• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

Habsy said:
Type "A" characters abound.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
Pelosi was absolutely pummeled for suggesting it has to pass first before they could see what was in the bill, yet it's ok for her successor to send out a Tweet bash based only on the first paragraph.
Funny stuff.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

http://warrenkinsella.com/2013/08/the-rob-ford-crack-video-the-truth/

Here’s what I know:

• Siad possessed the video.
• The police got the video when they arrested him, using a search warrant.
• The Crown office was then given the video.
• The Crown disclosed the video to lawyer Brown. He has it.

Will the video come out anytime soon? I don’t know.

But what I do know is this: the video is in the hands of many people, now. And it has been seen by many more. And it shows Rob Ford smoking what appears to be crack cocaine.

It is real.
Click to expand...
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

only the true believers doubted it's existance in the first place....

We need that shit on youtube
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

South Asians (Indians, Tamils, etc.) vote religiously because it's engrained in the culture. Election Day in India is actually like three days and the lines are often miles long.
Click to expand...

Voter turn out in India is actually lower than Canada. And the three day elections might have something to do with the fact that the electorate in India is bigger than the US and EU combined (700 million). As a Canadian whose parents hailed from South Asia, we have no great election culture. Hell, most people dread elections because it results in great turmoil, killing, fraud etc etc.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

I know that about 30% of eligible voters came out to the byelections. That's 10% less than the elections.
The Liberals are a shoe-in win in Ontario yet again, thanks to Tim Hudak.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Philip Preville: Ford Nation is not who you think it is

Crackgate revealed that the city’s crippling political divide isn’t between downtowners and suburbanites—it’s between the rich and the poor, and it’s only getting worse
By Philip Preville | Illustration by Steve Murray


What will it take for Ford Nation to abandon their man? That’s become one of the great riddles of our time. In late May, as lurid stories swirled of crack videos, hashish trafficking, murders, firings and resignations—all coming on the heels of Ford’s lawsuits, the alleged ass grab and a reported removal from a military ball for drunken behaviour—a Forum Research poll showed that 40 per cent of Toronto voters continue to be die-hard Ford supporters. Among those who voted for the mayor in 2010, 75 per cent still approved of his job performance. The anti-Ford camp tends to explain this stubborn refusal to accept mounting evidence as a symptom of the culture war between downtown and the suburbs. On one side are the elitist downtown progressives who favour transit, walkability, cycling, densification, lattes and street festivals; on the other side are the suburbanites, who prefer private space, low-density living, commuting by car, Tim Hortons and backyard barbecues.


This narrative doesn’t tell a true story about Toronto. There is a deep divide in the city, but it’s a class-based conflict between haves and have-nots—or, more precisely, between neighbourhoods with improving prospects and neighbourhoods on the decline. And Ford Nation hails largely from the latter.

We know from the 2010 municipal election results that Ford Nation essentially surrounds the old City of Toronto. These outlying areas are also home to the highest concentration of visible minorities in the city and have seen the biggest drops in individual incomes. Ford drew some of his strongest voter support from wards that are the poorest, the most ethnically diverse, or both. Up in the northern reaches of Scarborough-Agincourt’s Ward 39, for example, where Ford garnered 63.7 per cent of the vote, visible minorities make up more than half the population, and English is the mother tongue in less than a quarter of households. By contrast, in Trinity-Spadina’s Ward 19, where together George Smitherman and Joe Pantalone received almost 75 per cent of all votes cast, visible minorities make up only 30 per cent of the population.

Those kinds of numbers extend right across the city. Zack Taylor is an assistant professor of urban politics at U of T who has studied the 2010 election results in depth. According to him, visible minorities made up more than half the population in all the wards where Ford won overwhelming support, compared to just 27 per cent in what Taylor wryly calls “Smitherman Village.”

Wealth plays a role, too. The city’s most affluent areas—places where the average income is $104,000 per year, many of which are located in Old Toronto—generally voted against Ford. And while the mayor did carry some wealthy neighbourhoods, his margins of victory in those areas tended to be smaller.

Ford fared much better in inner-suburban neighbourhoods where average incomes have been on the decline. According to a 2010 study by U of T’s Cities Centre, average incomes in vast swaths of Etobicoke and nearly all of Scarborough dropped between 1970 and 2005 from $29,800 to as low as $22,500. In the city’s 13 so-called priority neighbourhoods—including Malvern, Scarborough Village, Jane-Finch, Weston-Mt. Dennis and Jamestown—incomes declined the most.

Page 2 of 2
Those last two communities are located in Ford’s home turf of Etobicoke, along with the Dixon Road high-rises and the party house at 15 Windsor Road that are at the centre of the scandal. If we’ve learned anything about Ford in recent months, it’s that he’s tight with members of those marginalized communities. That’s not the mayor standing with Anthony Smith in the infamous photo taken at 15 Windsor Road—it’s Robbie from the Block, a local boy who’s gone on to bigger things but has kept his roots, showing up to party in his hoodie.

Obviously there’s more to Ford Nation than low-income suburban renters. Middle-class homeowners are Ford supporters, too. But they tend to be home*owners the Toronto real estate boom forgot: Taylor’s research shows that the average house value in Ford Nation is $368,000, compared to $497,000 in Smitherman Village.

Whether they live in the Dixon Road high-rises or the bungalows immediately to the south (where average income has plummeted by $11,000 since 1970), their observations about their neighbourhood are the same. Crime is increasing. Cops are everywhere. Tensions run high day and night. Northwest Etobicoke has some of the highest rates of break and enter, vehicle theft and sexual assault in Toronto. This community hasn’t shared in the city’s prosperity for decades.

Ford connects with the marginalized and disaffected better than anyone on the left. They see him as a straight-talker. His willingness to return their calls or knock on their doors means a lot to them—he offers the type of direct, immediate response they so rarely get from government services. Ford’s supporters also distrust journalists, who, in their view, show up solely for the purpose of running their communities down. No wonder Ford keeps insisting the press is out to get him. It establishes a shared bond.

For loyal members of Ford Nation, years of taxation have produced few tangible benefits for their neighbourhoods, and Ford has managed to galvanize their frustration into an anti-tax crusade. In June, when news broke that the budget for the St. Lawrence Market renovation had risen from $75 million to $92 million—all before work had even begun—suburban councillors refused to approve it. “It freaks me out that everybody can find money to be able to do these things [for downtown],” said the York councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, “when the rest of us are told no.” It should come as no surprise when Ford Nation balks at the new revenue proposals for transit. The additional $477 per year that Metrolinx wants from each household is a lot more affordable when you earn $104,000 than when you earn $28,000. That’s why Ford said he’d build subways with private sector money. The fact that his promise turned out to be a pipe dream hasn’t made the $477 any more affordable.

A former Ford strategist once told me that Occupy Toronto and Ford Nation were essentially two sides of the same coin—that both movements were borne of the same frustrations, stemming from the city’s growing socioeconomic disparity. Ford has earned every ounce of scorn and derision he’s getting as a result of this scandal, but Ford Nation has not. Its members deserved better from their candidate, and they deserve better from their city.
Click to expand...
http://www.torontolife.com/informer...hilip-preville-champion-of-the-working-class/
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Tensions run high day and night. Northwest Etobicoke has some of the highest rates of break and enter, vehicle theft and sexual assault in Toronto. This community hasn’t shared in the city’s prosperity for decades.
Click to expand...

I'd be lying if I said that I missed Rexdale.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

When we originally left the city as a family, I vowed I would go back when i was old enough. I did for a while, but in the end I came back to the country air. I just took my daughter through the Junction...childhood memories do not always mesh with reality lol. Those laneways I played in were huge, I swear.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

MindzEye said:
Best thing that Rexdale has given me is the burning desire to never have to live in a place like Rexdale again.
Click to expand...

You definitely lived in a worse area than I did, though. But yeah, it's not the best spot in Toronto.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

To me, that article speaks to the problems with the "megacity' as much as anything.

The city is rightly spending money on walkability, tourist attractions, landmarks, etc. in high density areas. The problem is that because 'the city' is so huge, the areas that they're focusing are can be 20KM from the 'high priority neighbourhoods'. Sitting at Morningside and Lawrence, it's hard not to feel like St. Lawrence Market is ****ing irrelevant. And, in a connected problem, Scarborough Town Centre and the administrative buildings next to it feel like a neutered joke.



At this point, the GTA (and even the area covered by the City of Toronto) are too huge to have a single urban center. There needs to be something resembling a downtown, a business district, entertainment district, etc. cultivated in Etobicoke, Scarborough, probably North York and Vaughan too. Markham and Mississauga are sort of doing it, but not well. Making downtown a place you can ride your bike to work and walk to all the amenities is great, but it does dick all for the kid taking a 1 hour cramped bus ride to university from Jane and Finch or Malvern.


People in Scarborough (and I'm sure other suburban areas) seem to shy away from anywhere people are actually walking around at this point. Concert venues, large community centers, etc. are just seen as places where scary looking kids might hang out. It's wrongheaded thinking, of course. The sort of thing that has lead to vast wastelands of bored kids who can't afford to get on the bus to hand out resumes or sign up for college. Paris comes to mind. When intensification does happen here, it seems like it's always vast, faceless, gated-community style condo/townhouse type stuff that just makes it even harder to travel from one actual community to another.
 
link
“I had a little fun with Boehner and told him about the sun tanning tax,” he told his constituents. He goes, ‘I didn’t know it was in there,’ and I said, ‘Yes, it’s a ten percent tax.’ He goes, ‘Well, that’s not that big of a deal.’ I said, ‘It’s a racist tax.’ He goes, ‘You know what? It is.’”

Rep. Yoho explained the premise of the health care law’s “racist tax.”

“I had an Indian doctor in our office the other day, very dark skin, with two non-dark skin people, and I asked this to him, I said, ‘Have you ever been to a tanning booth?’ and he goes, ‘No, no need.’ So therefore it’s a racist tax and I thought I might need to get to a sun tanning booth so I can come out and say I’ve been disenfranchised because I got taxed because of the color of my skin.”

“As crazy as that sounds, that’s what the left does, right? By God, if it works for them, it’ll work for us.”
Click to expand...
You just can't make this shit up.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

The world will not wait for Canada’s oil


SHERRY COOPER

The Globe and Mail



Building oil pipelines to bring Canadian product to market is in many ways a no-brainer.

Take for example the proposed Northern Gateway from Alberta to the West Coast and the Energy East proposal from Alberta to the East Coast.

The construction of these projects is a no-brainer because today, more than ever before, we need Canadian oil sands product to reach tidewater and international markets.

A Canadian Pacific Railway freight train runs along the Bow River and distant Rocky Mountains on the main line near Lake Louise, Alta.
Energy

Video: Canada's newest pipeline: the train

According to a recent bank report, Canadians lost $25-billion in oil revenue in 2012 due to a lack of pipeline infrastructure and continuing bottlenecks that prevent our oil from getting to the highest-paying markets.

We’ll lose another $20-billion this year and $15-billion every year going forward without new pipeline construction.

This is money that would benefit Canadians from coast to coast, helping to fund our health, education and social programs.

The time when we could depend on the United States as our sole oil and gas customer is long gone. In 2011, for the first time in more than 60 years, the US exported more gasoline, diesel and other fuels than it imported.

Thanks to the shale revolution, the United States is set to become the world’s largest oil producer – overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia – just four years from now according to the International Energy Agency.

Given the U.S. is awash in oil and gas and given the country remains Canada’s only customer, Western Canadian oil sold earlier this year for a discount of as much as $43 a barrel compared to the oil known as West Texas Intermediate. And Canadian oil was discounted even further compared to the North Sea oil known as Brent. While those differentials have since narrowed, Canadian oil still trades at a significant discount.

Even more worrisome is the prediction by experts that in the foreseeable future the US won’t need Canadian oil at all. Currently, the U.S. has been able to reduce its reliance on oil from unfriendly countries such as Venezuela by replacing it with increased imports from Canada. But as U.S. oil production continues to grow rapidly, its imports of Canadian oil will inevitably decline.

Canada’s need to diversify its oil markets, then, has never been clearer. While U.S. demand for foreign oil declines, strong demand remains in emerging markets such as China and India.

So why the controversy over pipelines? Surely we must consider environmental impacts and ensure those impacts are managed and mitigated to the greatest extent possible. Proposed projects like Northern Gateway have committed to doing just that.

But pipelines are not a new, untested technology. Canadians have been building pipelines since 1853, and we’ve become leaders in innovative and safe pipeline design.

Pipelines remain the safest means of transporting large volumes of oil and gas overland.

Today’s pipelines use the latest technology, including 24/7 computerized monitoring, aerial patrols, x-ray and ultrasonic testing of welds, durable coating systems, increased pipe wall thickness and properly spaced safety control valves – just to name a few of the advances.

I can’t emphasize enough how essential it is that we start moving ahead with pipeline projects that run east to west and west to east. And let’s not consider the Energy East pipeline as a replacement for Northern Gateway or vice versa – true market diversification means we need both.

Yes, there are risks with moving forward, as there are with any energy development.

But I believe the risks of not doing so are far greater. Indeed, if we fail to build new pipeline infrastructure, we are risking the future prosperity of this country.

Norway made the right decision in developing its offshore oil and gas reserves. It now enjoys one of the highest per capita incomes in the world and its health, social and educational programs are second to none.

Closer to home, Newfoundland has developed its offshore oil and gas sector, becoming a “have” province for the first time in history and enriching its citizens and Canada as a whole.

Endlessly debating the pros and cons of pipeline development will get us nowhere.

The world will not wait for Canadian oil. If we can’t deliver the goods, markets will find other suppliers, including growing shale oil and gas deposits in the United States.

Determining what share of the windfall each province receives is a detail that can be worked out at the negotiating table – but not having inter-provincial agreements now is no reason to delay the decision-making process.

So let’s commit to new, safe and environmentally-sound pipeline infrastructure that runs east to west and west to east and will get our oil to market responsibly – and let’s do it now.

Because whether you’re from B.C., Alberta, Quebec, New Brunswick or another province, we’re all Canadians, and we’ll all benefit when our oil can be sold on the international market for a fair price.

Sherry Cooper is financial advisor to MDC Partners Inc. and former executive vice-president and chief economist at Bank of Montreal.
Click to expand...

This is very troubling.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

The world will not wait for Canada’s oil


SHERRY COOPER

The Globe and Mail



Building oil pipelines to bring Canadian product to market is in many ways a no-brainer.

Take for example the proposed Northern Gateway from Alberta to the West Coast and the Energy East proposal from Alberta to the East Coast.

The construction of these projects is a no-brainer because today, more than ever before, we need Canadian oil sands product to reach tidewater and international markets.

A Canadian Pacific Railway freight train runs along the Bow River and distant Rocky Mountains on the main line near Lake Louise, Alta.
Energy

Video: Canada's newest pipeline: the train

According to a recent bank report, Canadians lost $25-billion in oil revenue in 2012 due to a lack of pipeline infrastructure and continuing bottlenecks that prevent our oil from getting to the highest-paying markets.

We’ll lose another $20-billion this year and $15-billion every year going forward without new pipeline construction.

This is money that would benefit Canadians from coast to coast, helping to fund our health, education and social programs.

The time when we could depend on the United States as our sole oil and gas customer is long gone. In 2011, for the first time in more than 60 years, the US exported more gasoline, diesel and other fuels than it imported.

Thanks to the shale revolution, the United States is set to become the world’s largest oil producer – overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia – just four years from now according to the International Energy Agency.

Given the U.S. is awash in oil and gas and given the country remains Canada’s only customer, Western Canadian oil sold earlier this year for a discount of as much as $43 a barrel compared to the oil known as West Texas Intermediate. And Canadian oil was discounted even further compared to the North Sea oil known as Brent. While those differentials have since narrowed, Canadian oil still trades at a significant discount.

Even more worrisome is the prediction by experts that in the foreseeable future the US won’t need Canadian oil at all. Currently, the U.S. has been able to reduce its reliance on oil from unfriendly countries such as Venezuela by replacing it with increased imports from Canada. But as U.S. oil production continues to grow rapidly, its imports of Canadian oil will inevitably decline.

Canada’s need to diversify its oil markets, then, has never been clearer. While U.S. demand for foreign oil declines, strong demand remains in emerging markets such as China and India.

So why the controversy over pipelines? Surely we must consider environmental impacts and ensure those impacts are managed and mitigated to the greatest extent possible. Proposed projects like Northern Gateway have committed to doing just that.

But pipelines are not a new, untested technology. Canadians have been building pipelines since 1853, and we’ve become leaders in innovative and safe pipeline design.

Pipelines remain the safest means of transporting large volumes of oil and gas overland.

Today’s pipelines use the latest technology, including 24/7 computerized monitoring, aerial patrols, x-ray and ultrasonic testing of welds, durable coating systems, increased pipe wall thickness and properly spaced safety control valves – just to name a few of the advances.

I can’t emphasize enough how essential it is that we start moving ahead with pipeline projects that run east to west and west to east. And let’s not consider the Energy East pipeline as a replacement for Northern Gateway or vice versa – true market diversification means we need both.

Yes, there are risks with moving forward, as there are with any energy development.

But I believe the risks of not doing so are far greater. Indeed, if we fail to build new pipeline infrastructure, we are risking the future prosperity of this country.

Norway made the right decision in developing its offshore oil and gas reserves. It now enjoys one of the highest per capita incomes in the world and its health, social and educational programs are second to none.

Closer to home, Newfoundland has developed its offshore oil and gas sector, becoming a “have” province for the first time in history and enriching its citizens and Canada as a whole.

Endlessly debating the pros and cons of pipeline development will get us nowhere.

The world will not wait for Canadian oil. If we can’t deliver the goods, markets will find other suppliers, including growing shale oil and gas deposits in the United States.

Determining what share of the windfall each province receives is a detail that can be worked out at the negotiating table – but not having inter-provincial agreements now is no reason to delay the decision-making process.

So let’s commit to new, safe and environmentally-sound pipeline infrastructure that runs east to west and west to east and will get our oil to market responsibly – and let’s do it now.

Because whether you’re from B.C., Alberta, Quebec, New Brunswick or another province, we’re all Canadians, and we’ll all benefit when our oil can be sold on the international market for a fair price.

Sherry Cooper is financial advisor to MDC Partners Inc. and former executive vice-president and chief economist at Bank of Montreal.
Click to expand...

This is very troubling.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't it almost short-sighted to be making a big push to get the oil out now? Won't that oil likely be worth a TON more, and be cheaper to extract, in a few decades? I realize most of the decision makers won't see any of that money 'in a few decades', but for the long-term health of the country, why not just hang on to our oil reserves while every other country races to drain theirs, and then wait for them to come calling at the ungodly prices that will almost certainly be a reality in our lifetime?
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

MindzEye said:
Again, I think you're failing to see the difference (through blue tinted glasses this time) between "making in roads" and being a brokerage party. One election result where the results among visible minorities aren't embarrassing doesn't suggest some sort of long term shift in voting habits. Call me in 14-15 if there is a repeat and maybe there's a legitimate argument for being a brokerage party, but right now they're a regional party that feasted on the corpse of the formely entitled "natural governing party".
Click to expand...

Semantics I know but a brokerage party is just a party that tries to find the middle ground on the polictial landscape (both the Cons and Libs are this) ... now the success of being a brokerage party is another matter.
 
The Republican National Committee wants the two Hillary Clinton movies to NOT be aired or they will cut CNN and ABC from being able to host future election debates.
 
MapleLeafBlueJayBoy said:
America has closed 21 embassies in the middle east and issued a global travel alert.

All Queda is apparently planning a large attack.

No location has been mentioned but a lot of the reports are coming from Yemen.
Click to expand...
This whole vague, widely publicized threat screams of the NSA and Obama desperately trying to create some justification for their massive spying programs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top