@newtboy,

1. Given how few people are affected, I'd love to see way less coverage of trans-sports as a wedge issue to rally political bases

2. Failing that, isn't it clearly 100% common sense that the Men's and Women's sports divisions are NOT divisions applied based upon gender but instead upon biological sex, and as such should always have been a non-issue.

3. I really can't see the issue, if it must be raised, as anything other than a request for special exemptions to be made. Existing competitive sports are divided based on biological sex and most have requirements around usage of drugs, hormones and other performance enhancing substances. We have existing and established testing for both the biological sex and PED requirements. Applying those equally to everyone IS equality.

/s There, now the debates all settled /s

@newtboy,

A company cancelling a multi-billion dollar project means multi-billion dollars not spent on the work of the project, that many jobs out of the economy. Exactly the same as a car manufacturer shutting down for a week, by your logic nothing was lost, the company just stopped spending money for a couple days...

I only support the groups right to protest, and not to illegally block roads or borders. I stand by my wish is for their prompt arrest when illegal blocking roads, borders or places of business.

That said, I believe it also wrong of me to fail to point out that our federal government has continually refused to act as I would wish in promptly shutting down illegal blockades. This is the very first instance were they've shown any interest in a prompt police enforced end, and they've in fact jump much further to invoking a declaration of national emergency so they can also target protesters bank accounts directly and without court orders.

An analogy would be someone that supports arresting people for possession of marijuana. The government then proceeds to only selectively enforce that law, say only acting to make arrests when people are a particular creed or color. It's perfectly consistent to believe the government arrests are wrong and unfair, and to NOT support them, while at the same time still believing the idea of the rule applied fairly being a good idea.

One side is about what I think the line for protest should be:
-I believe the right to protest should be independent of creed or belief, and should only be restricted when actions taken are illegal.(Ideally illegal being defined as impeding on freedoms of others)

By that, the convoy blockade of border or streets should have led to immediate arrests.

In the eye of fairness though, the last two years have already seen at a minimum 3 major protests, that included illegal blockades of work sites and railways and those were ALL allowed to run for weeks and in 2 cases months. The government of the day even tripped over themselves to message their support for the overall causes of the protestors.

In that light, it's wrong to simply ignore the fact that the first protest that is likely to vote conservative is the ONLY one where the government immediately condemns everything about them and feels compelled to intervene urgently.

Churches were literally burning last summer, and our PM's public statements spent most of their time sympathizing with the anger before pleading that burning churches isn't helpful. Where'd all that compassion for folks that you disagree with go when it meant a small number of downtown Ottawa business shutdown and horns honking go. Now our PM invokes terrorizing of the populace.

Trudeau's actions have been distressingly similar to Trump's as the division in our country grows, he's using his words to reach out to the extreme end of his side of the aisle, while tossing gasoline and vitriol onto his opposition. It's making things worse in the worst possible way when we need leaders uniting instead of stoking further division.

@newtboy,

??? How exactly do you figure cancellation of a billion dollar project is no where near the economic cost of blocking a border crossing for awhile at similar cost???

I'll tell you what the difference in Canada is, the dollars lost from the pipeline were being lost in Alberta, the dollars lost from the convoy were in Ontario. In Canada we've got a pretty sad history of if it happens to western provinces, it doesn't matter. Much like the urban/rural divide in the US. The response is pretty similar as well, the urban side just laughs at the loss of the stupid backwards country folk. When the same thing hits them though it's a national emergency.

I've tried pointing out costs and your just rejecting them out of hand , while whole hog accepting the highest estimates for the convoy cost as gospel truth. Like the literally a company walking from a multi-billion dollar project and you insist that's nothing and the days the border was blockaded clearly must have cost more...


For years now I've insisted that illegal blockades of worksites, job sites or trade routes should be met with prompt arrests and re-opening of the route/site.

Until January of this year, the entirety of the Liberal minded half of my country(Ottawa centric) called that authoritarian, repressive and were against the notion. Now I find myself in a weird spot, as suddenly that same crowd DOES want that action and more to be taken promptly. And the conservative crowd that agreed with me before is now kinda walking things back.

Economic disruption of the blockades was similar to the Mohawk blockade of railways about 2 years ago:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ottawa-rejects-police-intervention-to-put-an-end-to-blockades/

Similarly, mass lay offs and multi-billions of dollars of goods stuck sitting around waiting to get to the industries needing them.

Since at least 2012 the attempted expansion of an existing pipeline(Trans Mountain) was targeted continuously by blockades. Opposition and resulting delays leading to cost overruns so large that company ultimately halted the multi-billion dollar project.

In terms of dollars being lost, the convoy protest wasn't special. More over, the blockade of the border in Ontario that was causing the real economic damage was dismantled and removed before the 'emergency measures' were enacted. Which is to state, the emergency measures were primarily intended to clear out downtown Ottawa. In downtown Ottawa though, the damages were at minimum as localized as any of the lumber or pipeline blockades mentioned.


Prime Minister Trudeau couldn't be more unequivocal when he was expressing his support for the farmer protests in India and the Floyd protests in the US. Clip if you'd like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9EaSF6Y0eE

The protests in India absolutely did immensely more harm to India's economy than the convoy here did in Canada. The protests in support of Floyd were again unequivocally more violent than the convoy in Canada.

There really is no basis by which to point to the convoy's actions and find them in any way unique or distinct from multiple other protests within Canada, or ones abroad that have been either given more latitude, or outright embraced and supported.

The distinction as even you can't resist going after, is that their beliefs they are protesting for are stupid and wrong, so no right to protest for them. That isn't how the right to protest within a democracy should be allowed to work.

I also have to point out the 'ethical' argument isn't as cut and dry as you want to make it out either.
-Pipelines bad so blockading is good ignores the fact the same oil gets pumped regardless, it just gets loaded into trucks that burn even more oil to haul it and have a fair greater risk of accidents and spills.
-Defending the rights and lands of Aboriginal peoples(like at Coastal Gas Link site violently attacked with millions in damages while the convoy was being vilified for 'incitement') is anything but obvious. The Wet'suwet'en hereditary leaders made claim to parts of the pipeline route and demanded it be shut down. However, the same Wet'suwet'en people's multiple elected Band Councils signed on with their wishes to proceed with the project. In fact, ALL elected representatives of ALL the Bands with land along the route had ALL signed onto the project and wanting it to proceed. It is in no way obvious that ignoring the will of those other bands to favour the conflicting claims of the hereditary leaders is clearly the most respectful of the people's wishes.

@newtboy,

I agree with more of what you say than you make out. You need to appreciate how different Canada is from the US, particularly in power balance within government and corresponding police action and media coverage.

Long delays in stopping illegal blockade and protest activity is the norm.
-Fairy Creek blockades persisted almost 12 months before police took action
-Blockade of Coastal Link pipepline went on for months before police intervened to allow work to continue.
-Mohawk solidarity blockade of railways in Ontario persisted multiple weeks

The difference to the protests today, the Liberal government was tripping over themselves to reach out to those protest groups, while immediately spitting in the faces of this one.

I've always been of the opinion illegally blocking a roadway, border or business should lead to arrests within the time it takes to notify and send police.

The problem here from a Canadian eye, is that the only time current government is interested in bringing a hammer down is based not upon the actions of protestors, but instead based upon their professed cause.

I refuse to accept tying the right to protest to what cause is being rallied to.

@newtboy,

Finally we're talking about my Canada .

I'm agreed with calling 90% of what the convoy and truckers are protesting as being misguided, ill informed or flat out wrong. That however shouldn't be what the right to protest is based upon.

The extent of the protestors illegal activity seems to have been blocking of roadways and borders. Which in Canada isn't exactly new:
-Blockading of roads to logging work sites to "protect old growth forest"
-Blockading of roads pipeline construction sites
-Blockading of transportation highways and railroads

In the past 2 years alone, those various sites have seen blockades ranging from weeks to months. In virtually every single one of those instances the Liberal government went out to meet and negotiate with the protestors while allowing them to continue for weeks to months. In one of the biggest protests Trudeau himself went to meet with the groups in person. Trudeau has a video of himself praising the farmer convoy and blockades in India, declaring his government will always defend the right of groups to protest.(those groups blocked multiple border crossings)

This time though, Trudeau started out with insulting, ridiculing and belittling the protestors. Within the first day of the protests, politicians and our national news corp in CBC were demanding an immediate end to the protests.

The protests that have seen comparable zero violence to the protests in the US in support of Floyd(which I support), where condemned repeatedly by the CBC and Trudeau as terrorizing the populace and inciting violence. For reference, Trudeau remained steadfast in support of the Floyd protestors right to protest.

The federal government essentially tried insults and ridicule to try and end this protest though, and when that didn't work they invoked a national emergency measures act that requires both:
-A threat to Canada's sovereignty
-A threat that can not be addressed by any other laws or means

The government then proceeded to empower themselves to not merely arrest protestors, but to freeze/seize the bank accounts of anyone considered to be supporting the protest, with no court oversight required.

The difference in how protestors are treated based upon what it is they are protesting is alarming and should be a red flag for anyone and everyone.

For reference, while these protests were going on, a pipeline worksite in BC that has been continually shut down by protests for the last several years was attacked in the night by a mob wielding machetes and axes. The workers and security were chased off and millions in damages were done to the site afterwards. Trudeau didn't feel the need to even address the incident though because he was to busy villianizing the convoy. The CBC media buried the incident under local BC news, and downplayed it as an 'alleged' incident, despite RCMP having responded and even having had an officer injured in the incident. CBC also emphasized there wasn't any verified connection to the ongoing protests against the pipeline...

When you look at the narrative, despite my disagreeing with the vast majority of what the convoy is wanting to say, I am disgusted by the attempt to remove their right to say it and everyone wanting to support a strong democracy with the right protest should feel the same.

He carefully leaves out the most important part about the network traffic they took from the office of the President.

The lawyer, Sussman, is being accused of lying in a Sept. 2016 interview about whom all he was working for.

He was indeed working for the Clinton campaign amongst other groups. It also appears there is compelling evidence that he was working with Tech staff with access to Whitehouse internet data.

Remember though, the interview is in September 2016, while the sitting president was Barack Obama. The lawyer was working for the Clinton campaign and presumably the DNC, because they were investigating the Russian hack of their email and computer systems...

But Fox and anyone willing to be compliant like Sen Cruz are tripping over themselves to make sure they fuel the false conception that Trump was spied on in the white house.

If you watch Cruz words here, he chooses them terrifically carefully to leave ambiguous the timing of the allegations about the whitehouse data to leave the impression by omission.

Yeah, the crutch of it for me is the UBI moniker.

What you describe at the end of your post, minimum income, is really just a rewording of the existing social security and welfare systems across the western world. I know they look different in each, but here in Canada what you describe is more or less our already existing system's design goal. Welfare money exists for those that straight up can not work, and an employment insurance system exists to protect those inbetween jobs, meanwhile other multiple programs are aimed at distributing financial assistance to the lower income groups.

Despite all of that already existing, UBI is still being heralded up here in trials as well as a replacement. The problem being that for the needy the UBI pitches are generally a step backwards.

Eg. $500/month is the UBI pitch, and they say it'll be great because everyone gets it no matter what so it's simple and fair and nobody is left behind. The trouble though is that the reality is the truly in need people were already benefitting more than the $500/month under the existing systems, and the cost was much less because it was targeted.

I here UBI and get very worried about folks just selling snake oil 'solutions' that in the end are just a demand to adopt their own particular flavor of wealth redistribution.

I'm gonna have to be that guy. $500 a month for a family of four is $2k, which is a very good chunk of money to drop in your lap.

That works out the same as it they were on a single income, working 40 hour weeks at $10/hr, so almost equivalent to a full time job. No doubt that's gonna be a big deal and noticeable financial improvement to the recipient(s).

As always with UBI schemes, the devil is in how you pay for it. If it's truly universal, paying $500/month to ~330 million Americans would cost $1.98 Trillion dollars, meanwhile the current entire US gov budget for 2022 is estimated at $1.2 Trillion.

So, to implement $500/month universally in America would require not only increasing overall tax revenues by almost 50% it would also require the cancellation of 100% of every single other expenditure. That not includes military spending going to zero, but even cancelling the jobs of everyone that collects taxes and would presumably have been responsible for distributing the $500 checks.

If the 'fix' is to just tax the pants off anyone earning more than the $500/month, or limiting who we give it to, then it ceases to be a UBI scheme, and is instead just a mundane modification of the existing social security scheme by shuffling more money back and forth between different folks.

Watch it, I know nobody likes lawyers, but likening them to Guiliani is going too far...

Upvote for correct use of "objectively"

@newtboy and @fuzzyundies

I know you at least had an emoji on proselytizing but...

Discussion of Christmas is no more proselytizing than discussion of Hanukkah or Ramadan. And in discussion of any of the 3, referencing the actual religious origins isn't really an 'escalation'.

And I get it's 'fun' to point out, but I can't believe anyone seriously feeling the exact date being inaccurate as a 'credibility' issue.

And surely wouldn't the failure to note that Fauci from March 2020 probably agrees with Fauci months later be the real big concern. FOX news for pity sake still tries to run the narrative of Fauci flip-flopping on masks using this exact footage...

The fact the sate had to essentially fire two DA's for not wanting to pursue the case before it finally was moved forward is the sad tag line underneath the correct verdict being reached in spite of that.

Maybe I can illustrate better.

The 'answer' they give is less clear than it could be for illustrating that purpose. That is to say, the very small electric current that is transferred 'wirelessly', would work exactly the same if your wire were never connected to each other period. Making it a loop as the example, then ignoring the transmission of force on the electrons along that connected wire is unduly complicating the example. If you want to illustrate that current in a wire generates a mag field, and that mag field in turn can induce a current in another wire is much better done by pointing out the result is the same if the wires are not connected.

It also avoids re-inforcing the very common misconception people have about electricity in wire not being subject the the speed of light...

This is also a trick question, and in a way that I kinda dislike because it additionally confuses matters by the setup.

Specifically, any change to the electrical field in the wire triggered by something like flipping the switch IS always limited to propagating at the speed of light, and as such WILL take 1s to travel the ~300,000km through the wire.

There's a bait and switch here though, were if the wires are close enough, and the power on the wire is high enough, there is a strong enough magnetic field in the wire to reach across the 1m distance to the end of the wire by the light bulb. That magnetic field will induce a very small electric field on the wire as well. Calling that 'lighting' the bulb though is 100% a trick question though as no existing light bulbs are sensitive enough to light up from that little current unless the 'live' side of the wire is both in very close proximity and running very high voltage.

The part I dislike, is too many people believe that electricity running in a cable is 'faster' than light, and the trick here kinda re-inforces that rather than helping to clear that up for people.