Two Ladies

I've had the opportunity to listen to two very interesting women speak over the last two days.

Lara Logan's views, stories, opinions and intellectual presence dwarf perhaps her first noticed stage presence. To access information the way she does through military, politics, and other global arena players - her exterior may open the door for 30 seconds, but her ability to walk the walk in that world keeps the doors open and information flowing. Fascinating, blunt, at least R rated speech, not a punch puller. Love her or hate her, just don't ignore her is an astute comment someone had. A self proclaimed not a war advocate realizes there are things in life worth fighting for. Interesting view of US efficacy/in-tune-ness abroad...

Alison Redford is impressive, and contrasting. Can't by position fire off as many zingers... but is moving things forward her way. Can deliver a political speech more free of political nothings than the norm. Uses things like "actual facts, figures, knowledge and thought" when framing issues - amazing really! Whether or not such radical concepts can survive political and government wet blanket will be seen, but the passion for framing issues as "how can we have a discussion of mutual benefits [re: Gateway pipleline and aboriginal discussions] vs. what someone characterized as "extortion masked as Treaty Entitlement". Regarding Keystone, is there a fundamental logic as two ideologically compatible, democratic nations cooperating in a tumultuous sea of world events to mutually benefit from a long term, secure, fair, and well executed energy strategy? One would hope there is - if you can turn down the white noise for a bit. First question: Ma'am can we please keep you here to run on the Republican VP ticket? Answer from her: I'm flattered, but... [Moderator interjects: sorry, we're keeping her up north as a competitive advantage.]

My side thoughts: Why are special interest groups so noisy? Disproportionately small groups can derail, delay and impede progress which provides great benefits to broad parts of society in noticeable scale... I know we want cost effective medical care, education, law and order, social safety net, etc. but that doesn't come free. I see a lot of protest for "no's" to issues, without alternates suggested... like where replacement billions for decades could come from? Grow the pie is a different thought than slicing the pie.

A question framed as "should Canada have more than one customer for oilsands development" is more realistic than "should a pipe be in my backyard in the boonies". National income helps all of our standards of living - and that type of mega industry project allows provincial and national economic benefits that in fact enable more people in society to live while contributing less, as long as those who drive development are allowed to reach the peaks they're capable of.