For the late great US of A!
Tomorrow, the reality sets in, not for Democrats, but for Republicans. Like the Liberal party in Canada, the Republicans in the US have forgotten what they stand for, and needed this kick in the butt to wake them up.
Thank goodness we have a "bully" for a PM, because Canada will need a strong leader to stop the protectionist Democrat's from running all over the NAFTA agreement. Our ace in the hole is oil. If they try to stop auto manufacturing in Ontario, we can slap them with reduced oil supplies.
What might be interesting is how oil companies react. If Obama raises taxes, imposes a cap and trade scheme, and stops drilling in America, will the oil companies relocate to Canada? If our taxes are lower, and we allow drilling, why wouldn't they? A businesses main goal is profit, if Obama makes that impossible in the US, what would stop not only oil companies but other companies from relocating? If they can relocate to India and China, why not here, in good old safe Canada?
I predict foreign investment in Canada to increase. If the NAFTA agreement gets reopened, it's a great time for us to renegotiate our position on oil and gas. Also, don't forget our fresh water supply, which is off limits in NAFTA. If the Arctic ice is melting, why not capture that fresh water before it hits the salty ocean and sell it to America? If we can have an oil pipeline, why not a fresh water pipeline direct to California? Heck, it would even stop the oceans from raising and destroying the planet as Al Gore predicts! I think I'm on to something here, now how do I patent it? HA!
11 comments:
"A Moment of Silence...
For the late great US of A!"
I think you'll find it's a moment of rejoicing actually.
"Tomorrow, the reality sets in, not for Democrats, but for Republicans. Like the Liberal party in Canada, the Republicans in the US have forgotten what they stand for, and needed this kick in the butt to wake them up."
Quite so. There is a place for conservative values. Just as there is a place for liberal values. Yin and yang. Both are there to rein in the other. It's a political version of negative feedback.
We know that radical conservatism has run rife in the US over the last few years, to the point at which the US has become both a laughing stock and a global danger.
It's time for a change and thanks to an excellent campaign and the prevailing common sense and decency of the people that change is finally here.
It's now the role of the Republicans to ensure the Democrats don't get as utterly out of touch with reality as the bush administration did.
"Heck, it would even stop the oceans from raising and destroying the planet as Al Gore predicts!"
Can I just point out that melting of the Arctic ice cap will do absolutely nothing to change sea levels. It's the Antarctic ice cap that will do that. I'm sure you're aware of the basic kindergarten science of Archimedes' principle Hunter but there are actually some idiots out there who are not.
"but there are actually some idiots out there who are not."
And this is why I don't give credence to some comments. It seems to be a trait among Libs and lefties to use words like "idiots" so freely. There are many things which I do not know and that does not make me an idiot. Same for google - there are things I know that he/she does not - does that make him/her an idiot? No.
What does make google an idiot is having to rely on calling people idiots.
To quote Gerry the Klutz Ford, "Your long national nightmare is over...."
To quote St. Ronnie, "It's morning in America."
If Ford (a publicly traded company)stops making the Flex (that nobody wants), we should punish the American people? or force Ford to make cars?
Hunter, oil is traded in the international market. They go where there is oil. Drilling in Windsor is probably not a good idea. It's the telemarketers that relocate to India and China. (Called Bell Canada lately? A nice little man in Bangalore answers your call.)
The Conservative movement in the States has become nothing but a bunch of narrow-minded religous whack jobs. George Bush's legacy. He should be proud as he heads to obscurity...
"It seems to be a trait among Libs and lefties to use words like "idiots" so freely."
And right wingers don't? Seriously? But just to be clear I don't use the term freely. Perhaps I didn't use it clearly though. I was referring to those, perhaps including yourself, who hold strong views on a subject about which they know nothing.
If you don't know about Archimedes' principle then you are unfit to pass comment about whether or not the melting of the Arctic ice cap will cause sea level rises. Doing so makes you, what I loosely referred to as, 'an idiot'. Particularly when the subject at hand requires such scant, simple and obvious knowledge.
Obviously the word idiot has a strict definition (if memory serves it's someone with an IQ of less than 80) but I used it colloquially in this instance.
But I wanted to draw a distinction between someone who doesn't know about Archimedes' principle and keeps quiet about sea level rises and someone who doesn't know about Archimedes' principle and yet puts forth his views on sea level rises.
The former is merely ignorant. The latter is something we don't have a word for so I used the word idiot. Can you think of a better one?
"Same for google - there are things I know that he/she does not - does that make him/her an idiot?"
No. It makes me ignorant. I only become an idiot, for want of a better word, when I make statements that require support from knowledge and understanding that I do not have.
Ah Google, you are so amusing. Strong views are not a bad thing. I think you are confusing my not knowing anything with my knowing or believing something different than you do - hence, you would call me an idiot. However, Google, you can call me whatever you wish if it makes you happy. I am an adult living in a free country and I do have a functioning brain. So, I will continue to have strong views even if YOU think I know nothing about the subject for which I hold strong views. I'm not going to argue with you or even attempt to defend myself because, Google, I don't know you and you are not part of my life in any meaninful way so, therefore, what you think of me means...absolutely...uh...nothing.
Otherwise permanent ice melting on land is what contributes to sea level rise. Glaciers are the problem. Most are melting, and those which are growing are mostly only doing so because warmer temperatures have resulted in more snow falling on those glaciers (armer air carries more moisture). Unfortunately, as the planet gets warmer, the temporary increase in size of those glaciers will be reversed as the melting exceeds the rate of snowfall.
Collecting and piping the water seems expensive. Also, even if all of the meltwater from glaciers was collected, the average sea level would still rise as the piped water eventually heads out to sea anyway.
Bit of a Rube Goldberg machine.
America still wants its commodities cheap, so there won't be any trade trouble. Like any treaty, NAFTA will get revised time-to-time. Since many of us in Canada want it opened up, why not do a round of negotiation?
Water needs to stay off the table. We do not have enough freshwater to export. Despite our large stores of freshwater, the water replenishment rate in Canada is actually quite low, which means that exporting it is not sustainable.
Oil companies aren't really 'located' anywhere because they are everywhere. The central hub for a multinational will only move out of America if its needs for access to political power are better met elsewhere. Somehow I doubt that our foreign policy influence is all that attractive.
"Strong views are not a bad thing."
The strength of a view and its correctness are orthogonal. For example, Hitler held some strong views about Jews. Those views were bad.
"I think you are confusing my not knowing anything with my knowing or believing something different than you do"
No. Assuming you thought a melting ice berg would raise sea levels what you are doing is not knowing something: the fact that it does not raise sea levels. You don't know something different, you're just wrong about a fact.
"hence, you would call me an idiot."
If you claimed that the melting ice berg would raise sea levels then, yes, I'd call you an idiot. It's not hard to educate yourself to the level required to know the truth here. My daughter studied displacement of fluids when she was three years old. Almost all kids do.
"So, I will continue to have strong views even if YOU think I know nothing about the subject for which I hold strong views."
What you're saying here is that you'll stick to your guns even if you're wrong. Or perhaps you've got some sensible explanation for how melting ice bergs do raise sea levels? Ah, the great republican celebration of ignorance. I'm so relieved last night happened.
"I'm not going to argue with you or even attempt to defend myself because, Google, I don't know you and you are not part of my life in any meaninful way so, therefore, what you think of me means...absolutely...uh...nothing."
Whatever. Seems like you're ducking for cover to me.
Hunter: Under the current NAFTA, our fresh water supply is only off limits so long as no Canadian government (federal OR provincial) decides to start exporting it to the United States. Once we do, it's subject to the full implications of NAFTA. So in other words, your's is a very, very bad idea - unless we renegotiate (or even better, scrap altogether) NAFTA.
Not to argue with google, but Greenland has a massive chunk of land based ice which would raise sea probably not part of the arctic ice cap, but it is arctic ice. Just a clarification for readers..
"Not to argue with google, but Greenland has a massive chunk of land based ice which would raise sea probably not part of the arctic ice cap, but it is arctic ice. Just a clarification for readers.."
I will chuckle, guffaw, and chortle but I will not call Google an idiot for speaking without being fully informed.
Our ace in the hole is oil. If they try to stop auto manufacturing in Ontario, we can slap them with reduced oil supplies.
Under Nafta, Canada is not allowed to restrict American access to
oil unless similar restrictions are placed upon Canadian consumers.
"Not to argue with google, but Greenland has a massive chunk of land based ice which would raise sea probably not part of the arctic ice cap, but it is arctic ice. Just a clarification for readers.."
Quite so, but in terms of ice loss, Greenland is trivial. Its glaciers are retreating but for various reasons it still maintains the vast majority of its ice over summer. It's also a lot smaller in area than the arctic ice cap used to be. So, when we talk about loss of ice in the arctic, Greenland doesn't really come into the equation. Unless of course you're trying to divert attention away from the fact that you thought melting sea ice would raise sea levels. Are you? Did you?
"I will chuckle, guffaw, and chortle but I will not call Google an idiot for speaking without being fully informed."
I should hope not since you have not shown that to be the case.
Post a Comment