an intellectual match for B-Max. -k

I would imagine if he was a previously banned member, and GREG had the means to definitely determine this, that he would have been booted much sooner, like when he first joined up. It's beyond a doubt, Rocket, that Mirror and Bigdude were new names of a former member named Maplesyrup. I don't care what the IP addresses or any other information might have said. It was the same guy. There were habits and traits and views and grammatical ticks that gave him away. And, while I didn't see the messages that got him banned, I liked mirror. He's grown a lot in the 15 months or so that I've been on this board. He has learned to see issues from other viewpoints, something he never used to be able to do. -k

Well, supposing Albertans to be shareholders, I suppose that would be a fair analogy. The specifics of whether Albertans are really shareholders seems to be somewhat more complicated, and I won't get into it. Corporations exist to make money for their shareholders, and governments exist to provide "law, order, and good governance" or something. Whatever. Anyway, my concern is whether this is the best use of the money. We do have infrastructure to build and maintain and so on. Sure it could.If they've given it a serious look and decided it wasn't viable, that's all I ask. A nuclear reactor there could provide power and steam for oil extraction, which I understand presently requires a lot of natural gas. In 20 years when natural gas is awfully pricy in its own right, will we be wishing we'd built the damned reactor? If they at least looked at that too but decided it wasn't feasible, then that's good. There are projects that governments can undertake that might not make sense for businesses but could dramatically benefit the future. I imagine the St Lawrence Seaway or various monumental-scale power-generating projects (tidal power in Quebec or huge dams...) are examples. There are things that can be done by 1 person with $1.3 billion that can't be done by 3.25 million people with $400 each. If there simply aren't any projects like that to be built in Alberta, then I guess just giving the way the money might be one idea, but perhaps it could instead be saved for when there is some such project that to invest in. I believe that the Heritage Trust Fund provided a major investment in the James Bay Hydro project, and I believe that Quebec continues to pay an annual interest payment because it more financially sensible than repaying the principal. I believe I once read that General Motor has never and probably will never see a cent of profit from creating the Saturn Motors, because the profits from the division are about the same as the interest on the money they invested would have been; they might never recover the principal they invested ... so why did they even bother? I dunno. Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that having a big fat chunk of capital lying around could be valuable in the future. Even if we don't build some mega-project here in Alberta, maybe some other place in Canada would need some help building something important, and we could loan them the money at a low rate, as we did with James Bay. -k

...uh... Atomic Energy of Canada? $2.3 billion environmental clean-up? Shouldn't our frickin' media be on this? Isn't the budget surplus somewhat secondary to the issue of finding out what AEC spent $2.3 billion cleaning up? I mean, maybe it's just me, but I'd like to know "what" and "where" and "how much" before I hear another word about the shrinking surplus. To put it another way, either the $2.3 billion was a legitimate expense, or it wasn't. Either way, it's a potentially gigantic news story, isn't it? -k

I think this is extremely well said. In fairness to the cops, I will mention that they are not hyping the dangers of "reefer madness" as they might have once upon a time. The company line is not that marijuana is so bad on its own, but rather that it's a "gateway drug." "Hey, you wouldn't believe how many junkies I know who started with pot before they got into meth or heroin," Officer Smith will tell you. They probably started with alcohol before they tried pot, too... ...anyway, it looks to me as if this thread is veering into separate issues: standards for public officials, and hypocrisy of our handling of drug and alcohol issues. If the later, I'll just say that I'm terribly addicted to caffeine, make frequent use of alcohol, and have on occasion tried other mood-altering chemicals of various sorts... and I feel that the way our society has arbitrarily drawn the lines of what is and isn't legal is of benefit to nobody... except the Hell's Angels. On the issue of standards of public officials... I think cocaine is different from alcohol in (as August points out) being illegal, and in (as Sparhawk notes) being vastly more expensive. I think the combination of these two issues makes people wonder whether there's some risk to the public trust. Here's somebody who quite likely had access to public money, was using an expensive drug, and was apparently not averse to illegal activity or keeping secrets. You can see why people might not be very trusting, right? -k

uh-huh uh-huh.There is truth to this. You have to wonder whether some of the people in the party are trying to deliberately sabotage it, because sometimes it sure seems like. (see Carole Jamieson, who's probably teaching 101 and 103.) -k

I personally think that the Liberals would love to go to the polls early, and whether it actually happens depends on whether the Liberals can play their cards in a way that makes it look like the opposition forced it. If they can craft a situation that gives Mr Martin the opportunity to use lines like "...and Mr Speaker, that is a principle that I'll go to the polls to defend! I dare Mr Harper to defeat this bill!" then they'd probably be delighted. yeah. But in a situation like that the Conservatives would be foolish to defeat the bill. I don't think forcing an election by voting against one of your own positions is going to be a very favorable situation. At a time like that, why not remember that you're the "free votes" party, and have some of your members vote in favor: "I didn't want to vote against this bill, because I think it's good for my consituents." To me, that would make more sense. It lets Harper do his angry-guy thing while not defeating the party's own issue in parliament. If "the Liberals are corrupt!" is the only compelling issue that Harper has, then forcing an election before the report comes out is not going to be a winning strategy. If Liberal corruption is to be the chief issue in the election, then waiting for the report makes sense to the majority of Canadians. -k

Indeed; I was watching for it today here in Edmonton. I fully expected consumers to swamp gas-stations in anticipation of forthcoming Toronto-like price-hikes. It didn't happen. Consumers didn't swamp gas stations. Prices didn't rise. Had the gas-companies' supplies of ready-made excuses (futures market, refining capacity, supply shortages...) had an iota of truth to them, wouldn't prices here in the Big E be headed in the same direction? A quick look at the chart... http://www.edmontongasprices.com/ ...says "eh-eh." So what happened back east? The abnormal market conditions created by the big hurricanes this past month has exposed some even more abnormal pricing behavior by the gas companies. Yes, yes. I know that it's a free market and they're able to charge any price they feel like. But when all the prices mysteriously leap up at the same time for reasons that obviously aren't a result of anything on the supply side, doesn't that raise the spectre of collusion? -k

Hey, Kimmy, if it's such a good idea, why not build the KimmyExpress? (On the inaugural run, you can do as Lady Agnes and admire the view from the cowcatcher.)My point is that hare-brained schemes are easy to justify when you are spending "other people's money". I gather you feel that if a high-speed rail link between Edmonton and Fort McMisery were such a good idea, some entrepreneur would have already undertaken this as a means of making money. Since no entrepreneur seems willing to sink the billions into that enterprise, it is most likely not a great moneymaker, and therefore most likely not an optimal use of the capital the Govt of Alberta has lucked upon. And that a government behaving in a businesslike manner would be unwise to do something that private enterprise wouldn't undertake itself? I suppose the simple reply is, if giving away money were such a smart use of capital, then why aren't private enterprises running around giving away money? -k

Uh...by my math, that's $8,760,000,000.000. Sounds pretty much in line with the "fiscal imbalance" numbers being bandied about. I got the impression he was trying to emphasize the non-recurring nature of this expenditure, not sell the program. "Free money!" is the only selling-point needed. Not that I feel there was any great amount of "vision" or "forethought" at work here either. Indeed, why not? Fort McMurray is such a big part of our future that investing in it only makes sense. I think that if guys were a 2 hour train ride instead of 6 hour drive from the city, going to work up there would seem like a much less wretched choice. They could come home to visit their families or party in the city every weekend. Shortage of workers up there is holding us back; investing in stuff that will relieve the shortage is an investment in our future. Employers there could give out rail passes as an employee benefit or as bonuses. I feel about the same. -k

Coke is a expensive habit. Coke heads are usually quite efficient at embezzling funds from their employers, relatives, friends, etc. But I suspect this is not the kind of efficiency you were hoping for. If you think Volpe's meal tabs were bad you probably don't want to know what his were like. Well, as you probably guessed I'm not actually in favor of civil servents doing coke. I'm sure there were many times when this person's mind drifted to finding ways of getting the taxpayer to pay for his next purchase of blow, and I wouldn't be surprised if it happened some way or another. I haven't read the book, but I have heard people say the same. I think the movie did touch on that aspect... his infatuation with the snazzy consumer products in his apartment, his narcissistic obsession with his body and his watching himself in the mirror during sex... his belief that there was deep meaning in Hewey Lewis lyrics. His aimless relationships, his lack of real connection to anyone, and his ability to kill without reason or remorse are all kind of related to the theme: a guy (a whole culture?) completely disconnected from anything meaningful. -k

I heard about the outrageous price boosts in other parts of the country today, and I was surprised when I went out tonight and saw no change at all of prices here in Edmonton. Prices are at 101.4/L which is right about what they were at before the price scares caused by Hurricane Katrina. So I'm curious to see what happens tomorrow. I have a sense that the problem is simply panic. People think to themselves "when that hurricane hits, prices are going to go way up, just like after Katrina." They figure "well, we better fill up today because tomorrow, a tank full will cost us $5 or $10 more." Gas station managers look at hundreds of cars lined up, and think to themselves "man, if this keeps up, our tank will be empty before the next shipment comes." (that is, if they're not thinking "ho man, look at these suckers. there's one born every minute...") If it was really about refining capacity, then why did prices return to pre-Katrina levels just a couple of weeks after Katrina? I'm sure that the refineries in the New Orleans area were not back online so quickly. I believe these ridiculous price hikes are the natural response to sudden high demand by panicked consumers who have dramatically overreacted. During Katrina, prices jumped because many consumers anticipated price hikes because of the after-effects of the storm. And now during Rita, the effect is that much more dramatic because many more consumers have come to the conclusion that hurricanes make prices go up. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. And if consumers here in Edmonton watch the news tonight and think "oh, man. I'd better get gas first thing tomorrow, just in case prices go up like they did out east," then prices will go up just like they did out east. -k

(shrug) well, for those that do pay healthcare premiums "out of pocket", this be like getting 9 months of premiums for free. Yes: this is the one prudent aspect of this otherwise imprudent exercise that does make sense. A one time payment, as opposed to annualized tax cuts, means that if circumstances change next year, we don't suddenly find ourselves once again having to raise taxes, cut services, or run a deficit. I agree completely. I am told there used to be a popular bumper-sticker in Alberta that read "Lord, grant me one more boom and I promise not to piss it away this time." I guess Ralph never saw that one... They might as well just give the money directly to the beer companies and strippers. And of course to Kimmy; my tips will no doubt be through the roof the week those cheques come out! Don't get me wrong, I like cash. I love cash, in fact. No doubt lots of people can really use the cash, and no doubt the economy will benefit from an extra $1.2 billion floating around. But I'm young and I want to try and think long-term. Handing out money might feel good right now, but is it the best use of the money when we think long term? There are many things that come to mind when I think of other possible uses of the money. Big issues: -Edmonton is again going to be borrowing money to build infrastructure to keep up with growth. And I expect the same is true in Calgary, though I don't know that for a fact. The price of all this prosperity is that we have to spend more money to keep up with the resulting growth. -...but Edmonton and Calgary are golden compared to Fort McMurray. Fort McMurray is so vital to our future. And right now Fort McMurray is being completely overwhelmed by the demands of industry there. The poor mayor is tearing her hair out trying to find funding for all the projects that are needed to keep up with the way population is exploding there. One of the key factors limiting Alberta's growth is the shortage of labor in the north, particularly in the oilsands. The Alberta government should be investing money in Fort McMurray above all else, especially right now when they apparently have money to literally give away. -the highway between Edmonton and the Fort is also now inadequate for the volume of traffic it's required to handle. It should be twinned all the way from here to there. -a bullet train between Edmonton and Fort McMurray would also probably pay for itself quickly. It would probably be much easier to get people to work in Fort McMisery if it was a 2 hour train-ride from Edmonton instead of a 6 hour drive. I don't know how much a 450km long high-speed rail line would cost to build-- maybe it would be more than the $1.5 billion or so that Ralph is planning to give away-- but the benefits would probably be more lasting. I expect that if they invested the money smartly today, they'd have bigger surpluses to worry about in the near future. I don't see a problem. He's essentially reiterating the point you made in regard to tax cuts. If we chose to put this into annualized expenses, then once again we've got a problem if circumstances change. I'd prefer infrastructure investment to "prosperity cheques", but to me, either use makes more sense than implimenting new programs that create recurring annual costs. -k

Can we really condemn this man for wanting to enjoy the jet-setting, high-energy yuppie lifestyle of the 1980s as glamourized in movies like "American Psycho"? Glamorous, successful, motivated, I think Patrick Bateman is a great rolemodel for people who set high goals for themselves. That guy had it all. (I'm not sure about the killing people part, though. I don't know why he committed so many murders in that movie. I think it really detracted from the message of the film...) Anyway, I bet this guy worked rings around his cabinet colleagues while he was on the blow. I don't know from experience, but I've heard that cocaine is a way way stronger stimulant than coffee. If anything, we should probably be encouraging more of our public servants to get on the powder. Imagine the efficiency! -k

Underestimating the stupidity of the average Canadian? I'm not even sure that's possible. Why would anybody do that? I'm sure PT Barnum would have been most successful as a politician in 21st century Canada. If there isn't, there will be. Not so much from voters who want to see somebody get rolled, but from political strategists who recognize the potential of the situation. And of course they won't call it the "Screw The Prairies Program". Probably the title will have some combination of the words "Canadian" and "Future" and "Energy" and "Security". It'll be supported in language that makes it sound like we have to do it to save Canada's economy. It'll be accompanied by lots of talk of environmental thinking and alternative energy and Kyoto commitments, to help try to paint opposition into a corner. When this thing happens, and it probably will, it'll be wrapped in pretty paper and ribbons and bows. When it happens, and it probably will, it'll come with political packaging that makes it an easy sell in the rest of Canada. When it happens, and it probably will, they'll try and convince the rest of the country that those opposed are just greedy, selfish, nouveau-riche prairie oil-barons, which (as we both know from our experience here on the forum) is not exactly a hard sell. Especially when Klein insists on not parading "the elephant in the room" around like a show-horse. Well, this is not just Kimmy and some news-hacks making crap up because they're bored (or, in my case, a little tanked right now... ) MacLean's ran an article recently on the subject, and interviewed political scientists who were of the view that another showdown isn't just likely, it's inevitable. It was suggested that Canada's next constitutional crisis won't come from french-english issues, but energy issues. I think that the more politically astute and pragmatic elements in Ottawa will recognize that whether the prairie provinces are happy and prosperous or pissed off is pretty irrelevant, and that having billions of extra dollars to win political favour in more populous parts of the country. In fact, I bet that just being seen to be strong enough to stand up to the prairie oil barons will win the Liberals votes in central Canada, even if it doesn't put a nickel in anybody's pockets. Honestly, why would it even matter if we on the prairies are pissed off? What are we going to do? -Teach them a lesson by cutting oil production? uh, no, for obvious reasons. -Elect fewer Liberals? yeah, that'll teach'em. -Start a new political party? greaaat idea. You know what we pissed-off prairie-people would do? We'd write angry letters and editorials, put mean-spirited bumper-stickers on our cars, turf the remaining 3 prairie Liberal MPs from office, shake our fists in impotent rage, and carry on as usual. As I wrote earlier, we'll eat their shit and call it ice-cream, because we really don't have any other option. And while PM Paulie and Big Fat Ralph might make remarks that they regret how deeply the NEP scarred relations between their party and this province, the truth is that their party has not just survived our scorn, they've thrived. They have done very well without our support, and they'll continue to do very well without our support, and if it begins to look like they can boost their support in Ontario and Quebec and BC's urban ridings by throwing away their chances in Alberta for another 25 years, they'll do it because simple math says its in their best interest. And if the present minority situation has given us prairie yokels an overinflated notion of the importance of our handful of seats in parliament, that situation won't last long. Reality will resume shortly. I think our province's blowhard sector is going to be getting bigger and louder in coming years. -kimmy

I say again, I'm skeptical. There's just too big a discrepency with a plethora of earlier polls, and no apparent explanation for what caused this discrepency. The Liberals aren't 16% more popular in Alberta than they were 2 months ago. I'll believe LiberalMania is sweeping Alberta when I see dealcoholized beer or Roch Voisine records flying off the shelves. -k

Sure, but using resource royalties to (for instance) provide refunds, remove federal fuel taxes, or fund that "new deal" that McGuinty is after, these are things that would have considerable political appeal to people in other provinces. People in other provinces can not be happy when get home from paying $1.15/L for gas and turn on the news to see that idiot Klein talking about writing cheques to Albertans and their own premier talking about fiscal imbalances and deficits. Realistically, regaining the 25 or so MPs they lost from Ontario in the last election would be more than they could hope to gain from Alberta and Saskatchewan in any circumstances. Even winning half the seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan, which would be an unprecidented historic breakthrough for the Liberals, only gets them 21 seats. Why just talk about Alberta and Saskatchewan? Because those are the provinces that'll be affected. Taking action on resource revenues would cost votes in AB and SK, but probably gain votes in every other province. So yeah, I think they would be that shortsighted. Or at least, I wouldn't be surprised if they were. In places that already vote Liberal. But simple math shows that they don't need to elect MPs in oil-producing provinces to get a majority government. You misread. Alberta is the economic engine that drives this whole country. Even Martin wouldn't be stupid enough to sacrifice the country's economy for some marginal electoral gains. They're creative people. I'm sure they could think of ways of making a grab without putting the energy industry on the skids. It's not like anybody can afford to shut down the wells. Anyway, I think you'll agree with me that it's not a question of "can they?" but rather of "would they?" Your view is that they probably wouldn't; my view is that they probably would, and that before long they probably will. Political pressures in this country are going to force a situation where they can't afford not to. And when they do, the anger and fury it causes here on the prairies will be by far outweighed by the political rewards in more populous areas. -kimmy

No one from the federal government, at least. But recall that during their junket out west, PM Paulie and Landslide Annie and Big Fat Ralph were asked a number of times about NEP2. Why? Because the media recognizes public concern over energy costs and knows the government recognizes it too, and is wondering how the government will respond to these concerns. We have all seen speculation and commentary from major national media sources on the subject in the past few months, most notably during McGuinty's lobbying for "a new deal" as well as the poll showing nationwide interest in nationalizing the energy industry. Did this speculation just appear in a vacuum? Of course not. It appeared because Alberta's resource revenue is, as McGuinty put it, "the elephant in the room." So while nobody in Ottawa will say they're planning to raid the Alberta treasury, you'd have to be stupid to think they're not at least thinking of ways to appeal to the growing number of Central Canada voters that are fed up with growing energy costs and believe McGuinty is right. Not necessarily. Polls are starting to indicate that such a move might be very well received in other parts of the country. Nonsense. We *aren't* setting the table, and the Liberals *don't* eat here-- they have survived just fine with no electoral support in Alberta, and will continue to do so if it suits them. They will shit here if it's politically expedient to do so, because they eat elsewhere. And when they do, we'll eat their shit and call it ice-cream, because we have no other choice. -k

My first message in this thread included this handy gender-issues-sensitivity bias test: Or, as Fleabag more succinctly put it, if the employee were female rather than male, the media would be all over this. In other words, if there's bias at work here, it's working in Mr. Pettigrew's favour, because he is not being asked any of the character-harming, reputation-scarring questions that a heterosexual politician would be facing. But of course, the media knows that if they make even the suggestion, they'll be facing responses like this... What's disgusting to me is that the media is applying a different standard in this case than they would if the subject of the rumours was a heterosexual politician. One could argue that the issue is the misuse of taxpayer funds, not the sexual angle, however we know from history that a politician faces extreme scrutiny if there's reason to suspect that personal relations are an element of the story-- ask Art Eggleton. But in this instance the media keeps its lips sealed, or at most veiled references: -kimmy

Bwahahahahahahaha! Now why would you think a link from a Christian Dominionist web site would hold any water with anyone? Wait, let's give this Christian Dominionist idea a chance. I think it would be very convenient for the rest of us if all of these people would just go to South Carolina and leave the rest of us alone. If anything, we should be helping to promote this idea. Don't the RCMP and DEA frequently complain of not enough manpower to effectively patrol the border? At any rate, (shrug) why would I care? If the withered old kooks are just wasting their time, that's fine with me. If they wind up in gun battles with drug-smugglers, so much the better. Either way, it makes little difference to me. I can't really think of any *good* reason for somebody to be sneaking across the border, so I can't see any reason why I should be concerned about these guys. Perhaps some Canadians are offended that these angry old morons see Canada in the same light as Mexico, but again, what of it? I put little weight on their opinion. Whether they wind up shooting drug dealers, getting shot by drug dealers, shooting each other, shooting hapless campers, being mauled to death by bears, whatever... not my problem, as long as they stay on their own side of the border. If they stray across the border, of course, I'm counting on I Miss Trudeau to take care of business. -k

I recall you've mentioned Pettigrew's sexual orientation before, Argus. Is he "out", or is it media speculation, or is it just your suspicion? At any rate, a good test for bias is to change some details and see whether it's still a news item. Let's give that a try: Q: If a male cabinet minister were spending taxpayers money to bring an unneeded female staffer on trips abroad for sexual companionship, would that be a news item? A: probably. I can't recall an identical situation (though I'd be surprised if it hasn't happened...) but I do recall it being news when a Defense Minister (can't recall his name at the moment) was paying his completely unqualified girlfriend to write reports for the department. I think he wound up being removed from Cabinet. Has the media picked up on Pettigrew and his chauffer? Should they? -k

Are they the same incident? Maybe not. The wiki article indicated that Mukhtar Mai had been put on a no-fly list by Musharraf's government and had her passport confiscated. The woman mentioned in the first article was said to have fled to Britain before attempting to emigrate to Canada; Mukhtar Mai is apparently unable to leave Pakistan. But why would it matter? Musharraf was responding to questions regarding a specific incident when he made his remarks, but he answered in broad generalizations about not only women in his own country, but also in Canada, the US, and the UK. Musharraf was responding to questions about the Mukhtar Mai incident when he made the comments that drew Martin's ire. The case of the woman attempting to emigrate was not refered to by either Martin or Musharraf, as far as I know; it was mentioned only by the Indian newspaper from which the first article came, in the context of describing criticism of Pakistan's womens rights problems and perhaps explaining Canada's interest. I'm not sure that Musharraf is a bad guy; to date he's struck me as a beacon of moderation and enlightenment compared to some of the hardline kooks who want to be running that country. Musharraf might have put his foot in his mouth on the issue of womens' rights, but I suspect womens' rights will be a lot safer under Musharraf's leadership than the alternative. As for the issue of whether Canada does or should consider sexual violence as a legitimate claim for persecution and cause for immigration... I would say, "maybe". If a country has a chronic inability to protect womens' safety, then why shouldn't we? For instance in some Latin American countries, a guy can apparently kill his wife or girlfriend with minimal legal repercussion if he thinks she's cheating on him. Well, if we were looking at some country where it was basically legal to harm or kill members of some religious or ethnic group, we'd consider that a legitimate claim to persecution. So, same logic. -k