Evening Star

Perhaps I misunderstood the argument. I'll certainly grant that someone who works full-time at a minimum wage job will not die of starvation.

But we're talking about being stuck at $20K (or close) for life, not as a temporary phase.

Tbf, if you're making that much, you probably won't be paying 20% in taxes, especially if you've ever paid tuition. I still do agree that Bonam and CPCFTW are presenting an absolute best-case scenario of the $20K lifestyle. (Medications/dental care and clothes and phone bills etc could come to over $300/mo for starters.)

Thanks, cybercoma. I also thought that comment was pretty rich coming from a boomer.

Did you even watch the video? It was the bilingual version that switches languages. That's much harder to remember than remembering either the English or French version. Besides, they didn't even seem to be making mistakes or failing to participate. They were just referring to printed lyrics. It's pretty normal to look at notes if you have them on you. This does not seem at all comparable to me to expecting the Minister of the Environment to answer a question about what ozone is (which also does not strike me as the equivalent of knowing "the frequency of radio emissions from the star Regulus".)

I was completely ready to agree with Bill until I watched the video. The version they were singing alternates French and English verses. I know the anthem by heart in both languages but I would want definitely want a lyric sheet if I had to switch back and forth. Besides, it's easy to get nervous when you're new at work, in front of people and cameras, especially if you're not a singer! I always bring notes to refer to when I'm teaching, no matter how well I know what I'm talking about.

Yeah, I haven't seen a strong political bias in his interviewing or even his choice of interview subjects at all, really, especially considering that he mostly interviews entertainers. When he had P. J. O'Rourke on his show, for example, he certainly treated him as well as any other guest and never even argued with him at all.

When I mentioned PBS/TVO as models, it was in terms of their programming choices, not their funding model. I'd still like to see a government-funded public broadcaster. If anything, I'd be in favour of seeing less commercials.

I think, broadly speaking, that we might be on the same side here. My only thought was that HNIC might be actually generating revenue for the CBC rather than being subsidized. Otherwise, I think the CBC could benefit from focusing on its strengths and really evaluating its mandate. I agree that it serves more of a public good in terms of its news and educational programming and also think that these are often its strengths. I do think it could possibly have a role to play in promoting Canadian creativity in areas such as video art, animation, or art music that might not get as much coverage on commercial TV but are also areas where there is much strong Canadian work. PBS/TVO might not be terrible models, actually, although I'll admit that I haven't watched PBS in ages. I don't think, by and large, that the CBC does that much good when it attempts to mimic commercial entertainment. I love sitcoms, actually. I can even watch mediocre ones. But even I can't watch CBC sitcoms! (Having said that, I love The Debaters.) I don't actually mind the Ceeb as it is though and do still watch plenty of things on it (via online streams).

Are you worried that other networks won't carry sports?? Admittedly, HNIC is a moneymaker for the Ceeb so maybe it should be preserved after all...

I don't entirely disagree with this, actually (although I'd be in favour of maintaining some cultural programming).

The thing is, he wouldn't have even needed to say that it's O[3], nor am I sure that was anyone's expectation, necessarily. He could have just said that ozone is a gas that forms a layer in the Earth's atmosphere that protects us from harmful UV rays (which would demonstrate "a rudimentary knowledge in what way the more important [substances] have an effect on [the environment]"). He could have added that it can be a pollutant at low altitudes. Having said that, I'll freely admit that if someone asks me a question out of left field, I don't always answer, if only out of surprise, especially if I don't trust their motivations for asking, and especially if I think they're being condescending. So I can't blame Kent too much.

WTF? He doesn't even have an accent when speaking English, as far as I can tell.

For serious. Remember when posters here were questioning Paul Dewar's qualifications as foreign affairs critic because he was a schoolteacher? You have to acknowledge this is a little worse.

Despite the near-consensus Harper endorsements (and I could go on ad nauseum)?

I'm not necessarily opposed to this but I am a little perturbed that we're hearing widely varying reports about what the purpose of it is.

Pretty big shift from PET to Mulroney imo, especially on economics.

That was basically my suggestion. I don't see why it would reduce trade with the US. They're not going to discard their biggest trading partner over this. I don't think so, anyway.

Would you favour prohibiting alcohol then, in order to turn back the dangerous trend? Seems like the only logical step. Maybe we should prohibit caffeine too, to be extra safe.

I'm calling BS. I don't see any logical reason why decriminalizing marijuana would either lead to decriminalization of other drugs or would lead to people doing harder drugs. It hasn't happened in the Netherlands or Belgium, for example. If alcohol was 'the line', it hasn't led to decriminalization of other drugs in decades. And just because there's a black market in cigarettes doesn't mean that people don't still buy legal tobacco and pay taxes on it!

(I don't know enough about the pipeline issue to really have an opinion on it btw.)

I don't even see the issue. They weren't claiming to represent the government's official position. They certainly have a right to speak to whomever they want as representatives of an Opposition voice.

You know that no one's talking about decriminalizing cocaine or heroin, right? Do you have some figures on how many people OD on marijuana or end up homeless as a result of pot smoking? Or even on what their health care costs are like? Besides, taxing or even nationalizing it would seem to be the easiest way to recoup those costs, even if there are real costs.

deleted

1984, if you actually want to know. Provincially, the most recent election in Saskatchewan from this month.