Rachel Notley says that had she sat on the University of Alberta's senate, she would not have supported the decision to award David Suzuki an honorary degree. The good news is that because of her deep respect for academic freedom, she will not use her power to take it away.
Jason Kenney said basically the same thing, but in a much more extremist tone, in order to maintain the illusion that there's some difference.
Notley and her team need to be condemned and exposed for what they truly are.
NDP-Tory, Same Old Story. I am a little suspicious of David Suzuki though. He is cashing in big on the Green.
I think it has been awhile since she crossed the line where any of this was worth re-election. She'd have done just as well to let Kenney sink himself, even if it wasn't enough.
I say that because I am sure there are some in Alberta who are now questioning whether they can vote for her in good conscience.
Rachel Notley is as right wing as any other Alberta politician. I said this in another thread. I was questioned if I could come up with another example that Notley is as right wing as Kenney outside of her hardline pipieline shilling.
Well....there you go.
Liberal/Tory same old story..I think we can safely expand that to NDP/Liberal/Tory Same old story.
More proof that it is naive to assume an NDP government provincially or federally would direct us into a Social Democracy. This has been proven on the provincial level for years. Need any more proof?
The Alberta NDP is just a resuurection of the Wild Rose Party. It wouldn't be a stretch to see them join the Unite the Trite movement. Notley and Kenney are sharing a drink and a laugh tonight and sharing an ideology.
The joke is on New Democrat supporters. They're laughing in your face.
I hate to say I told you so but I told you so. Maybe New Democrats here on baabble should reel in their hatred of the Liberals and resign themselves to the fact that the NDP is no better. And in this situation they are WORSE.
And what was that about Notley showing leadership by protecting Alberta's interests?
Hahahahahaahahahahahahahaha!
If you read what she actually said it was not that bad:
"It struck me as being a bit tone deaf, but academic independence and university independence is important," Notley said on Wednesday, after being asked about the degree at an announcement on affordable child care.
"They have made that decision and they will defend that decision, and that's the way it should work."
"I don't think in a matter like this, it's appropriate for the government to be interfering with it. If I'd been on the senate, I wouldn't have personally voted for it. But the integrity and independence of academic institutions must also be allowed to continue."
She wasn't disparaging of David Suzuki or the university.
..notley is more subtle than kenney. it seems to me that she is saying that an honourary degree = interference and the loss of independence. notley, in my view, is really concerned about suzuki's positions on the tarsands and pipelines gaining even more credibility.
Rachel Notley is as right wing as any other Alberta politician.
Just as a thought exercise, take oil and pipelines out of the equation for a moment, and tell us again how she's as right wing as any other Alberta politician?
Is it her vehement opposition to equal marriage? Her rabid demands for a flat tax? Her opposition to reproductive choice?
In fairness, it's not like Notley called a press conference specifically to denounce the award. Based on the article, she was asked what she thought about it, and she stated that she would not have voted for it in a hypothetical situation where she was in the university senate, and then quickly added that the university had the right to do whatever it wanted.
Rachel Notley is as right wing as any other Alberta politician.Just as a thought exercise, take oil and pipelines out of the equation for a moment, and tell us again how she's as right wing as any other Alberta politician?
Is it her vehement opposition to equal marriage? Her rabid demands for a flat tax? Her opposition to reproductive choice?
She undoubtedly has a right wing ideology. She's on the same page as Kenney in regards to the pipeline. And apparently the same page as the right wing in regards to Suzuki.
OK,she might not be a big prick like Kenney but she sure is keeping strange bed fellows.
Rachel Notley is as right wing as any other Alberta politician.Just as a thought exercise, take oil and pipelines out of the equation for a moment, and tell us again how she's as right wing as any other Alberta politician?
Is it her vehement opposition to equal marriage? Her rabid demands for a flat tax? Her opposition to reproductive choice?
Smithee's argument is like saying that Rene Levesque was as right-wing as the Union Nationale, because they both supported Catholic schools.
Rachel Notley is as right wing as any other Alberta politician.Just as a thought exercise, take oil and pipelines out of the equation for a moment, and tell us again how she's as right wing as any other Alberta politician?
Is it her vehement opposition to equal marriage? Her rabid demands for a flat tax? Her opposition to reproductive choice?
Smithee's argument is like saying that Rene Levesque was as right-wing as the Union Nationale, because they both supported Catholic schools.
She's the biggest shill for these pipelines than anyone. Kenney might be a bit more extreme by calling for the feds to stop funding BC but Notley has threatened BC with Albertan sanctions.
She's right wing. Stop making excuses for her. As for the Levesques analogy,the Catholic church had A LOT of influence in Quebec up until the recent past. It's a little weak. Especially considering that the vultures waiting too take over the PQ probably were as right wing as the Union Nationale (Parizeau,Landry and Bouchard anyone?)
dp
This thread is just another from our resident disgruntled ex-NDPer looking for any opportunity to bash the NDP.
Notley is supportive of the University having the right to choose upon whom they will bestow honorary degrees
NDP-Tory, Same Old Story. I am a little suspicious of David Suzuki though. He is cashing in big on the Green.
How so?
She's the biggest shill for these pipelines than anyone.
It's easy for me, in Toronto, to say "we must stop plundering our oceans, they're decimated".
What about the Premiers of NS, NB and Nfld/Labrador, though? Are they supposed to promote cottage crafts to be sold on Etsy?
@ Magoo
She lost me when she threatened to turn off the taps. You are absolutely right about her credibility on other issues, and frankly I still hope she gets in. No, she isn't ideologically in the same ballpark as as the UCP or Wild Rose, by any stretch (except perhaps here on rabble). Those who make that charge have nothing to base it on, IMO.
But I think she has let herself be led about by the nose on this one issue, and it has gone beyond the boundaries of any good sense. If this is the price of re-election, it is not worth it. It always was a bit of a longshot anyway, considering how she got in.
Some folks feel Notley should drop the NDP pretense and run as a Trudeau Liberal
Funny thing is, Alberta is one of the leaders when it comes to wind power. Why would she say she would not have voted for David Suzuki? It seems like sheer electioneering to me, and I get the feeling she is not being honest.
Some folks feel Notley should drop the NDP pretense and run as a Trudeau Liberal
No. She should stop the pretense and run for the Scheer Conservatives.
dp
As David C from Rabble has stated Notley if she has any hope of getting re-elected has to start showing how she is different from Kenney
BTW
Rachel Notley is as right wing as any other Alberta politician.Just as a thought exercise, take oil and pipelines out of the equation for a moment, and tell us again how she's as right wing as any other Alberta politician?
Is it her vehement opposition to equal marriage? Her rabid demands for a flat tax? Her opposition to reproductive choice?
Smithee's argument is like saying that Rene Levesque was as right-wing as the Union Nationale, because they both supported Catholic schools.
BTW..By that logic Unionist is making the same analogy. But why acknowledge that though,eh VOTD. I get it.You don't like me. To be honest,I don't care for you very much either.
She's the biggest shill for these pipelines than anyone.It's easy for me, in Toronto, to say "we must stop plundering our oceans, they're decimated".
What about the Premiers of NS, NB and Nfld/Labrador, though? Are they supposed to promote cottage crafts to be sold on Etsy?
We'll cross that bridge when Maritime NDP governments walk down the same avenue as Notley.
Smithee wrote:
As for the Levesques analogy,the Catholic church had A LOT of influence in Quebec up until the recent past. It's a little weak. Especially considering that the vultures waiting too take over the PQ probably were as right wing as the Union Nationale (Parizeau,Landry and Bouchard anyone?)
Actually, according to the history, it was under one of those right-wingers, Jacques Parizeau, that sectarian schools were abolished in Quebec.
And Levesque was the guy who de facto legalized abortion, and extended gay rights. So I don't think he was cowering in fear of the Church. More likely, he either supported sectarian schools himself, or just thought that public opinion would turn against the PQ if he moved against the schools at that time. Pretty much the same explanations for Notley's pipeline advocacy.
Funny thing is, Alberta is one of the leaders when it comes to wind power. Why would she say she would not have voted for David Suzuki? It seems like sheer electioneering to me, and I get the feeling she is not being honest.
She said it was tone-deaf not wrong. This is particularly bad timing giving the bitterness over Transmountain.
I do think she should have pushed for PR when she had the chance.
BTW
Rachel Notley is as right wing as any other Alberta politician.Just as a thought exercise, take oil and pipelines out of the equation for a moment, and tell us again how she's as right wing as any other Alberta politician?
Is it her vehement opposition to equal marriage? Her rabid demands for a flat tax? Her opposition to reproductive choice?
Smithee's argument is like saying that Rene Levesque was as right-wing as the Union Nationale, because they both supported Catholic schools.
BTW..By that logic Unionist is making the same analogy. But why acknowledge that though,eh VOTD. I get it.You don't like me. To be honest,I don't care for you very much either.
I say that your analysis of Notley's ideology is incorrect, and therefore it follows that I don't like you?
BTW
Rachel Notley is as right wing as any other Alberta politician.Just as a thought exercise, take oil and pipelines out of the equation for a moment, and tell us again how she's as right wing as any other Alberta politician?
Is it her vehement opposition to equal marriage? Her rabid demands for a flat tax? Her opposition to reproductive choice?
Smithee's argument is like saying that Rene Levesque was as right-wing as the Union Nationale, because they both supported Catholic schools.
BTW..By that logic Unionist is making the same analogy. But why acknowledge that though,eh VOTD. I get it.You don't like me. To be honest,I don't care for you very much either.
I say that your analysis of Notley's ideology is incorrect, and therefore it follows that I don't like you?
Unionist opened this thread suggesting the same thing (and I have absolutely nothing at all against Unionist) yet you call me out. It's a common theme with you in any thread I have peeped a word. How am I supposed to take it?
Smithee wrote:
As for the Levesques analogy,the Catholic church had A LOT of influence in Quebec up until the recent past. It's a little weak. Especially considering that the vultures waiting too take over the PQ probably were as right wing as the Union Nationale (Parizeau,Landry and Bouchard anyone?)
Actually, according to the history, it was under one of those right-wingers, Jacques Parizeau, that sectarian schools were abolished in Quebec.
And Levesque was the guy who de facto legalized abortion, and extended gay rights. So I don't think he was cowering in fear of the Church. More likely, he either supported sectarian schools himself, or just thought that public opinion would turn against the PQ if he moved against the schools at that time. Pretty much the same explanations for Notley's pipeline advocacy.
As I said,the Catholic church had a lot of influence in Quebec. Back in the 70's,the older generation (which just like today make up most of the electoate) were crucial to winning elections. I'm sure Levesque was swayed by public opinion.
Parizeau was a Conservative. I know this because I lived through his years as Premier. Same with Landry and on steroids with Bouchard. The PQ was a social democracy for a brief moment. Levesque's PQ had some of the best social services this country has seen. He's spinning in his grave with what his party has turned into.
Notley is right wing. No,I can't equate her with Kenney..Hell I couldn't equate Attilla The Hun with Kenney...But she's a disappointment to say the least. But to be fair,I can't think of many provincial NDP goverments that were any different than the Liberals. Some not only noo different than the Liberals but no different than the Conservatives. Notley's NDP would fall into that category.
We'll cross that bridge when Maritime NDP governments walk down the same avenue as Notley.
Very well. We shall only discuss them when they support the success of their own localindustries that may not be in Gaia, Mother Earth's best interest.
That was kind of my point, Alan. If we were down to our last 100 cod, maritime Premiers would still be reluctant to say "well, those fishermen can always work at a Starbucks".
But will you tell us more about how Notley is a right-winger, outside of the "oil" or "pipeline" context? I mean, right-wingers are more than just people who support a pipeline, aren't they? Tell us more. Or did you misspeak?
Analysis of ideology:
Logs (good fibre)
Coil (perfect)
Splatter (made it on time!)
Diarrhea (need more fibre)
Constipation balls (too much coffee)
Brown Grease (ketosis!)
Over the top of the water (you pig!)
We'll cross that bridge when Maritime NDP governments walk down the same avenue as Notley.Very well. We shall only discuss them when they support the success of their own localindustries that may not be in Gaia, Mother Earth's best interest.
That was kind of my point, Alan. If we were down to our last 100 cod, maritime Premiers would still be reluctant to say "well, those fishermen can always work at a Starbucks".
But will you tell us more about how Notley is a right-winger, outside of the "oil" or "pipeline" context? I mean, right-wingers are more than just people who support a pipeline, aren't they? Tell us more. Or did you misspeak?
I'll tell you what,Magoo. Why don't you tell me what makes her a left winger? What progressive policies has she tabled?
Here's another question. If Notley is merely protecting Alberta's interests,wouldn't that mean Trudeau is protecting Canada's? I mean I don't get that,not just you but many,many people who put the foocus of pipeline shilling squarely on Trudeau's shoulders and never mention Notley. I don't remember the feds threatening BC. But I do remember Notley doing so.
If it's all about jobs and protecting their political hides,what does the environment amount to? Is that what you're getting at with the Maritimes? Environment be damned? Or is it that Notley and by extension Trudeau not right wingers but champions of provincial and national interests? Maybe I'm confused.
I'll tell you what,Magoo. Why don't you tell me what makes her a left winger? What progressive policies has she tabled?
I'm not claiming she's a "left winger". I'm just asking what, specifically (and excluding "oil") makes her a right-winger.
Again... no talking about oil or pipelines. Just other right wing stuffs.
This thread is just another from our resident disgruntled ex-NDPer looking for any opportunity to bash the NDP.
Are you capable of avoiding personal attacks? Or is that like asking you to stop opening duplicate threads?
Notley is supportive of the University having the right to choose upon whom they will bestow honorary degrees
Unbelievable. What a hero! She will not dictate to universities as to honorary degrees! Can I make a donation to her re-election campaign?
By the way, I opened this thread in the environmental justice forum for a reason. It was not so that we could debate whether Notley is a "right-winger" or not (whatever that label is supposed to mean), or who would make a better premier for Alberta. Let's talk about David Suzuki. And let's take note of the unanimity of Alberta political parties that he should not be given an honorary degree by an Alberta university. If that's not a frightening commentary on the level of concern in Alberta today about the environment, I'm hard-pressed to think of a worse one.
Thoughts?
Suzuki: A house on the water in Point Grey, another property in Toronto, another one in Australia, and another one on Quadra Island. Point Grey? Loaded! A house in Toronto! Loaded! To fly to Australia and back (first class probably) that is a good 25,000 km, which is the permanent destruction of 5 square metres of Arctic sea ice. Not for the whole plane. Just for him. If he really cared about the planet, he would never fly in an airplane again.
Suzuki is also very quiet on the subject of foreign funding of his Foundation. Millions have gone into it.
I don't think even Warren Buffet needs 4 houses. I sure don't! I don't even want one!
Charlatan.
Oh so THAT's why Notley doesn't support an honorary degree for Suzuki... because he's too rich and not climate friendly enough!
Thank you so much for that profound insight, progressive17!
I don't see them as appreciably better or worse than any other province, when push comes to shove. After all, Horgan caved on Site C. Certainly they are no better than our federal government which is really the party responsible for this.
Honestly, I am happy we have not gone this far, and we may yet if this thing goes through. There have already been talks about putting a slowpoke reactor on the Sask side to provide power to process that tar.
https://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2016/04/nuclear-power-co-generation-k...
Oh so THAT's why Notley doesn't support an honorary degree for Suzuki... because he's too rich and not climate friendly enough!
Thank you so much for that profound insight, progressive17!
You are very welcome. Always happy to be of service!
It is clear that this is an NDP political elitist objecting to academic elitists giving an award to the biggest environmental elitist in Canada.
Not much relevance to a poor schmuck like me.
By the way, I opened this thread in the environmental justice forum for a reason. It was not so that we could debate whether Notley is a "right-winger" or not (whatever that label is supposed to mean), or who would make a better premier for Alberta. Let's talk about David Suzuki. And let's take note of the unanimity of Alberta political parties that he should not be given an honorary degree by an Alberta university. If that's not a frightening commentary on the level of concern in Alberta today about the environment, I'm hard-pressed to think of a worse one.
Thoughts?
There are more than two parties.
I'll tell you what,Magoo. Why don't you tell me what makes her a left winger? What progressive policies has she tabled?I'm not claiming she's a "left winger". I'm just asking what, specifically (and excluding "oil") makes her a right-winger.
Again... no talking about oil or pipelines. Just other right wing stuffs.
Well you got me there. I'm not familiar with Albertan politics. I suppose if I were to look it up,I could answer your question with facts. But it's 3:30 in the morning,I'm too lazy.
But I think it is fair to say she's a sad and pathetic excuse for a New Democrat. I wouldn't be surpised to find the Alberta NDP having right leaning official policies and official platform. Just judging by her hardline on pipelines.
I promise that when I'm awake,I'll do my homework.
... And let's take note of the unanimity of Alberta political parties that he should not be given an honorary degree by an Alberta university...
There are more than two parties.
Sorry, my bad, I misspoke. I meant to refer only to the NDP and UCP, which together (via the UCP's predecessors) captured 92.58% of the votes in 2015. I confess I don't know what position the other parties (Liberal Party, Alberta Party, Green Party, Social Credit, Communist Party, Alberta First) have taken on Suzuki's honorary degree.
Did you have any thoughts on my comment, though?
But speaking of other parties, I found this article of interest - by Kevin Taft, who was leader of the Alberta Liberal Party from 2003 to 2008:
Kevin Taft on what turned Rachel Notley from crusading critic to big oil crusader
I spent four years in the Alberta legislature with Rachel Notley, from 2008 to 2012. I liked and admired her and was delighted when she became premier in 2015. Today when I watch her on pipeline and oil issues I ask myself, what happened to the Rachel Notley I knew? And I wonder if the same thing will happen to John Horgan.
Before they formed government, Rachel Notley and the Alberta NDP were effective critics of the oil industry who called for higher royalties, solutions to global warming, and upgrading more bitumen in Alberta. In the political blink of an eye they became crusading champions for Texas-based corporation Kinder Morgan, which wants to expand its Trans Mountain pipeline to carry raw bitumen from Alberta to the port of Vancouver, to be shipped for processing abroad. [...]
So why is Rachel Notley throwing the country into political crisis?
The easy answer is that it improves her chances in next year’s election, but that glosses over this much deeper reality: Rachel Notley may be in office but the oil industry is in power. Wherever its interests are concerned the oil industry runs Alberta. To a lesser but significant degree the same thing applies in Ottawa.
Power Without Responsibility, or what we now call The Deep State...
There is a quote about this, but I think it is extremely inappropriate for this medium without a few words in advance. It is also really bad in this case because Rachel Notley is a woman, so it is going to be very easy to take this the wrong way, as so many of you like to do.
Maybe if we go over the word "harlot" a bit and look at it in a modern context, it may be able to fit into the way we want to think about things, or we can readjust the quote a bit to make it fit. But I think it is best to leave it as it is, and let the chips fall as they may.
We might say here that a "harlot" is a sex-worker. However if you plug sex-worker into the quote, it does not come out right, as we think of a sex-worker as the exploited party, and not the exploiter. At least in the way the sex trade operates now. In the old days, they blamed women for many things they should not have, as they do today.
Now if you like to automatically assume I am a misogynist, as I am sure many of you do, the implication is not that the oil industry is pimping Rachel Notley out and she is thus the sex-worker. Personally, I think she is a decent person who has found herself in a terrible situation.
She is simply someone who is passing along some very bad news, which I am sure was heartbreaking to her.
Everyone who risks their money and their time and their lives working for the oil industry are the sex-workers. We are all the sex-workers in the oil game, as every time we fill up our gas tanks, we are fucking the planet for the benefit of Big Oil.
We can however say that the pimp wants power without responsibility. He expects the sex-workers to take all the risk (up to and including abduction and death) and do all the work, while he collects all the money. This, I think, in essence, is the concept of power without responsibility. So when you read "harlot", think "pimp". Is that ok? So if you have a little bit of a problem reading between the lines, there is no implication whatsoever that Rachel Notley is any of these things. Understood? Maybe not, but here I go anyway.
So back in 1931 UK Tory Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin was dealing with the Great Depression, and the Press were saying some really bad things about him.
Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere were trying to pump their candidate Sir Ernest Petter as an Independent Conservative, and Baldwin's candidate was Duff Cooper, a Conservative. Petter was quite an interesting man, and had several things invented.
They were running in a hotly contested byelection in St. George which would have cost Baldwin his razor-thin parliamentary majority.
With delicious irony, the very definitely plutocratic Lords Rothermere and Beaverbrook were hammering hard on Baldwin. They accused Baldwin of running an "insolent plutocracy". Although that was probably true, Baldwin was helpless, as he had no clue about Keynsian economics which would have fished Britain out of the Great Depression. I.E. run big deficits, and pump money into the economy via distribution, public works, etc.
I think it might be fair to say that in 1931, the Press was the "Deep State", or at least one of them. They could move the opinion of people better than the government. They could swing elections, as they still try to do today. When there is the opportunity to bring down a government over one seat, they are going to close in like wolves.
We should also look at this through the lens that Baldwin was a typical 1931 Englishman, which made him probably Imperialist racist, and definitely misogynist.
“The newspapers attacking me are not newspapers in the ordinary sense,” Baldwin said. “They are engines of propaganda for the constantly changing policies, desires, personal vices, personal likes and dislikes of the two men. What are their methods? Their methods are direct falsehoods, misrepresentation, half-truths, the alteration of the speaker's meaning by publishing a sentence apart from the context...What the proprietorship of these papers is aiming at is power, and power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot (pimp) throughout the ages.”
So Rachel Notley gets into power, and like any NDP government, she is informed there are calls coming in from London and Toronto and New York and Texas. It is the job of these people in these far away places to inform the new NDP government the "facts of life".
"On my desk is a button connected to $35 billion of your debt, and if you carry through with that policy we don't like, I am going to press it depending on the outcome of this telephone call. At worst it could cause a run on all of your other bonds, in the middle it would raise your interest rate, and at best it would cause you a massive headache.", for example.
Now it is very likely that Rachel Notley got calls from Exxon Mobil, and some of the other big operators on the oil patch. "Not only is your refusal to authorize this development project going to stop investment in it, but we are going to pull everything else out." Business for the multinationals is global. A location, plant, and machinery are small on the balance sheet, especially if you have operations all over the world. It is next to nothing for a big company to shut down operations in a particular place.
Anyone who studies the American Oligarchy will soon find that it operates in cartels. Indeed, that is the economic side of how an Oligarchy works. Exxon could have called on behalf of Kinder Morgan, and said if you are hostile to them, you are hostile to us, and we are the Big Kahuna, and if necessary we will shut down the whole Athabaska operation, just because we can.
These days the Deep State is not as overt as the Press as the old days. Calls come into politicians' offices and the facts of life are explained. This is why
If voting could change the system, it would be against the law.
No matter who you elect, they are going to get those calls. This is why I think that ideology and political labelling is pointless. It is slavery and greed, and that is all it is. The only way this is going to end is if the people take businesses over. Not before.
Really, I think re-election is her prime motivating factor, and why she is going so far overboard on this with her threats. As for the pipeline itself, I think the driving force behind that is in Ottawa, or more accurately China, which has said they want a pipeline as a condition of the TPP.
And yeah, using sex work as a slur is kind of icky, not just because it is usually directed at women.
(edit)
Unbelievable interview on CBC The Current this morning with Brett Wilson on this degree award.
Unbelievable interview on CBC The Current this morning with Brett Wilson on this degree award.
I had the misfortune of hearing the interview. I was sorely tempted to throw something heavy at the radio. What a slimy and dangerous man.
..agreed. on a jason kenney level.
When did pipelines become a right-left issue? Sitting in Saint John, I see an awful lot of non-partisan support for an energy East project.
When did pipelines become a right-left issue? Sitting in Saint John, I see an awful lot of non-partisan support for an energy East project.
Agreed (with your first sentence). Let's not get sucked into the "is Notley right-wing?" diversionary debate. We should be able to examine this issue in light of environmental and related considerations.
And yes, I fully understand why the home of Irving would see a lot of "non-partisan" Energy East support, just as I understand the same phenomenon in Alberta. The question is, why? Is it just "please, I want a good-paying job"?
And the other questions: To what extent does this "non-partisan support" reflect the political power of the oil billionaires? What about the rights of Indigenous people? What about the voice of people through whose land and water basins the pipeline will pass? And what about the interests of the environment, climate change, the planet?
Indeed. It never has been a strictly right-left issue here either. The interim NDP line here in SK was "good for the workers".
Same goes for nuclear power and uranium mining.
On the other hand, even Trudeau is trying to sell this as a trade off, he isn't denying climate change, and I don't think too many in that camp or the NDP would stoop to calling people "traitors" as I heard this morning.
I don't put this down to them just being more hypocritical than the Conservatives. I think their motivation is different, and their base is different, so they are more vulnerable to paying a political price.
There were many in Alberta who freaked out that Notley would even consider a royalty rate review, even if they didn't wind up changing anything. And of course unlike our province, they have a carbon tax, and aren't taking the federal government to court over it.
I don't understand the hate-on for David Suzuki. I thought he made a good salary because he was a media personality. Of course I'd like to reduce salary differentials, but I don't understand how he has used the environmental movement as such to make a bundle.
And the harlot stuff is simply not acceptable language by rabble and babble policy standards.
