kimmy

And modest. I mentioned I was kidding, right? My special guy joined us for Thanksgiving dinner. He lost his mother to cancer this past winter, and his father lives far away, so I really appreciate that my family makes him welcome. I guess that is what I am thankful for this year. This is a superb idea. Since our American friends had "Columbus Day" on Monday, and will have a 4-day Thanksgiving long weekend in November, I don't see why we couldn't follow their lead. Our early October holiday could be renamed to "Tim Horton Day" or something uniquely Canadian, and we could have a 4-day long weekend in November. I do not suggest this out of a desire to Americanize Canada. I just think November is far too long and we could really use a 4-day long weekend to break up the monotony. -kimmy

If Hitler had been swarthy and Muslim instead of white and allegedly Christian, there would probably be apologists coming out of the woodwork to condemn the actions of the Allies in WWII. However, I do think that somebody who upset the applecart on such a large international scale in today's world would be dealt with by an international effort. Overall I think the premise of this thread-- that if you think Canada could do things differently or better, you must be anti-Canadian or filled with self-loathing-- is flawed. If you've watched the US presidential debates, you've heard both men say something along the line of "My opponent and I both love this country very much, but we have very different ideas about what needs to be done." Even after the most bitter exchanges, neither of them is willing to question the other's love of the country. In Canada, though, if you dare question any of a number of sacred cows, you must be anti-Canadian. -kimmy

That was indeed a very interesting piece. It leaves us in a bit of a dilemna, doesn't it? I mean, it is legitimate to criticize the press for editting and interpretting the news instead of just reporting it. But at the same time, doesn't the news media have a duty to provide more than just relay the politicians' spin to the masses? Do we want a media that just takes everything a politician says at face value? But if they don't... by providing additional information they consider relevant, whatever that information might be, they are providing their interpretation. Unbiased information; critical thinking and analysis. How can you reconcile the two expectations? -kimmy

I'm thankful that I'm younger, smarter, and better looking than all of you. (oops. Was that out loud?) -kimmy {I'm kidding I hope everybody had a nice weekend. }

This is promising. I think that this is the sort of thing that August1991 was pondering when he began this thread. This, however, is less promising... I too am glad the Ottoman empire didn't achieve domination over Europe. Was it because "they did not seek it"? Or is it because they failed at it? They battled to expand into Europe for over 250 years. They claimed territory in southeastern Europe. Hungary, Greece, the Balkans, Bulgaria, and Romania were under Ottoman domination. Their further attempts at expansion ran up against Austria-- the Hapsburgs-- and resulted in historic battles in the Seige of Vienna and the Battle of Vienna. At the Seige of Vienna in 1526, the Ottoman empire pitched a massive army-- over 300,000 men-- against Vienna. Even this early, their tactics and technology were bested by their European opponents. Despite a huge numerical advantage, the Ottoman army was repulsed, with huge losses. At the Battle of Vienna, 1683, the combined effort of Austria, Germany, and Poland defeated a larger Ottoman army. Ottoman advances were stopped again, and it was their last major push into central Europe. The Austrians fought the Ottomans for 16 more years, taking Ottoman territories in eastern Europe. Even after that, the Ottoman sultans didn't give up on Europe and had more clashes with Austria in the 18th century. In the 19th century the sultans, recognizing that they were falling badly behind their European rivals, attempted reforms. They recognized that their military was badly outdated, and attempted to reform things. The sultan's own elite infantry, the Janissaries, were opposed to any reform that threatened their power within the empire. In 1826 the sultan used his elite cavalry, the Spahis, to massacre the Janissaries to clear the obstacle to reform. French military experts were brought in to modernize the Ottoman armies. And they failed-- the Ottomans lacked both the industrial capability of building modern weaponry in sufficient quantities, and the willingness to accept that the foreigners' modern ideas were more effective than their traditions. Why did the Ottoman empire lack the industrial capacity to equip a modern army? -kimmy

What a change in tone from Maplesyrup's other ranting Has your opinion changed, Syrup? Now that the polls have this election as "too close to call" or a "dead heat", don't you think that the votes Nader takes away from Kerry, even though it's just a percentage point or two, could make the difference? Do you now see why "the left" thinks Nader is a problem? Do you see why *Republican* supporters were working hard to find enough nominations to get Nader's name on the ballot in more states? Wouldn't Nader be doing "the left" a favor if he went and did a backflip into an empty pool? -kimmy

Interesting. So, you're saying that at a time when Western nations were undergoing great changes in political, economic, technological, and philosophical changes, the Islamic world was still under the sway of a centuries-old monarchy that was unwilling and unable to adapt and ultimately declined and perished as a result of its inability to keep pace. Indeed, more evidence that "nothing happened." -kimmy

That doesn't prove the point you're trying to make. The idea that only female police care about womens' safety is simply wrong. -kimmy

"nothing happened" seems to be the root of the problem, as I see it. -kimmy

Early polling says it was a virtual draw. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/09/...main/index.html I thought Kerry clobbered him again; but of course I'm not the average US voter. One interesting point was made during the post-debate analysis. The newsman noted that Bush came out more feisty, more combative, more energetic. His comment was that if you were already behind him, you probably liked that... but those traits might not play as well to the undecided. People look for different things in a debate. Trying to determine who "won" is difficult because different things will score with different viewers. Whether the debate has an impact in the election depends on what the undecided voters thought... and it also depends on how it played in different states. From the last election we know that the US Electoral College system comes into play... Kerry winning undecided voters isn't enough unless the undecided voters are distributed so as to swing some of the states that went Bush in the 2000 election. I also (and this is painful for me) have to admit this: I am a snob. I am often unconvinced if Joe Average Voter is going to think critically about things as many of us on these message boards do. Many of the lines used in these debates and these campaigns seem crafted to appeal to dumb people. I tend to wonder how much impact this sort of thing has with real voters. -kimmy

The vanished women were not ignored because they were women. They were ignored because they prostitutes and drug addicts. Most of them were probably considered "missing" long before they were taken. -kimmy

I'm not sure the two are comparable, Fleabag. Syrup was clearly trying to imply that I think American lives are more valuable than Arab lives, because after all I'm in a thread talking about a dead American but I haven't made any threads talking about dead Iraqis. This 80,000:1 ratio you're talking about is clearly something else. Trying to determine when it's appropriate to send troops into dangerous situations is obviously not something that can be undertaken lightly under any circumstances. Do you think Canadians have a substantially different "value ratio"? There is a humanitarian crisis of huge proportions in the Sudan... certainly more than 80,000 people have died there... yet we have not risked any Canadian soldiers to try to help. If we believed that saving Sudanese lives was worth the lives of Canadian troops, wouldn't we already be there? I don't know the exact meaning of this "value ratio" you're referring to, but if it's some kind of rule of thumb in deciding when becoming involved in somebody else's conflict is worth the lives of people entrusted to your care, I don't disagree with the premise: if I were ever in a situation where I was responsible for deciding whether to risk peoples' lives, I would have to be convinced that the sacrifice would do a huge amount of good before I could do it. Thank god I'm not in such a position, and never will be; I don't think I could do it. -kimmy

Welcome to Syrup-Town. It's a surreal place to visit, but you wouldn't want to live there. -kimmy

And? I don't see a problem. "Petty Regional Guy" might be upset when people leave one province for another; "Whole Country Guy" ought to appreciate that it's for the best. "Macro-Econ Guy" would probably suggest that moving employees out of fisheries and agriculture and into energy is the more efficient use of Canada's human capital and ultimately benefits us all. The rest of this message is things I'll reflect on and consider, but I don't wish to respond to it. I did want to hit this one point, though. I was in BC with my dad in 1998, when he was working a contract there. The exodus of jobs from BC to Alberta (I believe 10,000 jobs a month was claimed at one point) was very much an issue in the media at that time. What was causing it? What could be done to change it? I heard an interview with an American businessman, which went pretty much like this: "When I got off the plane in Edmonton, I was met by the mayor and a representative of the provincial government. We were driven to a hotel where we had lunch, and then I was introduced to somebody from city hall who talked about competitive real-estate prices and tax and utility rates. Then I met somebody from a college who talked about designing a custom training program for new employees. "When I got off the plane in Vancouver, I was met by a go-fer, who introduced me to an environmental protection officer who wanted to know how much pollution my plant would make. Then I was was taken to somebody from the provincial government who told me how many visible minorities I had to hire. "So where do you think I decided to build my plant?" -kimmy

Why does a discussion of the Islamic world always get bogged down in terrorism? If we allow that the terrorists are a tiny minority and leave them out of it, is there not still a lot to talk about? Once, the Islamic world was a leader in every area of human achievement. They certainly aren't any more. What happened? -kimmy

The issue was not why a large US firm invested money in Alberta and why Canadian investors didn't. Merely that that's what happened. If Canadian capital had opened up for Mr Herron in 1920, maybe he wouldn't have had to sell out to Standard Oil. Things might have happened very differently. But, that's not how things unfolded. Of course Alberta contributes disproportionately; a glance at the figures will bear that out. The argument would be whether Alberta contributes an unfair amount. Others may be saying that, but I won't argue it on their behalf. My family uprooted to move to Ottawa during the late, lamented high-tech boom. At the time, engineers and IT people were being hired and brought in at a frantic rate, sometimes without even job interviews, sometimes without even fluency in either official language. At the time, being in telecommunications was a licence to print money, just as oil is right now. Maybe once upon a time in Canada, fish, furry hats, silver, and gold were the same. People have always followed opportunity. I don't know how Alberta's oil growth stacks up historically against some of the other booms that have moved people around the country. But I don't think there's anything wrong with people moving. In the grand scheme of things, it's probably the best thing for the country. Maybe Newfoundland and rural Saskatchewan have lost a lot of young workers, but for the country as a whole, which is the best use of human capital? Having them home and under-utilized, or earning a good wage and building a vital industry? "Whole Country Guy" ought to appreciate the principle. -kimmy

The comment I'm referring to is the one that Stamps quoted when he revived this thread: That was from somewhere earlier in this thread, and I think it was your words. I think that myself and a number of others took the tone of this message as: "We made you." If we've misinterpretted the message, then I guess it's an error in communication, but you have to concede, the statement left lots of room for misunderstanding. That is why we've been talking about the early years, not the 1960s-70s era that you prefer to discuss. I think the information that's been presented-- and you've agreed as much-- disproves the notion that "you" (meaning Ontario, Bay Street, Central Canadian money) made "us" (meaning Albertans who enjoy a comfortable standard of living as a direct or indirect result of the oil industry.) Now, if we're arguing against something that you didn't mean to express, then I guess it's been a misunderstanding, but I think you'll concede that the tone of your original comment contributed to our interpretation of it. "Not attending" to you? Am I a maid now? I shall attend to your main points of late: * Alberta received equalization money prior to 1964. My response is: I agree. And? * Central Canada money was present in the Alberta oil patch. My response: ok. You've agreed to my main issue on this front, which is that American investment in Alberta was the key factor. Let's leave it at that. * We should ask ourselves why Canadian oil businesses have been bought out by larger American companies. My response: I dunno. Same reason that smaller Canadian businesses in other industries are bought up by larger American competitors? I'm sure you're itching to talk about this issue, so let's have it. Standard Oil certainly had the money; their investment resulted in the discovery of oil at Turner Valley in 1936 and at Leduc in 1947. Isn't this kind of outside the scope of this discussion, though? Vancouver and Toronto also have very high levels of immigration, with no oil industry to speak of... Certainly, poor policy made by the governments in Quebec and Victoria has resulted in businesses and jobs relocating to Alberta. That might be indirectly related to Alberta's oil wealth, but as you mention, other factors are present as well. I'll just mention that this attitude goes both ways... for every person saying Alberta pays too much, there's somebody else saying Albertans didn't do anything to deserve this prosperity. August's rational for starting this thread more or less boiled down to "well, Albertans are getting pretty arrogant", as I recall.

Syrup, I think what people are saying is that money on its own is not the answer. There has to be some kind of change in plans. What really is the answer in dealing with First Nations issues? We know that all the statistics (not just violence against women, but also crime, drug abuse, alcoholism, suicides, and others) are deplorable among natives, and we have to somehow figure out what the source of these alarming numbers is. If you think of domestic violence, one of the things that immediately comes to mind is tougher law enforcement. But that's not necessarily an easy thing to do. And I think that when it comes to natives, our law enforcement officers are often in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" position. They are aware of the potential for extra scrutiny and allegations of racism in any dealing with natives, which might reduce their willingness to become involved in situations. More involvement from law enforcement will probably have to be part of the solution, but it's not as easy as just showing up at the reserve and acting tough. It's a complicated issue. -kimmy

Haven't you been listening to Syrup? It's the start of a revolution! You are right, of course. A byelection and a general election are two different things. Has anybody ever compiled any statistics about how byelection results correlate with general election results, or whether the governing party's candidate is more likely to lose in a byelection? It seems likely to me that a byelection is more likely to produce an anti-government result, as the voters are given the opportunity to give the government a mid-term report card. And, voters can vote without worrying about how their vote will impact the makeup of the legislature-- the premier will be the same guy, regardless who wins the byelection. I'd be curious to hear what the general trend is in byelections over the years. One thing for sure: the NDP will herald a win as the start of a revolution and the Liberals will insist that it doesn't mean very much. -kimmy

I thought I was a model of restraint. I've been told before in forums that my messages sometimes come across a little too strong; if that's the case, well, I guess I'm sorry. I don't mean to sound hostile or aggressive or pushy or intimidating... but if my messages come across that way, then let me know and I'll try to be nicer. The comment that got people riled up was that Ontario money built Alberta's oil industry. And it's just wrong. Alberta's first commercial fossil enterprise was a gas plant founded by a man named W.S. Herron. He was forced to sell his operation in 1921 because he couldn't raise enough capital to purchase modern equipment. American Standard Oil bought his operation and reorganized it as "Royalite". And if you look through the history of Alberta's early oil industry, it's the same 3 names over and over: American Standard Oil and its subsidiaries Imperial Oil and Royalite. It was Imperial's involvment in gas wells in Alberta that ultimately led to the discovery of oil at Turner Valley in 1936, and Imperial again at Leduc in 1947. If Bay Street investors jumped in with both feet once a major commercially viable reserve was proven to exist, then that's super. But nothing I've read so far contradicts the view that it was American money, in the form of Standard Oil and its subsidiaries, that made Turner Valley and Leduc happen. I certainly don't argue that Alberta was a recipient of support in the early years. Has anybody argued that in this thread? I do take issue with the phrasing here: "Alberta has indeed been a net recipient from Ottawa since the beginning." What exactly are you saying? If your claim is that over the 99 years of its existence, Alberta has received more from confederation than Alberta has contributed to confederation, I'm highly skeptical. I understand that Alberta received federal funds during the first 59 years. However, Alberta's contributions *to* federation over the past 40 years have been immense, and I have no doubt that they far outstrip the money received during the first 59 years. Well, the argicle is here: http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-378-2139/p...berta_oil/clip5 and you can watch the video to get the context of his remarks. If you want to "straighten him out", you can probably get ahold of him. Dr. Pratt is still active as an energy analyst, and has written a number of books on industry in Alberta. -kimmy

You keep saying that, and it keeps making me wonder what the hell kind of scary-ass movies you go to. -kimmy

No, I'm certainly from the "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck" school of thought. The point of my message was that there are some people here who think otherwise. Have a look for yourself, and see how far some people are willing to go to excuse the terrorists... Nick Berg conspiracy poll Checkout the poll results... the conspiracy theorists are winning in a blow-out! Check out this crazy Mexican website that some people think contains proof that it's a CIA conspiracy: http://www.aztlan.net/berg_abu_ghraib_video.htm And while you're there check out some of the other funky crap from that website. Click here to get up close and personal with Jesus! Or here to visit his little web-shrine to the suicide bomber women! Dookie, there's people who don't view the world in terms of what makes sense and what doesn't make sense. Here at Mapleleaf Web, you're going to meet lots of them! -kimmy

Well, not exactly. Perhaps we're arguing two different things. I will perhaps go back to earlier in this thread to where this portion of the argument originated, but here is my recollection: somebody from Ontario made the claim that without Ontario money, none of this would have happened. Well, the counter-claim from Stampeder, and from a U of A professor interviewed on CBC in the 1970s, is that not only was American investment a bigger part of the puzzle, it also came at a more crucial time. Nobody is denying that Ontario investment came during the "let's get paid" portion of building Alberta's oilpatch. There seems to be some question of whether Ontario investors were there during the more risky, speculative phase, however. And "for what reason" followed from the same argument. For the reason that someone seemed to take a "we made you; you owe us" stance. But your own story confirms that Ontario investors got what they were owed and more; they seem to have received substancial returns on their investments. -kimmy

I've seen this before. Equalization payments officially began in 1957, and Alberta was a recipient from that time until 1964 when the formula was change to reflect resource revenues. And, from 1905 to 1930, Alberta didn't have the full rights of the older provinces. Alberta received an "allowance" in lieu of revenue from mineral rights. That changed in the Constitution Act of 1930. The allowance was dropped, mineral rights were granted, but not enough to amount to anything, and with agriculture struggling at that time, Alberta went bankrupt almost immediately. Alberta was one of the poorest provinces in Canada until oil hit big. Although smaller discoveries had been made far earlier, the big strike in 1947 is often cited as the time things changed. -kimmy

Cadman said the exact same thing after his election night victory. It is indeed remarkable when a politician can maintain his position for 3 straight months. -kimmy