Good mannered disagreement

UNrelated to your Friday Chat...I am now addicted to NCPR. Thanks Alan.

It is right in the constitution that you cannot post anything "unrelated" on Friday chat - we weave this cloth together. Interesting about your comment seeing as this blog is now listed on the NCPR aggregator.

I've been experimenting with podcasting and I think it working out not bad. It adds another dimension. For example, last night I clipped part of the Horowitz/Churchill debate. Its better than just a description and there is less room for bias. Makes blogging a little more fun as well.

You shatter my cynicism. Let me ask you this. How long did it take you to prepare the audio compared to the running time. And I have sound on this blog, though not recently, in the form of music reviews and clips of sounds I just wanted to post. But I do not call this podcasting. I think you need to have a semi-radio show thing going to qualify as that, not just audion files.

I've done a few speech things in the form of a verbal rant but I haven't done many as they take more time. I'm trying to do maybe one a week. The post has to be all your own which is another factor. Who wants to listen to somebody just read a news quote?

On the clipping - I use software called Replay A/V which lets me listen to internet radio all over and search and all that good stuff. It also lets you record at will so no big deal on getting interesting material. No time wasted while listening. Preparing it I just load the file into Soundforge and clip and edit. Around 10 minutes.

I listen to Shire Network News every week. And if my blog was paying my rent instead of just my bills I would invest the time to produce Radio Flea...

That is the problem. Darcey I suspect is a wizard of the computer. Those seem to be the only people who can podcast efficiently.

Not so much computer wizardry, but experience. I've been involved in recording music as a hobby for over 20 years so I have a lot of the tools that make it easy and I know how to use them because of repetition (or pain). I just recently started doing this as I hardly ever use the equipment anymore and figured what a waste!

Exactly my same thoughts on a Friday when I contemplate my metabolic capacity to digest yeast, hops and malt with a little water.

regarding windfalls, how'd you know i found a wet ten dollar bill and a shiny bottle cap on the sidewalk yesterday. walk with your head down boys. look at your boots.

People think I am glum when I do that but I am only cheap and on the hunt. Maranatha, brother!

Speaking of the malt and hunting, Alan I just drove all over town looking for a brewsky that might please you. How's that for customer service?

Wooot!!! You find anything good?

I think so. I found another Kelowna beer called Spy Porter. Comes in one of those extra big bottles. Website is treebeer.com which now that I pumped that in I find is from the Tree Brewing company. How misleading. I also found an Innus & Gunn. Which do you recommend?

By the way I'll be coursing thru the praires next week makes stops along the way!

The porter sounds interesting. I tried the I&G and reviewed it on the beerblog: http://beerblog.genx40.com/archives/2005/september/grrreatscots

Very nice. I'll crack that porter then and leave the I&G for another day, like after a day in the bush cutting wood. I'm very discerning then...

I once scoured the sidewalk all the way to the bakery in hopes of finding that quarter I needed to have enough money for a dozen bagels, having had to stop on the way for batteries for my mp3 player, but had no luck and ended up going home with only a half dozen. But at least I could listen to a podcast on the way.

And may I just say this whole working thing is seriously cutting in to my internet time. Especially since I'm actually <i>working</i> now and not just sitting around reading articles I've saved as txt files so that it <i>looks</i> like I'm working.

Especially since I'm actually working now and not just sitting around reading articles I've saved as txt files so that it looks like I'm working.

I hope you're not behind a corporate firewall...

If I was, no one said anything about it, as I got away with it for years. :-)

re: podcasting
http://www.mathewingram.com/work/index.php/2006/04/06/podcasting-numbers-are-no-surprise/

re: iggy
"Let me, your better, rule you, the little mud people. No longer shall the walls of our mansions in Westmount, Rosedale and Rockcliffe hang empty of art while the wealth-from-luck-only of the little provinces, wasted on SUVs and monster mansions, remains untapped to the central authority where it can be spent in accordance to the principles of social justice". Or something like that.

If I was, no one said anything about it, as I got away with it for years. :-)

What I mean is that many (corporate) firewalls (besides blocking content) allow extensive logging.

re: harper
"Let me, your better, rule you, the little mud people. No longer shall the walls of our mansions in Calgary hang empty of art while the wealth-from-luck-only of the weaker provinces, wasted on hospitals and the care of orphans, remains untapped to the central authority where it can be spent in accordance to the principles of my mid-minor B grade graduate school economics papers". Or something like that.

Really? You see decentralization of power away from the center as some sort reverse power grab? You see federal government butting out of areas it hasn't be given authority to be in as a form of centralization? Interesting.

Of course it is a power grab. You have had 10% of the population moaning for decades about not being "in" by which they mean not running the show. They want more than a Meech Lake for Alberta, cutting oil revenue out of equalization, starving the rest of us while they lick the dripping roast of their fluke of nature. They transfer US state rights principles to a constitution never structured that way all for the good of "I, me, mine." What the hell else do you think they are on about?

That's a strange Orwellian definition of power grab -- keeping the power you are entitled to, that you negotiated for when you joined the Canadian nation. All, or most, provinces have great natural and human resources; some have developed them, some have not; and some have squandered them.

But why are you disagreeing with me, if that's what you are? Be proud of your views: power should be centralized to the middle; diversity, where it counts - political power, should be minimized; and wealth of this country should be taken from taxpayers and provinces, the "mud people" I'm talking about who'll only waste it on beer and popcorn, and given to our betters to be properly spent where it deserves to be.

I'm going to dine out on that "beer and popcorn" for a lonnggg time.

Sorry, David. You misunderstand constitutional history. Underground natural resources were a transfer to Alberta in the 20s or 30s and again in 1982 after much boo-hooery from the I, me, mine set. Revisitionist history, however, is very popular these days so you are at least trendy. But your revisionist natural history is quite an innovation. You may have something there.<p>

And of course you will be dining out on beer and popcorns as all recipients will as that is all it is good for and will be used for. The only problem with that statement was it was true and mocking twittery in response was the only response. Martin was too gutless to respond as he should have when the CPC cackling began. And, of course, it is not your money you will have - it will be mine as I am paying into the particular account and you are taking out. Pure mailbox money.

I apologize for my lack of Canadian history; I was educated here. What mysterious account are you paying into that I'm taking out of? I'm pretty sure I contribute and have contributed more than my fair share.

You may have paid your fair share but you are now paying less of a fair share than I am as you will get the 100 buck beer allocation and I will not - despite my having more dependants. So, during the period of your lavish popcorn expense account output, my family will roughly be bearing the same amount in not decreased taxation. Hence, on average, you are spending my money. Live it up. And why not post what you increase your spending on? Educational material or finer Caribbean rums? But I do not begrudge you. Never fear.<p>

But I am checking that 20s and 30s claim again. I know I have spouted off about it before and corrected myself but I can't recall or find the reference as to whether I corrected it to or from the 20s and 30s. If someone is going to call me a blow hard on the internet it best be me if only because I know myself so well.

This is what I was referring to, David: Constitution Act, 1930, 20-21 George V, c. 26 (U.K.) . So it we are both right. It was a constitutional document as you said but not at the time of joining, only in 1930. Which raises again in my mind why Newfoundland was treated worse only 19 years later.

Oh, and I just clicked through now to your source of authority. Dear God, David. You surely can do better than that. No wonder I have to correct you so often.

It's the map linked within that post that I draw your attention to. Perhaps there's a magic anti-oil wall along the AB/SK border.

NL wasn't treated worse 19 years later; it was the Supreme Court that screwed them in that matter. However, for better or for worse, NLers have mostly been the author of both their own fortunes and misfortunes.

I suspect we're missing a piece of information on why this happened in 1930, probably some ongoing negotitation. Remember, however, that provinces (and myself) tend to view Canada as a collection of peers, not a hierarchy where the top grants rights and privledges to the middle.

The main thing, which is hilarious when considing the anarcho-libertarian source, is that Alberta is a solely state-owned and controlled resource. The normal ownership of land to the sky and to the centre of the earth doesn't apply as the Government of Alberta owns the exclusive rights to the oil and gas wealth under 81% of the soil. The feds own a chunck under Federal land like national parks and there is some pre-1930 grants to mineral rights sticking around. Alberta then licenses out the right to tap the land like tapping a maple tree. It is not the regulatory system that makes the difference as dreamers would suggest. It is state ownership plus the unique blessing of 200 years of the resource at the scale of Saudi Arabia's production levels now that world wide prices are expected to be over tar sand extraction costs of, say 40 bucks a barrel. It is a perfect storm none of which is due in any "founding fathers" sort of state right to the resource. <p>To summarize: given by the Feds in 1930, uniquely reserved to the provincial Crown and not individual property owners, global price hike above production levels in relation to the fluke of having 200 years worth of North American need for the worlds most important fluid. None of which was due to the efforts of Ralph Klien, individual work ethic or especially the day dreams of anarcho-libertarians.

Oh, and one other thing about the collection of peers. Unlike the US, Canada was not a union of pre-existing sovereign states but a centrally controlled state created by a centrally controled state that had sub-units before and after Confederation. Massively different from the US model that is in line with the collection of peers imagery. History and the constitution describe it as such despite all the clicking of red shoes that can be mustered.<p>All of which is entirely with all due respect knowing you prefer a saucier presentation of these my retorts.

Your history of Canada, wrt. how Canada was formed is incorrect. This isn't a nyah nyah nyah point, but each province had people fighting for it's share and rights all the way from the beginning.

Oil comes out of the ground in AB because (a) it's there and (b) humans take it out. Oil doesn't come out of the ground in SK because (b) humans won't take it out even though (a) it's there.

Let me helpfully insert the map I mentioned above here for people playing the home game:

<img border=0 src="http://www.katewerk.com/images/oil-gas-map.jpg">

Since SK can't be bothered to get it out, perhaps the next Liberal-NDP coalition government can go take it on all of Canada's behalf, to fund whatever the latest union-utilizing project of the week is.

Let's make a internet reading club and invite all of our friends. We'll start (and possibly end) with a book on the history of Canada, covering at least the period between 1850 and 1950. We'll work through it chapter by chapter, running a weekly or biweekly discussion on each one.

Interesting about the differences in oil extraction between SK and AB. All I know is Saskatchewan has no natural borders. They just drew lines on the map and called it a province.

Alberta secretly plotted to draw the eastern border _exactly_ where the oil ended. The fact that it's a straight line along the 110th parallel just happens to be a coincidence and has nothing to do at all with the political philosophies chosen on either side of the border. The biggest problem was keeping the cackling and finger cracking and laughing behind their hands by the Alberta constitutional contingent to a minimum as they signed the border deal!

Blah, blah, blah. Saskatchewan secretly has the oil reserves of Qatar. Socialism keeps it off the market. Give me a break. You are smarter than that. Do some real research.

And if you skip the hockey helmet painter blah blah blah you will see that the oil reserves in Saskatchewan are at 1.6 billion barrels while Alberta has 174 billion extractable of 1,700 and 2,500 billion in the Athabasca.<p>Yes, the difference weath production must be just socialism. And killing kittens. Saskatchewan kills too many kittens. Celery, too. Folk in Regina put more celery in their tuna.

Oooh. That was too mean. Must be less mean.

This took far more digging that I needed, since I have a _huge_ set of deliverables for May 5. None the less, here we go:

<blockquote>
Source 1
CONVENTIONAL CRUDE - OIL & EQUIVALENT
REMAINING ESTABLISHED RESERVES IN CANADA

Remaining Reserves 2003-12-31 (Million Barrels)
Alberta - 1,753
Saskatchewan - 1,163
</blockquote>

You'll not the SK number is roughly in line with the number you're quoting. How then to explain the AB discrepency?

<blockquote>
Source 2
Crude Oil

At the end of 1998, Albertas remaining reserves of crude oil were estimated at 7.17 billion cubic metres (45.1 billion barrels), including

* surface-mineable crude bitumen reserves of 6.4 billion cubic metres (about 40 billion barrels),
* in situ crude bitumen under active development of 450 million cubic metres (2830 million barrels), and
* conventional crude oil reserves of 315 million cubic metres (1984 million barrels).
</blockquote>

Next steps ... to find out what the bitumen in SK is, when they starting being able to process this, the cost of processing it, and the environmental impact of processing it.

And yes, I do blame "socialism" though more correctly it's probably the attitude that nothing can't be made better by inserting more government. The same reason Toronto basically has the same public transport infrastructure it had in 1980 while cites like Athens, Madrid and so forth -- hardly paragons of efficiency or modernity -- have built 10s and 100s of km of track. Another debate for another day, I suppose.

See you have those extra morning hours whereas I just got up from another snooze. I rely on you to correct me in all things.<p>Note also I relied on Wikipedia. The internet is crap.

Not expecting David to pick this discussion up but more for the record of my position, I looked this up again over a month later and find from each government's sources that for Saskatchewan the recoverable oil reserves are 1.15 billion barrels with 25 more in shallow hard to extract stuff while Alberta has 1.6 barrels of conventional oil reserves but 175 billion barrels of bitumen - which I am taking to be the tar sands. I think I have to still go with blaming the blessings of the Lord over socialism.

And here is a good article on the difficulties facing bitumen tar sand exploration in Saskatchewan. Not much to do with policy. Have a look at the map in the article. It seems to be at odds with the one above. Is it possible that the "oil field" and "gas field" red and green in Alberta in the map above do not include the northern tar sands?