Topic: Respect our values or Leave

[E.R. Campbell]

Some of them, quite frankly, are. And generally for the same reason, they're making arguments they can't really back up, that are emotional rather than factual. From a purely economic standpoint, seeing it built means a lot of money coming in, which of course is a good thing for the economy of Alberta (and that will feed into growth in many jurisdictions. I've also seen some great information on how much the production process has improved in ecological/remediation terms, which is good to because ultimately we don't have an adequate alternative to petroleum yet. Hopefully we will before long, but for now, we don't.

The problem lots of Americans in particular have with KXL is its route through a major aquifer, and the fact that there have been spills from such pipelines, with the worry being the contamination of a massive aquifer in important agricultural land. The second interesting line of argument they use concerns the possibility that the products will just be exported, torpedoing the "energy security" argument. Given that there's a lot of high powered lobby money flooding into the debate, with a cynical public, it's making for a lot of interesting reading during debates. I've no idea how it will turn out, but it's fascinating to read up on.

Once oil leaves the well it is, essentially, a fungible commodity and no one really knows, nor should anyone with an IQ higher than the one the gods gave to green peppers care where it came from or where it is going to. TCP has, already, agreed to reroute the pipeline around the aquifer so that argument is nothing more than cheap, dishonest propaganda - about what we expect from those sources.

But, there is a good strategic argument for doing everything we can to stymie the Middle East, including reducing the market for its oil.

[MJP]

The problem lots of Americans in particular have with KXL is its route through a major aquifer, and the fact that there have been spills from such pipelines, with the worry being the contamination of a massive aquifer in important agricultural land. The second interesting line of argument they use concerns the possibility that the products will just be exported, torpedoing the "energy security" argument. Given that there's a lot of high powered lobby money flooding into the debate, with a cynical public, it's making for a lot of interesting reading during debates. I've no idea how it will turn out, but it's fascinating to read up on.

Again with the "lots of" comments...A vocal minority is not lots.  Most American are like most Canadians and don't give a crap.  They want cheap gas period.

The pipeline has agreed to move from the aquifer and the rants continue.  To me it just shows how much of a red herring that issue was.  I wish I had the map of North American pipelines that I had seen somewhere.  They are everywhere, although not all are huge pipelines.  This one pipeline is hardly going to tip the balance towards Armageddon.

[Rifleman62]

http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/united_states_pipelines.html

The following table lists United States pipelines, as shown on the map. It is followed by the map, which you can click to see an enlarged version. The pipeline routes on the map are labeled with the codes that are explained in the table. Pipeline label codes are colored green for oil, red for gas and blue for products, such as gasoline, propane and ethylene. The diameter, length and capacity of the pipeline, if known, are shown on the table. Follow these links for current United States economic data, which include oil and natural gas production, consumption, imports and exports, and for more detailed statistics from the US Census. For historical data, follow this link, and on that page click on a year, and then a country name.

[Redeye]

Again with the "lots of" comments...A vocal minority is not lots.  Most American are like most Canadians and don't give a crap.  They want cheap gas period.

A vocal minority that's informed trumps an uninformed or apathetic majority in my view, when it comes to discussing anything.

The pipeline has agreed to move from the aquifer and the rants continue.  To me it just shows how much of a red herring that issue was.  I wish I had the map of North American pipelines that I had seen somewhere.  They are everywhere, although not all are huge pipelines.  This one pipeline is hardly going to tip the balance towards Armageddon.

I agree, though the move doesn't take it away from the aquifer, just to a less sensitive part (it's almost the entire state of Nebraska). That said, given that dilbit has a consistency somewhat like maple syrup as I understand it, as long as there are means to detect and respond quickly to leaks that may happen in remote locations, that does mitigate the risks substantially. I'd venture to guess that the myriad of synthetic fertilizers dumped on industrial agricultural operations in the Midwest is probably a bigger threat, all things considered.

What's driving the debate more lately seems to be how it's been tied into totally unrelated issues (payroll tax cut extensions in particular at the moment) by the Congress, which is presently paralyzed by Tea Party-aligned Representatives and a completely useless Speaker who won't stand up to them, and seems totally out of touch with a public that has his House at its lowest approval level in a long time. Some of my favourite American liberals quip that if a poll were done, syphillis would likely have a higher approval rating. That's making a lot more hay, and I think getting a lot more interested in what's going on.

[PuckChaser]

Some of them, quite frankly, are. And generally for the same reason, they're making arguments they can't really back up, that are emotional rather than factual. From a purely economic standpoint, seeing it built means a lot of money coming in, which of course is a good thing for the economy of Alberta (and that will feed into growth in many jurisdictions. I've also seen some great information on how much the production process has improved in ecological/remediation terms, which is good to because ultimately we don't have an adequate alternative to petroleum yet. Hopefully we will before long, but for now, we don't.

Every group has radicals that make no sense in it. Starting off with name calling as the first sentence in your argument basically just turns people off from hearing anything else you have to say. There are a lot of eco-types that completely disregard any sort of science coming out of oilsands as "propoganda" and only listen to the facts that agree with their point of view. As you've said, oilsands has done a lot to improve how they extract that oil, and its a necessary evil until we figure out something that's cleaner and cheaper.

As for the Pipeline being rammed through Congress on the back of unrelated issues.... that's how American politics is done. They have a history of tieing random amendments into bills to either hide the amendment or just save time getting something put into law. Congress isn't paralyzed by the Tea Party, its operating how a majority of Americans voted. Complaining about them using their majority is just as crazy as complaining about the Tories pushing bills through the House here, they have a majority and its their perogative. Just remember, the Democrat-Senate could have stopped the pipeline, but they decided their tax cuts were more important to winning back votes than the pipeline is going to take any away.

[Technoviking]

A vocal minority that's informed trumps an uninformed or apathetic majority in my view, when it comes to discussing anything.

[tangent]This is my problem with any self-proclaimed elite class.  Any opposition to them is portrayed as uninformed or ignorant or worse, bigoted. [/tangent]

[Jim Seggie]

OK I'm going to weigh in for what its worth:

Honour killings have no place in our country. Period. Or any civilized nation for that matter.
Parliament should consider changing the law for multiple first degree murders from concurrent sentences to consecutive sentences.

[MJP]

A vocal minority that's informed trumps an uninformed or apathetic majority in my view, when it comes to discussing anything.

[tangent]This is my problem with any self-proclaimed elite class.  Any opposition to them is portrayed as uninformed or ignorant or worse, bigoted. [/tangent]

 

What he said.  Just because they are loud and have an opposing view doesn't mean they are right nor very well informed.  They sure can parrot lines from Greenpeace et al very well though.  I am surprised that the extinction of polar bears hasn't been linked to the pipeline yet. 

The true risk of the pipeline is relatively low.  The Alaskan pipeline is pretty similar and has survived many a hick shooting shotguns at it and a few pipe bombs and there hasn't been an outright catastrophic failure although they have had some incidents.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Alaska_Pipeline_System#Incidents  Nothing is 100% but if it benefits both economies well enough and makes our oil driven economy go then it only makes sense.

[57Chevy]

The true risk of the pipeline is relatively low. 

The Ogallala Aquifer system, also called the High Plains Aquifer, covers approximately 174,000 square miles beneath eight different states from North Dakota to Texas, and from Nebraska to New Mexico, and portions of it are drying up pretty quick.
Pumps have been running full time since the fifties keeping the breadbasket flourishing and providing drinking water for about 80% of the people living in the vicinity. If not, it would turn back into the desert it was back in the days of the settlers.
 
So I can understand the concern over possible, not probable contamination from that oil pipeline,
However, I would be much more concerned about the radioactive waste disposal site in West Texas.
 
IMO, The thirst for money greatly outweighs the quenching that only a good glass of drinking water can provide.

[Brad Sallows]

The "informed" classes typically are not.  It is a rare day when they can correctly identify which phrase was uttered by a politician or talking head, and which was uttered by someone in a comedic sketch portraying the politician or talking head.  And on energy policy, they tend to be innumerate and therefore ignorant.  They literally have no quantitative grasp of what is necessary or possible relative to what they think needs to be done.

[Good2Golf]

A good start would be to strike the term "Honour killing" from the lexicon. Cowardly domestic violence and murder are what is being described here (and the ongoing trial in Kingston is about mass murder BTW).

 

Absolutely!  Murder, pure and simple.

[Redeye]

Absolutely!  Murder, pure and simple.

 

"Honor killing" implies some sort of righteousness or purposefulness, where there is none.

[Technoviking]

"Honor killing" implies some sort of righteousness or purposefulness, where there is none.

Agreed.  Murder is murder (and, slight tangent), which is why I have problem personally with the so-called "hate" crimes.  I mean, are there love crimes?  (If someone say kills a black man because that man is black, is that really worse than if that person kills that black man for any other reason?  It's is actually "less wrong" to murder someone if it's not for hate?)

Anyway, back on topic...

[Thucydides]

Looking at the problem from the other direction, while we think we "know" our values, they are really not well defined or articulated across Canadian society. Canadian history is still not celebrated in our schools (and having children in both public and secondary schools, as well as experieince with leadership candidates over many years, I can attest to this first hand), and our national mythology still revolves around concepts like "peacekeeping" (as I discovered when talking to students during a Remebrance day ceremony).

The Classical Liberal values of free speech and assembly, unfettered use of our own property and the Rule of Law are constantly undermined in our sight and often by our own self proclaimed elites ("Human Rights" tribunals are nototious for attacking free speech, property rights are actually unrecognized in the 1982 Constitution and many threads in Army.ca discuss differential law enforcement, preferential treatments based on gender, ethnic origin, religion and so on).

So a robust defense of our values first requires *we* start defining and promoting them. I'm sure silly people will deamonise the promotion of Classical Liberal values as being a plot in the pay of some evil cabal (while conveiniently ignoring millions of dollars spent on "Progressive" or other counter propaganda), or cling to Trudopian mythology and "Delectible lies" of multiculturalism (the title of Professor Mansur's latest book[/color] BTW).

I would like to think we could go back to the "melting pot" as described by Samual Huntington in "[url=http://www.amazon.com/Who-Are-We-Challenges-Americas/dp/0684870541/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324698811&sr=1-1]Who are We?". Many American patriotic "institutions" (songs, ceremonies, popular stories and music) were created out of whole cloth by business in order to create a functioning work place with literate, numerate, english speaking workers with similar values who could work together in close quarters. While hardly altruistic, this effort from the late 1800's to @ 1920 created a powerful and unified culture. We recognize an echo of this in military basic training (although in a much watered down form from the past). Of course today there is a massive State which also sees its role in promoting "values" and nunerous NGO's who also strive to promote different sets of values, so there are no easy answers.

[Good2Golf]

I disagree.

At the very least, Canadian values are captured in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in our laws, neither of which support murder/denial of one's life by another citizen as a justifiable action.

Regards
G2G