Comments for en-gb 30 Fri 29 May 2015 02:29:17 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at timewaitsfornoman 276 happylazeThe last time I was in London which was a few years ago..... Right! 2001 I was shocked and saddened to see how Americanized it was becoming. But happylaze if the little shops were just down the road within walking distance you would not need ....... a car!! And that would never do. A Montreal friend of mine was visiting relatives in North Carolina and they asked what kind of car he drove. Said he didn't have one. They almost fell off their chairs! Fri 27 Feb 2009 02:43:50 GMT+1 timewaitsfornoman 275 happylaze s'il vous plaitOh dear! Is that close to you? My mother was always ahead of her time and was part of the SKI generation before it was even though of. She used the money to travel the world and of course return to the UK once a year. I doubt a dime went to a casino. But, since she had made it clear to us all along we had no expectations. We were thankful to get anything. I should have say in my previous post - IT WAS SO MUCH EASIER TO READ. Fri 27 Feb 2009 02:12:39 GMT+1 happylaze 273 total agreement here time. It took me a while to figure that whole rows contained one type of product in so much wrapping(as mad magazine pointed out in 1980 or so very well, it always stuck) whole shops could be just down the road in little stores within walking distance ,if they didn't need so many brands. That taste exactly the same .Same was happening in the UK when I left. Thu 26 Feb 2009 22:01:33 GMT+1 happylaze Time sea vous plait Though no child can expect anything from their parents it is one way of ensuring the survival of the family genes. that is why for centuries people strove to better themselves and their families. many have done that, but many these days seem to have thought. they won't need help. Now many do. but those trips to vegas/reno the local reservation , their parents took have taken that chance away.Now onto that reprocessing that never happens on another reservation. nukes my rear end. Thu 26 Feb 2009 20:23:31 GMT+1 happylaze 272 glad I could oblige .big letters are not just for the old. Thu 26 Feb 2009 19:24:16 GMT+1 timewaitsfornoman 271 happylaze"Minimal packaging could do the states some great favours" It spread over the border many years ago and I remember when it first started, "What's with all the packaging?" Recycle, recycle - why use it in the first place?No doubt I would be told it is bad for the economy to shut down the packaging plants. Well then, turn them into something more useful.I also remember first going into a US grocery store and thinking, "What's with all the choices? Who needs all these choices?" To me it came across as extravagance and waste. Of course we are getting just as bad and I don't like that either. Thu 26 Feb 2009 18:22:40 GMT+1 timewaitsfornoman happylaze I wrote you a post re: SKI generation on Obama gets away with it #19. Remember I am not criticizing you!! So no snide comments svp.Your large lettered post (wherever it is) was very amusing! It was so much easier to read. Thu 26 Feb 2009 16:43:40 GMT+1 happylaze 269 once you've been never go back.I like your name for a God though.Minimal packaging could do the states some great favours.267dceiler interesting post about the catholic corporate thing.270 Peter ( the rock that does not hear)Keep running to a new point and one day you will end up impaled on one.:)Answer a question. OHH you can't You're not from a town called malice are you? Thu 26 Feb 2009 16:26:54 GMT+1 as is #267 dceilarIt will be dishonest to make conclusions based solely on a wiki article. There's ample bibliography on the subject, and a good starting point for you may be M. S. Quine's"Italy's Social RevolutionCharity and Welfare from Liberalism to Fascism". Thu 26 Feb 2009 02:58:54 GMT+1 timewaitsfornoman happylaze"Nation"I thought you were asking me who the star was, but see it is the great god, IMO. (I was going to guess Hob Nob - hope you find that amusing.)Mine were made in the UK with wrap around, whatever that stuff is called, like on a chocolate bar. Blue and orange with Hob Nobs in white. I do like the minimal packaging. I am really tired of plastic, cardboard and styrofoam. I just ate three. Maybe I'll make it four. Wed 25 Feb 2009 23:46:52 GMT+1 dceilar Re: nuclear energyI believe that there is an old farmer's saying that applies to nuclear energy: Don't get pigs if you have nowhere to put the dung!Nuff said! Wed 25 Feb 2009 17:46:41 GMT+1 dceilar #260 PeterPinning the creation of the modern welfare state, or Social Security, on Mussolini is dishonest IMO. Also dishonest is reducing Bismarck's social insurance reforms as 'rudimentary'. His reforms covered health, accident, old age, and disability insurance. Considering no-one else had these policies one cannot reduce the Iron Chancellor's role in the development of the modern welfare state.Also Corporatism has its roots in the Roman Catholic church and the Catholic Trade Union movement. Wed 25 Feb 2009 17:42:24 GMT+1 happylaze Peter railroads are profitable.Now.I'm sure during the time the tracks were built they made less money.Who paid for that?Simple enough."The Pacific Railway Act of 1862 (based on an earlier 1856 bill) authorised land grants for new lines that would "aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri river to the Pacific ocean".tricky wikiLooks like a subsidy..both telephone and train lines seemed to be fairly good long term investments(though maybe the planet might disagree.) (oh west coast has little to no coal and it is pretty sulphur filled stuff)peter said "The producers supply a HEAVILY SUBSIDISED industry, i.e an industry NOT VIABLE, at least not now, without govn't support. Without govn't subsidies+support, the demand for wind power hardware will collapse instantly."so true to some even got the bit about "not now"Is the only problem in your eyes the problem of having to encourage it, financially?Just pick this comment a little and it would seem that you make the perfect case for subsidising it FOR THE FUTURE, not NOW.Sorry if your costs go up in the short term. I suspect you may be able to afford it.Peter wasn't he the "Rock"Now were they saying stubborn and un-movable except by huge floods. Wed 25 Feb 2009 17:39:29 GMT+1 happylaze 261 Time on the lighter note .you have to eat them.;)no were they good. All that hype so there is bound to be some disappointment .Now unless you got some in the made for the US cardboard boxes note the wrapping.Minimal.There's another start to help the world that is missed in the new world of tarting up the cover.Try the digestives or did you already?Don't forget the dunk.and milk in the tea seems to add (Imo) (who BTW is the star of the new Terry Book " Nation":)259 deceiler That was a good link.I liked the line they use about "one's workplace should be dignified and meaningful first, efficient second, and that nature (and the world's natural resources) is priceless."And irreplaceable. Wed 25 Feb 2009 17:23:38 GMT+1 happylaze 258 british ish"It is foolish in the extreme to hope that somehow it will all go away. Perhaps over the next century we will end up with global cooling: but if we don't, are you and others like you going to take responsibility for the consequences?" agreed. problem though.Nukes ."cleaner greener" technology some say.the problem is "Nuke winter" is the solution some say would solve the problem of warming.Not many but some.Some will see that as a solution and I am sure they can find a place to detonate a few without upsetting their electorate.That is the only was I can see the perhaps happening. And I hope it doesn't get to that and suspect that is a paranoid thought, which it is.Just saying;) Wed 25 Feb 2009 15:19:13 GMT+1 as is #258 british-ishI classify broadly the participants in a debate in twi categories:1) Those whose reasoning is driven by emotions/feelings. It's a futile endeavor to debate such participants, it's a black-and-white reasoning. Regrettably, in my opinion, you, as most of the posters here, belong to this category, and my advice is to try to reposition yourself.2) Those that bring to the debate relevant facts, numbers, etc. As there are a myriad of methods to arrive at numbers, facts, hypotheses, those participants try to question and establish the validity of the methods. Those participants may have their convictions, but they have adopted them in a different mode that category 1.Other than that, when you debate, try to read the post/link provided by the oponent: your question re nuclear storage has been answered.Oh, the bulbs that will save the earth. Reluctantly, I have replaced mine long ago. The problem is, the revolutionary new ones contain mercury, and pose personal and and disposal hazzards. The next big hype, the LED technology, unfortunately is prohibitively expensive.Re AGW: as I wrote earlier, the earth is 4.45 bn years old, way beyond 1850. There were numerous periods charectirized by much higher CO2 concentrations and temperatures, long before J Watt was around. Re the last ten years, as the average golbal temperatures decrease, it's increasingly difficult to claim any correlation "rising CO2-rising temperatures". Even your ecominister has acquired some common sense:"If we reduce carbon emissions, then if the predictions are wrong, we do not do any damage. If they are right, and we do not, then the damage may be irreversible."What's the price tag? The (in)famous Stern report was debunked by world-class economists (The Stern Review:A Dual Critique):[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]I am not driven by emotions/feelings, hence I do not dislike Mr Gore, as you claim: I do not agree with him. A UK judge did not agree with quite a number of assertions in Inconveniet Truth either. Wed 25 Feb 2009 15:16:08 GMT+1 happylaze 257 interested yea prices of commodities goes up and down.That will effect building containment ponds for oil refineries as well.just google refinery .those are some pretty big structures. Economy of scale is the big factor in keeping prices high. Yes carbon fibre will be used made from oil. Should we wait until there is no more"cheap" oil to start?I 'm sure thats not what you were saying.I used to fettle(grind off enclosure boxes for the oil industry. fire "safe" control boxes made of stainless steel painted with really thin powder coat paint for colour coding.Looked great ,smooth edges rounded corners. will last a long time.some were replaced every year in order to meet insurance requirements. It is an explosive industry to some extent. that means dangers.(not even talking of spills or leaks here).So they try to minimise danger by making sure all components are working real well.The firm I worked for really liked that replacement contract. and they because of the volume of steel they bought got a steel of a deal.Economies of scale.That is maintenance . Turbines need them as well. but they don't create disasters like the refineries when they go up.All energy production comes at a cost, it is just that we don't look at all the costs.The technology of wind is safer.I'm in full agreement that prices vary. that was my point.I do not believe peter because he has simplified then stated as fact the costs in order to promote his story. Wed 25 Feb 2009 15:14:00 GMT+1 timewaitsfornoman 258 british-ishVery good post and I agree entirely. Over the years I have repeatedly asked why carbon emissions are not reduced on the off chance global warming is a reality? The answer I received without fail, "It is not good for the economy." Why the love of living on credit is not curtailed? Answer: "It is not good for the economy."But where is it all going to end? It does not warm my heart to finally have the answers.Living under the Parliamentary system I feel has its advantages, but have been criticized for that thought also. I am getting very tired of the word "Partisan." (Bi or otherwise!)Eight years on the supertanker you speak of is long enough. We had all better believe he can accomplish the turnaround in case it is full of liquefied natural gas!On a lighter note: I bought some Hob Nobs - did you hear? Wed 25 Feb 2009 15:10:58 GMT+1 as is 255. At 03:08am on 25 Feb 2009, Orvillethird wrote:"Uh, peterbo, Social Security was started, not by Mussolini, but by the Kaiser."Not exactly: by Otto von Bismark, in a rudimentary version. Mussolini was the first to introduce a multi-facet, sophisticated one, that became a socialists' darling. Wed 25 Feb 2009 14:08:56 GMT+1 dceilar If we view Earth as a business we will see it as one that is eating up it's capital (natural resources) at an alarming rate. When the business grows the rate of capital consumed increases nearly fourfold! Who in their right mind would want a business run like this? Answer: Fools!These fools are telling us that we shouldn't use 'income' (renewable resources) to run the business, but keep eating away at it's irreplaceable capital as if its infinite. Is there any depth to their madness?The business will have to change itself so it is run on 'income' and not its 'capital'. The business should use this mantra: Small is beautiful! Wed 25 Feb 2009 12:47:33 GMT+1 british-ish 249, peterbo:Ah, yes, those 'elusive EU social benefits'.Let's put it this way: if people elect a government to enable social benefits, and they do so, and not necessarily for only one country either) they are not 'elusive'.Your economic arguments are irrelevant. Yes, wind power will never provide all the electricity we need in the UK for example, at least not without covering most of the country in wind turbines, or getting them in the way of ships in the North Sea. Here, I think, we are well aware of that.But one 'social benefit' of increasing the amount of electricity from alternative sources is that we do not massively increase the amount of radiocative waste that has to be stored and looked after for thousands of years. Where have you factored in the cost of that?And you are missing another essential point: all this goes in tandem with reducing our demand. I also think that by now most Europeans have grasped that a constant never-ending, forever increasing supply of electricity is not a 'right', it is a benefit.So , in the next two years, we will have abandoned tungsten lights entirely for low energy bulbs, for example. Most of us in Britain now use them as a matter of course, keeping the odd tungsten bulb merely for aesthetic purposes. And it was not that long ago I seem to remember, that they were decried as too expensive to manufacture, too expensive to retail, too unpopular . . . But awareness and demand have now made them ubiquitous and even relatively cheap.I don't care whether you consider global warming and climate change some sort of figment of scientific imagination or not. But there has been a considerable rise in the average temperature of the earth since the industrial revolution. If you looked more carefully at the Hadley research overall, you'd get that.It is foolish in the extreme to hope that somehow it will all go away. Perhaps over the next century we will end up with global cooling: but if we don't, are you and others like you going to take responsibility for the consequences?If we reduce carbon emissions, then if the predictions are wrong, we do not do any damage. If they are right, and we do not, then the damage may be irreversible.You and others might refuse to accept it (because you don't like Al Gore: but he arrived on the climate change scene a bit late, and it's not just about him as so many of the right in America seem to believe).You and a few others might want to take the risk. Many billions more do not, thanks.I can see that Obama (who was very ambitious last night) is going to have a really uphill struggle. It's going to be like trying to turn a supertanker around in its own length and I wish him luck. His administration is at least trying to catch up at long last.Just wait until the Republicans carry on with their atavism and emasculate every measure, though.I can see it already: 'carbon caps', yes; but not for some open-strip mining or some coal-powered power stations; wind power, yes, but subsidies inserted for the nuclear industry; electric vehicles, yes, but tax reduced on petrol . . .It's all very predictable.(I really hadn't fully understood until this year how you can elect a progressive president but Congress can actually lag way, way behind and be obstructive. Living with a parliamentary system where we change the whole lot in one go, one forgets that.) Wed 25 Feb 2009 10:22:57 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner 224 Happy.I had actually been meaning to point out to you that wind power prices do go up and down, both on the cost side and on the revenue side.The revenue side is easy enough to understand. Given that the marginal cost of wind power is very close to zero once the unit has been built, the revenue side is going to be a straightforward reflection of the lowest price of the next nearest alternative. I.e., we won't shut down a wind turbine simply because the price available is below the true economic rent of the asset. Rather, you will run the turbine any time it can obtain revenue that exceeds its marginal cost, which is approximately nil.The cost side is a bit less straightforward. The cost of turbines lies in (1) the generator itself; (2) the blades; (3) the tower; (4) the transmission infrastructure. Obviously the price of the generators will reflect demand There are only three (or now four?) serious players in this market. The blades may seem cheap, and light, but almost all of their inputs are in some way related to the price of fuel. A typical tower consumes 400,000 lbs of steel, and can consume a fairly hefty amount of concrete, too. Obviously the price of steel fluctuates widely, as does the price of cement. The manufacture of cement itself is highly sensitive to the price of energy. Finally the transmission infrastructure typically involves a very great amount of steel, and so will reflect both the price of steel and the price of construction labour.The long and the short of it is that the price of those turbines, installed and on-line, can vary greatly. Thus the effective 'cost' of wind power, and its pay-back period, are also quite variable. Shell (I believe it was Shell), for example, cancelled its participation in a wind project in the Goodwin Sands when one side of the equation went up, and the other side went down.I should perhaps also point out that the forecasting of the costs of power plants of any kind, and Nuclear plants in particular, tends to be a mug's game. Like any other government project, once the contract has been let, it is difficult to cancel or re-open the bidding. (Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it may be that the only major government procurement project cancelled in Canadian history was the Avro Arrow. It remains a stink to this day, 50 years later.) Thus every little change in the customer's requirements involves a hefty premium for "redesign", and so on.Do you remember how the Olympic velodrome went from an estimate of C$ 7.5 m to an eventual cost of C$ 75 m? It usually isn't that bad, but cost overruns have been a very frequent feature of nuclear plants (and other conventional fossil fuel plants, too).Remember when Pickering NGS was repaired? Same thing.Remember Mirabel ?Remember Pickering Airport?Apparently this kind of thing has gone on forever in Canada: The story is that far more concrete was paid for in building the Manitoba legislature than ever went into the building.There is an excellent book on the subject of government procurement, written by Norman R. Augustine and entitled "Augustine's Laws". Lots and lots of wisdom in that book. One of my favorites is the "law" that any project built under a government procurement process is always one third of the way from being finished... Wed 25 Feb 2009 04:57:58 GMT+1 dennisjunior1 Justin:i have to agreed with the comments in the no # 1 posting....~Dennis Junior~ Wed 25 Feb 2009 03:40:43 GMT+1 Orville Eastland Uh, peterbo, Social Security was started, not by Mussolini, but by the Kaiser.Incidentally, on a Canadian topic, my dad used to work for a division of RBC- but he worked here in South Carolina, where the headquarters of RBC's US insurance arm is. (He's been transferred to IBM.) We also have two branches of RBC's US subsidiary. Wed 25 Feb 2009 03:08:39 GMT+1 freeclench #253, bere54 wrote:Which might be better:a) system where 0 are uncoveredb) system where upwards of 46 million are uncoveredIf (a) is not perfect, why can't we in this supposedly "greatest" country in the world come up with some way of improving it to work better for us?Because the conservatives do want to cover people: it is not their goal to see America healthy. They only want to ensure that Americans have the opportunity to work for health coverage at whatever prices multi-national companies, grown huge while safely sheltered by government protectionism, dictate. That's called capitalism.-FreeClench Wed 25 Feb 2009 02:23:27 GMT+1 bere54 251, timewaits -Thanks for the answer.I would ask those who are so opposed to "socialized" medicine:Which might be better:a) system where 0 are uncoveredb) system where upwards of 46 million are uncoveredIf (a) is not perfect, why can't we in this supposedly "greatest" country in the world come up with some way of improving it to work better for us? Tue 24 Feb 2009 18:31:03 GMT+1 happylaze peter. to be a grammar troll"happylaze lavel"seemes you are a little lazY yourself.But ignoring that as you do so many things. How many wars are fought for wind?I could carry on pointing out that you have addressed none of the points I made .Who paid for those railroads. the land grabs etc?Is it possible to get an answer out of you?Is the NUKE industry not SUBSIDISED by the WEAPONS MANUFACTURERS?IE US the US tax payers.Who pay for those bombs, those depleted uranium shells etc. those lovely long lasting gifts that we leave all around the world so that YOU can be LAZY and not expend Physical energy to WALK to a shop.Or live in temperatures that may cause you to consume SOME calories to stay warm. That's how we have solved one "waste" problem.Just in case you were ignoring those FACTS as well.But keep Simple populated. every town needs people.Oh and the millions of people that WILL come looking for a new home when the sea levels rise. Not all from New Orleans either.Keep it Simple Tue 24 Feb 2009 18:14:07 GMT+1 timewaitsfornoman 247 bere54"bills paid for by the Canadian government"Simple answer, "Yes." And to quote Richard_SM, "Percentage of population without medical cover = Zero" Tue 24 Feb 2009 17:49:21 GMT+1 as is 246. At 4:27pm on 24 Feb 2009, Richard_SM wrote:"Ref: #244 PeterboYou couldn't have used your mantra many times - you can't even spell 'intentions.' Suggest you write it out a hundred times."Lapsus manus, Richard_SM. For the correct one, see my own earlier post, #238, bottom line.My suggestion: write one hundred times "petty vindictivenss". Tue 24 Feb 2009 17:46:21 GMT+1 as is #245 Interestedforeigner1) "I note that you have not denied that the producers of wind turbines are working flat out to clear the backlog in demand. Are all their customers fools? You haven't answered that one."2) You also haven't acknowledged that the costing of wind power (and the other forms of energy prodcution) vary from place to place. Wind"farming on the Vauxhall Bridge may not necessarily be as economically viable as elsewhere. You haven't for example, pointed to any place in the world better suited to wind development than the example I gave. In fact, your comment on standby power supports my hypothesis - that's what the incomparable, gargantuan hydro reservoirs provide."1) The producers supply a HEAVILY SUBSIDISED industry, i.e an industry NOT VIABLE, at least not now, without govn't support. Without govn't subsidies+support, the demand for wind power hardware will collapse instantly.Your shining example of a demand-generating pioneer/early adopter, T Boone Pickens, is invested in those heavily subsidized renewables industries, and his bet hinges on govn't subsidies that will continue indefinitely in future - at taxpayers' expense. That's a nice and risk-free way to pursue an entrepreneurial dream, no?I recommend that you analyze Al Gore's investments as well. The source of their enthusiasm for BHO's administration and AGW alarmism is easy to explain.2) At microecon level, within any industry, there will always be lower-cost producers - as there always will be above-average-industry-cost ones. That's why industry averages are used universally. At your own inconvenience, you may wish to re-examine some of statistics' fundamentals. I must confess I was disappointed to see a happylaze lavel of reasoning on this one.3) I am not exactly a proponent of nuclear energy. Because of CANDU's structure, Canada's nuclear energy generation wouldn't be the brightest example of cost-benefit efficiency anyway. 4) Will the Danes regret subsidizing their wind pet projects? Too early to say, especially for EU countries where true costs and macroecon/efficiency impacts are obfuscated by elusive social benefits, and where some utopias are considered too big to let fail. Tue 24 Feb 2009 17:38:51 GMT+1 happylaze Lol 245 Interested thanks for trying.I don't think he gets it.Put a simple question to him.Leaving out the wars we have fought for energy supplies.leaving out the investment in infrastructure that the non renewables would require if we were starting them from the ground floor.leaving out the huge cost of disposal of nuke waste and the problem of finding a site.(though really people should remember that mutagens come from other sources , like chemicals as well).leaving out the variable costs of siting which has been totally ignored. leaving out the economic realities you have pointed out( we could actually make some money and have some industry). leaving out the examples of Can do that we have been shown by other nations.leaving out the deaths of people near towns with huge slurry pits.leaving all that and more out ,his argument makes sense.In Simple.Would we do it this way if we were doing it from scratch given all the resources available Today.I doubt it , and that's taking into account the fact that we have only just started to consider the options.The rail could be used to move things other than Coal. Freight takes priority over people in rail in the states.Marbles was it you that linked a picture of wind turbines on the docks somewhere?well this link below is hardly impartial but it does show that some thinking is out there. I like the extra power from the waves. as Ed says so often the best solution that will help immediately is if we all stop using so much energy. Architecture is a biggy there.the E squared (that's the mathematical version of e squared) series being shown on OBP has had some great attempts shown , buildings Big buildings with no AC and comfortable people.Changing the "american dream" home a la "leave it to beaver" to something appropriate to the environment would also be a start. No new home in the US should be built unless GREEN.We have enough trash to fix up already.On solar prices are coming down soon roofing membrane solar cells will be available to more people.Why re roof with shingles when you can get power and a roof? Tue 24 Feb 2009 17:19:16 GMT+1 bere54 243, robloop -Those Canadians who get sent to the U.S. for treatment - aren't their bills paid for by the Canadian government? In the U.S., if you've got cancer and no health insurance and not a lot of money, you are going to die. It is that simple. It doesn't matter how great the health care is here if you can't afford to buy it. 245, Interested: "Our mid range, mid-life Volvo has problems. Therefore we should buy a Hummer. Except, even then, we won't let everybody ride in the Hummer."That's very good! About inappropriate/excess demand etc.: Does Canada have the same situation we have here in that chemo and/or radiation is prescribed even for those cancer cases where it is completely uncalled for? I know this happens here. The profit for doctors and hospitals on these treatments is immense. Perhaps the lack of a profit motive in Canada prevents the overuse (and overkill) of these treatments. Tue 24 Feb 2009 16:59:11 GMT+1 Richard_SM Ref: #244 PeterboYou couldn't have used your mantra many times - you can't even spell 'intentions.' Suggest you write it out a hundred times.Providing the numbers is easy.Percentage of population without medical cover = Zero.;-) Tue 24 Feb 2009 16:27:35 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner 238. PeterWell, the 19 % came from The Economist, and I suspect rather more recently than decade old figures from 1999 - 2000.But no doubt we will now hear that publication denigrated as a rabid, loony-left, gutter press rag lacking in journalistic standards.Are you really suggesting that the poor old Danes are just deceiving themselves? Do you think the Danes themselves regret any of the money they have spent on windpower?I'm betting that if you put it to a vote, we could raise far more in public bonds, and faster, for windpower development than you could ever raise for nuclear power, and get installed capacity built a good sight faster, too. It isn't that difficult.Look, Ontario is allocating C$ 20 B for new Nuclear plants to be built over the next 9 years. They have put an exceptionally competent man in charge, who they just hired from SNC Lavalin. Still, I'd gladly take the wager any day of the week that with a matching C$ 20 B we could put more capacity on line, sooner in large windfields. Gosh, I'd take that wager in an instant. And if the fellow they have put in charge of Nuclear were doing it, he'd do twice as good a job again.I note that you have not denied that the producers of wind turbines are working flat out to clear the backlog in demand. Are all their customers fools? You haven't answered that one.You also haven't acknowledged that the costing of wind power (and the other forms of energy prodcution) vary from place to place. Windfarming on the Vauxhall Bridge may not necessarily be as economically viable as elsewhere. You haven't for example, pointed to any place in the world better suited to wind development than the example I gave. In fact, your comment on standby power supports my hypothesis - that's what the incomparable, gargantuan hydro reservoirs provide.243. RobloopWe do have problems with the health care system - I was going to make a list, but I really don't want to launch off into that. It would not have been a short list. I think the non-sequitur in the argument is this:Our mid range, mid-life Volvo has problems. Therefore we should buy a Hummer. Except, even then, we won't let everybody ride in the Hummer.Public health care will never produce a (strike out Cadillac, insert) Lexus quality system. But it will provide a fair amount of health care to everybody, rather than everything to some, and nothing to others. This was Douglas' old comment about some getting cream and others only getting skim. He thought it would be fairer if everyone at least had 2%. This is not my area of expertise at all, but as a general observation, it seems to me that there are three big areas where costs are out of control: (1) irresponsible and inappropriate demand (2) inappropriate cost leveraging by insiders - whether by the public sector unions or by pharmaceutical providers or others inbetween; (3) inappropriate and excessive testing of marginal value driven by defensive medicine. There are probably market mechanisms to deal with the first two. No idea how to deal with the third one. Tue 24 Feb 2009 16:15:59 GMT+1 as is #242 Simon21"Its a pretty good rule of thumb that when someone starts sprouting "let" they do not know what they are talking about.Its like shouting heretic etcTo describe the principle of universal healthcare as something "left" is bizzarre."Please check "Liberal Fascism", Jonah Goldberg. Social Security and universal health care were adopted by the left, but the origins are to be found in Mussolini's CORPORATE STATE (remember, he started his political career as a socialist).Quite a number of opinions on this forum seem to be fossilized/hippified 60s material. The pay-as-you-go entitlement socialist/social-dem, statist programs of the 60s are no longer sustainable because of the changing demographics. By their very nature, on an intergenerational basis, they are Ponzi schemes in the purest form of the term.#233 robloopI am against a UNIVERSAL public service.I would accept a two-tier healthcare system, as long as the expenditure for the public part of it could be kept under control. Unfortunately, on evidence with Medicare and Medicaid in US, NHS in UK, France etc., that may prove impossible, burdening future generations with current balooning expenditure.At microecon level in Canada (the Canandian model of non-profit hospital entities), the situation is disastrous. I can confirm this as a former volunteer hospital board member, but will not elaborate for understandable reasons. Contrary to Interestedforeigner et al., my exeperience of the universal healthcare utopia is first-hand, and my backgroung is in finance and business. Hence my mantra of "show me the numbers, not beautiful intensions". Tue 24 Feb 2009 14:59:44 GMT+1 robloop 235 Interestedforeigner Having lived in both the U.K. and Canada, I'm not as negative toward a public healthcare system as is Peterbo. Overall it is a superior system for the average citizen because it is affordable, but if honest you'll have to admit that in Canada the provincial health plans are coming apart at the seams, possibly some more so than others. Evidently the "practical" men have left the scene to be replaced by 'impractical' socialist-minded men who spend public money like a drunken sailor and neglect the healthcare system. Something is badly wrong when, as Peterbo informed us (and you will know it's true) each year hundreds of Canadians are sent to the U.S. for MRIs and treatment. A Canadian friend's sister-in-law (in Ontario) eventually died (through neglect) after it took ages to get her properly diagnosed and begin treatment. A man I met told me of taking his father to Buffalo, New York, after being diagnosed with prostate cancer. There he got immediate treatment which he could not get in Ontario, and recovered. I guess that for some Canadians it is a case of 'Thank God for the USA'. Tue 24 Feb 2009 14:10:54 GMT+1 Simon21 235. At 00:37am on 24 Feb 2009, Interestedforeigner wrote:To the many postings of Peterbo:Clearly, you are firmly convinced by your own views.The founders of medicare in this country were not wacko left-wing dreamers. They were extraordinarily practical men, and I hold them in the same esteem as my great hero C.D. Howe."Its a pretty good rule of thumb that when someone starts sprouting "let" they do not know what they are talking about.Its like shouting heretic etcTo describe the principle of universal healthcare as something "left" is bizzarre.Presumably the creation of state armies was another leftist plot, we should have stayed with the private levies of the feudal period. Tue 24 Feb 2009 13:07:16 GMT+1 magnificentpolarbear They might not belive in climate change but the oil and gas will run out at some point. Then what will they do?If the argument shifted to energy supply and efficiency rather then the environment (and yes thats important but some people just dont care about it) then maybe things would change.Fuel efficient cars are cheaper to run - so its an economic argument rather than an environmental one.A well insulated home is cheaper to run.Turning off electrical devices rather than leave them on standby makes them cheaper to run.Plus what about the BILLIONS that would be made by companies developing fuel efficient devices? Tue 24 Feb 2009 11:27:54 GMT+1 Timothy Wil_Ng wrote:Left live for the better future.Right live for now irregardless of future even if within lifetime.Left live for feelings and what makes them feel good today.Right live for what makes sense. Even if it is not in their best interest today.Get it right and stop trying to make yourself feel better by being dishonest. Tue 24 Feb 2009 10:34:00 GMT+1 robloop 223 Bere54 Regarding drugs I believe they are more expensive in the U.S. than in Canada, but re dentistry I wrote: "You pay (for drugs and dentistry), and for dentistry in particarly, dearly" which was intended to convey that while drugs are not cheap, dentistry can be downright expensive. Possibly it's even more expensive in Vermont. Are taxes and/or the cost of living in Vermont particularly high? Re the investments I think you were fortunate to run into situations that aroused your suspicion, but also think you were quite smart to heed the gut feelings. Tue 24 Feb 2009 04:37:24 GMT+1 as is #235 InterestedforeignerFrankly, I do not have time for half-mile dithyrambs on the grand leftist abstractions either. If you wish to engage in a meaningful debate, please provide next time credible NUMBERS to back your highly debatable statements. Denmark? Your numbers are, not surprisingly, off the mark. "Denmark has a wide range of incentives for renewables and particularly wind energy. In 2000 it produced 4 TWh (out of 36 TWh gross total, about 11%) thus, and is aiming at 15%. Its utility buy-back rates for privately-generated wind electricity in 1999 averaged DKr 0.60/kWh, including a DKr 0.27/kWh subsidy funded by carbon tax (now US$ 6.8 cents & 3.2 cents respectively). However, there is a further economic cost borne by power utilities and customers. When there is a drop in wind, back-up power is bought from the Nordic power pool at the going rate. Similarly, any surplus (subsidised) wind power is sold to the pool. The net effect of this is growing losses as wind capacity expands. Official estimates put the expected losses at DKr 1.5 billion per year, others reckon more than double this." (Pls check the WNO link provided) Why is it that the left utopias are always judged not by their (disastrous) results, but by the beautiful intentions of the instigators? Tue 24 Feb 2009 03:25:50 GMT+1 timewaitsfornoman InterestedforeignerHave just finished reading up on your hero. Of course I know the name and many of his accomplishments, but what I did not know (or remember) was his involvement with Chalk River. My uncle worked there during the 60s and 70s and the family lived in Deep River. Went there many times to visit. He took me on a tour of the Reactor. It was way, way beyond me! I have vignettes in my mind; of a massive space, wearing a badge to detect radiation levels (and being told what would happen if it went off), and a room full of wires and cables. I think that impressed me the most - there were so many! Thousands upon thousands of different coloured wires. As I have mentioned before we have a summer home on the St. Lawrence. It is fabulous and very...... windy! We are thinking of installing a wind mill on the roof. It seems a shame to waste it. And, what was it happylaze said? "Wind prices do not go up." Well, unless you count the repairs from the damage!! Tue 24 Feb 2009 02:13:16 GMT+1 happylaze lol interested well said . so polite.;) Tue 24 Feb 2009 01:49:59 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner To the many postings of Peterbo:Clearly, you are firmly convinced by your own views.The founders of medicare in this country were not wacko left-wing dreamers. They were extraordinarily practical men, and I hold them in the same esteem as my great hero C.D. Howe.The reason they succeeded was because they knew how to get things done, and had a level of personal fiscal discipline, level headedness, and common sense that most people would admire, rather than scorn as you do.Do you really believe the US system (the most expensive per capita in the world) is better value for money?As for wind power, well, it may very well turn out to be as expensive as you say, or possibly not. I don't believe the Danes are known for stupidity, or poverty, and they produce 19 % of their power from the wind. I don't see anyone describing that effort as a failure or a waste. Perhaps it is, but the Danes don't seem to think so.In Texas we have T. Boone Pickens investing over a billion dollars in wind power. Clearly, according to you, he must be foolish. Well, we'll see.Vestas and GE have been building wind turbines flat out, and have a multi-billion dollar backlog on their order books. But no doubt, according to you, both they and their customers must be fools, too.I notice that the links you provide are hardly neutral.If you look at northern Quebec and Labrador, you will see that there is probably no place on earth more favourable to wind power development. The wind energy density and constancy are exceptionally high. If the wind energy density is double that found along the Jutland peninsula, how can wind power be less economic there than in Denmark?There are huge reservoirs in Labrador and Northern Quebec. Is there any region on earth that is more promising for solving the mis-match between wind-generated power availability and power demand? What other place on earth has anything like an equivalent storage capacity either in scale or in convenience.All of these wind fields are already served by major hydro transmission rights of way. Is there any other place on earth that is so blessed?You may think that wind power requires huge subsidies, but the first study you noted was based on the UK, which has, as far as I can tell, none of the advantages listed above. Yet those advantages are of enormous financial significance significance.I am also fairly certain that you have not included the cost of the Iraq war in the price of oil, for example. It is not clear that they fully cost the health care issues that arise from using coal. It is not clear that they cost de-commissioning nuclear stations correctly. Each group has its axes to grind. In Ontario, the life of the Nuclear plants has been shorter, and the costs of repair and maintenance have been far higher than anyone predicted. Yet, the closest thing to wind power, the life cycle cost of airframes, is by contrast almost always overestimated (as is railway freight rolling stock, but that is a story for another day).No, I have known some remarkable men in my life, and almost universally they shared a common quality: They were, and are, doers. They are achievers. They figure out ways to make things work, and then they make them work. And they don't make detours for naysayers, kibbitzers, archair quarterbacks, and others who always have a thousand excuses for not doing this or not doing that, for explaining why the sky is sure to fall, and every other disaster.But, when it comes right down to it, these naysayers are small, small people who never achieve anything in life. I've got not time for that.I have a friend who has a great saying:"Stop telling me why it won't work. It's already running." Tue 24 Feb 2009 00:37:12 GMT+1 happylaze but then your issue is with subsidies being used to try to prevent half the world population from being killed in floods. so that I get. You are cheap and care for no one but yourself. Mon 23 Feb 2009 17:55:44 GMT+1 happylaze "They are high ehough now, aren't they? When will they be competitive? I guess the answer will be in future indefinite tense, the left's favourite one."The Wind costs nothing, just the production of equipment to transfer that energy to electrical energy.Is that too complicated for you?Do you think in those totals the total cost of building the refineries and drilling platforms was really taken into account?The cost of building train lines. was that added in,coal has to move to be used. Union pacific pays all it's payroll from coke /coal shipments.As for world Nuke org. again. Impartial are they. no vested interests? no possible interest in the outcome?You want to talk of Ponzi Try the nuke industry. always claiming big money can be saved with costs being hidden till later.We make so much energy we can save the world"uGG, But what about disposal."Now you say disposal is in the costs. Again, REALLY?They are not even sure of how to dispose of the watse yet. which particular technological advance are you plumbing for. seems you are in the know(no one else is) hell where is the depository going to be?has that been decided.Hanford just up the road here.They are having fun cleaning up.Don't pretend you are any better than those you mock. you are lazy Mon 23 Feb 2009 17:53:28 GMT+1 happylaze shows great variety in priced for different systems of energy production. All are based on current prices of raw materials not the future expected costs.Nuke is not even considered. (some people realise that most arguments forget the disposal cost which is anywhere between "dump it in the sea cheap and take what you can for bombs cheap)Either way Peter who is no rock, the prices vary greatly for wind and which one are you taking. and how if things are so variable do you make such firm statements. as prices ARE......Which site?PS the subsidies you talk about.Do you think we have not subsidised the oil industry.We have fought two wars at great expense to the Taxpayers for this "cheap"Oil. We have destroyed swampland and deltas and fish breeding grounds around the world. ruined the lives of many indigenous people.Just look at how we get our "cheap" oil.How many caol miners die a year to get cheap coal. Lives that could be saved if the cost of killing people were more.Peter. your "cheap" is because you are LAZY.Too lazy to look at the real cost of your freedom from working. $5000 dollar fines for pollution that kills some and ruins the lives of others are a subsidy.But you are right I am lazy and you are.........?No better. though not as good at looking at the hidden costs.Simplistic is a word I should be allowed to use because unlike a similar word it is not going to cause offence. But if simple were a town. Mon 23 Feb 2009 17:42:18 GMT+1 as is Re #210 , my previous postI noticed that the moderator has marked the provided link to the US Federal Energy Information Administration EIA) as "[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]"If interested in accessing the "Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007" report of EIA from which I quote, please simply google its title, and a pdf/HTML version will be available. Mon 23 Feb 2009 17:29:54 GMT+1 happylaze Really? Mon 23 Feb 2009 17:21:17 GMT+1 as is #224 happylazy1) ""The total cost of wind energy NOW is TWICE that of coal, and FOUR TIMES that of nuclear.forgetting of course the disposal costs of nukes."Please read carefully: my previous posts discuss TOTAL costs INCLUDING externalities (and that includes disposal costs), AND "global warming" costs. "Wind prices do not go up."They are high ehough now, aren't they? When will they be competitive? I guess the answer will be in future indefinite tense, the left's favourite one.Too much sturm und drang, too little substance. Mon 23 Feb 2009 17:17:43 GMT+1 publiusdetroit Time to take another look at Direct Current (DC). There was a battle between Tesla and Edison early on about the benefits and hazards of both Alternating Current (AC) and DC. AC won because of its transmission abilities across a long distance grid.It is possible to run a household on DC current at this time. Be it through solar panels and/or wind turbines. There are lights, stoves, refrigerators, washing machines, etc. all available on the market. Specific-use storage batteries are expensive; but the pay-off is no monthly electric (Hydro) bill, and using a renewable resource.Costs of manufacturing generating sources, batteries, and appliances are high at this time due to limited production. Increase production, improve efficiency through research and developement; costs goes down.Land line telephones have been powered by DC current from the beginning. The cell phone uses a transformer to step-down voltage and convert current to DC. Same for laptop computers.Do we really need an AC power grid of the current scale? Or can DC power be utilized in new ways with new applications, cheaper and cleaner? Mon 23 Feb 2009 17:16:38 GMT+1 Simon21 205. At 9:03pm on 22 Feb 2009, peterbo wrote:#159 interested...Waxing lyrically on the fathers of such a Ponzi scheme as universal healthcare? The communist block/UK/EU couldn't sustain it. What makes you think that Canada can?They are sustaining it though aren't they?And teh US is looking at similar schemes, no one is comtemplating going the US route. Mon 23 Feb 2009 17:05:35 GMT+1 Simon21 Posting:166. At 10:11pm on 21 Feb 2009, robloop wrote:159. InterestedforeignerThanks for the trouble you took in expanding on Allen Blakeney. Having read bothCanada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the new South African Constitution,I suspected that there was some Canadian input. However, and this not intendedas a put-down to you, both are flawed in at least one respect, they makeprovisions for discrimination. The Canadian Charter really does make provisionfor minority opinion to prevail over that of the majority. If you doubt that,read it again - very carefully, and digest what it is saying. I think PierreTrudeau's intention was to promote the interests of Canada's French minorityover the English-speaking majority. The problem there, is that it is hardlydemocratic in principle.That depends on what you mean by democracy deson't it?Democracy does not mean the crushing of minorities by the majority. "The new South African Constitution very clearly permits racial discrimination."Does it where? Please qoote the clauses that state racial discrimination isencouraged.Very simpleYou wouldn't want to be seen lying would you?Just quote the clauses "No doubt this was intended to facilitate the redressing apartheidinjustices and inequalities. The problem is that it has facilitated the blackracial discrimination that now abounds from the ANC government not only againstwhites, but also those of mixed race, Indians, Chinese, etc., and it is evidentthat there is no provision for ending such a circumstance"Again can you quote the clauses?In Canada's case apparently Pierre Trudeau was secretly trying to empower aminority - which is "undemocractic" in your eyesIn the case of the new SA it is ndemocractic because it insists on the rule ofthe majority.But again this is somehow undemocractic!Apparently in your distorted vision democracy only exists if people likeyourself are in charge.Sorry but that is unlikely to happen."That is downright shabby, and hardly something that we can regard as 'astep forward'"Ther ANC has shown astonishing forebearance towards the ruklers and their supporters of the old RSA.They should be placed on trial for the atrocities they caused. Mon 23 Feb 2009 17:02:42 GMT+1 happylaze peterpo "World Nuclear Organization"Not bias or influenced in any way.And I bet the coal industry says they are the cleanest. the oil industry that they tried to get manufacturers to produce better cars-----------------------Bere ,Well said about the present failures being easy to see for many. but not those fools that led us into this crash.74I stand by the thought that this guy was much missed by the creationists.PS mods a link to the Oregon website was pulled, containing the info that wind prices varied to an extent that would show that the inaccuracies that peter is so carefully skirting.He gives a price for wind that in no way takes into account the variable costs due to siting. same with Hydro(which economically was great until the salmon disappeared.) Mon 23 Feb 2009 16:51:55 GMT+1 happylaze lol what free expression."The total cost of wind energy now is TWICE that of coal, and FOUR TIMES that of nuclear.""The total cost of wind energy NOW is TWICE that of coal, and FOUR TIMES that of nuclear.forgetting of course the disposal costs of nukes.Wind prices do not go up. Mon 23 Feb 2009 15:51:38 GMT+1 bere54 213, publius -Remember the fable of the tortoise and the hare? I feel like the tortoise, plodding along with my low-interest account, while the hare rushed into all sorts of get-rich quick investments. The hare and everyone else thought I was foolish. While I have not become rich (not by any means), the hare seems to have lost all the gains, and while I may not be ahead, I am certainly no further behind the hare. The difference is that the hare thought he was wealthy and is quite astonished to find he is no more wealthy than I am right now.212, 215 robloop -If Canadians pay so dearly for drugs and dentistry, I wonder why it is that Vermonters go to Canada for drugs and dentistry. Friends of mine have popped over the border for crowns and root canals. They claim they do it for the considerable savings. Are they lying?And I'm not the only one who realized back in 2005 that things could not be sustained the way they were going. Perhaps it was only us non-experts who were paying attention to the little things, like houses selling for far more than they should, businesses closing, the dollar falling. It was an instinct that things were just not right. So I did not want to wait til everything crashed, even if all I was acting on was my own gut feeling. But you see, my gut feeling was correct.Of the other people I know who began to get nervous about the same time, none were "experts" on the economy. We were all just ordinary people looking around us and saying, "Hm. This can't go on. Something's wrong." Shortly after I sold my house, house prices in my area began to drop.216, peterbo: "A very common misconception pushed by the anti-capitalist propaganda."One person's "misconception" is another person's common sense. You seem to be a bit out of touch with reality. Mon 23 Feb 2009 15:39:12 GMT+1 publiusdetroit Ref 216 peterboAs an insider, I can reasure you that no banker in his/her right mind would approve a NINJA mortgage with no down payment, no income verification, and 40 yrs AM - unless some institution - and that's Fannie and Fredie in US - assumes those risks.Agreed! No banker in their right mind would have placed their assets in such peril. There were enough bankers up in the attic playing with their toys, though. This is evidenced by the number of failed banks.I am not placing all the blame on banks and mortgage companies. The list of other fool contributors to our economic decline is long and diverse. I am only stating that the mortgage market was my personal barometer for the health of the economy; and I am glad I listened to my gut on this one.By the way. I had many personal consultations with my sister as to where my investments would be safest. She is a VP at a small, community bank. She is very much in her right mind, as is the successful bank where she still works. Mon 23 Feb 2009 15:28:40 GMT+1 happylaze This post has been Removed Mon 23 Feb 2009 14:26:13 GMT+1 happylaze This post has been Removed Mon 23 Feb 2009 14:19:12 GMT+1 as is #111 InterestedforeignerUnfortunately, the cerberus wouldn't allow my last two posts to appear.I tried to provide a link to the US federal Energy Information Administration showing whopping subsidies for wind and solar providers v. coal ($23+ and $24+ per gigawhthour respectively) v. coal (c44), hydro (c69), and nuclear ($1.59). Currently, renewables provide less than one per cent of all US energy, but already consume more than 15 per cent of all federal subsidies and support. What subsidies will be necessary to sustain the renewable energy industry, when it's planned share reashes 30-5- per cent, as Obama proposes?Also, a link to the World Nuclear Organization provided info on the total cost (production, subsidies+support, AND externalities) of wind v. coal v. nuclear. The total cost of wind energy now is TWICE that of coal, and FOUR TIMES that of nuclear. Mon 23 Feb 2009 14:10:38 GMT+1 Arthur Brede Good spot, Richard_SMLet's remember that, however hypocritical, it was the right that started the conservation movement and gave it early credibility; it has always been the left that wanted smoking factory chimneys on the banknotes. The left has never understood anything to do with nature or the countryside, let alone global ecology. The tragedy of it all is that it ecology is a cross-party issue, not a vehicle for career politicians, a real-time, real-space problem, not some keep-the-rich-rich-and-the-poor-in-their-place lot of self-proliferating political bullsh. Here's a nod to the those who were at pains to point out that the economy does not dictate the environmental agenda - quite the reverse - thanks.As for measuring Obama and anyone else on a left-right scale - just look where he came from, his political 'tail' as we post-commies say. He's a townie, a routine Yankee crook, just another Chigago loan-shark with the gift of the gab. Another hundred days and we'll see just how useless the man is..... Mon 23 Feb 2009 14:00:07 GMT+1 as is #212 robloopON's OHIP provides dental coverage for low-income Ontarians, but excludes, as you note, phisyo and chiropractor treatments, as well as eye examinations. Yes, the hospitals' corridors these days are often transformed into semi-private wards. ON sends every year across the border app. 500 ER patients for treatment, at OHIP's expense, as there are not enough ER facilities in ON. Buffalo alone provides more private MRIs that the entire healthcare system of Canada. Plus, there's a thriving health broker business in ON: depending on one's ailment and private insurance, a quick fix cann be arranged at a private hospital in countires such as India, Thailand, the Phillipines, etc.My strong advice to every Canadian is: buy critical illness and disability insurance if you can afford it. Mon 23 Feb 2009 12:57:42 GMT+1 as is #213 publiusdetroit"I knew there was a house of cards being built by the finance business; and that it would collapse. "A very common misconception pushed by the anti-capitalist propaganda.As an insider, I can reasure you that no banker in his/her right mind would approve a NINJA mortgage with no down payment, no income verification, and 40 yrs AM - unless some institution - and that's Fannie and Fredie in US - assumes those risks.The damage started with the Community Reinvestment Act, and Fannie and Fredie's deliberate lax lending guidelines under political pressure in the subprime segment. It's not the derivatives, they only magnified the collapse of the underlying assets - the securitized mortgage bundles that contained the toxic NINJA mortgages. Mon 23 Feb 2009 12:45:51 GMT+1 robloop 206 bere54 If you got a feeling "something funny was going on" as early as 2005, that was pretty early seeing that things finally went down the toilet only in 2008. So what specifically would you say gave you a hint that things could get rocky? Getting out of mutual funds that early, was also unusual. Most of them were still doing very well at late as 2006. 2007 was not so hot, but one could have regarded this as simply a matter of economic cycles. Since the collapse I've read that the great investor and philanthropist, Sir John Templeton, started warning that the sub-prime mortgage mess was going to occur, but not even he (as far as I know) predicted this as far back as 2004. Naturally publications that promote investments don't rush such news out into the market place, so I never saw Sir John's predictions until 'after the event' - when suddenly the publications 'got smart'! Mon 23 Feb 2009 12:41:53 GMT+1 freeclench 212, robloop wrote:I think that many Americans think that Canada's provincial (universal) healthcare plans cover drugs and dentistry, and if so they are dead wrong. You pay, and for dentistry in particarly, dearly.We Americans know all about you conniving Canadian's efforts to turn our old folks into cross-border drug runners. Fortunately those of us who believe in the free market passed laws to protect your attempts to victimize American drug companies, and keep American elderly off drugs.-FreeClench Mon 23 Feb 2009 12:13:14 GMT+1 publiusdetroit Ref 206 bere54When I went to buy my first house in 1976 I went to the local, small town bank for my mortgage. Ed (by any other name...) will like that the banker was of Scots decent. Although the banker knew me and my family well, and I had been an emancipated youth since the age of 16, getting farm loans and small business loans, when it was useful, from his bank for ten years; he still examined my ability to pay as if we were strangers.In 1988 I bought a house in an historic district within Detroit. Shopping around for a mortgage I found that mortgage companies and banks were only interested in talking me into an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM). I was dealing with mortgage "closers" (salespersons) rather than bankers.I did not need an ARM. I was well qualified to get a traditional mortgage; but the pressure was on to push me into an ARM. I finally found a bank that gave me a traditional mortgage without the baiting attempts to get me into an ARM.By 2003 my company started losing salespeople to "johnny-come-lately" mortgage companies. These were the type of salespeople that would go to any extent to close a deal for the commission. They were very good at over-coming objections and could care less of the mortgagees ability to pay.I knew there was a house of cards being built by the finance business; and that it would collapse. I began taking steps back then to place my money into ever more secure and conservative investments. I missed out on the skyrocketing returns on investment for the past five years...but I have not lost a dime to the downward spiral of the markets. So far. Mon 23 Feb 2009 05:37:29 GMT+1 robloop 205 Peterbo I gather you know that in at least some, if not all of Canada's provinces, the provincial healthcare services are deteriorating. Things once covered or partly covered, such as physiotherapy and chiropractic no longer are. In addition, a friend in Ontario recently told me that having 'semi-private ward' in your health and dental plan can prove quite meaningless. Often nowadays hospitals are so over-crowded a 'semi-private ward' could end up being the passageway! I think that many Americans think that Canada's provincial (universal) healthcare plans cover drugs and dentistry, and if so they are dead wrong. You pay, and for dentistry in particarly, dearly. Mon 23 Feb 2009 04:50:15 GMT+1 timewaitsfornoman MoncursalionYou're right, you must brush up on your Canadian history. Did you not know the Scots built Montreal and by extension the country of Canada? That is why our banks did not fail. I believe all our bankers still have Scottish blood. It is damn near impossible to borrow a dime (penny) from them! Canadian Bank Profits. "Peace, Order and Good Government" That's us! Would they fall into the category of "Northern European Mores?" Mon 23 Feb 2009 03:04:20 GMT+1 as is #111 InterestedforeignerMy #203 did not go through, here's another try.Your #111 needs a few "de-contextualized" numbers to bring an utopia down to earth:Current (2007) US subsidies and support for power generation per unit of production(dollars/megawatthour) provided by the US Federal Enegry Information Administration:[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]1) Wind: $23.37 (!)2) Solar: $24.34 (!)3) Coal: c444) Nuclear: $1.595) Hydro: c67Renewables provide app. one percent of energy used in US, but consume app. 15 per cent of all US federal subsidies and support. The Obama administration wants to increase the renewables' share to 30-50 per cent: that will result in balooning subsidies to keep the wind power industry solvent.Even after factoring in the production costs, the subsidies and support, AND the externalities, wind power generation is TWO TIMES more expensive than coal, and FOUR times more expensive than nuclear: Mon 23 Feb 2009 02:54:02 GMT+1 U9388581 I must admit that I NEVER expected to discover subtlelty on a trans-atlantic forum, but their are distinct signatures of BOTH cynicism and sophism on this board.As a Culturalist (Heavily prejudiced towards Male, Northern European Mores & Methodologies) I am somewhat astounded to find very Edinburgh logistician thought from the Canadians, but even more astounded to find a somewhat Stoic view-point with a tendency to irony from some of the United States of Americans.If one cares to think about it, Seas and Oceans must unite as much as devide, both connecting and separating as they do.I have just finished a mix of 7 x 12 hour night and day shifts and may sleep for a while so until I awake, adieu and boundless , undreaming , peacefulness to all of you who seem to enjoy the process of thought and all its infinite majesties. Mon 23 Feb 2009 00:13:44 GMT+1 timewaitsfornoman 200 Ed with Heart of EagleI would be more upset about Tony Blair lending it in the first place! Be thankful Winston Churchill is back where he belongs. He is probably happy to be home in the UK.Or maybe there is a hidden mike inside and one day we will learn all the gory details! A cunning plan.....? Sun 22 Feb 2009 22:19:54 GMT+1 timewaitsfornoman I redid the quiz changing some of my answers to "strongly." Therefore I submit: E -5.38 S -5.90 Sun 22 Feb 2009 21:32:31 GMT+1 bere54 202, Ed -I knew something funny was going on, so I sold my house in the spring of '05. Now I feel so clever. These days I live in a rented turret. I also got out of mutual funds and put everything into an FDIC-insured money market account. Low interest, but nothing vanished.Some of us, including me, have been wandering around for the last several years saying, "Um, excuse me, but it looks like the sky is falling" and the rest said, "Oh, don't be silly."Now who's silly? Sun 22 Feb 2009 21:30:50 GMT+1 as is #159 interested...Waxing lyrically on the fathers of such a Ponzi scheme as universal healthcare? The communist block/UK/EU couldn't sustain it. What makes you think that Canada can?Again, check this: Already, the ON healthcare expenditure is crowding out and stifling investment in infrastructure, education, etc.There comes a day when a sacred cow has to be slaughtered, and QC has done it, in SC. Do not forget: your GP, the med lab, etc. are all PRIVATE PROVIDERS of med services. Sun 22 Feb 2009 21:03:24 GMT+1 as is #72 happylazeYou are trying very hard to justify your user name. I'd say, the incoherency of your post rivals your ignorance. Look up the US Fed EIA link I provided for interested...If EIA feels comfortable with meaningful averages on energy wind/nuclear/coal/etc generation parameters, may be you could try, too. Sun 22 Feb 2009 20:53:23 GMT+1 as is #111 Interested...It always amazes me that the how the leftist utopias (starting with egalite-fraternite-liberte, communism etc, to Kyoto, AGW, vote-l/Liberal-save-the-whales, etc) are never evaluated based on their destructive impact on society and waelth creation, but on the intents of the leftist elites that generate them. You know, we screwed up, but at least we tried (although a closer examination would reveal it's the usual power grab/greed of those elites).Your post is generously peppered with generalities and buzz words, but srarse on numbers. In 2007, according to the US Energy Information Administration, subsidies and support per unit of production(dollars/megawatthour) stood at:1) Wind, a whopping $23.372) Solar, an even more whopping $24.343) Coal: c444) Hydro: c675) Nuclear: $1.59For a total of production costs, subsidies, and external costs (incl. "global warming" effect): all-included count down: wind energy costs TWICE more than coal, and FOUR TIMES more than nuclear. Currently, wind and other renewables provide less than 1 per cent of US energy, but consume app.. 15 per cent of all US energy subsidies. Mr Obama talks of a 30-50 per cent share. Where will the subsidies come from?I expect the usual mantra of the fast-developing technology and decreasing costs, but the monstrous, unsustainable subsidies indicate that the wind power generation issues will be resolved only in some indefinite future tense - the favourite tense of the leftist elites' speak.Some important practicalities that would prevent wind energy generation from being THE future source or energy:[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] Sun 22 Feb 2009 20:48:15 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Food for thought No end in sight yet...;-)ed Sun 22 Feb 2009 20:29:20 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Way to go!;-))))ed Sun 22 Feb 2009 20:03:30 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Return of loan gives offence Humpfh!;-)ed Sun 22 Feb 2009 19:59:06 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Bank Nationalisation? "AS AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE"""Over the last several weeks, you have seen something that was radioactive even six months ago, the idea of nationalizing major banks in this country, moving towards something of a consensus," Stephanopoulos said.There wasn't a panelist who disputed the idea -- indeed, naysayers were mocked. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman scoffed at the notion that the White House was one of the few remaining holdouts, picking apart the Obama administration's comment as a sophisticated sidestep......"Interesting times, ;-)ed Sun 22 Feb 2009 19:52:48 GMT+1 happylaze This post has been Removed Sun 22 Feb 2009 19:45:44 GMT+1 happylaze Ed I seemed to get -7.3 -7.5 I always thought Ghandi was a bit strict. Sun 22 Feb 2009 19:41:32 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Foreigner (191),Thanks for that perspective! All Scots indeed. I mentioned before "A Dance Called America" as an interesting read on the topic, and today I took a second loan of a friend's copy of "The Scotch" by Galbraith...Moncurs, There are significant thresholds for the National Health rates you mention, and I have no complaints about the system, which has done me well on the occasions I've needed it. Hopefully, my usage levels will remain low...My prescriptions are free (over 60)Peace and good Healthed Sun 22 Feb 2009 19:22:54 GMT+1 timewaitsfornoman 192 Moncursalion"How does that compare US/Canada?"I could have sworn I requested you ask easier questions! Something along the lines of; "What's the weather like today?"I'll attempt to give you a partial answer and hope Interested.... will just pull all the numbers out of his head. He will probably do so and then tell us he might be off by a few cents as he is not a Tax Attorney!Canadian Income Tax Rates. $38,000 Cdn = approx. $30 US. I believe we pay no tax on first $12,000/$9,600 US. You will notice under Provincial Taxes for Quebec - "Revenu Quebec." This means we have a different tax system as we have been classified as "distinct" which I believe translates into "Pays more taxes." I believe (in Quebec) both employees and employers pay 4.26% for Medicare. This covers doctor's visit, operations, hospital stay, etc. Each province has a different plan. Intricate drug plans involving %, etc. Women received a percentage of their salary for a year long maternity leave. Partners receive 2 weeks (?).Canada Pensions. CPP is for people who contributed through work. OAS in the basic pension, although for people like my aunt who have no other source of income they received the supplement. Therefore approx. $1,100/$880 per month.People of limited income also receive GST (VAT) refund cheques. All direct deposited in the bank if requested. Sun 22 Feb 2009 19:11:09 GMT+1 bere54 192, Moncursalion -I'm not sure how the income tax in general in the U.S. compares, because I have no income so don't even file, but I was looking at my son's year-end pay statement and notice that out of an income of $16,215, $1,240 was deducted for FICA (Social Security) and Medicare. Not one penny of that gets him any health coverage at all; it all goes to the retired (pensioners). And while I do not begrudge them this, I do find it scandalous that a so-called civilized country leaves younger people twisting in the wind without health care while at the same time making them pay for the almost unlimited health care of the elderly. The American Association for Retired People, a strong lobby, does not seem to care in the least that the grandchildren of their members are suffering. There does not happen to be a lobby for young people without health coverage. Sun 22 Feb 2009 19:07:22 GMT+1 U9388581 Sorry HEALTH system and mental HEALTH not heath!As an addition, there are few add-on costs, so if in hospital, there are no charges for food or accommodation the dedicated ambulance service is also free [and much abused by people who could easily make their own way to casualty(E.R)] Everyone is signed up with a local General practitioner, who will send you for any tests or to be examined by a consultant (specialist) if beyond his abilities or equipment.Currently retiremnt ages are 65 for men and 60 for women, but these are being equalised and extended to a joint age of I believe 68 over the coming years as we are all hanging around far too long after we cease to be prductive and are just sitting around expensively deteriorating at huge cost to the working population. Sun 22 Feb 2009 18:36:38 GMT+1 U9388581 At current rates in US $ in Britain a working person pays no tax on the first approx $8500 per annumthen 20c in the $ up to approx $54000 and 40c in the $ after that (no Upper limit)a national insurance duty of 10c in the dollar from the employee and 11c in the $ for the employer pays (supposedly) for free universal heath system including Mental heath and anything up to and inclusive of heart transplant, kidney transplant, if you are working and earning above a certain level you pay approx $9 for a prescription of say a months worth of any medecin required. If a long term condition you can pay an annual discounted rate. Pregnant women, pensioners get these free. State retirement pension about $180 per week single $230 per week couple. How does that compare US/Canada? Sun 22 Feb 2009 17:29:36 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner 165. Timewaits.Not sure. Criminal law is not my area of expertise. It may be a very old rule, that the judge is not permitted to discuss sentencing before a verdict has been rendered on guilt or innocence. It may be that sentence is not a decision for the jury.Alternatively, it may be a legacy of the Morgentaler law, but I could be entirely mistaken. No jury would convict Dr. Morgentaler, and after three attempts the government threw in the towel and changed the law. 168. Timewaits. ... and 3/4 of them seem to be named "Leblanc".166. Robloop. I am going to chicken out on this one. The intricacies of Canadian Constitutional law are too involved for this blog, and I simply don't have the knowledge required to comment on South Africa.I will say this, though: There are three points that must always be kept in equilibrium in Canada. First, there is a balance between French-speakers and non-French speakers. Second, there is a balance required in our relations with the elephant to the South, we are a close friend and neighbour, but not a sycophantic follower. Third, there is a balance to be maintained between big powerful provinces and smaller weaker provinces. These relationships are not independent - if you alter one, it has an affect on the others. Therefore, a government that plays with these relationships does so at its mortal peril.160. MoncusalionNo, there was no relation between the two.Canada has tried to promote french language cultural links with Louisianne, and so has the governement of Quebec sometimes merely for the purpose of separatist pot-stirring, but this is recent, i.e., since the 1960's, and superficial.The US civil war did, however have profound effects on our side of the border. Britain was concerned about the future of its disaparate, poorly connected, sparsley populated, weak North American colonies, and the war was a significant factor in hastening, if not prompting, the Charlottetown conference of 1864. This conference is considered to be the point at which the Confederation ball really started rolling, and a famous portrait from that conference of the fathers of confederation used to be in every Canadian history textbook, along with a copy of a photo of the driving of the last spike in the CPR at Craigellachie. (Yes, the Scots then owned every bank, railroad, and insurance company, and ran the government. Ah. Those were the days.)Keep in mind that at the time the population of the North (40m) and South (20m) = 60 m total, was about 20 times the approx. 3m population of all of the remaining British possessions in British North America.The big advantage of Confederation to French-speakers was that it reduced the likelihood of being swallowed whole by the great English speaking republic to the South. French-speakers could see a future in a Canada in which they would number (then) about 1/3 of the population and would retain jurisdiction over their own language and civil rights, and, of course, religion. Being swallowed by the US held out no future whatsoever for a French speaking culture in North America. Sun 22 Feb 2009 14:32:17 GMT+1 Richard_SM Ref: #59 and #186Concerned about my ratings in this test (-4.1/-5.8) I've ordered some immediate changes. The cat has been placed under house arrest and 6 x 4 pictures of myself will be displayed in every room (that's 6ft x 4ft).Any other suggestions?General Richard_SM Sun 22 Feb 2009 14:00:38 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner 175. Bere54It was the "single payer" issue that the Doctors struck over in the Doctor's Strike in Saskatchewan. The Doctors were overconfident, and after a few difficult weeks the strike fell apart. It was a huge victory for the government.And it was like birds on a wire, too. Once Saskatchewan led, everybody else followed. Just let one state make it work, and the rest will follow. Sun 22 Feb 2009 13:55:26 GMT+1 U9388581 ON the main BBC news page I have just seen the headline that Scotland is 8th in World according to Alcohol consumption per head of population.This appalling state of affairs must not be allowed to continue.I demand that evey school child in Scotland be given a "Hauf 'n hauf" ( small heavy beer and a whisky chaser) at morning break and with their lunch until Scotland regains world leadership in this vital talent. Sun 22 Feb 2009 13:23:14 GMT+1 Barbazenzero Oops - one link wrong in my #186.The post is largely a repeat of my #1544 on Brian Taylor's blog. Sun 22 Feb 2009 12:09:45 GMT+1 Barbazenzero #59 Ed Eagle/ChameleonAs promised, now that there are a few entries here, I have analysed the Political Compass data so far:Justin Webb's blog:Quadrant, Social, Economic, MonikerLower Left, -6.87, -8.62, bere54 (2nd try)Lower Left, -5.79, -8.00, dceilarLower Left, -5.74, -6.62, Via-MediaLower Left, -5.59, -7.75, publiusdetroitLower Left, -5.03, -6.88, Ed Eagle/ChameleonLower Left, -4.72, -5.00, timewaitsfornomanLower Left, -4.56, -6.38, DutchangeLower Left, -4.46, -4.88, RomeStuLower Left, -4.15, -1.00, SamTyler1969Lower Left, -4.10, -5.80, Richard_SMLower Left, -3.74, -2.00, seanspaLower Left, -3.33, -5.12, Jeebers76Lower Left, -2.27, -0.25, gunsandreligionLower Left, -1.59, -4.98, allmymarblesUpper Right, 0.46, 0.62, BienvenueEnLouisiana (2nd try)Upper Right, 1.85, 1.75, Moncursalion-our-last-great-captainThe data is sorted in the Social [Y axis] then Economic [X axis] order to make the quadrants in alphabetic order, so the scores shown are not in the order that you provided them above. If I have missed or miscoded anyone, please draw it to my attention.The scatter of the data above compares closely with that on Brian Taylor's blog, which is as follows:Quadrant, Social, Economic, MonikerLower Left, -8.36, -9.88, fourstrikesLower Left, -7.23, -9.00, Bandages_For_KonjicLower Left, -5.49, -5.38, BrownedovLower Left, -5.38, -2.25, oldnatLower Left, -5.03, -6.88, Ed Eagle/ChameleonLower Left, -4.51, -1.50, aye_writeLower Left, -4.41, -8.00, Richard_the_RogueLower Left, -4.36, -5.12, ScotInNottsLower Left, -3.85, -5.62, cynicalHighlanderLower Left, -3.69, -3.38, pattymkirkwoodLower Left, -3.49, -5.50, Fit Like?Lower Left, -3.28, -6.10, brigadierjohnLower Left, -3.08, -3.62, forfar-loonLower Left, -2.10, -3.50, handclappingLower Left, -0.51, -2.25, Neil_Small147Lower Right, -0.36, 3.62, BrianSHUpper Left, 2.00, -6.50, hadrianswallUpper Left, 4.72, -1.25, Thomas_PorterUpper Right, 1.23, 5.50, deanthetoryThis surprised me, and think you missed one with your 4 suggested reasons for it. I have a feeling that Robert Burns'sOh wad some power the giftie gie usTo see oursel's as others see us!was on the money here.The suggestion of completing the test and "coming clean" about our personal results started on the current Nick Robinson thread, where there is still no meaningful data and yellowbelly1959's #1179 seems to be pretty indicative of their state of play.This post is largely a repeat of my #1544 on Brian Taylor's blog.I'll try to look back later to see if any more come in but TTFN.Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please! Sun 22 Feb 2009 12:02:45 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Moncursalion(184)"*173 ED with Heart of Eagle(My surname means Eagle Crag in old Norse)"And mine (Iglehart) is difficult to fathom. I was brought up "eye-gull-hart", and told it eas of German origin, but Germans generally say, "Eaglehart? Where's that from", and I say it's German. "Doesn't sound German to me, (turning to another) Does it to you?" "No, but perhaps it'ss Prussian..."Anyway, Igel is German for hedgehog, so perhaps I'm prickly with a soft centre....certainly prickly about folk conflating England with Britain...;-) Perhaps Northumbria will want to join an independent Scotland, when (not if) she emerges...?Slainteed(AdlerHerz) Sun 22 Feb 2009 11:59:17 GMT+1 U9388581 *173 ED with Heart of Eagle(My surname means Eagle Crag in old Norse)H.M. Queen Elisabeth IS indisputably Q.E.2 of England, and pursuivant to the act of union is also Queen of Scots, and as there has never been an undisputed Royal line in the principality of Wales;is their liegelady.However in the same way that James was the 1st and 6th ( England and Scotland) and as there are considerable arguments as to whether Elisabeth R was also Queen of Scots I tend when using the "Second" to only refer to that Kingdom of which she is the undisputed 2nd of that name to be monarch. Me! A pedant! NO! The island of Ireland has always been an afterthought/tag on/ irritant of no particular worth and as with Irish noble titles has no part in discussions of true lineage. Sun 22 Feb 2009 07:01:11 GMT+1 Al from BR 163Oh, come now, SamTyler1969; no name calling please. I may be more conservative than you, but I am certainly far from being loony.I would rather enjoy the Mardi Gras parades and festivities than discuss this with you further. The Spanish Town Parade in Baton Rouge was great by the way; if yall are ever in the capital city for Mardi Gras, I certainly would recomend it. Sun 22 Feb 2009 06:32:49 GMT+1 Via-Media 175 bereI think there are so many creative ways in which something could be piloted for health care. Federal employees, for example, get to choose from a number of options for care, the number of choices depending on where employed.So if the pols are squeamish of starting with full universal coverage, they could use something similar, with a single point coordinator brokering with the qualified care and insurance providers for all persons in a geographic area. The broker would have the power of numbers to bargain for the best possible rates.Only a half step, though- maybe it'd be better (and cheaper) to for the whole shebang at once. Sun 22 Feb 2009 03:46:45 GMT+1 Via-Media 161 publiusWe have the same safety courses and blaze orange here. And hunters on ATVs. But every year, there are local stories about someone getting shot, or a shot coming through a house wall, or poor old Bessie getting mistaken for a deer.Here's a hint, guys. Deer don't moo.I guess what outrages my sensibilities is that most of the aforementioned bad-name hunters couldn't give a hoot about what's around them, and never bother learning anything about it or the animals they hunt.Don't get me started about the ones I've heard w. the illegal semiautomatics... Sun 22 Feb 2009 03:41:13 GMT+1 Via-Media 172 aquarizonagal177 ed the heart of eagleAgreed. There are plenty of places even in this Commonwealth where the turbines could be placed without destroying new habitat. And since consumption is down at night, they could turn the darned things off during nocturnal migration.As far as point-source generation: A great idea, but I fear it'll take years. Power companies have a vested interest in the current business model of a few huge generation points, and won't be at all thrilled having to purchase excess generation from thousands of consumer/suppliers. But it can be done, if proper incentives are provided for households to go this route. In some areas of this country the climate is definitely a factor. Our house makes use of a geothermal heat pump, and we do get some wind, but not constant or strong. And solar wouldn't help much for much of the year.But every little step is a step in the right direction. There is a big turbine that just went up on the extension office's demo/experimental farm 2 miles away. It powers pretty much the whole operation- and would have been thought outlandish just ten years ago. Sun 22 Feb 2009 03:33:25 GMT+1 bere54 timewaits -Yes, it occurred to me that if those five states were suddenly flooded with health refugees from the rest of the states, that would tell our so-called leaders what we really want and need. Bernie has already helped certify several Federally Qualified Health Centers here in Vermont so that they got substantial grants. I think the one I go to is one of them. Free colonoscopy! What fun. Sun 22 Feb 2009 02:33:54 GMT+1