hopefully, more candidates that are running a distant third or fourth will drop out. it should help to minimize vote splitting.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cheryl-thomas-liberal-candidate-resigns-1.3251338
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
riding polls suggest that the ndp is likely to win one seat in edmonton, and the liberals might have a chance at one seat in calgary.
sorry: that is one seat on top of linda duncan's, for a total of two.
when riding model projections contradict riding polls, you want to take the riding polls, not the riding model projections. riding polls are direct measurement. riding model projections are really a kind of artistic expression.
if you'd like to publish some riding data, i'd be happy to see it. but, the data is as it is, and it simply does not point towards gains by the opposition parties in alberta at this time.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-change-in-the-air-alberta-1.3250557
(lost post)
that is not reliable riding data. that is a riding model projection, which is an artist's rendition of a possible election outcome.
you can access actual riding data here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_Canadian_constituencies,_42nd_Canadian_Election#Alberta
the riding projections take province-wide data and then try to guess where it is.
now, honestly? sure: it makes sense to think the increase in non-conservative votes would be centered in the cities. however, the riding data says that this is wrong. so, where is it, then?
well, i've been leaning towards the idea that there's a hidden force at play (chp. socred, libertarian; i'm guessing, it's not remotely clear) and that there really isn't an increase in the other parties' vote totals, it just looks like that due to the shrinking useable sample. but, i would need to see a boost in "other" in alberta and saskatchewan for that to be true, and it's not panning out.
the liberals are an almost solely urban party. the ndp really aren't. they've always done well in the rural areas of western canada. and, the ndp won some rural seats at the provincial level.
if that's the case, i wouldn't expect to see any seat changes
it makes a little direct sense, too.
who is more affected by tar sands pollution: a pothead university student in calgary, or a farmer halfway between lethbridge and medicine hat?
sorry: that is one seat on top of linda duncan's, for a total of two.
when riding model projections contradict riding polls, you want to take the riding polls, not the riding model projections. riding polls are direct measurement. riding model projections are really a kind of artistic expression.
if you'd like to publish some riding data, i'd be happy to see it. but, the data is as it is, and it simply does not point towards gains by the opposition parties in alberta at this time.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-change-in-the-air-alberta-1.3250557
(lost post)
that is not reliable riding data. that is a riding model projection, which is an artist's rendition of a possible election outcome.
you can access actual riding data here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_Canadian_constituencies,_42nd_Canadian_Election#Alberta
the riding projections take province-wide data and then try to guess where it is.
now, honestly? sure: it makes sense to think the increase in non-conservative votes would be centered in the cities. however, the riding data says that this is wrong. so, where is it, then?
well, i've been leaning towards the idea that there's a hidden force at play (chp. socred, libertarian; i'm guessing, it's not remotely clear) and that there really isn't an increase in the other parties' vote totals, it just looks like that due to the shrinking useable sample. but, i would need to see a boost in "other" in alberta and saskatchewan for that to be true, and it's not panning out.
the liberals are an almost solely urban party. the ndp really aren't. they've always done well in the rural areas of western canada. and, the ndp won some rural seats at the provincial level.
if that's the case, i wouldn't expect to see any seat changes
it makes a little direct sense, too.
who is more affected by tar sands pollution: a pothead university student in calgary, or a farmer halfway between lethbridge and medicine hat?
i have to agree with the dominant opinion expressed here. we've got all kinds of important things in front of us, and you're running stories on this? for ratings?
are you going to be proud of yourself if this becomes the ballot question? and, how does that make the country look to the rest of the world?
if this is honestly galvanizing your vote, please have the presence of mind to realize that you're not informed and stay home, instead.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqab-ban-zunera-ishaq-1.3249495
(lost post)
well, he wouldn't be able to do that if the media didn't help him along with it. we all know how harper works, and expect certain tactics from him. but, if this is the ballot question, the media will be squarely and unambiguously to blame for it.
(lost post)
a large percentage of people will allow the ballot question to be defined for them. it is the media that has insisted upon it, and will be responsible for it if it happens.
(lost post)
i do get your point. and i don't exactly want to call people brainless sheep; i don't think that i need to in order to get the point across about defining a *question*. there's a thousand things on the table. but, we tend to collectively pick an issue or two and then collectively vote in that context. if the media presents the election as a referendum on wearing a scarf at a ceremony, that's what the election will be in the minds of many people.
things are getting better with the internet, but we're still bottle-necked by the media as an information source. and, things are happening in real-time. there's not a library anybody can go to to get election information. we're reliant on the filter we're presented with. all of us.
are you going to be proud of yourself if this becomes the ballot question? and, how does that make the country look to the rest of the world?
if this is honestly galvanizing your vote, please have the presence of mind to realize that you're not informed and stay home, instead.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqab-ban-zunera-ishaq-1.3249495
(lost post)
well, he wouldn't be able to do that if the media didn't help him along with it. we all know how harper works, and expect certain tactics from him. but, if this is the ballot question, the media will be squarely and unambiguously to blame for it.
(lost post)
a large percentage of people will allow the ballot question to be defined for them. it is the media that has insisted upon it, and will be responsible for it if it happens.
(lost post)
i do get your point. and i don't exactly want to call people brainless sheep; i don't think that i need to in order to get the point across about defining a *question*. there's a thousand things on the table. but, we tend to collectively pick an issue or two and then collectively vote in that context. if the media presents the election as a referendum on wearing a scarf at a ceremony, that's what the election will be in the minds of many people.
things are getting better with the internet, but we're still bottle-necked by the media as an information source. and, things are happening in real-time. there's not a library anybody can go to to get election information. we're reliant on the filter we're presented with. all of us.
well, this happened once before. in 2007, mario dumont in the adq got around 31% of the vote. but, the adq is a sovereigntist party, so that is an underestimation; federal conservative voters would often vote liberal at the provincial level. if you split the conservative numbers in half and add it to the bloc numbers, you're still barely approaching that 31% that the adq got. it's not clear if that's an actual ceiling, either.
but what that means is that the ndp must have attracted a significant number of adq voters, and also that the core of remaining bloc support right now is actually adq support - not pq support.
you also have to keep in mind that the ndp picked up at least 10% of the swing they got in 2011 from the liberals, and that this seems to have largely gone back to the liberals. they're consistently polling at or above where they were in 2008.
that means that, if they are pushed down to their core & bloc swing from 2011, it's around 30% - and that is not much higher than where the liberals are running, according to some polls. that would be with the bloc running where they were last election, the liberals running a bit above where they were in 2008 and more or less ignoring the conservatives [i'm taking that bump skeptically for now; let's see what the next batch of polls says].
it's easy to assign the bleed to the liberals on a general perception that the ndp is the new bloc, and it's easy to assign the swing back to the bloc as being soft votes that they picked up *after* the election defaulting back to where they were four years ago.
but, if you realize that there's no way to crunch the numbers without concluding that the ndp was getting adq support, you realize how fragile their lead really was. but, duceppe may be cutting off his nose, here. the bloc had to move left in the 90s for a reason. this may boost their numbers a little, but, in the end, it may end up recreating the same barrier to governance that the pq is seeing with the charter: it works to whip up certain kind of votes, but it makes them unelectable to far more people.
if the ndp and bloc split the sovereigntist vote, this will benefit the conservatives in some areas and the liberals in many more areas.
riding modelling is very difficult with three competitive parties. it's almost impossible with four competitive parties. popular vote totals start to become meaningless. if this stabilizes with the ndp around 30, the liberals around 25, the bloc around 25 and the conservatives around 20? the ndp could easily finish fourth in the seat count, as they lose riding after riding to the liberals and conservatives on the ndp-bloc split, and get beaten by the bloc in staunchly sovereigntist ridings.
as it is, i'm convinced that the models have been exaggerating the ndp seat totals by about ten seats, mostly at the expense of the liberals (because the models are already being generous to the conservatives). if the liberals keep that 10-15%, as small as a 5% swing back to the bloc over recent numbers (which would still be less than the bloc got in 2011) could absolutely destroy the ndp in the urban core up the st. lawerence, and create havoc up the ottawa, too. and, a 10% swing back to where the bloc were in 2011 could wipe them out - purely on the strength of federalist voters returning to the liberals.
as for the ad strategy? it's more right-wing strategizing. strong leaders. well, it's the corner he's painted himself into. he's at least probably right that he's fighting for conservative votes, be they "tim horton's socialists" or red tories. it's desperate; if it works in swinging conservatives to the ndp, it actually helps the liberals throughout most of ontario.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-justin-trudeau-campaign-ndp-1.3248885
but what that means is that the ndp must have attracted a significant number of adq voters, and also that the core of remaining bloc support right now is actually adq support - not pq support.
you also have to keep in mind that the ndp picked up at least 10% of the swing they got in 2011 from the liberals, and that this seems to have largely gone back to the liberals. they're consistently polling at or above where they were in 2008.
that means that, if they are pushed down to their core & bloc swing from 2011, it's around 30% - and that is not much higher than where the liberals are running, according to some polls. that would be with the bloc running where they were last election, the liberals running a bit above where they were in 2008 and more or less ignoring the conservatives [i'm taking that bump skeptically for now; let's see what the next batch of polls says].
it's easy to assign the bleed to the liberals on a general perception that the ndp is the new bloc, and it's easy to assign the swing back to the bloc as being soft votes that they picked up *after* the election defaulting back to where they were four years ago.
but, if you realize that there's no way to crunch the numbers without concluding that the ndp was getting adq support, you realize how fragile their lead really was. but, duceppe may be cutting off his nose, here. the bloc had to move left in the 90s for a reason. this may boost their numbers a little, but, in the end, it may end up recreating the same barrier to governance that the pq is seeing with the charter: it works to whip up certain kind of votes, but it makes them unelectable to far more people.
if the ndp and bloc split the sovereigntist vote, this will benefit the conservatives in some areas and the liberals in many more areas.
riding modelling is very difficult with three competitive parties. it's almost impossible with four competitive parties. popular vote totals start to become meaningless. if this stabilizes with the ndp around 30, the liberals around 25, the bloc around 25 and the conservatives around 20? the ndp could easily finish fourth in the seat count, as they lose riding after riding to the liberals and conservatives on the ndp-bloc split, and get beaten by the bloc in staunchly sovereigntist ridings.
as it is, i'm convinced that the models have been exaggerating the ndp seat totals by about ten seats, mostly at the expense of the liberals (because the models are already being generous to the conservatives). if the liberals keep that 10-15%, as small as a 5% swing back to the bloc over recent numbers (which would still be less than the bloc got in 2011) could absolutely destroy the ndp in the urban core up the st. lawerence, and create havoc up the ottawa, too. and, a 10% swing back to where the bloc were in 2011 could wipe them out - purely on the strength of federalist voters returning to the liberals.
as for the ad strategy? it's more right-wing strategizing. strong leaders. well, it's the corner he's painted himself into. he's at least probably right that he's fighting for conservative votes, be they "tim horton's socialists" or red tories. it's desperate; if it works in swinging conservatives to the ndp, it actually helps the liberals throughout most of ontario.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-justin-trudeau-campaign-ndp-1.3248885
i agree that voters would likely respond well.
the problem is that mulcair doesn't agree with you.
rabble.ca/columnists/2015/09/waiting-elephant-to-be-mentioned-2015-election
the problem is that mulcair doesn't agree with you.
rabble.ca/columnists/2015/09/waiting-elephant-to-be-mentioned-2015-election
there's something seriously wrong when you can make a general comment like this about all muslims with total impunity, but you're immediately thrown out when you make a specific comment like this about a specific sect of jews. you need to be careful when you're speaking on the topic. but, this is less offensive (and less wrong) than positions taken by romeo saganash and other quebec ndp candidates because it is specific rather than general.
i mean, if i said something like "isis militants are misogynists", nobody is going to argue with me. there are radical, violent and racist jewish sects - just as there are radical, violent and racist muslim and christian sects.
the whole point, here, is the need to isolate specific subpopulations, rather than generalize across entire faiths.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/24/stefan-jonasson-ndp_n_8193280.html
i mean, if i said something like "isis militants are misogynists", nobody is going to argue with me. there are radical, violent and racist jewish sects - just as there are radical, violent and racist muslim and christian sects.
the whole point, here, is the need to isolate specific subpopulations, rather than generalize across entire faiths.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/24/stefan-jonasson-ndp_n_8193280.html
nobody in the toronto 18 planned to blow up anything. rather, undercover police officers created the entire plot from scratch, and then arrested a bunch of children for agreeing to take part in it, on the urging of those police officers.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/29/bill-c-24-trudeau-conservative-attack-ad-munk_n_8216700.html
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/29/bill-c-24-trudeau-conservative-attack-ad-munk_n_8216700.html
i'm not going to argue with you directly; you made assumptions and came to reasonable conclusions from them. but, i'd argue it's more likely that a scheme such as this would create a groupthink shift of otherwise tory voters than a backlash of retreat to the conservatives. that is, if unhappy conservatives and red tory voters saw a unified force develop, i think they'd be likely to support it, and that could push the conservatives into the mid 20s. if you wanted to do this right as a probabilistic calculation, you'd have to integrate the possibility that it would take votes away from the tories into your calculations, as well. you're consequently working with an incomplete sample space, which is skewing your numbers - you're only considering a fraction of the possible outcomes.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/30/vote-splitting-mulcair-trudeau-harper_n_8220820.html
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/30/vote-splitting-mulcair-trudeau-harper_n_8220820.html
you know, i'm not really sure that people know what a citizenship ceremony is.
this is a citizenship ceremony:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfnr4JWrImE&lc
pretty boring, huh?
you sure this is important to you?
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/29/mulcair-niqab-policy-ndp-quebec_n_8216898.html
this is a citizenship ceremony:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfnr4JWrImE&lc
pretty boring, huh?
you sure this is important to you?
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/29/mulcair-niqab-policy-ndp-quebec_n_8216898.html
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
chomsky tends to consider canada to be the province the american revolution never got around to annexing. he's so rooted in the era, it's easy to understand this. but, it's mostly wrong.
the opposition in canada has been trying to figure this out for a while. the main opposition, the liberals, ran on a very heavily environmentally-leaning platform in 2008 and heartbreakingly lost primarily due to a split with the green party, which got almost 10% of the vote. the third party is also at least better than the ruling conservatives. the electoral system is really crippling us, and standing in the way of what popular support actually is.
there's certainly a lot of valid criticism to throw at the governing conservatives. but, to suggest that canadians are being passive on the issue is demonstrably false.
the opposition in canada has been trying to figure this out for a while. the main opposition, the liberals, ran on a very heavily environmentally-leaning platform in 2008 and heartbreakingly lost primarily due to a split with the green party, which got almost 10% of the vote. the third party is also at least better than the ruling conservatives. the electoral system is really crippling us, and standing in the way of what popular support actually is.
there's certainly a lot of valid criticism to throw at the governing conservatives. but, to suggest that canadians are being passive on the issue is demonstrably false.
obama is actually right that the leadership in syria needs to be changed, but what the western media is ignoring is that putin actually agrees with him. it's a difference in approach, not in preferred outcome. nor is the issue assad, exactly, but the military junta that props him up; assad is in truth a mostly powerless figurehead.
suppose we wake up tomorrow and isis is destroyed and syria's borders are again secured. can that be the end of the war? in truth, it cannot. the devastation created by these foreign mercenary fighters is far too great to be forgiven by the very same people that have been waging the war. i'm not going to talk about cultural realities. it transcends that. syria is defending itself against an existential threat; destroying isis does not eliminate that existential threat, it only abolishes it's most outward manifestation. if you leave the generals in power, they will plot their revenge by turning the tables in launching an attack on riyadh.
even that is likely not enough. the real change that is required is in saudi arabia. the only way to truly end the conflict in syria is through lasting regime change in saudi arabia.
but, in the short run, to at least end the current phase of hostilities, syria cannot be left in tact to fester hostilities and plot it's revenge. that is obvious to everyone. the difference is that putin wants to see the state transitioned peacefully through the introduction of democracy, and obama wants to tear the state down by force.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDx8Bvlw3es
suppose we wake up tomorrow and isis is destroyed and syria's borders are again secured. can that be the end of the war? in truth, it cannot. the devastation created by these foreign mercenary fighters is far too great to be forgiven by the very same people that have been waging the war. i'm not going to talk about cultural realities. it transcends that. syria is defending itself against an existential threat; destroying isis does not eliminate that existential threat, it only abolishes it's most outward manifestation. if you leave the generals in power, they will plot their revenge by turning the tables in launching an attack on riyadh.
even that is likely not enough. the real change that is required is in saudi arabia. the only way to truly end the conflict in syria is through lasting regime change in saudi arabia.
but, in the short run, to at least end the current phase of hostilities, syria cannot be left in tact to fester hostilities and plot it's revenge. that is obvious to everyone. the difference is that putin wants to see the state transitioned peacefully through the introduction of democracy, and obama wants to tear the state down by force.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDx8Bvlw3es
something that should be added to media reports on the issue is that the toronto 18 case has brought up serious questions about government entrapment. this is very relevant, as context.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/28/bill-c-24-trudeau-audio-conservatives_n_8206798.html
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/28/bill-c-24-trudeau-audio-conservatives_n_8206798.html
it depends a lot on what you're projecting. for example, you might not consider the role that canada played in facilitating between the united states and cuba to be very important, but people that live in angola or south africa may disagree. or, you may play down how important canada was in disarmament discussions, but the russians remember - as do the indians as well as the chinese.
on the other hand? sure: we don't strike a lot of fear in the hearts of the world. but, we didn't use to want to, either. we used to want to get in between people that hated each other and try and strike a deal, from the suez canal to the panama canal.
we were actually very good at this. if you look at the major steps forward of the post-war period, we're very important in almost all of them - but we play a facilitating role in the background, rather than a direct role. that doesn't negate our importance. in fact, if you look carefully, it magnifies it. a lot of these things would not have happened without us.
and, thus when trudeau says that people listened, he is right - if you take the comments in the context of being a mediator, rather than in the context of being declarative. and, suggesting that we're irrelevant now and therefore always have been is nothing short of orwellian revisionism.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-neil-macdonald-munk-debate-1.3247934
on the other hand? sure: we don't strike a lot of fear in the hearts of the world. but, we didn't use to want to, either. we used to want to get in between people that hated each other and try and strike a deal, from the suez canal to the panama canal.
we were actually very good at this. if you look at the major steps forward of the post-war period, we're very important in almost all of them - but we play a facilitating role in the background, rather than a direct role. that doesn't negate our importance. in fact, if you look carefully, it magnifies it. a lot of these things would not have happened without us.
and, thus when trudeau says that people listened, he is right - if you take the comments in the context of being a mediator, rather than in the context of being declarative. and, suggesting that we're irrelevant now and therefore always have been is nothing short of orwellian revisionism.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-neil-macdonald-munk-debate-1.3247934
i went to a concert tonight, and am watching the debate now.
i think muclair started off very strong. i like the fact that he pointed out the need to cut arms supplies - that's so incredibly important. trudeau has come on a lot stronger. that response about his father is...it's going to be polarizing, but it may end up successful.
the c-51 exchange is also key, but i think a lot of pundits may miss it. this is the first time i've seen trudeau go into the proper explanation on how the ndp are actually playing this, and the response mulcair provided was pure death.
"that's not true. i never used the term 'police state.'"
the condescension. the contempt. it's remarkable. we've got a trudeau running, and i'm calling somebody else arrogant; arrogance, thy name is thomas mulcair.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-munk-debates-foreign-policy-syria-refugees-1.3247665
Anonymous
Want me to tell ya who won ?
What concert did ya see ?
jessica murray
it was a house show in windsor featuring a flying lotus and chick corea influenced hip-hop/jazz artist from toronto called sly why and a math punk duo from new york called noxious foxes.
there's a part about 2/3rds of the way through the debate where mulcair realizes he's lost.
i think muclair started off very strong. i like the fact that he pointed out the need to cut arms supplies - that's so incredibly important. trudeau has come on a lot stronger. that response about his father is...it's going to be polarizing, but it may end up successful.
the c-51 exchange is also key, but i think a lot of pundits may miss it. this is the first time i've seen trudeau go into the proper explanation on how the ndp are actually playing this, and the response mulcair provided was pure death.
"that's not true. i never used the term 'police state.'"
the condescension. the contempt. it's remarkable. we've got a trudeau running, and i'm calling somebody else arrogant; arrogance, thy name is thomas mulcair.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-munk-debates-foreign-policy-syria-refugees-1.3247665
Anonymous
Want me to tell ya who won ?
What concert did ya see ?
jessica murray
it was a house show in windsor featuring a flying lotus and chick corea influenced hip-hop/jazz artist from toronto called sly why and a math punk duo from new york called noxious foxes.
there's a part about 2/3rds of the way through the debate where mulcair realizes he's lost.
two suggestions on the model:
1) when you have riding polls, you should use them.
2) instead of taking just the 2011 results, you should take a weighted mean of the last several (say, five) in order to find the "centre of gravity" in the riding. this will help to identify true bellweathers and balance out fluke results from the last election.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-our-election-forecasting-model-works/article25371747/
1) when you have riding polls, you should use them.
2) instead of taking just the 2011 results, you should take a weighted mean of the last several (say, five) in order to find the "centre of gravity" in the riding. this will help to identify true bellweathers and balance out fluke results from the last election.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-our-election-forecasting-model-works/article25371747/
Monday, September 28, 2015
i can't believe i made it through the whole thing. this is the most pathetic collection of specious logic that i've ever seen put together in one place.
i actually don't think it's unlikely that early africans may have made it to south america via boat. we know that they travelled along india by boat at a very early date, and we seem to have evidence of cocaine in very old egyptian tombs, indicating that it was a possible journey.
but, i realize that the world is not flat and that it makes more sense to send them across the atlantic. that said, the documentary offers nothing in the way of such an argument.
but, near the final few minutes i all of a sudden understood: perhaps the fuegians may carry on in our genome - just like the "american aborigines" carried on in theirs.
it's subtle race-washing. in the wild.
i actually don't think it's unlikely that early africans may have made it to south america via boat. we know that they travelled along india by boat at a very early date, and we seem to have evidence of cocaine in very old egyptian tombs, indicating that it was a possible journey.
but, i realize that the world is not flat and that it makes more sense to send them across the atlantic. that said, the documentary offers nothing in the way of such an argument.
but, near the final few minutes i all of a sudden understood: perhaps the fuegians may carry on in our genome - just like the "american aborigines" carried on in theirs.
it's subtle race-washing. in the wild.
the results are too bunched to declare a movement from the ndp to the conservatives with any certainty; it's all in the margins. and, i'd hazard a guess that the conservatives were merely underpolling at the end of the vacation season, so there's an alternate explanation for their movement upwards. but, if you expand the ranges out properly, you see a clear decrease for the ndp and a less clear increase for the conservatives. of course, the bloc are also up.
then again, if conservatives were underpolling due to being away on vacation, the same logic may suggest the ndp were simply overpolling for the same reason. the lesson may merely be that summer polls are sketchy. and we already knew that.
i mean, yeah, it looks that way on first glance; i don't deny that, and i don't claim otherwise with any force. i'm just pointing out that it's just not actually clear, yet. we'll find out next week if a trend actually develops or not. but, multiple polls have pegged the potential ndp-conservative swing around 3-5%, so there's really not a lot of movement to play with.
that said, "immigration" is pretty much the only way this happens. it's the one way that the conservatives can get into the "tim horton's socialist" part of the ndp voting base. i pointed this out a few weeks ago. but, one would expect to see the offset in ontario, if that were true. rather, it seems to be mostly happening in rural bc and in quebec. in quebec, this is easy to understand. in rural bc, i would seek an alternate explanation.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-poll-tracker-sep28-1.3247187
then again, if conservatives were underpolling due to being away on vacation, the same logic may suggest the ndp were simply overpolling for the same reason. the lesson may merely be that summer polls are sketchy. and we already knew that.
i mean, yeah, it looks that way on first glance; i don't deny that, and i don't claim otherwise with any force. i'm just pointing out that it's just not actually clear, yet. we'll find out next week if a trend actually develops or not. but, multiple polls have pegged the potential ndp-conservative swing around 3-5%, so there's really not a lot of movement to play with.
that said, "immigration" is pretty much the only way this happens. it's the one way that the conservatives can get into the "tim horton's socialist" part of the ndp voting base. i pointed this out a few weeks ago. but, one would expect to see the offset in ontario, if that were true. rather, it seems to be mostly happening in rural bc and in quebec. in quebec, this is easy to understand. in rural bc, i would seek an alternate explanation.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-poll-tracker-sep28-1.3247187
canada, like every country, has hawks. but, the reason that even harper has to watch his military budget is that it's an electoral liability, in a broader sense. you can present as many sober analyses and pleas to the alliance as you want, in the end it's as toxic as a tax increase - which is exactly how most canadians will interpret it. if these are your priorities, you're going to have to actually win the argument first, and that's going to be a difficult task.
i would prefer to find ways to disengage from foreign zones of conflict and refocus resources on direct defense initiatives, like norad and better integration in the coast guard. and, to go back to a structural deadweight on the system with wider implications than the media is acknowledging, i think easing prohibition on marijuana will open up a lot of resources on the border.
i'd rather invest in dykes to fight rising sea levels than guns to fight supposed bad guys and control foreign resources.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-defence-spending-brian-stewart-1.3242611
i would prefer to find ways to disengage from foreign zones of conflict and refocus resources on direct defense initiatives, like norad and better integration in the coast guard. and, to go back to a structural deadweight on the system with wider implications than the media is acknowledging, i think easing prohibition on marijuana will open up a lot of resources on the border.
i'd rather invest in dykes to fight rising sea levels than guns to fight supposed bad guys and control foreign resources.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-defence-spending-brian-stewart-1.3242611
yeah. this is going to be hard to watch, too. but i almost think he has to do it, watch the tapes and see what he comes off as. just don't ask for my ears, please.
i don't think people are warming up to trudeau, exactly. i don't think he's really exceeding expectations. his style of acting is overly pretentious and faux-thespian; sometimes, it seems like he's going to launch into a musical or something. maybe a tennessee williams play. whatever it is is approved for the curriculum. if that's exceeding expectations, you must have been expecting an infomercial or something.
rather, it's more that people are warming up to the actual policy, which is perhaps exceeding expectations. and, i think we mostly get that it's the team he's got behind him that is churning it out. what's strange is that that doesn't seem to be much of a sticking point. i don't know; pile the factors on, there. sick of harper. just wanting a change. a little familiarity. in other circumstances, it could be destroying him and severely damaging the party. that people seem to be shrugging it off is more a reflection on the competition - and on the honest strength of the announcements.
i don't think he needs to demonstrate a masterful knowledge of anything tonight. it's more that he needs to avoid putting his foot in his mouth - and that means being careful about how some types of people may interpret some types of statements. and, you know, a little dry acting may even go over well, for the camp factor - because nobody's pretending, anyways. but it should maybe be toned down a little.
i don't think it will be toned down at all.
that said, i do hope to get a little bit of a clearer grasp on the liberal party's understanding of the new world order. but i think he can get away with expressing that in the form of a series of platitudes and barely formed abstractions. those who care will have little difficulty colouring in between the lines.
to put it another way? when a party runs a country for the better part of a century, there's not a lot of guesswork in their foreign policy principles or how they're expected to be applied. and, in canada, we have the added benefit of there being many books on liberal foreign policy in existence.
if he doesn't explicitly contradict specific things, people will broadly assume continuity. and that's probably for the best.
we all bicker about the liberals. left. right. but the vast majority of us actually go to the somewhat absurd extreme of actually identifying, on a civic level, specifically with established liberal policy positions - to the point that we accuse the existing government of changing the nature of the country, rather than merely being a different party with a different policy perspective. it's deep-seated. we say things like "canada is a country of peacekeepers" without even being fully cognizant of the truth underlying such a statement. his major task needs to be to not interfere with that identification, and maybe draw a little attention to it.
it's really not necessary that he try and convince anybody he's a policy wonk. he just needs to convince people that his party's values are theirs. and, the truth is that that's not hard - because, on this specific file, it is very much true.
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/09/28/will-justin-trudeau-hold-up-to-scrutiny-under-intensity-of-foreign-affairs-debate/
marauder
Got a thing about koalas ??? Having never voted Liberal in my 79 tears but now considering doing exactly that.For me anything that will defeat the fascism that has crept into our government works for me.
deathtokoalas
koalas must be destroyed due to their despicable levels of cuteness.
i don't think people are warming up to trudeau, exactly. i don't think he's really exceeding expectations. his style of acting is overly pretentious and faux-thespian; sometimes, it seems like he's going to launch into a musical or something. maybe a tennessee williams play. whatever it is is approved for the curriculum. if that's exceeding expectations, you must have been expecting an infomercial or something.
rather, it's more that people are warming up to the actual policy, which is perhaps exceeding expectations. and, i think we mostly get that it's the team he's got behind him that is churning it out. what's strange is that that doesn't seem to be much of a sticking point. i don't know; pile the factors on, there. sick of harper. just wanting a change. a little familiarity. in other circumstances, it could be destroying him and severely damaging the party. that people seem to be shrugging it off is more a reflection on the competition - and on the honest strength of the announcements.
i don't think he needs to demonstrate a masterful knowledge of anything tonight. it's more that he needs to avoid putting his foot in his mouth - and that means being careful about how some types of people may interpret some types of statements. and, you know, a little dry acting may even go over well, for the camp factor - because nobody's pretending, anyways. but it should maybe be toned down a little.
i don't think it will be toned down at all.
that said, i do hope to get a little bit of a clearer grasp on the liberal party's understanding of the new world order. but i think he can get away with expressing that in the form of a series of platitudes and barely formed abstractions. those who care will have little difficulty colouring in between the lines.
to put it another way? when a party runs a country for the better part of a century, there's not a lot of guesswork in their foreign policy principles or how they're expected to be applied. and, in canada, we have the added benefit of there being many books on liberal foreign policy in existence.
if he doesn't explicitly contradict specific things, people will broadly assume continuity. and that's probably for the best.
we all bicker about the liberals. left. right. but the vast majority of us actually go to the somewhat absurd extreme of actually identifying, on a civic level, specifically with established liberal policy positions - to the point that we accuse the existing government of changing the nature of the country, rather than merely being a different party with a different policy perspective. it's deep-seated. we say things like "canada is a country of peacekeepers" without even being fully cognizant of the truth underlying such a statement. his major task needs to be to not interfere with that identification, and maybe draw a little attention to it.
it's really not necessary that he try and convince anybody he's a policy wonk. he just needs to convince people that his party's values are theirs. and, the truth is that that's not hard - because, on this specific file, it is very much true.
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/09/28/will-justin-trudeau-hold-up-to-scrutiny-under-intensity-of-foreign-affairs-debate/
marauder
Got a thing about koalas ??? Having never voted Liberal in my 79 tears but now considering doing exactly that.For me anything that will defeat the fascism that has crept into our government works for me.
deathtokoalas
koalas must be destroyed due to their despicable levels of cuteness.
no.
mulcair's got some ups and some downs, sure. they all do. but, you don't want to go down this path. trust me.
i'm imagining him dumping a bottle of maple syrup on to some pancakes in a log cabin after a long day of tree chopping. statesman-like? i think his strengths are more guttural. rather, he's the cheery, gritty foot soldier that you can count on in battle and can trust to sit beside you with an axe.
don't do this, ndp. i'm not on your side this time, but it will be cringeworthy.
you really want to play this down. focus on being a good communicator. a good listener. a facilitator. you can pull that off.
there is absolutely nothing worse than trying to be statesmanlike and failing. leave that to trudeau, who will no doubt try it, so that he doesn't try it again.
ipolitics.ca/2015/09/28/mulcair-aims-to-showcase-statesman-like-competence-in-foreign-policy-debate/
mulcair's got some ups and some downs, sure. they all do. but, you don't want to go down this path. trust me.
i'm imagining him dumping a bottle of maple syrup on to some pancakes in a log cabin after a long day of tree chopping. statesman-like? i think his strengths are more guttural. rather, he's the cheery, gritty foot soldier that you can count on in battle and can trust to sit beside you with an axe.
don't do this, ndp. i'm not on your side this time, but it will be cringeworthy.
you really want to play this down. focus on being a good communicator. a good listener. a facilitator. you can pull that off.
there is absolutely nothing worse than trying to be statesmanlike and failing. leave that to trudeau, who will no doubt try it, so that he doesn't try it again.
ipolitics.ca/2015/09/28/mulcair-aims-to-showcase-statesman-like-competence-in-foreign-policy-debate/
so, what's going on in syria right now?
actually, yes: you do need to know. people have been talking about world war three since the americans invaded iraq. it's starting to get pretty serious. and, hey, there's a foreign policy election debate tonight, too - but don't expect any useful analysis out of it.
so, it was a few years ago now that the americans staged a chemical attack and then tried to blame it on syria. that might sound conspiratorial, and if your only source of news is cnn that's understandable, but my source on that claim is actually the united nations. that's legit, and understood by the various world powers. understanding that the united states faked a chemical attack to start a war is fundamental in realizing exactly what's happening. it's one thing to do something like that; the fact is that the americans have a long history of false flags to start wars - and that's according to history, not according to youtube. it's another thing to do something like that, get caught and have the whole world know you did it. how trustworthy are you after that? and, if it fits into a pattern of deception over many years or decades?
the united states has become a rogue state.
it's not clear what the russians said to the americans, or why the british of all people took the initiative to throw a wrench into it, but it didn't happen.
instead of bombing syria, they created a mess in ukraine by funding a coup, which set off a civil war. the purpose of this was to punish the russians for interfering in syria. then, when the russians reacted (like they were supposed to), sanctions were placed on russia that prevents them from economic relations with countries that use the united states dollar. the purpose of these sanctions is to collapse the russian economy in the hopes that it will lead to a revolution in russia that american agents can take control of in seizing power. that's not alex jones, either. that's the official policy on the state department's website.
it took the russians some time to come to terms with what is actually happening, but they have now clearly come to terms with what is happening and have dramatically changed their behaviour. this is something that we have not seen from the russians since the fall of communism: active military deployment in hot proxy wars.
the first signs that russia was beginning to reverse it's policy of pacifism came with the invasion of libya. the russians voted for the security council resolution that authorized bombing in libya, but only to protect protesters. nato took control of this mission and used it to oust ghadaffi, which is not what the russians voted for. in fact, the russians lost an important port and a lot of contracts in the process, which have been gained by nato (and particularly the french and italians). discussions in american-russian relations were focused largely around the concept of "mutual trust" throughout the cold war. i'm not sure it ever meant much to the american side. but, it meant a lot to gorbachev and it seemed to be an important principle to both putin and "smiley dmitri" medvedev, up until this point. the libya operation is the point where that mutual trust again disappeared on the russian side, thrusting us back into a cold war situation. i know this because lavrov (the longstanding russian foreign minister) has stated as much publicly. that was in 2011.
but, the ukrainian offensive was an escalation that the russians could not turn a cheek on and the clear strategy towards active regime change is something that has jolted the russians out of hibernation. it set in motion contingency plans that cannot be easily reversed. well, hey - if china were to invade mexico, you don't think the americans have a full blown military plan to react, one that was written fifty years ago and is taught in academies and is periodically updated? events trigger reactions. it's the naivete of the obama administration that is the root cause here, not the russian contingencies. but, you can't just stop these things once they get going. and, thus this is when the war starts.
as you no doubt know, they quickly seized crimea and have been fighting a war on the border of ukraine for almost two years, now. but you might not realize some of the other things they've been doing.
there was recently an iran deal. again: the american press is warping the hell out of this, and you probably don't have the slightest idea what it's about. what happened is that the russians looked at the situation and said "well, you're under sanctions. we're under sanctions. let's trade. hey, do you want some advanced anti-aircraft systems to protect you from an american invasion?".
well, of course they do.
china gets wind of the deal and says "well, what's the use of these sanctions against iran, then?". and the whole world agrees.
this forced the americans to back off. the "deal" they got is a ridiculous face-saving mechanism to obscure the fact that they have just conceded that iran is outside of their sphere. what's actually happening is that the russians are moving weapons systems in that are advanced enough that the americans need to take the option of invasion off the table and finally, after 35 years, kiss that iranian oil goodbye.
but, putin is not done, apparently.
last week, he started moving more air defenses into syria - along with offensive weapons systems. and, even more recently, he's signed agreements with iraq to move weapons into that country as well.
but, wait. isn't this exactly where the americans are fighting isis?
exactly.
the russians understand that isis is a front for saudi interests to take over the region in the presumed vacuum created by the removal of russian influence. they are responding by reminding the saudis that there is, in fact, still russian influence and no vacuum after all.
the result is a very hot war right now between the united states and russia in syria and iraq, through the proxy of saudi-backed terrorists facing off directly against russian forces. this has a serious potential of getting out of hand, as more players enter in confusing ways. the turks are a particular issue.
after an initial round of fighting, the result of this may actually be stability, as the russians reassert the previous status quo balance of power and drive isis back into the desert. but, even if this does not happen, one must remember that the americans have made it clear that they are an existential threat to the russian state in the region, and this has forced them to react how they are. that is, it is not clear exactly what they're doing, but it's clear that this is part of a broader strategy that will not end upon the defeat of isis.
the reason this becomes worrying is that it is clear that the extent of the contingency plan is not understood by washington. in the last four months, the russians have managed to occupy the entire shiite crescent with russian troops that are waging a hot war against isis rebels basically over top of american efforts to create chaos to redraw the map and have clearly caught the americans off guard repeatedly. when you've got these two countries bombing similar targets in close proximity to each other, and neither is clear what the other is doing, it creates a serious potential for misunderstanding.
it's all because of a poorly thought out set of sanctions that were meant to force the russians into submission but have instead thrown them into full rebellion.
actually, yes: you do need to know. people have been talking about world war three since the americans invaded iraq. it's starting to get pretty serious. and, hey, there's a foreign policy election debate tonight, too - but don't expect any useful analysis out of it.
so, it was a few years ago now that the americans staged a chemical attack and then tried to blame it on syria. that might sound conspiratorial, and if your only source of news is cnn that's understandable, but my source on that claim is actually the united nations. that's legit, and understood by the various world powers. understanding that the united states faked a chemical attack to start a war is fundamental in realizing exactly what's happening. it's one thing to do something like that; the fact is that the americans have a long history of false flags to start wars - and that's according to history, not according to youtube. it's another thing to do something like that, get caught and have the whole world know you did it. how trustworthy are you after that? and, if it fits into a pattern of deception over many years or decades?
the united states has become a rogue state.
it's not clear what the russians said to the americans, or why the british of all people took the initiative to throw a wrench into it, but it didn't happen.
instead of bombing syria, they created a mess in ukraine by funding a coup, which set off a civil war. the purpose of this was to punish the russians for interfering in syria. then, when the russians reacted (like they were supposed to), sanctions were placed on russia that prevents them from economic relations with countries that use the united states dollar. the purpose of these sanctions is to collapse the russian economy in the hopes that it will lead to a revolution in russia that american agents can take control of in seizing power. that's not alex jones, either. that's the official policy on the state department's website.
it took the russians some time to come to terms with what is actually happening, but they have now clearly come to terms with what is happening and have dramatically changed their behaviour. this is something that we have not seen from the russians since the fall of communism: active military deployment in hot proxy wars.
the first signs that russia was beginning to reverse it's policy of pacifism came with the invasion of libya. the russians voted for the security council resolution that authorized bombing in libya, but only to protect protesters. nato took control of this mission and used it to oust ghadaffi, which is not what the russians voted for. in fact, the russians lost an important port and a lot of contracts in the process, which have been gained by nato (and particularly the french and italians). discussions in american-russian relations were focused largely around the concept of "mutual trust" throughout the cold war. i'm not sure it ever meant much to the american side. but, it meant a lot to gorbachev and it seemed to be an important principle to both putin and "smiley dmitri" medvedev, up until this point. the libya operation is the point where that mutual trust again disappeared on the russian side, thrusting us back into a cold war situation. i know this because lavrov (the longstanding russian foreign minister) has stated as much publicly. that was in 2011.
but, the ukrainian offensive was an escalation that the russians could not turn a cheek on and the clear strategy towards active regime change is something that has jolted the russians out of hibernation. it set in motion contingency plans that cannot be easily reversed. well, hey - if china were to invade mexico, you don't think the americans have a full blown military plan to react, one that was written fifty years ago and is taught in academies and is periodically updated? events trigger reactions. it's the naivete of the obama administration that is the root cause here, not the russian contingencies. but, you can't just stop these things once they get going. and, thus this is when the war starts.
as you no doubt know, they quickly seized crimea and have been fighting a war on the border of ukraine for almost two years, now. but you might not realize some of the other things they've been doing.
there was recently an iran deal. again: the american press is warping the hell out of this, and you probably don't have the slightest idea what it's about. what happened is that the russians looked at the situation and said "well, you're under sanctions. we're under sanctions. let's trade. hey, do you want some advanced anti-aircraft systems to protect you from an american invasion?".
well, of course they do.
china gets wind of the deal and says "well, what's the use of these sanctions against iran, then?". and the whole world agrees.
this forced the americans to back off. the "deal" they got is a ridiculous face-saving mechanism to obscure the fact that they have just conceded that iran is outside of their sphere. what's actually happening is that the russians are moving weapons systems in that are advanced enough that the americans need to take the option of invasion off the table and finally, after 35 years, kiss that iranian oil goodbye.
but, putin is not done, apparently.
last week, he started moving more air defenses into syria - along with offensive weapons systems. and, even more recently, he's signed agreements with iraq to move weapons into that country as well.
but, wait. isn't this exactly where the americans are fighting isis?
exactly.
the russians understand that isis is a front for saudi interests to take over the region in the presumed vacuum created by the removal of russian influence. they are responding by reminding the saudis that there is, in fact, still russian influence and no vacuum after all.
the result is a very hot war right now between the united states and russia in syria and iraq, through the proxy of saudi-backed terrorists facing off directly against russian forces. this has a serious potential of getting out of hand, as more players enter in confusing ways. the turks are a particular issue.
after an initial round of fighting, the result of this may actually be stability, as the russians reassert the previous status quo balance of power and drive isis back into the desert. but, even if this does not happen, one must remember that the americans have made it clear that they are an existential threat to the russian state in the region, and this has forced them to react how they are. that is, it is not clear exactly what they're doing, but it's clear that this is part of a broader strategy that will not end upon the defeat of isis.
the reason this becomes worrying is that it is clear that the extent of the contingency plan is not understood by washington. in the last four months, the russians have managed to occupy the entire shiite crescent with russian troops that are waging a hot war against isis rebels basically over top of american efforts to create chaos to redraw the map and have clearly caught the americans off guard repeatedly. when you've got these two countries bombing similar targets in close proximity to each other, and neither is clear what the other is doing, it creates a serious potential for misunderstanding.
it's all because of a poorly thought out set of sanctions that were meant to force the russians into submission but have instead thrown them into full rebellion.
because the tar sands oil is mostly for export, hard caps make some sense. that's different than domestic energy production (especially relating to coal), where the key issue needs to be replacing electricity generation.
but, what happens if you break the caps? are you summoned to the house of commons for a denouncement? fines are just another cost of business. hey, with prices as they are, fines could keep the oil in the ground.
yeah, i'd like to shut them down altogether, but if this is a serious proposal then it needs to come with...it needs to come with subsidies to upgrade technology. oops.
and, it means actual hard caps, too. not exchanging carbon credits with some company that claims to do business planting trees in the amazon, but is actually registered in the caymans.
i'm just not convinced we have a model for cap and trade that's reliable. in theory, ok - for the tar sands, only. in actuality? the acid rain comparison is kind of sketchy, because it coincided with deindustrialization due to nafta. the system in europe is still up in the air - there's certainly a lot of stories of corruption floating around, and it's happening at the same time as a massive grass roots movement in germany to actually change generation methods. nor has it had really big emission reduction effects. it's reasonable to suggest that the emissions reductions that have been accomplished are due to direct action, rather than indirect action. all i see from the existing cap & trade schemes is that it needs to be tied to direct action to have any results, and is arguably more or less useless altogether.
and, it's only a percentage of the problem, as well. about 10%, in canada.
the reality is that the bulk of our emissions comes from power plants and cars (together, about 80%), and that approaching that requires direct investment, not a market scheme.
it very well might increase prices if, in the end, the fine merely becomes a tax. but, i don't see anybody thinks this actually works to lower carbon, without drinking the neo-liberal kool-aid on markets.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-losing-ground-as-quebec-support-slips-poll-shows/article26554222/
but, what happens if you break the caps? are you summoned to the house of commons for a denouncement? fines are just another cost of business. hey, with prices as they are, fines could keep the oil in the ground.
yeah, i'd like to shut them down altogether, but if this is a serious proposal then it needs to come with...it needs to come with subsidies to upgrade technology. oops.
and, it means actual hard caps, too. not exchanging carbon credits with some company that claims to do business planting trees in the amazon, but is actually registered in the caymans.
i'm just not convinced we have a model for cap and trade that's reliable. in theory, ok - for the tar sands, only. in actuality? the acid rain comparison is kind of sketchy, because it coincided with deindustrialization due to nafta. the system in europe is still up in the air - there's certainly a lot of stories of corruption floating around, and it's happening at the same time as a massive grass roots movement in germany to actually change generation methods. nor has it had really big emission reduction effects. it's reasonable to suggest that the emissions reductions that have been accomplished are due to direct action, rather than indirect action. all i see from the existing cap & trade schemes is that it needs to be tied to direct action to have any results, and is arguably more or less useless altogether.
and, it's only a percentage of the problem, as well. about 10%, in canada.
the reality is that the bulk of our emissions comes from power plants and cars (together, about 80%), and that approaching that requires direct investment, not a market scheme.
it very well might increase prices if, in the end, the fine merely becomes a tax. but, i don't see anybody thinks this actually works to lower carbon, without drinking the neo-liberal kool-aid on markets.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-losing-ground-as-quebec-support-slips-poll-shows/article26554222/
it's not possible to have an opinion on a secret "trade document", although if this is like any of the other "trade documents" then it will have essentially nothing to do with trade - it will be a document that gives rights to investors, and cements various tariffs that benefit various investors. traditional conservative supporters will automatically support it, as they should - it's mercantilism. the ndp base will automatically hate it, as they have since before seattle - because they're opposed to transferring power from publicly accountable governments to unaccountable kangaroo court "tribunals". but everybody else has to actually READ IT FIRST before they can form an opinion. and, that's why this is potentially so explosive.
it's not going to be supply management parts of this that are going to upset people, it's going to be the parts on intellectual property rights, primarily. and, i speak for a lot of people when i argue that we should be negotiating our way out of chapter 11, not signing yet more chapter 11 type agreements.
the liberals are useless on trade; they talked a good talk in the 80s (in favour of trade, just not the agreement - which became the consensus alter-globaliza¬tion position) and then completely capitulated. that's one of the major reasons they lost so much support to the ndp amongst gen x and y people after 2000. then, as soon as the ndp end up in striking distance, they do the exact thing that all these people have been voting for them not to do.
wait for it. mulcair could still get past oct 19th unscathed on this. i don't think he'll get past jan 1 unscathed, unless he changes tactics.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trade-is-voters-top-foreign-policy-concern-poll-suggests/article26556164/
Live in Ottawa –love the leafs
Thanks comrade.
deathtokoalas
typical laughs fan in ottawa. you start talking trade, and they offer up russ courtnall for john kordic, then call people names when the nature of the deal is made public.
it's not going to be supply management parts of this that are going to upset people, it's going to be the parts on intellectual property rights, primarily. and, i speak for a lot of people when i argue that we should be negotiating our way out of chapter 11, not signing yet more chapter 11 type agreements.
the liberals are useless on trade; they talked a good talk in the 80s (in favour of trade, just not the agreement - which became the consensus alter-globaliza¬tion position) and then completely capitulated. that's one of the major reasons they lost so much support to the ndp amongst gen x and y people after 2000. then, as soon as the ndp end up in striking distance, they do the exact thing that all these people have been voting for them not to do.
wait for it. mulcair could still get past oct 19th unscathed on this. i don't think he'll get past jan 1 unscathed, unless he changes tactics.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trade-is-voters-top-foreign-policy-concern-poll-suggests/article26556164/
Live in Ottawa –love the leafs
Thanks comrade.
deathtokoalas
typical laughs fan in ottawa. you start talking trade, and they offer up russ courtnall for john kordic, then call people names when the nature of the deal is made public.
i really hope that what everybody learns from this is that ads are a waste of money and that a reanalysis of the last several elections is required. but, of course, what a paper like the globe sells is ads. they don't want you to know that. and, it's not a coincidence that they focus so much analysis around the effects of the product they sell. it's this stack of cards that you can't expect them to abolish. what's important is that the serious people don't get blindsided by the media coverage.
the google model is not new; it's how papers have worked for decades, if not centuries. you're not the consumer. you're the product.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/quebec-campaign-gets-nasty-but-election-ad-wars-still-muted-in-rest-of-canada/article26554648/
the google model is not new; it's how papers have worked for decades, if not centuries. you're not the consumer. you're the product.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/quebec-campaign-gets-nasty-but-election-ad-wars-still-muted-in-rest-of-canada/article26554648/
wait. does that mean the ndp are opposed to building a fence along the southern border? when will tom mulcair support protecting our border from illegal american immigrants, so we can have a country again?
again: the amount of contempt shown by the ndp for the electorate's intelligence seems to be inversely proportionally related to their polling numbers. they keep doing this. it keeps killing them. they're not getting it.
you can run this on the right, when your target audience is mostly high school educated, or works in the trades. but, the battle on the left is over educated voters. this kind of repeated and sustained immaturity is just consistently making them look amateur, on top of appearing contemptuous.
the way the ndp is running this election is comparable to showing up to a thesis defense and quoting dr. seuss. it was theirs to lose, as i said. and they've accomplished it, as i suggested.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/27/ndp-attack-ad-trudeau-trump_n_8203870.html
again: the amount of contempt shown by the ndp for the electorate's intelligence seems to be inversely proportionally related to their polling numbers. they keep doing this. it keeps killing them. they're not getting it.
you can run this on the right, when your target audience is mostly high school educated, or works in the trades. but, the battle on the left is over educated voters. this kind of repeated and sustained immaturity is just consistently making them look amateur, on top of appearing contemptuous.
the way the ndp is running this election is comparable to showing up to a thesis defense and quoting dr. seuss. it was theirs to lose, as i said. and they've accomplished it, as i suggested.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/27/ndp-attack-ad-trudeau-trump_n_8203870.html
i think you're wrong, but i can't really respond to this until you correct your dates and numbers. the liberals won a majority in 1980 under trudeau due largely to the quebec vote, mulroney won a very large majority in 1984 for the conservatives that was cross-country and he then won a much smaller 21 seat majority in 1988 that was fully dependent on a 60-seat showing in quebec. chretien swept the liberals back into power in 1993 with a 29 seat majority that included 98 seats in ontario and almost every seat in the maritimes but very few seats out west.
the right was split through the 90s. the reality is that harper has only rarely hit the highs that the combined conservative & reform party vote hit in the 90s, which was consistently 35-40. it's consequently pointless to look at 90s numbers and argue you can win without quebec. i mean, sure you can - if the right is split in rural ontario. harper has struggled to reach those numbers, but he's won since then because he controls the other groupthink province in canada: alberta.
so, sure, you can win without quebec. if quebec is voting in protest and the opposition is split. or quebec is voting in protest and you have alberta.
now that things are back to normal, hopefully, it's going to be very hard to win without quebec, again.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/alain-miville-de-chane/quebec-vote-has-no-say-in_b_8201036.html
the right was split through the 90s. the reality is that harper has only rarely hit the highs that the combined conservative & reform party vote hit in the 90s, which was consistently 35-40. it's consequently pointless to look at 90s numbers and argue you can win without quebec. i mean, sure you can - if the right is split in rural ontario. harper has struggled to reach those numbers, but he's won since then because he controls the other groupthink province in canada: alberta.
so, sure, you can win without quebec. if quebec is voting in protest and the opposition is split. or quebec is voting in protest and you have alberta.
now that things are back to normal, hopefully, it's going to be very hard to win without quebec, again.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/alain-miville-de-chane/quebec-vote-has-no-say-in_b_8201036.html
why don't we ban fat people from wearing bikinis while we're at it. i find that incredibly offensive.
and, those stupid hipster glasses, too.
also: capes. i don't want to be worried about whether somebody is secretly a vampire or not. just get rid of them.
but, listen, raheel. you can't pass this law. it's unconstitutional. you could maybe pass it in some other country. but, our government would have to suspend the rule of law to have this pass.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/raheel-raza/niqab-burka-ban-canada_b_8189112.html
and, those stupid hipster glasses, too.
also: capes. i don't want to be worried about whether somebody is secretly a vampire or not. just get rid of them.
but, listen, raheel. you can't pass this law. it's unconstitutional. you could maybe pass it in some other country. but, our government would have to suspend the rule of law to have this pass.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/raheel-raza/niqab-burka-ban-canada_b_8189112.html
so, what's going on in syria right now?
actually, yes: you do need to know. people have been talking about world war three since the americans invaded iraq. it's starting to get pretty serious. and, hey, there's a foreign policy election debate tonight, too - but don't expect any useful analysis out of it.
so, it was a few years ago now that the americans staged a chemical attack and then tried to blame it on syria. that might sound conspiratorial, and if your only source of news is cnn that's understandable, but my source on that claim is actually the united nations. that's legit, and understood by the various world powers. understanding that the united states faked a chemical attack to start a war is fundamental in realizing exactly what's happening. it's one thing to do something like that; the fact is that the americans have a long history of false flags to start wars - and that's according to history, not according to youtube. it's another thing to do something like that, get caught and have the whole world know you did it. how trustworthy are you after that? and, if it fits into a pattern of deception over many years or decades?
the united states has become a rogue state.
it's not clear what the russians said to the americans, or why the british of all people took the initiative to throw a wrench into it, but it didn't happen.
instead of bombing syria, they created a mess in ukraine by funding a coup, which set off a civil war. the purpose of this was to punish the russians for interfering in syria. then, when the russians reacted (like they were supposed to), sanctions were placed on russia that prevents them from economic relations with countries that use the united states dollar. the purpose of these sanctions is to collapse the russian economy in the hopes that it will lead to a revolution in russia that american agents can take control of in seizing power. that's not alex jones, either. that's the official policy on the state department's website.
it took the russians some time to come to terms with what is actually happening, but they have now clearly come to terms with what is happening and have dramatically changed their behaviour. this is something that we have not seen from the russians since the fall of communism: active military deployment in hot proxy wars.
the first signs that russia was beginning to reverse it's policy of pacifism came with the invasion of libya. the russians voted for the security council resolution that authorized bombing in libya, but only to protect protesters. nato took control of this mission and used it to oust ghadaffi, which is not what the russians voted for. in fact, the russians lost an important port and a lot of contracts in the process, which have been gained by nato (and particularly the french and italians). discussions in american-russian relations were focused largely around the concept of "mutual trust" throughout the cold war. i'm not sure it ever meant much to the american side. but, it meant a lot to gorbachev and it seemed to be an important principle to both putin and "smiley dmitri" medvedev, up until this point. the libya operation is the point where that mutual trust again disappeared on the russian side, thrusting us back into a cold war situation. i know this because lavrov (the longstanding russian foreign minister) has stated as much publicly. that was in 2011.
but, the ukrainian offensive was an escalation that the russians could not turn a cheek on and the clear strategy towards active regime change is something that has jolted the russians out of hibernation. it set in motion contingency plans that cannot be easily reversed. well, hey - if china were to invade mexico, you don't think the americans have a full blown military plan to react, one that was written fifty years ago and is taught in academies and is periodically updated? events trigger reactions. it's the naivete of the obama administration that is the root cause here, not the russian contingencies. but, you can't just stop these things once they get going. and, thus this is when the war starts.
as you no doubt know, they quickly seized crimea and have been fighting a war on the border of ukraine for almost two years, now. but you might not realize some of the other things they've been doing.
there was recently an iran deal. again: the american press is warping the hell out of this, and you probably don't have the slightest idea what it's about. what happened is that the russians looked at the situation and said "well, you're under sanctions. we're under sanctions. let's trade. hey, do you want some advanced anti-aircraft systems to protect you from an american invasion?".
well, of course they do.
china gets wind of the deal and says "well, what's the use of these sanctions against iran, then?". and the whole world agrees.
this forced the americans to back off. the "deal" they got is a ridiculous face-saving mechanism to obscure the fact that they have just conceded that iran is outside of their sphere. what's actually happening is that the russians are moving weapons systems in that are advanced enough that the americans need to take the option of invasion off the table and finally, after 35 years, kiss that iranian oil goodbye.
but, putin is not done, apparently.
last week, he started moving more air defenses into syria - along with offensive weapons systems. and, even more recently, he's signed agreements with iraq to move weapons into that country as well.
but, wait. isn't this exactly where the americans are fighting isis?
exactly.
the russians understand that isis is a front for saudi interests to take over the region in the presumed vacuum created by the removal of russian influence. they are responding by reminding the saudis that there is, in fact, still russian influence and no vacuum after all.
the result is a very hot war right now between the united states and russia in syria and iraq, through the proxy of saudi-backed terrorists facing off directly against russian forces. this has a serious potential of getting out of hand, as more players enter in confusing ways. the turks are a particular issue.
after an initial round of fighting, the result of this may actually be stability, as the russians reassert the previous status quo balance of power and drive isis back into the desert. but, even if this does not happen, one must remember that the americans have made it clear that they are an existential threat to the russian state in the region, and this has forced them to react how they are. that is, it is not clear exactly what they're doing, but it's clear that this is part of a broader strategy that will not end upon the defeat of isis.
the reason this becomes worrying is that it is clear that the extent of the contingency plan is not understood by washington. in the last four months, the russians have managed to occupy the entire shiite crescent with russian troops that are waging a hot war against isis rebels basically over top of american efforts to create chaos to redraw the map and have clearly caught the americans off guard repeatedly. when you've got these two countries bombing similar targets in close proximity to each other, and neither is clear what the other is doing, it creates a serious potential for misunderstanding.
it's all because of a poorly thought out set of sanctions that were meant to force the russians into submission but have instead thrown them into full rebellion.
actually, yes: you do need to know. people have been talking about world war three since the americans invaded iraq. it's starting to get pretty serious. and, hey, there's a foreign policy election debate tonight, too - but don't expect any useful analysis out of it.
so, it was a few years ago now that the americans staged a chemical attack and then tried to blame it on syria. that might sound conspiratorial, and if your only source of news is cnn that's understandable, but my source on that claim is actually the united nations. that's legit, and understood by the various world powers. understanding that the united states faked a chemical attack to start a war is fundamental in realizing exactly what's happening. it's one thing to do something like that; the fact is that the americans have a long history of false flags to start wars - and that's according to history, not according to youtube. it's another thing to do something like that, get caught and have the whole world know you did it. how trustworthy are you after that? and, if it fits into a pattern of deception over many years or decades?
the united states has become a rogue state.
it's not clear what the russians said to the americans, or why the british of all people took the initiative to throw a wrench into it, but it didn't happen.
instead of bombing syria, they created a mess in ukraine by funding a coup, which set off a civil war. the purpose of this was to punish the russians for interfering in syria. then, when the russians reacted (like they were supposed to), sanctions were placed on russia that prevents them from economic relations with countries that use the united states dollar. the purpose of these sanctions is to collapse the russian economy in the hopes that it will lead to a revolution in russia that american agents can take control of in seizing power. that's not alex jones, either. that's the official policy on the state department's website.
it took the russians some time to come to terms with what is actually happening, but they have now clearly come to terms with what is happening and have dramatically changed their behaviour. this is something that we have not seen from the russians since the fall of communism: active military deployment in hot proxy wars.
the first signs that russia was beginning to reverse it's policy of pacifism came with the invasion of libya. the russians voted for the security council resolution that authorized bombing in libya, but only to protect protesters. nato took control of this mission and used it to oust ghadaffi, which is not what the russians voted for. in fact, the russians lost an important port and a lot of contracts in the process, which have been gained by nato (and particularly the french and italians). discussions in american-russian relations were focused largely around the concept of "mutual trust" throughout the cold war. i'm not sure it ever meant much to the american side. but, it meant a lot to gorbachev and it seemed to be an important principle to both putin and "smiley dmitri" medvedev, up until this point. the libya operation is the point where that mutual trust again disappeared on the russian side, thrusting us back into a cold war situation. i know this because lavrov (the longstanding russian foreign minister) has stated as much publicly. that was in 2011.
but, the ukrainian offensive was an escalation that the russians could not turn a cheek on and the clear strategy towards active regime change is something that has jolted the russians out of hibernation. it set in motion contingency plans that cannot be easily reversed. well, hey - if china were to invade mexico, you don't think the americans have a full blown military plan to react, one that was written fifty years ago and is taught in academies and is periodically updated? events trigger reactions. it's the naivete of the obama administration that is the root cause here, not the russian contingencies. but, you can't just stop these things once they get going. and, thus this is when the war starts.
as you no doubt know, they quickly seized crimea and have been fighting a war on the border of ukraine for almost two years, now. but you might not realize some of the other things they've been doing.
there was recently an iran deal. again: the american press is warping the hell out of this, and you probably don't have the slightest idea what it's about. what happened is that the russians looked at the situation and said "well, you're under sanctions. we're under sanctions. let's trade. hey, do you want some advanced anti-aircraft systems to protect you from an american invasion?".
well, of course they do.
china gets wind of the deal and says "well, what's the use of these sanctions against iran, then?". and the whole world agrees.
this forced the americans to back off. the "deal" they got is a ridiculous face-saving mechanism to obscure the fact that they have just conceded that iran is outside of their sphere. what's actually happening is that the russians are moving weapons systems in that are advanced enough that the americans need to take the option of invasion off the table and finally, after 35 years, kiss that iranian oil goodbye.
but, putin is not done, apparently.
last week, he started moving more air defenses into syria - along with offensive weapons systems. and, even more recently, he's signed agreements with iraq to move weapons into that country as well.
but, wait. isn't this exactly where the americans are fighting isis?
exactly.
the russians understand that isis is a front for saudi interests to take over the region in the presumed vacuum created by the removal of russian influence. they are responding by reminding the saudis that there is, in fact, still russian influence and no vacuum after all.
the result is a very hot war right now between the united states and russia in syria and iraq, through the proxy of saudi-backed terrorists facing off directly against russian forces. this has a serious potential of getting out of hand, as more players enter in confusing ways. the turks are a particular issue.
after an initial round of fighting, the result of this may actually be stability, as the russians reassert the previous status quo balance of power and drive isis back into the desert. but, even if this does not happen, one must remember that the americans have made it clear that they are an existential threat to the russian state in the region, and this has forced them to react how they are. that is, it is not clear exactly what they're doing, but it's clear that this is part of a broader strategy that will not end upon the defeat of isis.
the reason this becomes worrying is that it is clear that the extent of the contingency plan is not understood by washington. in the last four months, the russians have managed to occupy the entire shiite crescent with russian troops that are waging a hot war against isis rebels basically over top of american efforts to create chaos to redraw the map and have clearly caught the americans off guard repeatedly. when you've got these two countries bombing similar targets in close proximity to each other, and neither is clear what the other is doing, it creates a serious potential for misunderstanding.
it's all because of a poorly thought out set of sanctions that were meant to force the russians into submission but have instead thrown them into full rebellion.
rap news 35
who created the internet, and why?
the narrative is about stopping certain forces from taking control, as though the internet came to us free of corruption and we need to prevent it from falling into the hands of darkness.
maybe it ought to be about taking control of a system that was handed to us with a precise function that it took some time for us to become aware of.
the narrative is about stopping certain forces from taking control, as though the internet came to us free of corruption and we need to prevent it from falling into the hands of darkness.
maybe it ought to be about taking control of a system that was handed to us with a precise function that it took some time for us to become aware of.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
i haven't watched this yet, and it's number 3000 in my watch later list so it could be a while, but this argument generally ignores the orphics. while it's certainly far from impossible that christianity integrated eastern ideas (which were popular in rome at the time), it's really actually not necessary to take ideas out of the greek world - they're all there. it kind of breaks occam's razor. doesn't mean it's wrong. it just means that the conventional idea of christianity developing out of jewish-greek-egyptian syncretism is powerful enough on it's own to explain everything that's usually brought up in the discussion.
and, that itself has an explanation.
rewind back to a long time ago, somewhere around the black sea. interestingly, one can find fish statues in this region that are rather similar to the ones that are found in sumeria a little bit later, indicating a likely homeland. and, scattered out in every direction from this locus, you start seeing sunwheels and horse bones. some of these people moved east, and eventually split into two groups: indians and persians. both mixed with existing indigenous populations. some of them moved west, and eventually south into greece. these people were called thracians, and were said to have had similar religious practices to the persians and indians - because they were, in fact, the same people, separated merely by different migration paths.
the orphics became very important in greece. they were the base upon which pythagoras built his cult, which laid the groundwork for the platonic academies, of which we get the hellenistic part of the synthesis. for that reason, we don't truly need to draw this connection.
but, that doesn't mean it isn't relevant, anyways.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgvRF8xRcyE
and, that itself has an explanation.
rewind back to a long time ago, somewhere around the black sea. interestingly, one can find fish statues in this region that are rather similar to the ones that are found in sumeria a little bit later, indicating a likely homeland. and, scattered out in every direction from this locus, you start seeing sunwheels and horse bones. some of these people moved east, and eventually split into two groups: indians and persians. both mixed with existing indigenous populations. some of them moved west, and eventually south into greece. these people were called thracians, and were said to have had similar religious practices to the persians and indians - because they were, in fact, the same people, separated merely by different migration paths.
the orphics became very important in greece. they were the base upon which pythagoras built his cult, which laid the groundwork for the platonic academies, of which we get the hellenistic part of the synthesis. for that reason, we don't truly need to draw this connection.
but, that doesn't mean it isn't relevant, anyways.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgvRF8xRcyE
this isn't terrible, bit it's far too trusting of the sources, which are what they are: mostly written by clergy. it just takes things at face value. which, on some level is necessary, because it's what exists. but, on some level is terrible, because anything ever written by the clergy during any period should be taken with a grain of salt. these people were professional propagandists that were given the task of recording history in a way that is favourable to the church. we might call it orwellian, if it weren't for the fact that orwell wasn't making anything up - he was just interpreting papal society.
there's a broad amount of recent scholarship that is slowly coming to the consensus that the vikings were unleashed by charlemagne's genocide in saxony. this is the reason they targeted churches; it was out of fear of being the next target. it may also be the reason they were so successful. they may have had some local support, in the form of lingering odinism in france and england. it's known that there were periodic "reversions" for centuries, always blamed entirely on the norse and never on the locals.
at this point, we can't say anything with certainty other than that the sources are christian and therefore not trustworthy and consequently need to be revised. but, the broad narrative you're getting here is likely a total whitewash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7SX3ulV_tk
i'd recommend that some of these structures be carbon-tested to verify the clergy's claims as to when they were built.
there's a broad amount of recent scholarship that is slowly coming to the consensus that the vikings were unleashed by charlemagne's genocide in saxony. this is the reason they targeted churches; it was out of fear of being the next target. it may also be the reason they were so successful. they may have had some local support, in the form of lingering odinism in france and england. it's known that there were periodic "reversions" for centuries, always blamed entirely on the norse and never on the locals.
at this point, we can't say anything with certainty other than that the sources are christian and therefore not trustworthy and consequently need to be revised. but, the broad narrative you're getting here is likely a total whitewash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7SX3ulV_tk
i'd recommend that some of these structures be carbon-tested to verify the clergy's claims as to when they were built.
i think you're jumping the gun on claiming the conservatives are ahead in ontario (it's still within the margins and some firms are still putting the liberals ahead), recently released riding polls have suggested the ndp are still positioned to at least win several seats in bc and the same basic dynamic of the undecideds leaning heavily between the ndp and the liberals is still at play (so, i think the model is still biased). that said, i don't deny that the most likely scenario at this time is a conservative minority, even if i think your model is overstating that fact a little. but, i think what we've seen over the last few weeks is that this is becoming a two-way race between the liberals and the conservatives in seat count, if not at the riding level in most places outside ontario. it seems to me that that momentum is slowly leaning liberal, and may begin to pick up in the next few days.
i mean, on the most basic level, you just need to look at the detail in the costing they just released. the liberals released a nice document. the ndp released a spreadsheet, without comment. it's these sorts of little things that add up that make one party look more serious than the other; it's been a comedy of errors for the ndp for weeks. and, yes, the trend is discernible in some of the polling.
ontario will swing the election, no doubt. but the biggest question is actually where the liberals are *actually* running at in quebec. they're polling anywhere between 15 and 30. if it's closer to 15, this is still a three-way race just because the ndp sweep quebec. but, if it's closer to 30 then even a small movement from the ndp to the bloc could split the sovereigntist vote and put the liberals in a strong position to win urban and english seats that are currently not considered in play. the trends seem to be pointing towards the 2011 numbers, but with a 10-15% swing from the ndp back to the liberals - that is, a lot of federalist ndp support going back to the liberals. the significant swing from the liberals to the ndp in the last election was lost in the major shift from the bloc; the reversal of this seems to be the only thing that's really firming up in the province, as the bloc and conservatives are really just rebounding to where they were last time. if the ndp end up perceived as sovereigntists by federalists, and federalists by sovereigntists, as appears to be happening, then they don't just lose their advantage but could be in some trouble altogether. rather than having their cake and eating it, they could end up without a cake at all. speculative, but it's where the numbers seem to be going.
the bloc don't have to actually win any seats to be a major factor in this election. they just have to run at high enough levels to split the ndp vote in key ridings. and, yes, that will help the conservatives in quebec city, too. but, it's trying to figure out whether the liberals are in a distant second or not-so distant second that is the key in the modelling, as there's a good 25 seats in it.
rather than look at the king-byng affair, or the 2008 scenario, for precedent, or even the liberal-ndp accord in ontario, i might suggest looking at joe clark's tactic. he prorogued the parliament for months. he ultimately lost. but, harper is in a better position.
if harper can prolong the speech from the throne until some time next year, the political calculus may very well be completely different. and, if he can hold off long enough, the chances of an immediate election after the throne speech fails increase quite a bit.
i've been toying with the idea of the liberals abstaining from the throne speech to avoid an ndp government and give them space to rebuild, but that relied on them being clearly in third. with the ndp being down as far as they are, and the likelihood of them making choices that will upset their own voter base, the liberals are not in nearly as much danger in letting the ndp govern for a few months. considering that the ndp are likely going to have to immediately deal with the tpp, a quick election could even see them benefit from ndp support bleeding left.
so, i think tactics are likely something like:
1) conservatives want to drag their feet as much as they can. they'll put off the throne speech for ten months, if they can.
2) the ndp will vote against everything, regardless of the outcome. they will do whatever they can to get in, then deal with it later.
3) the liberals are going to want to ensure that the arrangements, whatever they are, are soluble on their own terms so they can force an election at the right time.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/26/election-2015-seat-projections-conservatives_n_8200422.html
--
Alanna McKechnie
I'd really like to see how these polls are actually done, because it seems like you guys are reporting on every poll given, and giving wildly inconsistent news in doing so. Everytime I read one of these it's "______ is pulling ahead, and ________ is in trouble because of it" with the three party names swapped at random, and I truly can't imagine the debates are swinging the numbers as much these are implying.
Basically, we just need better, 21st Century polling in this country, because it's clearly making your jobs very difficult and is frustrating to read. Another thing that would make these less frustrating to read would be starting your autoplay ads on mute, you monsters. Don't contribute to that crappy way of bombastic advertising, it's awful.
jessica amber murray
the problem we're in right now is that the polling industry is doing a lot of experiments with techniques that don't involve random sampling. they're trying to get around low-response rates. but, the thing is that low response rates are a much lesser problem than eliminating randomness. we're getting results all over the place because they're using all kinds of weird, untested methods.
what we actually want to get back to is solid, 20th century polling - it's the 21st century "innovations" that are confusing the hell out of everybody. maybe this had to happen this election to demonstrate the problems. but, i think we'll see some back-to-basics movement in the polling industry, soon.
you're right to point out that aggregates aren't a good way to predict poll results, though. the idea is workable if you have equally good polling methodology with equally large sample sizes and they work over the same time period. but, averaging out an internet poll from monday-thursday with a phone poll from tuesday-friday is just creating muddied data.
you want to look at polls that have large sample sizes and use phones. the good firms are ekos, nanos (with a caveat - he uses a three day rolling average, which i think is less good), innovative (when they use phones), mainstreet and forum. the bad polling firms are angus reid, ipsos, abacus...
what you'll see if you look carefully is that the good firms are consistent: harper is clearly down considerably over his 2011 results, but he's still positioned to win a minority. that has been true since the writ dropped. it has also been true since the writ dropped that there's a large base of voters torn between the ndp and liberals that has the potential to swing the election.
--
Stephen Solyom
Your analysis weights EKOS, which appears more than ever to be an outlier, far too heavily, and does not jibe with anyone else's analysis. You started by giving the Liberals absolutely no chance, you began to grudgingly accept that they had a growing trend, and with one poll, you have decided they are absolutely sunk. A cynical person might suggest that you were attempting to manufacture results.
jessica amber murray
the thing is that the ekos polls are almost unique right now in their methodological superiority. if you consider the margins, and you look at the other polls, it's reasonable to suggest that it may be a slight exaggeration. but, that still puts the conservatives around 33. and, there's really little reason to question that result, given that this is within the margin of error of firms putting them at 31 or 32.
i don't like the way that he gives incumbency an advantage, but we'll see if he's right in due time. but, if i were to suggest a modification of the aggregate calculations, it would be to remove the online polling altogether, which would actually favour the conservatives in the models.
his basic conclusion that a conservative minority is the most likely circumstance is upheld by essentially all of the reputable polling agencies, even the ones that have the conservatives trending lower. and you have to understand that the vote is distributed in such a way that they could conceivably end up in third and still win a minority. i don't like it, either. but, it's what the numbers say.
the correct criticism of this is that it skews and exaggerates a correct conclusion, not that it's an incorrect conclusion, in itself.
i mean, on the most basic level, you just need to look at the detail in the costing they just released. the liberals released a nice document. the ndp released a spreadsheet, without comment. it's these sorts of little things that add up that make one party look more serious than the other; it's been a comedy of errors for the ndp for weeks. and, yes, the trend is discernible in some of the polling.
ontario will swing the election, no doubt. but the biggest question is actually where the liberals are *actually* running at in quebec. they're polling anywhere between 15 and 30. if it's closer to 15, this is still a three-way race just because the ndp sweep quebec. but, if it's closer to 30 then even a small movement from the ndp to the bloc could split the sovereigntist vote and put the liberals in a strong position to win urban and english seats that are currently not considered in play. the trends seem to be pointing towards the 2011 numbers, but with a 10-15% swing from the ndp back to the liberals - that is, a lot of federalist ndp support going back to the liberals. the significant swing from the liberals to the ndp in the last election was lost in the major shift from the bloc; the reversal of this seems to be the only thing that's really firming up in the province, as the bloc and conservatives are really just rebounding to where they were last time. if the ndp end up perceived as sovereigntists by federalists, and federalists by sovereigntists, as appears to be happening, then they don't just lose their advantage but could be in some trouble altogether. rather than having their cake and eating it, they could end up without a cake at all. speculative, but it's where the numbers seem to be going.
the bloc don't have to actually win any seats to be a major factor in this election. they just have to run at high enough levels to split the ndp vote in key ridings. and, yes, that will help the conservatives in quebec city, too. but, it's trying to figure out whether the liberals are in a distant second or not-so distant second that is the key in the modelling, as there's a good 25 seats in it.
rather than look at the king-byng affair, or the 2008 scenario, for precedent, or even the liberal-ndp accord in ontario, i might suggest looking at joe clark's tactic. he prorogued the parliament for months. he ultimately lost. but, harper is in a better position.
if harper can prolong the speech from the throne until some time next year, the political calculus may very well be completely different. and, if he can hold off long enough, the chances of an immediate election after the throne speech fails increase quite a bit.
i've been toying with the idea of the liberals abstaining from the throne speech to avoid an ndp government and give them space to rebuild, but that relied on them being clearly in third. with the ndp being down as far as they are, and the likelihood of them making choices that will upset their own voter base, the liberals are not in nearly as much danger in letting the ndp govern for a few months. considering that the ndp are likely going to have to immediately deal with the tpp, a quick election could even see them benefit from ndp support bleeding left.
so, i think tactics are likely something like:
1) conservatives want to drag their feet as much as they can. they'll put off the throne speech for ten months, if they can.
2) the ndp will vote against everything, regardless of the outcome. they will do whatever they can to get in, then deal with it later.
3) the liberals are going to want to ensure that the arrangements, whatever they are, are soluble on their own terms so they can force an election at the right time.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/26/election-2015-seat-projections-conservatives_n_8200422.html
--
Alanna McKechnie
I'd really like to see how these polls are actually done, because it seems like you guys are reporting on every poll given, and giving wildly inconsistent news in doing so. Everytime I read one of these it's "______ is pulling ahead, and ________ is in trouble because of it" with the three party names swapped at random, and I truly can't imagine the debates are swinging the numbers as much these are implying.
Basically, we just need better, 21st Century polling in this country, because it's clearly making your jobs very difficult and is frustrating to read. Another thing that would make these less frustrating to read would be starting your autoplay ads on mute, you monsters. Don't contribute to that crappy way of bombastic advertising, it's awful.
jessica amber murray
the problem we're in right now is that the polling industry is doing a lot of experiments with techniques that don't involve random sampling. they're trying to get around low-response rates. but, the thing is that low response rates are a much lesser problem than eliminating randomness. we're getting results all over the place because they're using all kinds of weird, untested methods.
what we actually want to get back to is solid, 20th century polling - it's the 21st century "innovations" that are confusing the hell out of everybody. maybe this had to happen this election to demonstrate the problems. but, i think we'll see some back-to-basics movement in the polling industry, soon.
you're right to point out that aggregates aren't a good way to predict poll results, though. the idea is workable if you have equally good polling methodology with equally large sample sizes and they work over the same time period. but, averaging out an internet poll from monday-thursday with a phone poll from tuesday-friday is just creating muddied data.
you want to look at polls that have large sample sizes and use phones. the good firms are ekos, nanos (with a caveat - he uses a three day rolling average, which i think is less good), innovative (when they use phones), mainstreet and forum. the bad polling firms are angus reid, ipsos, abacus...
what you'll see if you look carefully is that the good firms are consistent: harper is clearly down considerably over his 2011 results, but he's still positioned to win a minority. that has been true since the writ dropped. it has also been true since the writ dropped that there's a large base of voters torn between the ndp and liberals that has the potential to swing the election.
--
Stephen Solyom
Your analysis weights EKOS, which appears more than ever to be an outlier, far too heavily, and does not jibe with anyone else's analysis. You started by giving the Liberals absolutely no chance, you began to grudgingly accept that they had a growing trend, and with one poll, you have decided they are absolutely sunk. A cynical person might suggest that you were attempting to manufacture results.
jessica amber murray
the thing is that the ekos polls are almost unique right now in their methodological superiority. if you consider the margins, and you look at the other polls, it's reasonable to suggest that it may be a slight exaggeration. but, that still puts the conservatives around 33. and, there's really little reason to question that result, given that this is within the margin of error of firms putting them at 31 or 32.
i don't like the way that he gives incumbency an advantage, but we'll see if he's right in due time. but, if i were to suggest a modification of the aggregate calculations, it would be to remove the online polling altogether, which would actually favour the conservatives in the models.
his basic conclusion that a conservative minority is the most likely circumstance is upheld by essentially all of the reputable polling agencies, even the ones that have the conservatives trending lower. and you have to understand that the vote is distributed in such a way that they could conceivably end up in third and still win a minority. i don't like it, either. but, it's what the numbers say.
the correct criticism of this is that it skews and exaggerates a correct conclusion, not that it's an incorrect conclusion, in itself.
canadian foreign policy in the 20th century was shaped broadly by the liberal party's position on working in the united nations and under the rule of law. and, the country retained consistency on this for the entire post-war period. the reason we went to afghanistan and not iraq was not some kind of gut decision on behalf of chretien, it was because the afghanistan mission was a united nations mission and the iraq war was illegal under international law.
this is one of the big issues i had with ignatieff - he seemed to root himself in the international politics of the democratic party, rather than the international politics of the liberal party.
but, something has changed in the last ten years, and it started with iraq. today, our biggest ally - which happens to be the world's only real superpower, at least for now - has completely thrown the un out the window. the russians first started reacting to this seriously in libya; they voted for a resolution to protect rebels, and were dismayed to watch it turn into a regime change operation, under the authority of nobody but the united states president. the russian annexation of crimea would not have happened if it weren't for the war to remove ghaddafi; the state department can waive international law around all it wants, but the fact is that it discarded it itself. in fact, the united states president no longer even consults congress. we've found ourselves in a world where the executive power in the united states neither sees itself constrained by international law nor by it's own domestic law.
what can canada do in this situation?
it's a pretty important issue, if not for the country then at least for the liberal party. does it continue to try and enforce an order that most of the world has entirely discarded? does it create a new set of conventions that inform how it acts?
i'm willing to accept that the un is dead. what i want, in it's place, is a system of law. the current reality where "strong leaders" make decisions to engage in conflict on gut instinct or business advantage needs to be replaced by a transparent and accountable process, whether that's at the un or within our own country. and, this is one of the very few issues where i think we need to be clear with the americans in our disagreement, and be principled on it.
we may have never left the age of empires, but canada was never an empire. i don't want to be ruled by an emperor. i want a foreign policy constrained by the rule of law.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-foreign-policy-stoffel-1.3244867
www.huffingtonpost.ca/justin-trudeau/canada-united-nations_b_8204844.html
the key point is "if the un security council had authorized it".
and, i don't doubt this. chretien would have gladly joined in - if the proper requirements were upheld under international law.
but, the un security council did not authorize it, and in fact voted against the war altogether. the americans ignored the un and invaded anyways, completely ignoring international law.
canada took the position that it had for decades previously: it would not support a war that was not sanctioned by the un. and, that is the point that i am making.
how can the liberals go back to such a policy, when we live in a world in which the security council (and the rule of international law) is no longer relevant?
anybody arguing that chretien "was not fully opposed to the war" is constructing a strawman. chretien never claimed to be against the war on pacifist or otherwise idealistic terms. he was opposed to the war for the sole reason that it was illegal.
that is longstanding liberal party policy, going back to 1945. but, is it still relevant? and, if it is not, how do we construct a set of rules that the state can use that mirror this policy, and take it out of the realm of being a personal decision to be made by the prime minister?
Marksist
The congress long ago gave up its constitutional authority as to when the country goes to war and troops are used in various sorts of conflicts; it is not a recent development under Bush or Obama.
Indeed lawlessness is what leads to crime and not the other way around. We have two not mutually exclusive options: domestic law to reduce or eliminate unjustified acts of aggression by Canada and international law under the auspices of the UN. I certainly do not write off the UN but one must not be naive to believe that such democratic institutions as even our own parliament or the ICC or ICTY will not be targeted by anti-democratic forces and be undermined. Louise Arbour consulted with war criminals Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton in pursuing the allegations against Serbia's Miloscevic; she stepped far over the line and undermined the legitimacy of the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2000/06/15/an-impartial-tribunal-really/
jessica murray
while this is arguable, it is not arguable that obama - and specifically obama, rather than bush - has entirely discarded even the illusion of the ritual. they don't even pretend anymore.
one could even say that the liberal party is under obligation to adjust to the new world order.
i'm interested to hear what trudeau has to say. and prepared to maybe be a little disappointed.
the ndp, on the other hand, has historically taken pacifist and idealist positions. they've been moving away from these position steadily, since layton - not since mulcair. this is maybe the first time they're going to get a chance to showcase that. they may even be excited about proving how "moderate" they are, now.
but i would expect traditional ndp supporters to walk out of this debate feeling rather ruffled, and far more disappointed than i'm going to be.
so, i guess that's the context on the left: some serious questions that need to be answered in the context of the new world order, and a lot of expectation for disappointment from both parties.
as it was with the french debate, it remains mulcair that has the most to lose.
i couldn't see anybody moving right that's not already there. trudeau could maybe get a boost on the f-35s from the ndp, if mulcair manages to make himself look belligerent enough in his quest to be more "centrist". more likely is that the sum of the debate is going to be yet another argument for traditional ndp protest voters to swing green.
and, again: i don't see how mulcair has an exit strategy. he made this bed.
somebody tell naomi klein to live blog this. just make sure she has a sufficient supply of kleenex.
this is one of the big issues i had with ignatieff - he seemed to root himself in the international politics of the democratic party, rather than the international politics of the liberal party.
but, something has changed in the last ten years, and it started with iraq. today, our biggest ally - which happens to be the world's only real superpower, at least for now - has completely thrown the un out the window. the russians first started reacting to this seriously in libya; they voted for a resolution to protect rebels, and were dismayed to watch it turn into a regime change operation, under the authority of nobody but the united states president. the russian annexation of crimea would not have happened if it weren't for the war to remove ghaddafi; the state department can waive international law around all it wants, but the fact is that it discarded it itself. in fact, the united states president no longer even consults congress. we've found ourselves in a world where the executive power in the united states neither sees itself constrained by international law nor by it's own domestic law.
what can canada do in this situation?
it's a pretty important issue, if not for the country then at least for the liberal party. does it continue to try and enforce an order that most of the world has entirely discarded? does it create a new set of conventions that inform how it acts?
i'm willing to accept that the un is dead. what i want, in it's place, is a system of law. the current reality where "strong leaders" make decisions to engage in conflict on gut instinct or business advantage needs to be replaced by a transparent and accountable process, whether that's at the un or within our own country. and, this is one of the very few issues where i think we need to be clear with the americans in our disagreement, and be principled on it.
we may have never left the age of empires, but canada was never an empire. i don't want to be ruled by an emperor. i want a foreign policy constrained by the rule of law.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-foreign-policy-stoffel-1.3244867
www.huffingtonpost.ca/justin-trudeau/canada-united-nations_b_8204844.html
the key point is "if the un security council had authorized it".
and, i don't doubt this. chretien would have gladly joined in - if the proper requirements were upheld under international law.
but, the un security council did not authorize it, and in fact voted against the war altogether. the americans ignored the un and invaded anyways, completely ignoring international law.
canada took the position that it had for decades previously: it would not support a war that was not sanctioned by the un. and, that is the point that i am making.
how can the liberals go back to such a policy, when we live in a world in which the security council (and the rule of international law) is no longer relevant?
anybody arguing that chretien "was not fully opposed to the war" is constructing a strawman. chretien never claimed to be against the war on pacifist or otherwise idealistic terms. he was opposed to the war for the sole reason that it was illegal.
that is longstanding liberal party policy, going back to 1945. but, is it still relevant? and, if it is not, how do we construct a set of rules that the state can use that mirror this policy, and take it out of the realm of being a personal decision to be made by the prime minister?
Marksist
The congress long ago gave up its constitutional authority as to when the country goes to war and troops are used in various sorts of conflicts; it is not a recent development under Bush or Obama.
Indeed lawlessness is what leads to crime and not the other way around. We have two not mutually exclusive options: domestic law to reduce or eliminate unjustified acts of aggression by Canada and international law under the auspices of the UN. I certainly do not write off the UN but one must not be naive to believe that such democratic institutions as even our own parliament or the ICC or ICTY will not be targeted by anti-democratic forces and be undermined. Louise Arbour consulted with war criminals Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton in pursuing the allegations against Serbia's Miloscevic; she stepped far over the line and undermined the legitimacy of the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2000/06/15/an-impartial-tribunal-really/
jessica murray
while this is arguable, it is not arguable that obama - and specifically obama, rather than bush - has entirely discarded even the illusion of the ritual. they don't even pretend anymore.
one could even say that the liberal party is under obligation to adjust to the new world order.
i'm interested to hear what trudeau has to say. and prepared to maybe be a little disappointed.
the ndp, on the other hand, has historically taken pacifist and idealist positions. they've been moving away from these position steadily, since layton - not since mulcair. this is maybe the first time they're going to get a chance to showcase that. they may even be excited about proving how "moderate" they are, now.
but i would expect traditional ndp supporters to walk out of this debate feeling rather ruffled, and far more disappointed than i'm going to be.
so, i guess that's the context on the left: some serious questions that need to be answered in the context of the new world order, and a lot of expectation for disappointment from both parties.
as it was with the french debate, it remains mulcair that has the most to lose.
i couldn't see anybody moving right that's not already there. trudeau could maybe get a boost on the f-35s from the ndp, if mulcair manages to make himself look belligerent enough in his quest to be more "centrist". more likely is that the sum of the debate is going to be yet another argument for traditional ndp protest voters to swing green.
and, again: i don't see how mulcair has an exit strategy. he made this bed.
somebody tell naomi klein to live blog this. just make sure she has a sufficient supply of kleenex.
this article makes no mention of positive solutions to help build new generating capacity. that's the important point, after all. otherwise, it's just a price increase to offset the tax. surely, the ndp don't think the market will take care of it?
it's becoming increasingly clear to me that the ndp at both the federal and provincial level don't seem to seriously want to reduce emissions, they just want to tax the oil industry and use it to fund programs. that means more emissions = more taxes, and ultimately puts them on the side of the industry. that made sense up to about 1980, and still lingers on in countries like venezuela. but, we need to be moving forwards out of this "tax oil to redistribute wealth" mentality and into generating clean production.
they're free to prove me wrong. i'd appreciate it, actually. but, it's pretty obvious what they're doing...
i guess, in some sense, harper set this up. you create a petro-state, you generate socialists that want to use it as a poverty-reduction scheme. and, again - that was a great idea a few generations ago, until we learned the cost of it. but, what that means is that they're presenting a plan to take control of the petro-state rather than a plan to dismantle it. and, that's not the right plan.
when the liberals were playing with this, they brought in the idea of a tax shift that would balance out in income tax cuts, so that the state wasn't seeing an increase in revenue. that's important. because if you want to decrease emissions, the absolute WORST thing you can do is tie emissions to revenues. then, the state is working against it's own interests.
the important part is new generation. you need that first. then you can start talking about punitive measures. the other approach - that punitive measures will stimulate market shifts to renewables - is the kind of naive market theory that one expects the ndp to reject. that won't happen. what will happen is increases in price, as emitters adjust to the new taxes. and, even a deregulated energy market (which i doubt exists in alberta...) would then need to react to new demand at lower prices.
it's backwards. but it's backwards in the way you would expect a neo-liberal to approach it, not the way you would expect a "recovering socialist" to approach it.
i warned alberta to be ready to be shattered. it seems like it's still the end of history, for at least the next election cycle.
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/09/27/unreleased-government-funded-report-suggests-50-carbon-price-in-alberta/
it's becoming increasingly clear to me that the ndp at both the federal and provincial level don't seem to seriously want to reduce emissions, they just want to tax the oil industry and use it to fund programs. that means more emissions = more taxes, and ultimately puts them on the side of the industry. that made sense up to about 1980, and still lingers on in countries like venezuela. but, we need to be moving forwards out of this "tax oil to redistribute wealth" mentality and into generating clean production.
they're free to prove me wrong. i'd appreciate it, actually. but, it's pretty obvious what they're doing...
i guess, in some sense, harper set this up. you create a petro-state, you generate socialists that want to use it as a poverty-reduction scheme. and, again - that was a great idea a few generations ago, until we learned the cost of it. but, what that means is that they're presenting a plan to take control of the petro-state rather than a plan to dismantle it. and, that's not the right plan.
when the liberals were playing with this, they brought in the idea of a tax shift that would balance out in income tax cuts, so that the state wasn't seeing an increase in revenue. that's important. because if you want to decrease emissions, the absolute WORST thing you can do is tie emissions to revenues. then, the state is working against it's own interests.
the important part is new generation. you need that first. then you can start talking about punitive measures. the other approach - that punitive measures will stimulate market shifts to renewables - is the kind of naive market theory that one expects the ndp to reject. that won't happen. what will happen is increases in price, as emitters adjust to the new taxes. and, even a deregulated energy market (which i doubt exists in alberta...) would then need to react to new demand at lower prices.
it's backwards. but it's backwards in the way you would expect a neo-liberal to approach it, not the way you would expect a "recovering socialist" to approach it.
i warned alberta to be ready to be shattered. it seems like it's still the end of history, for at least the next election cycle.
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/09/27/unreleased-government-funded-report-suggests-50-carbon-price-in-alberta/
i don't quite understand why people wouldn't expect web archiving to increase access over live television broadcasting. the first debate has lost a few mirrors that, the previous time i checked, had it close to a million hits on youtube. the second debate is already at 500,000.
it's impossible to schedule a debate so that everybody can watch it. by putting it up on youtube, you're offering access on demand. anybody that wanted to watch it will find a way to watch it in real-time. the only difference is that people that weren't able to watch it will now be able to watch it when they want. that's a net increase.
it just seems like out-of-date thinking, this reliance on television, which is widely understood as obsolete at this point. i know i'm still not typical, but i moved out over ten years ago and i've never paid for cable. i may know i'm not typical yet, but that *is* becoming the norm.
speaking for myself, i would not have access to a consortium debate in real time, unless it were streamed. i'd have to wait for somebody to upload it somewhere.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/our-election-debate-system-is-a-national-disgrace/article26546325/
Susk
During the last election the consortium tv debate was watched by 14 million - so the norm you speak of is not even close. There is only one reason why the vast majority of voters will not be able to see a televised debate and that is because Harper is afraid to face the nation. I don't know what Doyle thinks we as a nation should do about it other than not vote for the man.
deathtokoalas
i don't know where you're getting that number from. i just googled it and the claim from ctv was 3.85 million, which was a 26% increase over 2008. the aug 6 debate apparently attracted 3.8 million on tv (according to the globe, and, according to my estimates, close to a million online.
jkg
Around 10 million people watched a portion of the English language debate. The 3.65 million only represented the CTV numbers and did not include Global and the CBC.
deathtokoalas
i'm afraid that that's not accurate, either.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=2011+election+debate+ratings
again: that's a huge number.
my best guess is that 3.85 was rounded to 4 which somehow became 14.
it's impossible to schedule a debate so that everybody can watch it. by putting it up on youtube, you're offering access on demand. anybody that wanted to watch it will find a way to watch it in real-time. the only difference is that people that weren't able to watch it will now be able to watch it when they want. that's a net increase.
it just seems like out-of-date thinking, this reliance on television, which is widely understood as obsolete at this point. i know i'm still not typical, but i moved out over ten years ago and i've never paid for cable. i may know i'm not typical yet, but that *is* becoming the norm.
speaking for myself, i would not have access to a consortium debate in real time, unless it were streamed. i'd have to wait for somebody to upload it somewhere.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/our-election-debate-system-is-a-national-disgrace/article26546325/
Susk
During the last election the consortium tv debate was watched by 14 million - so the norm you speak of is not even close. There is only one reason why the vast majority of voters will not be able to see a televised debate and that is because Harper is afraid to face the nation. I don't know what Doyle thinks we as a nation should do about it other than not vote for the man.
deathtokoalas
i don't know where you're getting that number from. i just googled it and the claim from ctv was 3.85 million, which was a 26% increase over 2008. the aug 6 debate apparently attracted 3.8 million on tv (according to the globe, and, according to my estimates, close to a million online.
jkg
Around 10 million people watched a portion of the English language debate. The 3.65 million only represented the CTV numbers and did not include Global and the CBC.
deathtokoalas
i'm afraid that that's not accurate, either.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=2011+election+debate+ratings
again: that's a huge number.
my best guess is that 3.85 was rounded to 4 which somehow became 14.
"we sometimes criticize heroin addicts. but, if they don't buy from one dealer, they'll buy from somewhere else, anyways. so, we think it's pointless to punish drug dealers. it will just harm the economy at no benefit."
there's lots of things that factories in ontario can build that don't kill people.
ipolitics.ca/2015/09/25/london-ont-beneficiary-of-saudi-arms-deal-jobs-has-no-comment-on-controversy/
there's lots of things that factories in ontario can build that don't kill people.
ipolitics.ca/2015/09/25/london-ont-beneficiary-of-saudi-arms-deal-jobs-has-no-comment-on-controversy/
the internet is such a different reality in terms of the way it presents information to us, and i'm not sure there's been enough thought put into it.
these are youtube recommendations. one of these things is not like the others; one of these things doesn't belong. but, the youtube algorithm doesn't care - neither about the validity of sources, nor about the value of the information. and, it will consequently do this rather frequently.
when everything is free, right? and, that's fine. we're ultimately the ones that need to put the filters down.
these are youtube recommendations. one of these things is not like the others; one of these things doesn't belong. but, the youtube algorithm doesn't care - neither about the validity of sources, nor about the value of the information. and, it will consequently do this rather frequently.
when everything is free, right? and, that's fine. we're ultimately the ones that need to put the filters down.
Saturday, September 26, 2015
and, i'm thinking about my issues with eye contact. it was what i
initially wanted to talk to a psychiatrist about, before i got diagnosed
with...well, i guess they got me to social anxiety disorder in the end,
which is more along the right lines. but, i never expected it to be
declared a disability and to entitle me to a monthly check; i was
thinking it was something i could get some therapy regarding.
part of the argument i used to get my extension, which i haven't posted anywhere yet, was a cost-benefit analysis of treatment v. acceptance. it was a catch-22 themed essay that argued that i might seem perfectly ok right now, but if you take me off the odsp then i won't seem ok anymore. i concluded that i ought to be grounded. but, i acknowledged that a significant investment with morally questionable techniques could resolve the issue - even if you had to chain me down and lock me up to administer it.
what i'm wondering right now is whether that's really true.
i avoid almost all eye contact. it's really only when i want somebody to do something for me that i can muster up the courage to look somebody in the eye; it's that aggressive of a gesture, for me. it's clearly not such an aggressive gesture for others.
is that learned, or instinctual?
the earliest memories i have with eye contact are feelings of almost panic due to a desire to avoid confrontation. so, i don't have memories of any theoretical causes, but only memories of effects. the thing is that it goes back very far, to that murky early grade school period; it could be because i changed schools in grade 3, or because i had a concussion shortly afterwards, but i would be almost hopeless in differentiating between events that happened between when i was four and when i was 7. it's quite young, though.
i remember that when people looked at me in the eye, i would become fearful that an argument or fight was about to start. it was just an act of pure aggression. so, i found myself avoiding eye contact both to counter the aggression of others and to prevent others from thinking i was behaving aggressively.
it sounds like i'm talking about an antelope. and, maybe i am in the sense that i have some native american genes. i'm exhibiting behaviour regarding eye contact that is normal in some indigenous cultures, but i haven't been conditioned into any of those cultures. perhaps therapy may be less effective then i'd like to think.
i've liked to think i'm not irreversibly broken; that i could be fixed, but that the investment would be at a loss. and maybe what i'm pointing to only necessitates therapy, rather than negates it's use. but maybe i'm uncovering somewhat of an unrealized truth, whatever it's scale.
part of the argument i used to get my extension, which i haven't posted anywhere yet, was a cost-benefit analysis of treatment v. acceptance. it was a catch-22 themed essay that argued that i might seem perfectly ok right now, but if you take me off the odsp then i won't seem ok anymore. i concluded that i ought to be grounded. but, i acknowledged that a significant investment with morally questionable techniques could resolve the issue - even if you had to chain me down and lock me up to administer it.
what i'm wondering right now is whether that's really true.
i avoid almost all eye contact. it's really only when i want somebody to do something for me that i can muster up the courage to look somebody in the eye; it's that aggressive of a gesture, for me. it's clearly not such an aggressive gesture for others.
is that learned, or instinctual?
the earliest memories i have with eye contact are feelings of almost panic due to a desire to avoid confrontation. so, i don't have memories of any theoretical causes, but only memories of effects. the thing is that it goes back very far, to that murky early grade school period; it could be because i changed schools in grade 3, or because i had a concussion shortly afterwards, but i would be almost hopeless in differentiating between events that happened between when i was four and when i was 7. it's quite young, though.
i remember that when people looked at me in the eye, i would become fearful that an argument or fight was about to start. it was just an act of pure aggression. so, i found myself avoiding eye contact both to counter the aggression of others and to prevent others from thinking i was behaving aggressively.
it sounds like i'm talking about an antelope. and, maybe i am in the sense that i have some native american genes. i'm exhibiting behaviour regarding eye contact that is normal in some indigenous cultures, but i haven't been conditioned into any of those cultures. perhaps therapy may be less effective then i'd like to think.
i've liked to think i'm not irreversibly broken; that i could be fixed, but that the investment would be at a loss. and maybe what i'm pointing to only necessitates therapy, rather than negates it's use. but maybe i'm uncovering somewhat of an unrealized truth, whatever it's scale.
i'm starting to become more cognizant of this strange tick in my
neck. now, what i'm going to say may seem unscientific, and would
probably be rejected by most doctors, but if you ask them to provide a
better explanation, you'll be disappointed in their responses. i'm
grasping the situation through experiencing it; i'm carrying out the
experiment. and, while i may not be the person best positioned to
measure my own behaviour, my notes should be analyzed for a mechanism
rather than discarded as "impossible".
i seem to have developed too much control over my autonomous nervous system. seems ridiculous, i know. but, can you point me to studies that prove it impossible to gain control over the autonomous nervous system? because i bet i could find some studies that blur the lines pretty substantially.
i seem to have developed a fear of swallowing. that's at the crux of it. due to throat inflammation for various reasons, but one obvious, i may have nearly choked once or twice. i suppose we all cough something up once in a while, and it's a lesson to be more careful when you're eating. but, we mostly tend to shrug it off after a day or two, right? instead, i seem to have internalized it to the point that i'm not able to open my throat to let liquids in. i find myself fighting a battle against my own throat.
that might seem to indicate a loss of control, but not if it's thought about more carefully. if everything was firing correctly, i'd expect my throat would open when i pick up a glass of water. instead, it shuts and i have to consciously struggle with myself to open it. if i were in full conscious control, i would not have to struggle; if it were truly autonomous, it would not close at all. that indicates that it's my subconscious that must be interfering and shutting it out of a repressed fear of choking, which indicates too much control - but not consciously.
i understand i'm not likely to convince anybody with a doctorate in anything of this. but, i believe it's what's actually happening. in theory, the solution should be in the realm of mental health. but, even if i could convince somebody to take me seriously, i'm skeptical that they'd have any good ideas. it's maybe the kind of thing something like yoga might fix, without as of yet understanding the mechanism.
i don't think i actually need to go to a yoga studio. but, the answer may be spending a little bit of time sitting and breathing. i've spent most of my time recently fighting with a computer, and most of my time before that mixing and mastering. maybe i need to spend a little time with the guitar.
i'm not as dismissive of hypnotism as you might suspect i am, i just wish we could get a better handle of the mechanism.
i mean, you have to wonder if that's what demons are - repressed fears - and if that's what an exorcism really is - hypnosis to escape a repressed memory, fear or other such thing. we can do without the spells and religious mumbo jumbo, no doubt. but, it might be getting at stimulating a condition that allows for erasure.
my understanding is that there are actually experimental techniques underway that can erase undesirable memories using electronic equipment. that could be demon removal, on demand.
perhaps certain systems of eastern mysticism may have thrived for the reason that they minimize the onsets of these sorts of stresses.
and, if that's true, the mechanism would be in stimulating the hormonal condition that allows for stress release (jumbled language, it's still sort of magic at this point).
which, i believe - through direct personal experience and the observations of others regarding how i appear when i play the instrument - i can stimulate by expression on the guitar.
i seem to have developed too much control over my autonomous nervous system. seems ridiculous, i know. but, can you point me to studies that prove it impossible to gain control over the autonomous nervous system? because i bet i could find some studies that blur the lines pretty substantially.
i seem to have developed a fear of swallowing. that's at the crux of it. due to throat inflammation for various reasons, but one obvious, i may have nearly choked once or twice. i suppose we all cough something up once in a while, and it's a lesson to be more careful when you're eating. but, we mostly tend to shrug it off after a day or two, right? instead, i seem to have internalized it to the point that i'm not able to open my throat to let liquids in. i find myself fighting a battle against my own throat.
that might seem to indicate a loss of control, but not if it's thought about more carefully. if everything was firing correctly, i'd expect my throat would open when i pick up a glass of water. instead, it shuts and i have to consciously struggle with myself to open it. if i were in full conscious control, i would not have to struggle; if it were truly autonomous, it would not close at all. that indicates that it's my subconscious that must be interfering and shutting it out of a repressed fear of choking, which indicates too much control - but not consciously.
i understand i'm not likely to convince anybody with a doctorate in anything of this. but, i believe it's what's actually happening. in theory, the solution should be in the realm of mental health. but, even if i could convince somebody to take me seriously, i'm skeptical that they'd have any good ideas. it's maybe the kind of thing something like yoga might fix, without as of yet understanding the mechanism.
i don't think i actually need to go to a yoga studio. but, the answer may be spending a little bit of time sitting and breathing. i've spent most of my time recently fighting with a computer, and most of my time before that mixing and mastering. maybe i need to spend a little time with the guitar.
i'm not as dismissive of hypnotism as you might suspect i am, i just wish we could get a better handle of the mechanism.
i mean, you have to wonder if that's what demons are - repressed fears - and if that's what an exorcism really is - hypnosis to escape a repressed memory, fear or other such thing. we can do without the spells and religious mumbo jumbo, no doubt. but, it might be getting at stimulating a condition that allows for erasure.
my understanding is that there are actually experimental techniques underway that can erase undesirable memories using electronic equipment. that could be demon removal, on demand.
perhaps certain systems of eastern mysticism may have thrived for the reason that they minimize the onsets of these sorts of stresses.
and, if that's true, the mechanism would be in stimulating the hormonal condition that allows for stress release (jumbled language, it's still sort of magic at this point).
which, i believe - through direct personal experience and the observations of others regarding how i appear when i play the instrument - i can stimulate by expression on the guitar.
you know, there's a lot of evidence that brothels are actual a step forward in increasing safety measures. as comically anachronistic as the comment may be, i'd actually be pleasantly surprised if he stood up and made an announcement in support of brothels. and, i'm not convinced he'd face that much opposition from the centre, either.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/26/jason-kenney-brothels-trudeau_n_8199480.html
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/26/jason-kenney-brothels-trudeau_n_8199480.html
it demonstrates the absurd lengths that people will go to in denying that they're racists.
"if i don't want a wall with canada, too, then they're going to think i'm racist, which i am, but they can't know that, so, yeah, let's build a wall with canada, too!"
a wall would actually hurt marijuana exports, though. the logic is not entirely non-transferable.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/24/americans-canada-border-w_n_8192724.html
Kevin Wells
Let me guess, you're stoned right now?
jessica amber murray
that would be false. and, i would prefer that further responses focus on my analysis (which is no doubt correct), rather than my personal decisions.
Kevin Wells
There is no way to prove your idea is correct but it seems to me there are other possibllities that are equally, if not more likely, to be correct.
jessica amber murray
right. i suppose americans are concerned about canadians sneaking in and stealing their jobs in order to take advantage of their health care system.
as mentioned, a wall would likely hurt the canadian marijuana industry, which is actually the single largest industry in british columbia (if measured in terms of gdp). there is a mild level of consistency, if viewed along those lines. but, i somehow doubt that's what americans are thinking.
"if i don't want a wall with canada, too, then they're going to think i'm racist, which i am, but they can't know that, so, yeah, let's build a wall with canada, too!"
a wall would actually hurt marijuana exports, though. the logic is not entirely non-transferable.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/24/americans-canada-border-w_n_8192724.html
Kevin Wells
Let me guess, you're stoned right now?
jessica amber murray
that would be false. and, i would prefer that further responses focus on my analysis (which is no doubt correct), rather than my personal decisions.
Kevin Wells
There is no way to prove your idea is correct but it seems to me there are other possibllities that are equally, if not more likely, to be correct.
jessica amber murray
right. i suppose americans are concerned about canadians sneaking in and stealing their jobs in order to take advantage of their health care system.
as mentioned, a wall would likely hurt the canadian marijuana industry, which is actually the single largest industry in british columbia (if measured in terms of gdp). there is a mild level of consistency, if viewed along those lines. but, i somehow doubt that's what americans are thinking.
so, when they start measuring increased levels of sulphur dioxide, they will deflect the blame away from backpedalling on emissions and towards the volcano. i hope they have monitoring sources that can cut through this.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/volcanos-toxic-gas-triple-amount-of-all-europes-industry/57741/
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/volcanos-toxic-gas-triple-amount-of-all-europes-industry/57741/
sharks have been around longer than trees, perhaps. but longevity is not necessarily a measure of fitness. only now do they finally have mammals to compete with. the way that humans are changing the ocean may act as a catalyst for the mammalian takeover of the ocean, as they are more adapted to adjust to changes in the ocean, but that strikes me as an inevitable process. none of us will live to see it, no doubt, but it will be interesting to see if chemical changes in the water provide for the die-out necessary for mammalian radiation. like an asteroid hitting the ocean, to use an analogy.
i have a lot of problems with the way that biologists "do" evolution. rather, i like the idea of evolution as a function of environmental change. it reduces evolution to a kind of geology. oxygen goes up, the size of insects increases; temperatures change dramatically, and mammals move into opening niches. but, in this context we see something that is certainly an improvement, in any measurable way: the ability to survive changes in temperature seems almost elementary from the perspective of an advanced mammal like humans. if i'm assigning a direction, it's in the direction of robustness - but as a reaction to changes in environment that can be measured using physics.
when you really realize this, it becomes difficult to argue against climate change on the basis of restricting species diversity. if species are unable to withstand changes, other similar species that *are* able to withstand those changes, or thrive in them, will move in. you can view it as catalyzing evolution towards robustness. hey, maybe you actually want to keep an eye on polar bear and wolf hybridization for that reason. but it's bound to create more robust species, and they will diversify again on advantageous terms. not that there aren't better reasons....
how did polar bears happen, anyways? you'd have to think they were probably bears that got chased out of their range, and slowly moved into the north, adapting as they went. they were more or less pinched out of the bear genome and set adrift. an exploratory mission for the genome - possibly beneficial, but ultimately entirely expendable. and, so, anything that returns will be a net gain and contribute to a more robust type of bear. but, if nothing returns at all, there is not a loss because it was essentially expelled dna.
ah, but i'm interpreting evolution as a crossing graph rather than as a tree - i am understanding hybridization as a driver of evolution, through hybrid vigour. and, that's maybe a little cutting edge and hard to follow. it's simply the idea that what we're seeing right now with coywolf hybridization is a good model to use to explain how closely related species combine into a form that eventually assimilates one or both founder species, as a response to changes in environment. that could in theory create an ursid form from grizzly and polar founders that is actually better suited for the new arctic.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/new-regulations-provides-more-protection-to-endangered-shark-species/35812/
i have a lot of problems with the way that biologists "do" evolution. rather, i like the idea of evolution as a function of environmental change. it reduces evolution to a kind of geology. oxygen goes up, the size of insects increases; temperatures change dramatically, and mammals move into opening niches. but, in this context we see something that is certainly an improvement, in any measurable way: the ability to survive changes in temperature seems almost elementary from the perspective of an advanced mammal like humans. if i'm assigning a direction, it's in the direction of robustness - but as a reaction to changes in environment that can be measured using physics.
when you really realize this, it becomes difficult to argue against climate change on the basis of restricting species diversity. if species are unable to withstand changes, other similar species that *are* able to withstand those changes, or thrive in them, will move in. you can view it as catalyzing evolution towards robustness. hey, maybe you actually want to keep an eye on polar bear and wolf hybridization for that reason. but it's bound to create more robust species, and they will diversify again on advantageous terms. not that there aren't better reasons....
how did polar bears happen, anyways? you'd have to think they were probably bears that got chased out of their range, and slowly moved into the north, adapting as they went. they were more or less pinched out of the bear genome and set adrift. an exploratory mission for the genome - possibly beneficial, but ultimately entirely expendable. and, so, anything that returns will be a net gain and contribute to a more robust type of bear. but, if nothing returns at all, there is not a loss because it was essentially expelled dna.
ah, but i'm interpreting evolution as a crossing graph rather than as a tree - i am understanding hybridization as a driver of evolution, through hybrid vigour. and, that's maybe a little cutting edge and hard to follow. it's simply the idea that what we're seeing right now with coywolf hybridization is a good model to use to explain how closely related species combine into a form that eventually assimilates one or both founder species, as a response to changes in environment. that could in theory create an ursid form from grizzly and polar founders that is actually better suited for the new arctic.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/new-regulations-provides-more-protection-to-endangered-shark-species/35812/
this document will move numbers.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberal-fiscal-plan-1.3245239
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberal-fiscal-plan-1.3245239
Friday, September 25, 2015
why write a law, steve? why not build a plaque? a statue, with an engraven image? future mps could gather around the stephen harper memorial on national tax freedom day and take a moment to honour the inscription. children could go on field trips.
the law is impermanent, steve. granite is forever.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-tax-lock-1.3243973
the law is impermanent, steve. granite is forever.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-tax-lock-1.3243973
he can't walk this back. and, i suspect he doesn't want to. this is the direction the ndp will continue in until he is removed from power, regardless of consequences.
"just a dip in the polls, stay the course."
rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-stewart/2015/09/ndps-rightward-drift-strategy-destined-to-fail
"just a dip in the polls, stay the course."
rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-stewart/2015/09/ndps-rightward-drift-strategy-destined-to-fail
Thursday, September 24, 2015
well, duceppe won the debate, hands down. trudeau sounded like a robot (although he still has the best platform, sadly). i think mulcair got hit pretty badly by duceppe on a few points.
i couldn't see it swinging anybody between the ndp and the liberals - it just cements the same narrative of mulcair having more experience and talent but being wrong all of the time and trudeau having no idea what he's talking about, but reciting lines that make a lot of sense. harper & may largely don't matter. but, this was about as well as the bloc could have hoped for.
i have to say i missed duceppe. he always had his own angle. harper seemed pleasantly amused too; i actually bet he enjoyed that.
i'm not calling it. too delicate. but, here we go: now the election really starts.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/french-language-debate-five-party-leaders-1.3242417
regarding the "issue"...
i've been just trying hard to figure out why anybody cares. but, i'm ducking the question.
i agree with both sides, in varying amounts. is the niqab a symbol of oppression? yes. but, so is a bra. and, we all accept that a woman gets to decide if she wants to wear a bra or not, regardless of the history of the article of clothing.
i don't see any ground swell of muslim women rising up to demand that the state intervene in their right to choose their own clothing. i think everybody else needs to take a step back and ask what right they have to determine anybody else's oppression
the day i see public niqab burnings is the day i know there's an issue here that requires some solidarity.
Myopinion
I respect people’s rights to wear whatever the hell they wish but I do have a problem with the nijab. To women of Muslim culture and religion the nijab means one thing (I get that) but in the west it is a totally different reality. The death to America and its alliances mantra is becoming all too real. When ISIS fighters, dressed in garbs concealing their faces (Jihadi) John, and beheading people on TV happened, the nijab became a new reality for me. If I find myself in public places with someone wearing a nijab, I get the hell out of that place as quickly as I can. I am not trying to sound intolerant but I become fearful when I am around people whose faces are concealed. As a Canadian I should have the right to feel safe in public and not anxiously look for the nearest exit out of fear that my life could become endangered in that moment. I am sure I would not be allowed to take my citizenship ceremony in a Halloween mask or KKK outfit so why is the nijab be acceptable?
jessica murray
well, see, i don't see any reason why you should be banned from taking your citizenship ceremony in a halloween costume. in fact, i beg that the experiment be attempted, as i expect it will face no opposition.
i find people with beards scary. i'm not sure why. i think it might be because my dad had a beard when my parents divorced, and he may have been a little scary for awhile, and then coincidentally went back to not being scary when his beard was shaved. but, the details of my psychological difficulties with bearded people are long and arduous, and i wish not to bore you with their long-windedness.
does that mean i should be able to demand everybody shave?
talk about unreasonable accommodation. yeesh.
i want spiderman to crash that citizenship ceremony in style!
i couldn't see it swinging anybody between the ndp and the liberals - it just cements the same narrative of mulcair having more experience and talent but being wrong all of the time and trudeau having no idea what he's talking about, but reciting lines that make a lot of sense. harper & may largely don't matter. but, this was about as well as the bloc could have hoped for.
i have to say i missed duceppe. he always had his own angle. harper seemed pleasantly amused too; i actually bet he enjoyed that.
i'm not calling it. too delicate. but, here we go: now the election really starts.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/french-language-debate-five-party-leaders-1.3242417
regarding the "issue"...
i've been just trying hard to figure out why anybody cares. but, i'm ducking the question.
i agree with both sides, in varying amounts. is the niqab a symbol of oppression? yes. but, so is a bra. and, we all accept that a woman gets to decide if she wants to wear a bra or not, regardless of the history of the article of clothing.
i don't see any ground swell of muslim women rising up to demand that the state intervene in their right to choose their own clothing. i think everybody else needs to take a step back and ask what right they have to determine anybody else's oppression
the day i see public niqab burnings is the day i know there's an issue here that requires some solidarity.
Myopinion
I respect people’s rights to wear whatever the hell they wish but I do have a problem with the nijab. To women of Muslim culture and religion the nijab means one thing (I get that) but in the west it is a totally different reality. The death to America and its alliances mantra is becoming all too real. When ISIS fighters, dressed in garbs concealing their faces (Jihadi) John, and beheading people on TV happened, the nijab became a new reality for me. If I find myself in public places with someone wearing a nijab, I get the hell out of that place as quickly as I can. I am not trying to sound intolerant but I become fearful when I am around people whose faces are concealed. As a Canadian I should have the right to feel safe in public and not anxiously look for the nearest exit out of fear that my life could become endangered in that moment. I am sure I would not be allowed to take my citizenship ceremony in a Halloween mask or KKK outfit so why is the nijab be acceptable?
jessica murray
well, see, i don't see any reason why you should be banned from taking your citizenship ceremony in a halloween costume. in fact, i beg that the experiment be attempted, as i expect it will face no opposition.
i find people with beards scary. i'm not sure why. i think it might be because my dad had a beard when my parents divorced, and he may have been a little scary for awhile, and then coincidentally went back to not being scary when his beard was shaved. but, the details of my psychological difficulties with bearded people are long and arduous, and i wish not to bore you with their long-windedness.
does that mean i should be able to demand everybody shave?
talk about unreasonable accommodation. yeesh.
i want spiderman to crash that citizenship ceremony in style!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)