this is one of the many situations where maher is certainly not wrong, but he's certainly not right, either.

the reality is that you have to check a package like this, regardless. not because of the kid's religion. but, because it's a suspicious package. i'm not prioritizing and picking and choosing columbine over isis if i see a kid with what looks like a suitcase bomb. i'm stopping that kid and asking questions, regardless of race, creed or colour. we all know that middle class, christian white kids are perfectly capable of carrying out school massacres. and, what reason is there to tie a possible attack to the religion, anyways? muslim kids certainly aren't immune to isolation or taunting.

if some kind of serious disease ever figures out how to transmit itself via squirrel, we're all doomed.

canada once had an ambassador to the united states named hume wrong. this never fails to amuse me.

ambassador wrong.

every time i see reference to it, i have a sudden urge to look up old newspaper articles...

"Ambassador Wrong held a press conference today...."

"well, i think that is a positive step in the alliance", replied Wrong.

clinton has the right answer for the right reasons, but the political part of it needs to take two things into account:

1) long-term projections suggest that there's not going to be a lot of demand for tar sands oil in western-aligned states over the next decade or so. transporting by rail with the cost of oil this low may even run at a loss. the market is such that this is not going to be necessary for quite some time.

2) what that means is that it is even more clear than it's ever been that the primary customer for this oil is china. and, that's what this is really about.

the decision is being made by the state department. the state department doesn't make decisions based on environmental assessments, although it may pretend it does sometimes. the state department makes decisions about the american national interest, strategies regarding access to resources, geo-politics and national security. the state department would consider canada to be within it's sphere of influence and that the united states has de facto ownership of canadian resources as a result of it. when you get your head around the way they see us, it's entirely logical for them to conclude that selling our oil to china is a national security threat - it takes oil they believe belongs to them and siphons it away to their competitors.

that is the actual issue, here: they waited it out because it wasn't entirely clear that blocking transfer was the best way to hem the oil in for later. if the price of oil had increased dramatically, for example, it would remain profitable to ship it over the rockies, and it would be strategic for them to have ultimate control over transit lines. it's the state department. they put tremendous resources into controlling pipelines, the world over. they would rather it ship through the contiguous united states, where they can ultimately control it, than through canada straight to the tankers in bc.

but, with the cost this low, virtually any method over the rockies is uneconomical. it follows that opposing the line can be safely pursued as a way to maximize obfuscation in the export process

www.cbc.ca/news/business/hillary-clinton-keystone-xl-1.3239215

wattajoke
Interesting observation, especially considering that the only country the US has increased oil imports from over that last five years is Canada.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_a.htm

However, about 99% of our oil exports go to the US.

https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/crdlndptrlmprdct/stt/stmtdcndncrdlxprttpdstn-eng.html 

Perhaps they have us over the (oil) barrel?

jessica murray
well, yeah, that's exactly the point - they don't need our oil right now; they're producing enough that they're exporting it themselves. so, if we're trying to boost production, and they're not buying, that means it has to ship somewhere else. and, it's pretty clear where that destination is, and why they don't want that to happen.

vox populi
Whats with the Nanos polls ? They are the only polls that are putting the conservatives ahead. It makes you wonder who they are contacting !

jessica murray
that's not actually true. the ekos polling is also putting the conservatives ahead. and, you'll notice something: nanos & ekos (& forum...) are the only pollsters that are still utilizing random sampling. i don't like what nanos is telling us either, but the reality is that his polling is superior - so long as it's looked at purely federally. it's the local results that poll watchers need to see, and nanos' polling is useless on that (because the sample sizes are too small).

the most recent forum poll finally aligned with the consensus from polls using proper sampling techniques, which is that decided voters are hurling us towards a conservative minority - but undecided voters have the power to put either the liberals or ndp ahead, if they lean in a specific direction in the right places.

the point is that, while you're correct to suggest that there's a disconnect, you're not taking the scientific side of that disconnect. the unfortunate reality is that the traditional and more reliable polling firms have had harper polling more or less steady around 29-31 the whole time, and the media is confusing people by suggesting otherwise on the backs of citing polls of questionable methodology.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-pollcast-sep22-1.3238790

*rrrring*

trudeau: hello?
obama: i'd just like to call to congratulate you on winning the election and becoming prime minister.
trudeau: thanks.
obama: now, about those planes. i don't want to have to do it, but if you won't buy them, i will have to release newt gingrich.
trudeau: what?
obama: newt. we'll have to release the newt.
trudeau: i....don't...
obama: see, son, we gotta get you caught up on this empire thing. we're the empire and you're the client. you get that, right?
trudeau: i was raised to believe that canada is a middle power.
obama: man, they had you hanging out with castro, didn't they? middle power? don't give me that. and, don't start thinking you can call the russians and make concessions without us, either. we're the empire. you ain't no empire. and, because we're the empire, that means you buy our stuff. we make it. you buy it. that's empire.
trudeau: i think...
obama: ...i think you'd better stop thinking and start listening. you're getting the memo.
trudeau: what?
obama: the memo. on empire. i'm not going to release newt on ya yet, i'm not that heartless.

*click*

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-f35-trudeau-harper-monday-1.3237046 

Fibonacci11235
A very good reason to buy the Rafale or Typhoon. My Canada is free

jessica murray
no, i agree with you. in principle. but, you know, there's that reality thing.

as canadians, we need to understand that what the americans want from canada is greater reciprocity on the military alliance. they want a greater proportion of funds towards shared missions, a larger amount of troops, etc. in return for this, they offer their protection - and withhold their wrath. if nato was a purely defensive alliance, we wouldn't have these kneejerk cultural differences, although keep in mind they're to scale; a war that has 55% support in america may have 35% support in canada, based on similar reasoning.

i don't like the idea of fortress north america. but i'd be more than willing to be a more enthusiastic supporter of defense co-operation if it were truly devoted to securing the borders, which i might add at this point includes securing borders from rising oceans. that's the kind of thing i would have overwhelmingly enthusiastic support for.

it's the endless cat-and-mouse overseas wars that are a strain on society.

canada may even be better suited to build certain kinds of infrastructure in the united states. an alliance where canada focuses on local defense issues and america focuses on foreign wars would be broadly embraced by canadians.

but, until a discussion about expectations can be had, existing expectations will be expected by the expectors. and canada's gotta negotiate it's way out of that, if it can

i actually think that non-voting is going to be one of the few non-violent approaches that people have in certain districts, in order to get the point across that the purchased wings of the political spectrum had better start listening. this is a tactic that should be generating discussion regarding the feasibility of building a movement around it.

but, if you look at the american election, there's still a halfways viable option in bernie sanders. i mean, he's not going to set off a revolution. but, maybe the experience in analyzing the post-war outcomes in america and the soviet union can do a little to remind us of the value of democracy. it's an imperfect democracy, but it's functional if it's utilized sufficiently. you want to make sure the workable options are really exhausted before you move to the death grip, in really shattering the facade of the system's legitimacy. and, hey, do you think the cia is above a coup in washington, if the people get a little too out of hand? don't think these people value the life of an american more than a chilean. shattering the illusion of real american democracy creates a path to reactionary authoritarianism in greater probabilities than it does to demagogically populist authoritarianism. if we're sure we don't want it, they may be more than happy to take it away.

you have to measure that against the nature of the system, though as well, which is designed to slow any kind of reform to a halt. law is of course a means to avoid violence in conflict-resolution, it all is, but the way the legal system is applied to activism is especially defined as a way to distract activists from making real changes. the institutional hurdles that a sanders presidency would have to jump through to apply some of the things he's proposing are so immense as to be almost not worth contemplating. and, then, in the end, it serves no purpose to elect a wood log and hope it floats against the current; you need to reroute the river. the true level of inertia exposes itself on greater analysis, and mass abstention again seems necessary.

i'm still torn on whether there's really a sufficiently useful option in this canadian election to take the scorched earth approach of boycott. for the longest while, it didn't seem like it. and, i understand that legal battles are going to be required to stop every single one of these candidates. but, those cases often seem like the correct dispute mechanism to settle the underlying issues on a longer term basis.

http://or-politics.com/newsnewspolitics/signs-pop-up-in-moncton-encouraging-protest-votes-in-federal-election/94057/

the bc general was weird, and i'm just going to avoid it completely. but, what the ontario election actually demonstrated was the clear inferiority of internet polls. it wasn't just ipsos that got it wrong, it was the internet panels across the board. the ivr and phone polling was actually pretty accurate. a media narrative developed that the polling was wrong, but the narrative was really flat wrong - it was only the internet polls that were wrong. had the proper narrative developed...

i would think that the first thing that such an organization would do, if it were serious, would be to strongly discourage the kind of polling methods ipsos is using. that it's not doing such a thing suggests it's not a body that much attention should be paid to.

ipolitics.ca/2015/09/21/feud-emerging-between-pollsters-as-election-day-approaches/

this article needs a serious fact check.

but, the issue isn't so much that the liberals are running to the left of the ndp; they really aren't. it's that the ndp are running to the right of the liberals.

rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/scott-piatkowski/2015/09/are-liberals-really-running-to-left-ndp-oh-please

the ad is actually clearly geared at what should be tory-bloc swing voters that may be currently leaning ndp out of groupthink. remember that the bloc was initially a conservative party splinter group, so it's always had a right-wing side in the party. this swing would be represented in provincial politics by the adq, although of course the pq have not been shy about trying to swing them over the last several years, either. a quick glance at the numbers would suggest that the ndp is likely attracting quite a bit of support from right-leaning voters, as even the most generous tabulations of conservative + bloc results are well under adq levels.

sure: it's a last gasp for dead air. but, it maybe offers a little insight into internal bloc polling as to what is left of their voting base and who may benefit from further erosion in it. it seems to imply that they have nothing left to lose on the left side of their base. i don't think the idea of remnant bloc support bleeding to the conservatives has been considered by many people, but perhaps it should be.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/09/18/voting-ndp-means-a-pipeline-of-niqabs-bloc-attack-ad/

so, i suppose we should be less concerned about all those confused, mistaken and misunderstood sharks - and create a selfie patrol that prevents people from harming themselves, along with laws restricting unsafe sefie behaviour. next time you see a shark, you just want to calmly explain your hierarchical dominance and point it towards it's correct prey sources; it's just a misunderstanding if it starts biting you. but, remember: friends don't let friends take dangerous selfies. and, report all suspicious selfie-taking behaviour.

www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/selfies-have-killed-more-people-than-sharks-this-year/57533/

well, there will probably be a million jobs created in the next six years, regardless; it's less than population growth.

i'm more interested in how this sounds like tim hudak's pitch in ontario, which is exactly what i'd think the conservatives would be trying to avoid doing right now. considering the party's use of microtargetting issues, that may suggest that it's worried about it's core supporters wandering.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/09/22/conservatives-would-strive-to-create-1-3m-new-jobs-by-2020-harper/