Alan!

Canadian PM Mark Carney: It’s my strong personal view that the international order will be rebuilt — but it will be rebuilt out of Europe.

So there’s this super rich neighborhood in Seattle. Laurelhurst. They are situated next to a children’s hospital. They decided that the helicopter sound is too loud for them. The helicopters that life flight critically injured children to the hospital. So if a child needs to be taken by helicopter, the pilot has to land a mile away from the hospital. An ambulance will be there to take the child the remaining distance. This is to ensure that the super rich people don’t have to hear helicopters.

It's been fascinating to watch the different reactions and camps form around the electoral story that's happening in Alberta this week. Here is a summary of the distinct (though sometimes overlapping) camps I've seen on line so far. Breach Alarmists ("worried about a break") Focus: The incident as a massive security failure exposing millions of Albertans to real-world harm. Who: Privacy advocates, affected citizens, NDP voices Tone: Urgent and outraged "This is irreversible damage." Size: Very large/prominent (dominant in mainstream coverage and expert commentary) Privacy Defenders ("our data is not private") Focus: Fundamental erosion of personal data protection; no lists should never be this accessible. Who: Privacy Commissioner, data advocates, general public concerned about long-term surveillance & doxxing risks. Tone: Principled and cautionary, emphasizes systemic trust issues and "can't be undone." Size: Large (strong expert and institutional backing). Rule Enforcers ( "rules exist and the rules were broken") Focus: Strict legal violations around authorized use of electoral lists. OK for parties, politicians, and approved groups. Who: Elections Alberta, Premier Smith, RCMP investigators, institutionalists, and those stressing process/timeline failures. Tone: Procedural and accountability-focused. "Investigations must proceed; laws were clear." Size: Large (central to official statements and court actions). Manipulation Worriers ("worried about being manipulated") Focus: Weaponization of data as a campaign tool. Who: election-integrity advocates, opponents of the independence movement. Tone: Suspicious and forward-looking, fears of harassment, micro-targeting, or broader interference. Size: Significant because of the current Alberta political scene. Perspective Down-players "no big deal" Focus: The breach is being overhyped; voter data isn't uniquely sensitive, and worse leaks have happened with less outrage. Who: Some independence supporters, skeptics of the panic. critical thinkers Tone: Dismissive or relativizing, "This ain’t Armageddon; get perspective" or "lists were legitimately obtained initially." Size: Moderate/emerging (visible in pushback on X, but less dominant in mainstream news). Reform Advocates "This was predictable" Focus: Need for legislative fixes, close gaps in privacy/electoral laws, better tracking ("salted" data), stricter penalties. Who: Privacy Commissioner, Premier Smith, policy-oriented voices calling for law changes. Tone: Constructive and forward-looking, "This reveals concerning gaps; we must update the rules." Size: Significant/growing Partisan Blamers / Opportunists Focus: Assigning political blame (to separatists vs. to Elections Alberta/government slow response or initial sharing). Who: NDP/federal critics, independence movement defenders, partisan commentators. Tone: Accusatory or defensive, ranges from "reckless separatists" to "this is being politicized against us." Size: Notable (fuels much of the social media heat and cross-party exchanges). No-Issue Minimalists ("It's Not a Breach" Defenders) Focus: The list wasn't stolen from secure government systems (it was given to a political party legally), so framing it as a massive "data breach" is overblown or misleading. Misuse happened, but the sky isn't falling. Voter data has limited sensitivity, similar incidents occur, and focus should be elsewhere (e.g., petition processes or other priorities). Who: skeptics of the mainstream's alarm, defenders of the intended use of the data, and those drawing comparisons to past data leaks with less reaction. Tone: Dismissive, relativizing, or corrective, "Not Armageddon", "legitimate copy misused at worst" "fake/outraged for political points" Size: Smaller/minority (visible in social media replies and some statements) but not dominating news coverage. That's what I'm seeing. Which camp(s) are you in?

Pierre Poilievre says the Billy Bishop runway expansion would have "an enormous environmental benefit" because "it will take cars off the road."