Jump to content

kimmy

Member
  • Posts

    11,423
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kimmy

  1. (does anybody who read that article really think that the writer was really talking about Blackberries?) I think that it is just a fact of life. Maybe life used to be different in the past, but now everything happens fast. Instant communications, instant video, instant coverage. Anything that happens anywhere can be on your TV or on the Internet within minutes. People are overloaded with information, and they are becoming trained to assess information in the blink of an eye to decide whether it is important to them or not. That is why politicians speak in soundbites now instead of talking in ideas. They know that the evening news doesn't have time for ideas, just soundbites. So they give them soundbites. Did everybody notice that Team Martin adopted Dubya Bush's idea of putting their messages on the backdrops behind Martin as he was speaking? Even if you change the channel without listening to what Martin is saying, you still get his message- "Shorter Waiting Times" for instance. They are all adapting their styles to instant information. And I think the article is saying that we are too focused on what's immediate and what's eye-grabby and not paying enough attention to real substance anymore. It is just how things happen now. -kimmy
  2. I think that if you looked around you could find an equally worrying story about an ecological horror-story in any province or territory in Canada. Industrial sludge poisoning lakes and rivers in Ontario, raw sewage being dumped into the sea right outside Victoria and Halifax, toxic mine waste being poured right into the ground in the Western Arctic, etc. And although it is upsetting to read about these sorts of incidents, they don't actually say a lot about the way each jurisdiction is taking care of its environment as a whole. Qualitative is different from quantitative. If you want to make some kind of assessment over some place's environmental policies, you need some quantitative information. -kimmy
  3. Can anyone really argue this one? Without big business, the US would not be able to engage in war. Or, do people believe that Bush is so noble as to be concerned primarily about morality? If so, I am sure that there are many other nations without oil that would like to be "liberated". I think I can argue with that one! I don't think China or the former Soviet Union had any big business, but I think pretty obviously their ability to participate in a war would have been very formidable, if it had been called upon. Iran fought in a war against Iraq for many years, and I don't think Iran has any big business to speak of. If you look back through history I think you will find that wars predate big business by many years. I think the only requirement to have a war is two groups of people with different opinions, access to weapons, and short tempers. Access to weapons might mean big business to build them, but it could also mean state-controlled means of production (like China) or a government/ruler with the financial resources to purchase weapons. It might even just mean a supply of rocks to throw and sticks to swing. -kimmy
  4. I have to ask... ...does "Kamloops 394" mean anything different in French than in English? Aren't big red octagons and inverted triangles universally recognized symbols? Does it take much imagination to figure out what "Maximum 90" means? And it seems to me that last time I was on a highway in BC, I think most informational signs were in Pictographs, not English or French. It seems like somebody looking too hard to find an issue. I can't imagine the traffic signage being an obstacle to anyone, even someone who can't read either official language. If I was a BC motorist, of either language, I'd be a lot more concerned about the hair-raising state of the Trans-Canada Highway outside Golden-- driving off a cliff by accident will "eliminate" Francophones (or Anglos) more permanently than the highway signs I can't vouch for BC but I know that even here in the heart of Neckberta, a parent can sent their child to school from preschool all the way to university graduation in French. Isn't that what is really important when it comes to language rights? -kimmy
  5. -Taft, 1997 So, what this Taft person is saying is that when times were tough, Alberta's government spent money to try to stimulate the economy? Isn't that what they call "Keynesian economics"? Let me know if I'm wrong on that (Alberta public school education ) Governments should save money when times are good, and spend money during tough times to try to stimulate the economy, isn't that the idea? I was pretty young at the time but I do know that Alberta's economy was not very good during that time. And I know that much of Alberta's oil production capacity was lost during the NEP years, which are just before the years "Taft" compiled these statistics about subsidies for. It looks like the Alberta government was spending money during the years after the NEP to try to restore the lost production capacity. It seems like this Taft person is criticizing Alberta for following what many people think is a good economic strategy. The article you quoted also didn't say that all of that money went into the resource sector. Weren't you the person who was saying in another thread that governments should spend money to try to diversify the economy? It seems like you are criticizing them here for doing just that. Also, I have to wonder if maybe Alberta's resource-rich neighbors would be more prosperous if their own governments were more aggressive in promoting those industries. Saskatchewan has lots of oil, and BC has lots of natural gas, but it isn't helping anybody if it stays underground... -kimmy
  6. Albertans cashing cheques for which they've provided so much of Canada's funding isn't hypocrisy. I hate the auto insurance industry, but no matter how much I hate them, I'd still have to pay my insurance if I wanted to drive (since I don't have a car, this is purely hypothetical. ) And, having paid my insurance, I would fully expect the insurance company to pay up when I needed to make a claim. Albertans might not be thrilled with the system, but we're stuck with it, and as long as we are doing our part (in sending huge transfer payments to other part of Canada) I don't think it's hypocrisy to expect the government to do its part. -kimmy
  7. Considering how many people thought the Conservative party is "scary", I can't believe people are talking seriously about the Christian Heritage party! -kimmy
  8. Whether Albertans agree with it or not, Canada as a nation has decided that provinces pay in so that the federal government can assist people who need assistance. That's been the agreement, when it's Atlantic fishermen or Quebec airplane builders who need a helping hand. As it happens prairie farmers have needed a helping hand, and Canada as a nation ought to help out, just as it has when people in other parts of the country have needed a hand. If you disagree, maybe an alternative would be that Alberta could look after its own, and stop paying in to help out others. Do you think that sounds fair? The federal government would be relieved of any obligation to help out people in Alberta, and in return Alberta would be relieved of the ongoing transfer of wealth to poorer provinces. Does that sound like a good deal? I think Albertans would take that deal. I don't think the federal government would, though. -kimmy
  9. This just doesn't seem very well informed. It seems to suggest that Albertans just sit at home and collect royalty cheques for a living. Obviously oil is Alberta's most profitable industry right now, which shouldn't be very surprising considering what is happening to the agriculture and forestry industries right now. However it is hardly the only industry here. Alberta is still a resource based economy, but that is slowly changing. All of Canada used to be a resource based economy at one time. One of the reasons the west is still so heavily dependent on resources and agriculture is that it's how the west was settled. And it has been the federal governments' policy of development for this region for a long time. My grandparents came to Alberta (from Minnesota, ja know ) for the land, that was being given away to anybody who was willing to cultivate it. Which is a fine way of getting the new territory started, but the government did not exactly do much to promote growth. I could be wrong but I think that the national railways used to be subsidized to ship raw materials west to east, and to ship finished goods east to west. Which was to promote manufacturing in the east, and helps resource producers in the west, but removed any incentive for a manufacturing industry to grow in the west. In the old days, Ontario used its advantages (population and location) to go from a resource economy to a diverse economy. Now Alberta is trying to do the same using our advantage: the prosperity that our resources bring. This happens in several ways! Low taxes and operating costs for businesses make this one of the most attractive places in Canada for companies to set up shop. I work for an American information company that decided to open a location in Alberta because of low operating costs. As well, Alberta's prosperity has created some of the best educational institutions in Canada. There are several first-rate technical schools. The University of Alberta is one of the top research universities in Canada, particularly in medicine. Alberta has growing industries in many areas of medical and chemical technology. Things are going well right now but Albertans understand that the oil isn't forever. We want to make the most of our advantage to create lasting prosperity here. We want to make the best of it while we still can. That is why many people here object to seeing so much of our revenues taken away to support failing industries in other parts of the country. We don't mind helping other Canadians out but it seems like what is happening is that a lot of what should be used to build for our future is instead being spent to help others cling to their pasts. Albertans are trying to build a diverse economy, thank you very much. And to those who say "You'll all be poor again when the oil dries up," I can only respond
  10. Hi! I'm new here! I've read through this thread and wanted to say a few things. I am an Albertan, and I only know a few people who seriously support separation, but lots of people talk about it. It is an idea that people don't support right now, but people don't write it off either. They are starting to think about the possibilities instead of just the negative parts. Nobody is really getting into separation yet, but everybody thinks elections in Canada are a joke. People here voted for Conservatives because they want things to change. I think that if you look at the election results the biggest % that comes out of the results is not what party got what % of the votes, the biggest % is that 40% of voters didn't even bother. It is the 2nd straight election with record low voter turnout! I think that this proves that Canadians all over, not just in Alberta, are unsatisfied with politics in Canada. But most Canadians elected Liberal MPs who are against change! That is the strange part. Some comments that were made earlier on about stereotypes. I lived in Ontario for a while, and went to highschool there for a year. And I don't think that the Ontario people here who said there aren't negative stereotypes about Albertans are not telling the whole story. Often my classmates asked me things and expressed opinions that showed they didn't have a very good picture of what Alberta is really like. Did my dad work on an oil rig? Were we farmers? Do I listen to country music? Or have a cowboy hat or cowboy booties? Do I own a gun? Ride horses? Were there people who weren't white back home? I don't think anybody meant any harm, but I think the sorts of things people asked me come from an image that Alberta is a rural, white, Christian place that hasn't been touched by immigration or anything modern. I also heard a radio personality use "Alberta public school education" to describe somebody who wasn't very smart, and I once saw a TV show where somebody said "hey, go back to Alberta" as a response to somebody who was being culturally insensitive. It was just a couple of isolated comments, but to me it seems like remarks like that wouldn't have been made if there wasn't some underlying assumption that an "Alberta public school education" is a poor education, or that somebody who is culturally insensitive probably came from Alberta. I am not whining or trying to make a big deal about it, but I am pointing this out because from my experience, I disagree with the people who said that people in Ontario don't have stereotypes about Albertans. -kimmy
×
×
  • Create New...