The Anti-Keystone Movement Should Know When to Fold ‘Em

In the last few weeks the American environmental anti-Keystone movement has been dealt several very bad hands.

Al Gore, former Vice President, self-acclaimed discoverer and developer of the internet and the Godfather of the climate change movement, embarrassed the movement, by selling his interests in Current TV to the fossil fuel, oil-producing nation of Qatar — which owns Al-Jazeera, Gore’s purchaser. Even Gore publicly admitted that the optics of this sale to Qatar were not positive.

A few days ago, and referred to in my previous Huff Post article, the US State Department came out with a 2000 page report that concluded that the proposed Keystone pipeline would have little effect on warming the planet.

Other State Department reports have concluded that in the absence of Alberta oil, the US would still import Venezuelan oil, which may produce greater GHGs, than the Keystone alternative.

Recently, no less than the liberal Washington Post referring to the above 2000 page State Department Report, editorialized that anti-Keystone protesters should give up their fruitless crusade against Keystone. In effect, the movement is wasting its time. The Post editorial bitingly stated:

“The analysis underscores the extent to which activists have trumped up a relatively mundane infrastructure issue into the premier environmental fight of this decade, leading to big marches and acts of civil disobedience to advance a cause that is worthy of neither. The activists ought to pick more important fights. Until they do, the President should ignore their pressure.”

Ouch! The Washington Post gave the protesters a real smack down!

Obviously, this time, leading anti-Keystone activist and sometime actress Daryl Hannah, failed to make much of a “splash” in Washington.

Also the same Post reported on a poll that 70 per cent of Americans approve Keystone. Keystone has a higher approval rating than President Obama. Even 57 per cent of Democrats support Keystone.

President Obama may be a bit aloof and self-contained and the smartest person in the room, and perhaps the planet. But he is no fool. Neither is his close advisers Plouffe, Axelrod and his counsel, Bob Bauer ( my old Exeter buddy and Harvard classmate). They read the polls. They know where the political winds are blowing. Public support for the anti-Keystone position is plummeting.

Republicans know they have a winning issue. House and Senate Democrats are heading for the exits.

The anti-Keystone types have lost the food money. If I was their adviser, I would strongly urge them to fold now and walk away, with the few political chips, they still possess. Otherwise, they may lose all their credibility, the mortgage money and then the house itself.

They would be nuts to bet the farm on Keystone. That is to say, bet the Democratic Senate, on Keystone. Because the pro Keystone gamblers are sitting with Four Aces. And the anti-Keystone hand is just full of Jokers.

Billionaire Casino Owner Sheldon Adelson Gambles on Ontario. Is Toronto the New Macao?

Did you know Toronto is on the verge of becoming a world class city? Or at least a major international gambling capital. Because the multi-billionaire casino owner and operator, Sheldon Adelson, has come to play.

Mr. Adelson is the founder, Chairman and CEO of the multi-billion dollar public company, Las Vegas Sands Corp. Las Vegas Sands owns and operates several, large and very successful casinos and resorts in Las Vegas, Nevada, namely: the Venetian and the Palazzo. This company also owns and operates the Venetian/Palazzo Congress Centre and the Sands Expo at Venetian/Palazzo.

According to the company’s website, as above noted, the above Congress Centre and Sands Expo contain about 2.25 gross million square feet of meeting and convention space. And the Venentian/Palazzo together with the above vast convention and meeting space, has transformed Las Vegas from a gambling town into the pre-eminent meeting and convention destination in the world.

Las Vegas Sands also owns and operates several major casino/resort properties in the Chinese port of Macao. The Venetian Macao, the Plaza Macao, the Four Seasons Hotel Macao and the Sands Cotai Central.

The combined 2012 net revenues of Las Vegas Sands, ( which also includes casino/resorts in Pennsylvania, US and Singapore) total a whopping $11.13 billion dollars. That’s not chump change, sports fans.

Paul Godfrey, the current Chairman of the Board of Directors of Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, with the explicit support of the current Ontario government, wants to transform the city of Toronto into a major gambling and international tourist and convention centre.

Mr. Godfrey has cast his net far and wide in the international waters. And he has apparently landed a huge whale, The Moby Dick of international gambling and convention business. Sheldon Adelson.

According to public filings under the Ontario Lobbyists Registration Act, it appears that Sheldon Adelson, through his company, Las Vegas Sands Corp. has approached Paul Godfrey and the boys and girls at OLG, to discuss Adelson’s plans on how to turn dated and drab downtown Toronto into a mecca of gambling, entertainment and lots of American business men and women and conventioneers. Spending gobloads of American cash in our hotels, restaurants. And filling the OLG’s coffers with a healthy piece of the gambling revenues action. We are talking a multi billion dollar play, here, campers.

Sheldon Adelson would not have hired the very well-connected and expensive government relations/lobbying firm of Global Public Affairs Inc., to lobby for a local bingo hall license.

If Adelson et al, can recreate Venice, New York and Paris on the Vegas Strip. Why not actual Mecca on Front Street?

Or Sodom and Gomorrah?

My preference is to see Toronto’s Front Street transformed into a hot, steamy and sexy indoor Monte Carlo, especially in Toronto’s bitterly cold winters. Sort of like Casino Royale. Good to see you again, Mr. Bond.

Sheldon Adelson and his casino/convention team would be great for Toronto! Adelson is a character, a visionary and a risk-taking entrepreneur, with an out-sized ego. But modern Toronto, in the last few decades, has benefited from the visions, entrepreneurial spirit and incredible chutzpah of such city builders and eccentric egos as Mel Lastman, Paul Godfrey, Ed and David Mirvish, Ted Rogers, Galen and Hilary Weston, Hal Jackman and the Thomson family.

We need swash-buckling riverboat gamblers like Sheldon Adelson, to double down and bet billions on the resurgence of Toronto, as a great place to invest, do business and experience Toronto’s rich culture and entertainment.

It’s The Science, Stupid

On Friday the US State Department dropped a stink bomb on the US anti-Keystone environmental movement. When this Department released a 2,000-page draft environment impact statement on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project.

Specifically, the State Department report concluded “the approval or denial of the proposed Project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or in the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area.” (as reported in a Washington Post article dated, March 1)

This State Department report based its conclusion on the fact that the oil-sands producers will eventually find new routes to markets, including the growing use of rail cars to transport crude oil around North America.

In short, impact on the global emissions of greenhouse gases. Not so much!

Basically, the Keystone XL pipeline will not contribute to the warming of the planet.

Talk about your “Inconvenient Truth”. Ouch. That really hurts the anti-Keystone types, big time!

On the other hand, you can just see the executives of TransCanada, the developers of Keystone, doing happy dances around their boardroom table, in the oil-rich Canadian city of Calgary.

I can imagine Russ Girling, CEO of TransCanada, barely suppressing his glee when he stated, referring to the above State Department Report, that “This report again confirms that the US is going to continue to import oil for decades into the future. This isn’t an issue of alternate energy versus fossil fuels. This is really just a question of where do you want to get your oil from, given that you’re going to need it.”

So the US will still have to import oil for its energy needs. For the foreseeable future. To date the US also imports oil from Venezuela.

Recall that the anti-western, anti-capitalist socialist leaders of Venezuela hate the US guts, ideologically speaking.” Emperor for Life Chavez and Venezuela are unreliable suppliers of oil to the US. But let us put aside these very real national security concerns. Let us stick with the science.

The very same US State Department has concluded in a recent report that Canadian oil from the Alberta oil sands is at or below Venezuelan oil in terms of GHGs ( greenhouse gases). Guess what? The unintended consequences of blocking the Keystone pipeline, will be continued oil imports from Venezuela to the US. And greenhouse gas emissions increasing , together with all those nasty emissions arising from the trucks and trains needed to transport Venezuelan oil throughout the US.

Talk about pouring oil sands on the US environmentalists’ wounds.

You Don’t Need Jennifer Aniston’s Bod to Be Great in Bed

One of the biggest myths perpetuated by countless women’s magazines (Cosmopolitan, US Weekly) and some men’s magazines (Esquire, Vanity Fair) is that a woman should have a toned, slim, tanned, curvaceous body, in order to be desirable in bed.

But the truth is that we men just want you to like us. Get naked with us. And, we hope, enjoy the ride with us. An “A” list body like Jennifer Aniston’s is not required. Nor is a “B” or “C” list body, for that matter.

I feel compelled to retrace my steps on this sexual minefield because I believe my comments about Aniston and Angelina Jolie in my last HuffPost article were misinterpreted.

In that piece, I defended the attractiveness of Melissa McCarthy and Lena Dunham. I also speculated, perhaps too boldly, that Aniston and Jolie were so self-absorbed that they probably would be disappointing in the sack.

Marni Soupcoff, Managing Editor of HuffPost Blogs, in her own article, “The Week in Review: Boys, Girls, Bodies and Breasts,” claimed that I lost some Prince Charming points because I undermined my chivalrous defense of women’s imperfections by unnecessarily imagining that Aniston and Jolie would be disappointing in bed.

The point of that speculation and the point of this article is that a woman being physically attractive is not the end of the story. But just the beginning.

For a woman to possess a body like Aniston’s does not automatically make her great in the sack. At least for me.

For me (and I am not speaking for all mankind, or even on behalf of my close friends), for a woman to be truly great, the couple has to be truly great together. It is a dance. A tango. Not two separate ships passing in the night.

Between the two of us, there should be playfulness, humour, a spirit of adventure. And at least some care and affection.

It is really about the head and heart. Not the size of the breasts. Or how firm, the body.

For me, humour is key. I know that sounds strange.

But getting naked with someone is inherently funny. Especially in the early stages.

As we try to navigate which legs go where. What about our arms? What side should we be on?

What’s our most comfortable position? Facing each other. Top, bottom, on the side. Spooning.

How best to entangle and disentangle. Shuck and jive. Bob and weave.

And then we try to explore each other. What catches our breath? What’s pleasurable?

What’s not? If a woman can laugh with me, in the midst of this dance, then she has the potential for greatness.

For me. If she gets me. Laughs at my jokes. Makes me laugh. That is great.

Every relationship is different. Every woman is different.

Every guy has his ideal woman. And that ideal is as varied as the women in the world.

I still find women very mysterious and elusive. I am constantly being surprised.

Some women may enjoy being caressed on the small of the back. Others, soft kisses on the neck.

The back of the knee. An erogenous zone. Who knew?

Word to the wise, guys. What makes you warm, may leave your partner, cold.

For a woman to be truly great. She should, with humour, and patience, guide us through our fumblings.

Talk to us. Be intimate. Tell us what she desires. Ask us what we want.

Above all, give a damn. Be responsive. Because we care a lot. And bring your “A” game. Because the best of us are bringing our “A” Game. Flattery works with us, too. And if she actually means it. All the better.

To be truly great in the sack, for the two of us, there should be joy. The joy of discovery. Of intimacy. Of affection.

Of caring. And of foreplay.

Because when the foreplay becomes the play, the rest will take care of itself.