Rachel Notley Says Jagmeet Singh Is Throwing Working Class People Under The Bus

92 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle
Rachel Notley Says Jagmeet Singh Is Throwing Working Class People Under The Bus

Rachel Notley calling Jagmeet Singh "Naive" and not "Mature",  Notley says Singh's opposition to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is premised on a lack of understanding of the economic stakes.

She says she's tried in the past to have that conversation but so far, the federal NDP leader has declined. She also questioned his maturity as a leader.

"We were disappointed we didn't have those conversations with him at that time and we still haven't," said Notley. "That's his choice, I hope at some point in the future he will take a more mature approach to his leadership."

Notley also reminded Singh it's a mistake to continually pit the environment against the economy.

"To do that and forget the needs of working people, or to throw working people under the bus, means that both economic growth and environmental protection are bound to fail," said Notley.

Notley says she remains open to having a conversation with Singh about the merits of the project.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-notley-singh-trans-mountai...

Watch the interview clip here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGYB3BZZkmE

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Working people don't HAVE to have that pipeline.  There are a lot of environmentally sound ways to create jobs, and probably MORE jobs, than the pipeline will create.  And we can assume a big chunk of any jobs created by the pipeline would be done by workers imported from places like Texas-jobs created but not given to those in the country where they are created are economically meaningless.

A major push to encourage and if need be subsidize the creation of worker co-ops could make a huge difference in this.

robbie_dee

While I hope we can one one day achieve a world where we just leave the oil in the ground and fuel our economy from more sustainable sources, the current reality is that we need to extract and use oil and shipping it through a pipeline is a lot safer than many other means.

Personally I would have preferred if Jagmeet saved some more wiggle room for himself rather than throwing one of the only two current provincial NDP governments under the bus. But this is probably what he needs to do if he wants to run in Burnaby.

Rev Pesky

Ken Burch wrote:

There are a lot of environmentally sound ways to create jobs,

​People say this quite often, but I have yet to hear exactly what jobs. A while back someone suggested manufacturing jobs for Alberta. That's not going to happen, so what jobs are we talking about?

Mighty Middle

Rev Pesky wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

There are a lot of environmentally sound ways to create jobs,

​People say this quite often, but I have yet to hear exactly what jobs. A while back someone suggested manufacturing jobs for Alberta. That's not going to happen, so what jobs are we talking about?

A high school graduate can mine and refine material in the oil sands. Can the same be said for renewable energy jobs?

Someone who worked for one of the largest geothermal energy providers, told me manufacturing, particularly in solar, takes quite a bit of skill. It's not akin to auto assembly. Also, manufacturing is one aspect. Maintaining plants and farms once they are operating requires a highly skilled employee, unlike the oil sands. Geothermal jobs require a bachelors, AT MINIMUM.

You would be amazed at what knowledge is required for some of these jobs. Just compare the job listing for a oil sands to any other job in the renewable field,  and you will see that you need more than just a high school degree in the renewable field. A high school degree is all that is needed to work in the oil sands.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Are people going to stop attacking me for calling Notley a right wing Big Oil shill? That's what she is. She's just above Kenney but not by much.

gadar

Unlike other parties federal and provincial NDP share the same member list. If you are a member of NDP you are automatically a member of provincial as well as federal parties. As far as membership goes, essentially it is one party where the members of different provinces chose thier own leader.

I could be totally off base with my understanding of how it works, please correct me if I am wrong.

So NDP members in one province are against NDP members of another province. Basically it is an internal war.

Question is who do the NDP membership of Alberta support, Notley or Singh. 

If they support Notley then Singh doesnt have the confidence of big segment of the party.

If they support Singh then Notley doesnt enjoy the confidence of the membership which chose her as leader and she should step down.

Pogo Pogo's picture

alan smithee wrote:

Are people going to stop attacking me for calling Notley a right wing Big Oil shill? That's what she is. She's just above Kenney but not by much.

Outside of the tarsands what do you know about Notley and Kenney?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

robbie_dee wrote:

While I hope we can one one day achieve a world where we just leave the oil in the ground and fuel our economy from more sustainable sources, the current reality is that we need to extract and use oil and shipping it through a pipeline is a lot safer than many other means.

Another climate change denyer. Who needs a habitable planet compared to jobs in the oil industry. If we burn the tar sands at the expanded rate proposed by the pipeline expansion we will bake the planet. That is not an opinon that is a fucking fact.  Maybe you should use science as a guide and not a version of "reality" pushed by the corporate media.

NorthReport

Singh is in an awkward situation however he has come down on BC's side, but what's Trudeau's excuse, as he keeps talking about the environment which supporting the pipleline.

 

SocialJustice101

What do you call an NDP leader who wins an election? 

- A Liberal.    Or in case of Alberta, a progressive conservative.

quizzical

Rev pesky the manufacturing jobs will be in SK. they will be short term pipe manufacturing jobs. a russian company tied to friend of putin bought some steel manufacturing plant in Regina and they got the major part of the pipe manufacturing contract. United steel worker shop.

MM piss off with your belief oil sand workers only need high school. it's bs.

 

Mighty Middle

quizzical wrote:

MM piss off with your belief oil sand workers only need high school. it's bs.

The biggest number of jobs in the oil sands are those in the building trades, they are fairly easy to get into and are all very WELL PAYING jobs, these include: welder, pipe fitter, electrician, boiler maker, scaffolder, iron worker, crane operator, industrial insulator, etc. All of these trades are in high demand. For some of these jobs, if you went to a high school that taught a technical trade, high school is all you needed. For some of the others you might have to take a pre-employment course at a community college (4-12 weeks, depends on trade), and easily get a job.

Now you stack that up against Geothermal jobs (in clean and renewable energy) requiring a bachelors (4 years), AT MINIMUM. I don't many people who have worked in the oils sands and can afford to go back to school for 4 years to get that bachelors. Particularly if they have families to feed.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pogo wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Are people going to stop attacking me for calling Notley a right wing Big Oil shill? That's what she is. She's just above Kenney but not by much.

Outside of the tarsands what do you know about Notley and Kenney?

Well I'm glad we can agree that she is a right wing Big Oil shill. Outside of the tarsands,I can't give yu a definitive amswer between the 2. But they both like threatening people. BC and Ottawa. The difference is she belittles Singh while Kenney belittles Trudeau.She calls Singh naive and immature and Kenney says the exact same about Trudeau. Unless she's been belittling Trudeau as well. Then she is not much better than Kenney....basically.

Seems the right hasn't quite been united in Alberta. She's acting like a PC at best and Wildrose at worst. Definitely not a New Democrat.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Sorry to ask a pointed question, but your opinions boil down to one issue which I agree it is a pretty overriding issue. However I pay only passing interest in Alberta politics and I can think of a many areas where the NDP has been quite progressive.  I am totally okay with someone saying that the Notley has lost them due to the Tarsands pipeline, but to say she is identical to the crazy nutcase that leads the conservative party is just wrong.

quizzical

in the meantime the biggest oil shill doing things absolutely corruptly Justin gets a pass by smithee. typical liberals.

quizzical

Mm tradesmen have to go to school for years. even the dirt work guys know more than the edumacated often.

just stop with your classist bs.

Rev Pesky

Mighty Middle wrote:

For some of these jobs, if you went to a high school that taught a technical trade, high school is all you needed. For some of the others you might have to take a pre-employment course at a community college (4-12 weeks, depends on trade), and easily get a job.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but to obtain a Trades Qualification is a relatively long process involving a mixture of schooling and on the job training. The on the job training isn't just some foreman telling you what to do, it is a registered apprenticeship program requiring the employer to attach the apprentice to a journeyman in the specific trade.

For instance, a welder needs to do this:

The term of apprenticeship for:

  • welders is 3 years (three 12 month periods) that include a minimum of 1,560 hours of on-the-job training and 8 weeks of technical training each year.

​For electricians the term of apprenticeship is four years (four 12 month periods) that include a minimum of:

  • 1,500 hours of on-the-job training and eight weeks of technical training in each of the first three years
  • 1,350 hours of on-the-job training and 12 weeks of technical training in the fourth year.

After that three year apprenticeship one still has to pass an examination. Very often there are pre-apprenticeship courses that must also be passed.

Not quite as simple as taking a trades course in high school...

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

quizzical wrote:

in the meantime the biggest oil shill doing things absolutely corruptly Justin gets a pass by smithee. typical liberals.

Oh. Did I go against 'progressive' orthodoxy by not taking an obligatory shot at Trudeau even though he has nothing to do with the point I was making? Yeah. OK.

Who the fuck is giving Trudeau a free pass? I'm talking specifically about Notley because she's a supposed New Democrat and should not be acting the way she is. I'm also talking about people who tried to argue against me about Notley. Now it's confirmed for everyone to see.

I suggest you invest in a clue before commenting. And YOU are a typical NDP hyper- partisan living in denial.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pogo wrote:

Sorry to ask a pointed question, but your opinions boil down to one issue which I agree it is a pretty overriding issue. However I pay only passing interest in Alberta politics and I can think of a many areas where the NDP has been quite progressive.  I am totally okay with someone saying that the Notley has lost them due to the Tarsands pipeline, but to say she is identical to the crazy nutcase that leads the conservative party is just wrong.

I can agree that it is a bridge too far to compare her with Kenney. But in regards to the tarsands,they are basically identical.

My knowledge of Alberta politics is very limited I admit. I'm assuming Notley had a job before entering politics. Kenney has never held a job outside of politics. And he has the nerve to throw the working class and poor under the bus. I'm not sure why anyone would vote for such an asshole but if he wasn't in politics he'd be flipping burgers at Harvey's or collecting social assistance. He's a hypocrite. I don't think I can say the same about Notley.

6079_Smith_W

Not sure what sort of place some imagine Alberta is, but if you can't go there and see for yourself, this information is readily available online:

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labr67j-eng.htm

They even make moving pictures there, you know. But then Alberta isn't alone when it comes to myths about the resource sector as economic engine. B.C. has it just as bad, as do many of our provinces even if it isn't about oil.

And I heard Singh on The Sunday Edition last week. He said Notley was doing what was best for Alberta, and Horgan was doing what was best for B.C. He laid the blame squarely on Justin Trudeau.

Mighty Middle

Rev Pesky wrote:

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but to obtain a Trades Qualification is a relatively long process involving a mixture of schooling and on the job training. The on the job training isn't just some foreman telling you what to do, it is a registered apprenticeship program requiring the employer to attach the apprentice to a journeyman in the specific trade.

Yes of course you have to go through an apprenticeship program, but you do the apprenticeship IN High School as part of the credits and then continue AFTER you graduate. So no college is necessary.

http://www.youthcareer.ca/RAP.php

But my point is the same. These "trades" oil sands workers have learned through high school and an apprenticeship are not transferrable to the green/clean energy sector.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..behind the tarsands project and pipelines are transnational corporations that move around the world stripping countries of their wealth..by hook or by crook. the processes used to achieve this is never, i repeat never in the interests of the peoples of a country even though some benefit.

..in particular, in canada, at the center of this corporate pillage are the indigenous folk, their territories and their rights. i have no doubt that all on babble understand this yet this issue, which is at the center, is constantly being framed in other terms. in this case the "working class". as if the distruction of indigenous rights is not coming from the same forces that are destroying working class rights. the very same forces that are enforcing austerity. the same forces that created the environmental crisis.

..why are those connections not being addressed in a meaningful way in this discussion? why is it not acknowledged that the indigenous struggles around the pipelines are saving our asses? why isn't it acknowledged that there are alternatives? over and over again folks on babble have posted alternatives yet it is like that never happened. and someone says prove it..what alternatives like that hasn't been answered many times.

quizzical

alan smithee wrote:

quizzical wrote:

in the meantime the biggest oil shill doing things absolutely corruptly Justin gets a pass by smithee. typical liberals.

Oh. Did I go against 'progressive' orthodoxy by not taking an obligatory shot at Trudeau even though he has nothing to do with the point I was making? Yeah. OK.

Who the fuck is giving Trudeau a free pass? I'm talking specifically about Notley because she's a supposed New Democrat and should not be acting the way she is. I'm also talking about people who tried to argue against me about Notley. Now it's confirmed for everyone to see.

I suggest you invest in a clue before commenting. And YOU are a typical NDP hyper- partisan living in denial.

your point is bs. if you're calling Notley a right wing oil shill then Trudeau is well beyond

you also obviously have no idea who NDP people really are.

just because they obviously no longer play to the nonNDPers game who want them to be some kinda purity driven party or other phoney shit to keep them out doesn't mean anyone is being a shill.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

quizzical wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

quizzical wrote:

in the meantime the biggest oil shill doing things absolutely corruptly Justin gets a pass by smithee. typical liberals.

Oh. Did I go against 'progressive' orthodoxy by not taking an obligatory shot at Trudeau even though he has nothing to do with the point I was making? Yeah. OK.

Who the fuck is giving Trudeau a free pass? I'm talking specifically about Notley because she's a supposed New Democrat and should not be acting the way she is. I'm also talking about people who tried to argue against me about Notley. Now it's confirmed for everyone to see.

I suggest you invest in a clue before commenting. And YOU are a typical NDP hyper- partisan living in denial.

your point is bs. if you're calling Notley a right wing oil shill then Trudeau is well beyond

you also obviously have no idea who NDP people really are.

just because they obviously no longer play to the nonNDPers game who want them to be some kinda purity driven party or other phoney shit to keep them out doesn't mean anyone is being a shill.

Your comment is pure bullshit. I've been wailing away at Notley for at least a month because she's a New Democrat and acting like a capital C Conservative. I have been talking about her specifically.

I  don't share your horseshit dogma where I am obligated to trash the Liberals and never question the NDP.

Notledy is an embarrassment for a New Democrat. She shouldn't even be referred as one.

And accusing me of making people pass a ' purity' test? LOL..You have a lot of nerve,hypocrite.

Sorry. Unlike you and a majoority of New Democrats,I prefer the Liberals over the Coonservatives and I always will until the day comes that they become as socially conservative as our current CPC.

So spare me your sanctimonious trite. Maybe get off your high horse and look at reality even if it doesn't fit your dogmatic garbage.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Not sure what sort of place some imagine Alberta is, but if you can't go there and see for yourself, this information is readily available online:

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labr67j-eng.htm

They even make moving pictures there, you know. But then Alberta isn't alone when it comes to myths about the resource sector as economic engine. B.C. has it just as bad, as do many of our provinces even if it isn't about oil.

And I heard Singh on The Sunday Edition last week. He said Notley was doing what was best for Alberta, and Horgan was doing what was best for B.C. He laid the blame squarely on Justin Trudeau.

You're right. All this hand-wringing over the pipeline is silly political theatre. Alberta has a diverse economy. Alberta will do fine without the pipeline.

robbie_dee

kropotkin1951 wrote:

robbie_dee wrote:

While I hope we can one one day achieve a world where we just leave the oil in the ground and fuel our economy from more sustainable sources, the current reality is that we need to extract and use oil and shipping it through a pipeline is a lot safer than many other means.

Another climate change denyer. Who needs a habitable planet compared to jobs in the oil industry. If we burn the tar sands at the expanded rate proposed by the pipeline expansion we will bake the planet. That is not an opinon that is a fucking fact.  Maybe you should use science as a guide and not a version of "reality" pushed by the corporate media.

I appreciate that you are honest with your intentions and that, as far as you are concerned there are no amount of safety precautions that could be taken nor any combination of policies  that Alberta could adopt to get "social license" to build this pipeline because you think the oil should stay in the ground. Do you drive a car that uses gasoline? In addition to paying higher gas prices (because less oil on the market means gas will get more expensive), would you be willing to pay higher taxes so the federal government could compensate Alberta residents for the lost opportunity to exploit their natural resources (i.e. by subsidizing the development of more non-extractive industries)? I know these questions may sound facetious but I'm actually being serious. I agree with you that climate change is a real and serious problem. I just think that if we are going to pursue the solutions you suggest we should get real about what it is going to cost to do so.

Pondering

robbie_dee wrote:
  Do you drive a car that uses gasoline? In addition to paying higher gas prices (because less oil on the market means gas will get more expensive),

The price of gas is controlled internationally and there is no shortage. The Saudis keep the price low or volatile to control the market. Gas companies use whatever excuse that comes to mind to raise prices. Like  summer.

robbie_dee wrote:
 would you be willing to pay higher taxes so the federal government could compensate Alberta residents for the lost opportunity to exploit their natural resources (i.e. by subsidizing the development of more non-extractive industries)?

Only in the same sense that we would help out any province that is in need but not necessarily by handing money over to the province. Transition businesses could be helped directly.

In my view Alberta does not have the moral right to impose pipelines on territories not under its immediate control due to the danger they impose. I am convinced that pipelines can be run safely and even that tankers can be managed safely. I just don't trust the industry to do so because they have an appalling track record. Safety is second to profits. They have no plans to clean up their messes at end of life. There isn't enough money set aside to do it.

The industry is very clever at evading their responsibilities and shifting costs to taxpayers. Now it is coming back to bite them in the butt. People totally get why Vancouver and Burnaby are up in arms.

wage zombie

robbie_dee wrote:

I appreciate that you are honest with your intentions and that, as far as you are concerned there are no amount of safety precautions that could be taken nor any combination of policies  that Alberta could adopt to get "social license" to build this pipeline because you think the oil should stay in the ground. Do you drive a car that uses gasoline? In addition to paying higher gas prices (because less oil on the market means gas will get more expensive), would you be willing to pay higher taxes so the federal government could compensate Alberta residents for the lost opportunity to exploit their natural resources (i.e. by subsidizing the development of more non-extractive industries)?

Gasoline prices in BC are projected to go up if the Kinder Morgan pipeline goes through.  So nice try, but it's wrong.

robbie_dee

wage zombie wrote:

Gasoline prices in BC are projected to go up if the Kinder Morgan pipeline goes through.  So nice try, but it's wrong.

Well I was trying to make a rather broader point, but for what its worth this guy says twinning the Kinder Morgan pipeline will bring gas prices down:

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/twinning-kinder-morgan-pipeline-...

Do y'all WANT a UCP government to get elected in Alberta next year so New Democrats can maintain their moral purity?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..prior to being elected both notley and the ndp were effective critics of the oil industry. this relationship changed to a partnership once they came to power. this tells me a force greater than the ndp altered that relationship. we saw this in greece.

..about a year ago, maybe more, i posted details of a campaing initiated by the fed ndp and the clc. 1 million new jobs in the renewable sector the campaing screamed. there was/is an alternative for the alberta ndp. building a refinery maybe 2 is another real option that directly relates to the pipeline opposition yet the alta ndp is talking about investing in the km pipeline. these are terrible choices coming from an ndp gov. something is very wrong that has nothing to do with purity. the purity argument is being used as a weapon to detract from these terrible decisons. 

robbie_dee

Pondering wrote:

Only in the same sense that we would help out any province that is in need but not necessarily by handing money over to the province. Transition businesses could be helped directly.

In my view Alberta does not have the moral right to impose pipelines on territories not under its immediate control due to the danger they impose. I am convinced that pipelines can be run safely and even that tankers can be managed safely. I just don't trust the industry to do so because they have an appalling track record. Safety is second to profits. They have no plans to clean up their messes at end of life. There isn't enough money set aside to do it.

The industry is very clever at evading their responsibilities and shifting costs to taxpayers. Now it is coming back to bite them in the butt. People totally get why Vancouver and Burnaby are up in arms.

I don't know if Alberta has a "moral right" to ship its main exportable product to tidewater through a pipeline across B.C. territory, over B.C. objection. It does seem pretty clear that they have a legal right to do so, though, which is why I asked the question about compensating Alberta residents the way I did. I think if we want Albertans to forego their legal rights for whatever reason we should be prepared to pay them for it.

You say your objection is more about distrusting the industry to ship the oil safely, though, whereas Kropotkin's objection appears to be a more fundamental one - he wouldn't extract the oil even if it could be teleported directly to where it needs to be with zero risk of spillage, because even if it all arrives safely at its final destination he just doesn't agree with burning it. (To be fair, I think he is also particularly concerned with the higher environmental impact of extracting oil from the bitumenous sands prevalent in Alberta than from other sources that are more common outside of Alberta.)

I am concerned that we are already not shipping it safely and, assuming we are going to reject Kropotkin's position and extract and ship what we can, I think a pipeline is probably a safer option than the others we currently have available (unless you are prepared to call in the Starship Enterprise, at least).

robbie_dee

epaulo13 wrote:

..prior to being elected both notley and the ndp were effective critics of the oil industry. this relationship changed to a partnership once they came to power. this tells me a force greater than the ndp altered that relationship. we saw this in greece.

..about a year ago, maybe more, i posted details of a campaing initiated by the fed ndp and the clc. 1 million new jobs in the renewable sector the campaing screamed. there was/is an alternative for the alberta ndp. building a refinery maybe 2 is another real option that directly relates to the pipeline opposition yet the alta ndp is talking about investing in the km pipeline. these are terrible choices coming from an ndp gov. something is very wrong that has nothing to do with purity. the purity argument is being used as a weapon to detract from these terrible decisons. 

Maybe I am giving Notley and her team too much credit but I just suspect that if there really was a way to create a comparable number of jobs for a comparable public cost through renewable energy, the ANDP would have pursued that instead of getting tied up in knots fighting their friends in order to build a pipeline. I could be wrong, though, maybe they have been captured by the oil industry or otherwise are just acceding to crasser political considerations.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..pipelines lock us into current extraction when we need to be transitioning away. that doesn't make them safer. also spills happen on a regular basis. at least now the volume is limited to existing infrastructure. there are also ways to make rail safer.  

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

robbie_dee wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..prior to being elected both notley and the ndp were effective critics of the oil industry. this relationship changed to a partnership once they came to power. this tells me a force greater than the ndp altered that relationship. we saw this in greece.

..about a year ago, maybe more, i posted details of a campaing initiated by the fed ndp and the clc. 1 million new jobs in the renewable sector the campaing screamed. there was/is an alternative for the alberta ndp. building a refinery maybe 2 is another real option that directly relates to the pipeline opposition yet the alta ndp is talking about investing in the km pipeline. these are terrible choices coming from an ndp gov. something is very wrong that has nothing to do with purity. the purity argument is being used as a weapon to detract from these terrible decisons. 

Maybe I am giving Notley and her team too much credit but I just suspect that if there really was a way to create a comparable number of jobs for a comparable public cost through renewable energy, the ANDP would have pursued that instead of getting tied up in knots fighting their friends in order to build a pipeline. I could be wrong, though, maybe they have been captured by the oil industry or otherwise are just acceding to crasser political considerations.

..lets look at the cost then. i'll start with this piece which cost as much 50 billion are talked about. then we can move on to the cost to indigenous folk.

Oilsands Tailing Ponds Ticking Time Bomb for Canadians

Alberta has failed to protect taxpayers from billions in cleanup costs.

Having a mortgage is a hassle. All those pesky requirements like property assessments, down payments and monthly payments.

Imagine if you could just tell the bank how much money you think you owe them and that you’ll settle up 70 years after you move out. Wouldn’t that be easier?

That is essentially the deal Suncor has been granted by the Alberta government regarding the ballooning liability from their oilsands tailing ponds and related reclamation requirements.

Like all other operators in the industry, every year Suncor presents the Alberta taxpayer with an estimate of what the corporation thinks it will cost to reclaim the artificial lakes of toxic sludge it has created, in Suncor’s case since mining began in1967. No supporting documentation required.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i recently posted this in another thread and do so here because it represents a cost that should concern us all on this board. podcast 33 min.

PO Podcast 58 - Canada’s surveillance of Indigenous movements

Canada’s surveillance of Indigenous movements, a Policy Options podcast. From the fight against the Northern Gateway pipeline to the anti-fracking protests involving Elsipogtog First Nation and the Idle No More movement, Canadian surveillance organizations have kept close watch of Indigenous resistance movements over the past decade.

Andrew Crosby and Jeffrey Monaghan, authors of Policing Indigenous Movements: Dissent and the Security State, joined the podcast to discuss why the government monitors Indigenous social and environmental movements. They say this surveillance characterizes land and water protectors and other activists as security threats, delegitimizing the actions of Indigenous rights holders.

Andrew Crosby is a coordinator with the Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG) at Carleton University.

Jeffrey Monaghan is an assistant professor at Carleton’s Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice.

robbie_dee

Thanks for the links epaulo I will read them.

Off topic but just curious - why do you always start your comments with two dots ".." ? Does this have a specific meaning I don't understand or is it just a stylistic choice (or something else, I don't know)?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..txs robbie dee

..i started on babble not using capitals. then added the dots to distinguish what i say when replying to quotes. then it became my style. :) 

robbie_dee

:)

Unionist

robbie_dee wrote:

Off topic but just curious - why do you always start your comments with two dots ".." ? Does this have a specific meaning I don't understand or is it just a stylistic choice (or something else, I don't know)?

Not to answer for epaulo, but I always took it as his more humble version of a capital letter.

Why do the rest of us always start our posts with capital letters?

ETA: Oh crap, I posted before seeing epaulo's reply! Glad I wasn't too far off...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

:)

Unionist

epaulo13 wrote:

..txs robbie dee

While still on the orthography thread drift, you realize that "txs" is redundant? "tx" would do nicely. That way you can leave the "s" in the ground.

Back on topic: I agree with your points, epaulo. And as for the "you want the UCP to win?" argument, the question must be asked: What do Albertans want the most? That becomes a more important social conversation than a purely electoral one.

As for asking Alberta not to develop its resources or to abandon its legal right to convince the federal government to build pipelines across other provinces' territory: I agree with finding creative ways whereby all Canadians could restore any losses suffered. I would see that as being through alternative economic development. But we have many such needs in many communities, and I also think we should be aiming at reducing economic gaps (which for example is the supposed idea behind equalization payments).

Pogo Pogo's picture

Maybe someone could start a thread on format guidelines (and fighting the guideline powers).  I am in the midst of a generational fight with my daughter over how many spaces between sentences.

Unionist

Pogo wrote:

Maybe someone could start a thread on format guidelines (and fighting the guideline powers).  I am in the midst of a generational fight with my daughter over how many spaces between sentences.

Seriously? I'm as old-fashioned as they come, but I grudgingly moved to one space instead of two soon after starting to use a computer keyboard. I'm pretty sure books, newspapers etc. were always typeset with a single space, even when we were using two on typewriters, but I admit I'll have to research that hypothesis. I'm with your daughter on this one.

Now back to saving the planet.

cco

One space, for sure. However, outside of a formal context, I still use two en dashes (--) instead of an em dash (–), as if I were typing on a typewriter. Why? Force of habit, plain and simple.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Boy I feel old... (My rule, but if you wish to comment further consider it worthy of starting a new thread)

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I am in the midst of a generational fight with my daughter over how many spaces between sentences.

That's a proxy fight between typewriters (monospacing) and computers/word processors (proportional spacing).

I learned to type on an IBM Selectric, so my old habits die hard.  A full line break between paragraphs, and two spaces after a period/colon, though for some reason I've forgotten the old habit of spaces indenting the start of a paragraph.

Two spaces after a period is still a thing, though, unsurprisingly.

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Unionist wrote:

Back on topic: I agree with your points, epaulo. And as for the "you want the UCP to win?" argument, the question must be asked: What do Albertans want the most? That becomes a more important social conversation than a purely electoral one.

As for asking Alberta not to develop its resources or to abandon its legal right to convince the federal government to build pipelines across other provinces' territory: I agree with finding creative ways whereby all Canadians could restore any losses suffered. I would see that as being through alternative economic development. But we have many such needs in many communities, and I also think we should be aiming at reducing economic gaps (which for example is the supposed idea behind equalization payments).

..yes that social conversation could have been/could be going on led by the ndp in alta. i've posted several innovative projects proposed by albertans in the alta thread over the years. they represent an alternative to the corporate extraction model that is now going on. but that's not the route the ndp took i might add. it's important to understand why. how is it that they have accepted 1.5% royalties on profits which is one step above giving it away.

..and yes to an alternative economic development and reducing economic gaps. for me is part of the struggle for environmental justice. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

epaulo13 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Back on topic: I agree with your points, epaulo. And as for the "you want the UCP to win?" argument, the question must be asked: What do Albertans want the most? That becomes a more important social conversation than a purely electoral one.

As for asking Alberta not to develop its resources or to abandon its legal right to convince the federal government to build pipelines across other provinces' territory: I agree with finding creative ways whereby all Canadians could restore any losses suffered. I would see that as being through alternative economic development. But we have many such needs in many communities, and I also think we should be aiming at reducing economic gaps (which for example is the supposed idea behind equalization payments).

..yes that social conversation could have been/could be going on led by the ndp in alta. i've posted several innovative projects proposed by albertans in the alta thread over the years. they represent an alternative to the corporate extraction model that is now going on. but that's not the route the ndp took i might add. it's important to understand why. how is it that they have accepted 1.5% royalties on profits which is one step above giving it away.

..and yes to an alternative economic development and reducing economic gaps. for me this is part of the struggle for environmental justice. 

Pondering

Pogo wrote:

Maybe someone could start a thread on format guidelines (and fighting the guideline powers).  I am in the midst of a generational fight with my daughter over how many spaces between sentences.

Two on a typewriter, one digitally because of automatic kerning which virtually all word processors do. I believe there are some fonts that don't allow kerning but I am not sure how that works.

I don't find the single space, even with kerning, sufficient. A double space between sentences makes reading easier for me.

I prefer the following.

I don't find the single space, even with automatic kerning, sufficient.  A double space between sentences makes reading easier for me.

The big secret is, correct English is a moving target. Grammarians are not all in agreement. There are different schools of thought on various points.

Winston Cigarettes unintentionally ignited a pretty nasty grammatical furor back in 1954 with its use of like as a conjunction. Slogan "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" was once considered so egregious, many broadcasters (such as Walter Cronkite) refused to even read it on air. Further outrage ensued when dictionaries acknowledged that the company was not committing any grammatical error, even touting it as an example of proper conjunction usage. Suffice it to say, this isn't exactly much of a controversy these days.

https://www.onlinecollege.org/the-20-most-controversial-rules-in-the-gra...

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but to obtain a Trades Qualification is a relatively long process involving a mixture of schooling and on the job training. The on the job training isn't just some foreman telling you what to do, it is a registered apprenticeship program requiring the employer to attach the apprentice to a journeyman in the specific trade.

Yes of course you have to go through an apprenticeship program, but you do the apprenticeship IN High School as part of the credits and then continue AFTER you graduate. So no college is necessary.

http://www.youthcareer.ca/RAP.php

But my point is the same. These "trades" oil sands workers have learned through high school and an apprenticeship are not transferrable to the green/clean energy sector.

I'm pretty sure there are places where solar panels are put together on something like an assembly-line basis.  Would a person really have to have a university education to do that?  Or to do the basic construction work on windmill farms?

Pages