A recent opinion on the boards of the Globe and Mail:  Sorry folks apparently they have figured out how to stop copy and paste.  Regrettable.

The Harper government’s campaign to get the Keystone XL pipeline built received a boost from two American sources this week.
Joe Dick 25 minutes ago

The Harper government’s campaign to get the Keystone XL pipeline built received a boost from two American sources this week.

First, billionaire Barack Obama supporter Warren Buffet said the Keystone XL pipeline delivering bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands to the Gulf Coast should have been approved by now and the U.S. refusal to do so risks damaging relations with Canada.

Second the Washington Post gave the U.S. president its worst possible “Four Pinocchios” rating for refusing to approve Keystone for almost six years.

“Four Pinocchios,” as explained by Glenn Kessler who writes the Post’s regular “Fact Checker” feature, means the individual being scrutinized is telling “whoppers.”

Or, if you prefer, lies.

As the Canadian Press noted, Buffet’s support of Keystone is significant since his investments in the U.S. rail industry and his friendship with Obama previously resulted in the widely held perception he was opposed to Keystone XL and in favour of transporting bitumen by rail.

But in an interview with CNBC, Buffet -- who says his shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock have gone up almost 2,000,000% over the last 50 years -- was unequivocal.

He said Canada has been “a terrific partner to the United States over the decades” and “to thumb our nose” at it is wrong.

“I would have passed Keystone,” Buffet said. “I think that we have an enormous interest in working with Canada, as they have in working with us. That oil is going to get sold. If we make it more difficult for them, who knows how they’ll feel about making things more difficult for us some day?”

The Post’s Fact Checker criticized Obama for claiming Keystone only benefits Canada because the oil it delivers will simply pass through the United States before being exported abroad.

It noted that’s untrue and ignores the findings of Obama’s own State Department, which has the lead role in reviewing Keystone and has concluded much of the oil it delivers will be used in the United States.

The completion of Keystone will also benefit U.S. oil producers in North Dakota and Montana in getting their oil to the Gulf Coast, as well as American companies operating in the oilsands, where they control about 30% of production.

All of these facts undermine Obama’s contention that only Canadians will benefit from the pipeline, according to the Post.

The Fact Checker feature doesn’t take a position for or against Keystone and has been critical of all sides in the debate for spreading inaccuracies.

For example, it recently awarded Three Pinocchios to pipeline developer TransCanada Corp. -- meaning a significant factual error or obvious contradiction -- for arguing Keystone will reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil, since Canadian oil is, in fact, foreign oil.

But what it does indicate is a growing awareness in the United States that Obama is simply making up excuses as he goes along for not approving Keystone that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Creationism once and for All





There is a third way: A way that is cogent and appreciative of science, allows for people to have an unharrassed approach to their faith, and allows for an environment to be appreciative and cooperative instead of antagonistic and caustic.


It involves first of all a different approach to scripture, appreciates faith on the one hand, and a robust and embracing of science in all its various forms on the other. It is an approach that has no problem with the 13-14 Billion old age of the universe, the standard model and special model, the fossilized evidences of life back to 3 billion years or so and even the arrival of various pre-anthropic forms, climate change and pretty much all of accepted science.


It starts with not trying to make the bible into a science text. It never was intended to be interpreted that way by the original audience so who are we to make that different. This is the fundamental problem of the shall we say classical Creationist. And for those bible believing Christians out there, hermeneutics, interpretation 101 says the interpreter must ask the question: What did this mean to the original audience? An honest approach on this level should reveal that to try to make the bible into a science text book already does violence to the text. No wonder we have embraced foolishness, and to the world it is so readily apparent.


It is past time for Christians to repudiate this error and move on to a more healthy respect for science, with the sense of wonder and awe of how God created the heaven and the earth. Science can't predict purpose, and theology can't predict process--That is the realm of science.

On the cusp of another recession, discussion arose as to whether Canada should maintain a balanced budget....

When I compare Canada to the US, I use a rule of thumb:  They are about 10x larger than us, we are 10% in size compared with them.  This is true when comparing sizes for example.  When it came to deficits  Canada went a different path on the heels of the 2008 recession.  The US opened the taps to public spending, Canada was frugal.  Consequently, the US has 90 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and 18 trillion in direct debt.  That normally would translate into a national debt at 1.8 trillion.  Complain as you may, Mr Harper has demonstrated good stewardship of the Canadian purse that is perhaps the one thing he has done well.  A little recession is normal.  But by far preferable to a recession with 1.8 trillion in debt.