this is quite interesting...

it's republican talking points, set to a laugh track to attempt to emulate the daily show. no punch lines. no set ups. it's quite seriously just tabloid paper talking points with a laugh track.

there's been a lot said about how more people watch the daily show than the news, and how jon stewart was amongst the most influential people in american politics. with his retirement, and colbert moving out of the format, it would be reasonable for the right to try and walk in.

this is....it's just bad. there's no subtlety. it's flat propaganda.

i'm interested to see what kind of audience it can generate.

this kind of thinking is widespread, but it's basically our inability to completely eject creationism. it's completely backwards.

we don't evolve traits to fill a purpose. rather, shit happens through random error at the genetic level, and if it's useful then we hang on to it. if it's not, it may or may not go away. but, it doesn't go away because we don't need it. it either goes away because not having it is advantageous (which is probably the case with the tail) or because some other advantage happens to coincidentally be linked to not having it it (which is probably the case with things like different eye and hair colours, and the loss of muscles referenced in the video).

for example, let's say that telepathy develops in a single human that happens to only have four toes. it would be conceivable that descendants of this human may become dominant, and they may only have four toes. but that has nothing to do with how useless a pinky is. it has to do with how useful telepathy is. and, there would be no contextually meaningful answer to the question "why do some people have five toes and some people have four toes?".

if neither of these things are true, the trait just continues on with no effect on selection until one of the factors appears.

so, we don't want to be looking at traits and asking "what is their purpose?". that is basically asking "why was this designed?". nor does every trait need to have a use or even provide an advantage,

the better way to look at traits is to assume they are random and useless as a null hypothesis, until enough evidence can be gathered to reject that hypothesis and demonstrate an actual survival advantage. if you take this approach, you'll quickly realize that much of what we see around us is really void of any purpose. and, that's actually quite liberating.

the telepathic human could also coincidentally be born without the ability to synthesize a protein, or some other disadvantage. and, if telepathy is much more advantageous than not having that protein is disadvantageous, we're left with many descendants that have telepathy, and cannot synthesize a protein. then, if we ask "of what purpose is this failure to synthesize a protein?", we are not asking a coherent question. that's just randomness...

the reason that you're getting so much push back on the iran deal is the perception of manifest destiny, this idea that it's america's rightful place as global hegemon, as invincible empire.

at some point, americans are going to have to realize the folly of this thinking - or face the consequences of the errors that come from it. but, this is ancient propaganda. in some sense, it's baked into the culture.

it was never clear what your mandate really was, other than to not be the dipshit your predecessor was. but, a significant part of the perception of your presidency was your public speaking skills. if there were any expectations at all, they were regarding your use of the bully pulpit to snap some sense into people.

http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse

SelectCircle
The world's up for grabs. Why let Islam have it? Or Marxism.

deathtokoalas
self-determination isn't an ideological position. it's an unavoidable fact, sooner or later.

SelectCircle
+deathtokoalas Self-determination is the intellectual ploy that Islamists and Marxists use to get good forces to back off - so they can take over instead. You must be a very low-level stooge for the Left if you haven't figured out yet the cynicism and duplicity of your evil post-colonial Marxist leaders.

deathtokoalas
+SelectCircle i align with the strain of anarchism that has continually been slaughtered by marxists, and has both written extensively in opposition to marxism and fought against it - always losing, unfortunately.

there's not a debate to be had, here. you cannot prevent people from determining their own future. you can only render yourself irrelevant by trying - or destroy yourself if you invest enough into it that you're seen as a threat to the self-determination of others.

SelectCircle
+deathtokoalas Anarchists and Marxists wink at each other - lovingly. There's not a single ally on the Left for decent people. And it's about time you shape up and stop playing while getting played.

deathtokoalas
+SelectCircle lol. well, i sometimes argue that conservatives and liberals are the same thing. i guess i can't be too critical of your ignorance on the matter.

SelectCircle
+deathtokoalas This is a case of Presumed Ignorance vs. Pretend Naivete. - Do you ever cut the crap and just level with folks?

deathtokoalas
using a two-pronged axis, marxists are on the far right of the socialist spectrum and are viewed by anarchists as little different than fascists. marxism is really the evolution of a strain of feudalism called "enlightened despotism". there's some exceptions. but most anarchists view most marxists as totalitarian, right-wing lunatics that are the absolute enemy of any meaningful concept of liberty - and we know from experience that we cannot count them as allies, despite them tricking us into it in the past. we don't look at the soviet union or the prc as failed attempts at communism, we understand that the approach was flawed from the start and that the outcome was the only thing that could have ever come from centralizing power into a state bureaucracy and aligning it under the head of an absolute ruler. the dictatorship of the proletariat can only ever be a dictatorship of the proletariat.

anarchism has the same intellectual roots in the french revolution as much of what we call western liberal democracy. it's really a purer adherence to the principles that our own society was founded on.

SelectCircle
+deathtokoalas You're a Marxist who's lost his mind waiting. That's all.

deathtokoalas
+SelectCircle i'm more into thomas paine than karl marx, actually. and, considering that he was attempting to apply pre-industrial liberalism to an industrial society, i don't think marx' insights into economics (which is about what anarchists would restrict themselves to in citing marx) are very useful in the growing reality of living in an automated, post-industrial society. the economics of marxism only make sense if you assume socialization of production as a given. otherwise, it's pointless intellectual masturbation.

another way to put it is that anarchists are really the same thing as what you'd call "social liberalism", they just take both planks (economic collectivism, individual freedom) to more exaggerated places, which partially means taking the state out of it in favour of local decision making.

we need fresh thinking on how to apply liberalism to an automated, post-industrial society. and the answer may look more like something milton friedman thought up than something karl marx imagined.

SelectCircle
+deathtokoalas Paine would've settled for Marx. We know what you guys are about. And you know it too. 

deathtokoalas
+SelectCircle marx was pretty critical of paine.

SelectCircle
+deathtokoalas Protestants are critical of Catholics. But both are Christians. In the same way that atheists don't get sucked into fine sectarian distinctions but just condemn the whole lot - conservatives are learning to condemn the whole Left as all the same thing. You know with whom you stand - even if they're the ones who martyr you.

deathtokoalas
+SelectCircle the difference between anarchists and marxists is more along the lines of the difference between christians and jews, in the sense that we come from a common place but have drastically different perspectives. and, if you want the direct analogy, it's that marxists are closer to upholding the fire and brimstone of the old testament, whereas anarchists are more into the love your neighbour idea of the new one.

you can paint with as broad a brush as you like. you're correct in deducing that you're unlikely to find much common ground with either of us. and, we're not going to sit around and wait for your approval. but it would behoove you to understand the differences in perspective if you have any desire in carrying out a meaningful debate with any of us. otherwise, you're likely to merely come off as sounding rather foolish.

anyways. this has little to do with my post, here. you just randomly accused me of being a marxist. that is incorrect. and that should be the end of this discussion.

the cold war was not ideological, and it didn't begin in 1945. it was geopolitical, and it came out of the napoleonic wars. the 90s saw a pause in this struggle, but the truth is that nato really only second thought it for a moment. by the time that bush took over, the policy was to take advantage of the historical window of opportunity that russia's weakness allowed for. every single war in eurasia since 1991 has existed within the same cold war context that existed before 1991. this process of toppling dictatorships is the process of cleaning up lingering russian influence, and annexing the area to the american empire.

sanctions of this sort may work on a country like spain, which sees itself as an aspect of a culture, rather than a culture itself. and if a twist of history had america as a spanish-speaking country (not such an outlandish alternate history at all), they might work in a country like venezuela, which is deeply anti-colonialist but not insularly nationalist. but, they will not work in countries like iran and russia, which remain deeply nationalistic as autonomous islands of insular culture. russia has a history in europe, but it is not a part of europe; iran has a history in the arab world, but it is not arab. neither seek integration into a whole, they merely seek friendly relations. rather, a smart analysis of countries like iran and russia would suggest that these sanctions will only resolve the will of the people to fight for sovereignty, create anger and hate towards america and may possibly even create terrorists.

further, sanctions of the sort send the message to the rest of the world that the west is a poor partner that cannot be trusted.

it's over a year after this was published, and in that time what we've seen is iran and russia work together to get around the sanctions, with increasing moral support from beijing.

i claim that this was predictable and that it is less a result of russia outsmarting the state department and more the result of the state department pushing foolish policies that they should have known would be ineffective.

perhaps restoring some funding cuts for the humanities is in order.

it's less that the question is unclear and more that it's hard to convert. french and english are pretty different in terms of the way they use tenses, and such a question is a bit of a tongue twister to convert.

so, he asked: "did you mean 2.5 years ago?"

the interviewer said "no - i meant today".

so, he begins to answer the question: what would he do differently if he's elected prime minister. that's what was just agreed upon. but he's stopped.

"no, what i mean is if you were prime minister today."

but, that was what was just clarified - he meant today, not 2.5 years ago.

so, now that he understands the question (which is about today, not 2.5 years ago), he asks for it to be reasked, to avoid the translational issues coming out.

but, it's clear upon reasking that he meant 2.5 years ago, not today - which is not what was just agreed upon. when it's clear that the initial clarification was incorrect, and he meant two years ago, the question now requires a different response.

the third restart identifies the actual issue with dion, which is something western democracy has seen happen from time to time and will likely happen again. the most famous example and archetype for this is adlai stevenson. this is a hypothetical that somebody like dion cannot approach in the irrigorous manner that most politicians would. because, if he was prime minister 2.5 years ago, he wouldn't have the same opinions that he has today, because harper would not have been prime minister.

this necessity for careful thinking is very useful to academics and to policy wonks. we want this kind of thinker in government. but it consistently flies over the head of the general populace, which often interprets careful thinking as a sign of weakness, or, ironically, even a lack of intelligence.

stephane dion has a pretty impressive resume. it's clear that he had some translational issues, and that the question is the kind that you can't expect him to answer the way a "regular politician" would. rather, you would expect him to answer it the way an academic would, which is very carefully, and with a lot of thinking that controls for hypotheticals and attempts to work them out.

what you can't reasonably argue is that he was unable to answer the question. and, history will be rather rude to those that promote this argument.

fwiw, i don't think the tories got it aired.

i think ignatieff got it aired.

Cons R Gone!!
Harper polls at about 30% support because 30% of Canadians fit in the parameters of these studies.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/study-links-low-intelligence-with-right-wing-beliefs/article543361/

Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract 

"Psychological Science" showed that children who score low on intelligence tests gravitate toward socially conservative political views in adulthood.

swamprat
According to lefties conservatives have all the money.

Sure is nice to be stupid AND rich.

I guess all the welfare folks that don't vote conservative are really smart.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-pollcast-aug13-1.3190054

Jessica Murray
do you realize that there's a debate here that goes back 3000 years, to old bearded dudes discussing life in the athenian acropolis?

intelligence. wealth. and, more importantly, the desire for wealth, and it's ultimate value. we've been trying to sort this out a long time.

but, a lot of pretty smart people have had some pretty compelling arguments to side with the welfare folks over the ceos when it comes to measuring intelligence levels.

i don't understand that study, though. i'm some kind of social liberal that pulls the basic combination that defines it (economic collectivism, individual freedom) to a pseudo-anarchist extreme when i'm sober, but i turn into a ranting and raving total anarchist when i'm inebriated...

this is an issue that evokes a lot of emotion, and for good reason. but the reality is that canada has limited options in terms of what it can do to reverse the status quo and stop the slaughter. the ndp position is based on trying to avoid an argument that is unlikely to be more than frivolous, in any substance, and merely likely to play into the conservatives' tendency to sow ignorance and confusion.

it's a little bit of a step back from the pristine moral conviction that canadians associate with the ndp. but, mulcair is in this to win. it's the correct *political* decision. canadians clearly need to adjust their expectations. this is but one of a collection of issues that long time ndp supporters are going to find themselves disappointed in.

and there's truly a lot of reasons to not like it. but, let's be coldly rational. harper is never going to move on this. if this is an issue that you want canada to play a larger role in, however limited our options are, then you're better off electing them first and trying to convince them later.

how canada votes on certain things at the un may be somewhat embarrassing, but the reality is that it matters little whether the us vetoes it with our support, abstention or dissent.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/11/morgan-wheeldon-ndp-candidates-israel_n_7973876.html

--

Ron Grant
How does the NDP explain to our first nations about their blind support of Israeli settlers forcing Palestinians of their generational land ? How do they they explain that they gagged some one that stood up for the little guy. this is not my NDP.

Dov Pollock
The reason we call Jews "Jews" is because they come from Judea. The reason we call Arabs "Arabs" is because they come from Arabia. The name Palestine was given to Judea in 135 c.e. by the Roman emperor Haradian as punishment to the Jews for their uprisings against Rome. Before Judea, there were the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea and before that the Kingdom of Israel. The Jews have an unbroken physical and spiritual connection to their homeland which extends back some 3,500 years. In 350 c.e. the Jerusalem Talmud was completed. A marriage contract (Ketuba) for a Jewish couple in northern Israel from the year 1023 c.e. may be found at the Israel National Library in Jerusalem. At the end of the 16th century the Ottoman Sultan ordered some 1000 Jews from the land of Israel to Cyprus. The 1834 c.e. census for Tzfat (Safed) in Israel's northern Galilee shows a population of 6000, equally devided between Jews and Arabs. A census of Jerusalem taken a few years later shows that the Jews make up the largest population by a large plurality. Later they would be seen to make up a clear majority. The simple fact is that alone among all the ancient peoples, the Jews exist until today. They live in the same country that they lived in three thousand years ago, with the same name (Israel), with the same capital (Jerusalem), speak the same language (Hebrew), pray to the same God and follow the same Jewish scriptures (Torah) of three thousand years ago. Israel is the generational homeland of the Jews and the Jews are the ideginious population.

Jessica Amber Murray
the biggest point that you're missing is that palestinians are cultural arabs, not genetic arabs. they are genetic hebrews. something similar could be set of the lebanese, who are genetically phoenician, but converted to islam - and are not genetic arabs. arab is a complex term, and it's used interchangeably in complex ways that often don't make a lot of sense to people outside the region. but, the difference between "cultural arab" and "genetic arab" is roughly similar to the distinction between "hebrew" and "jew".

the palestinians are consequently not invaders to the region, as you appear to be implying. they are the descendants of the jews that you speak of, but they converted to islam at some time in the past. the name "palestinia" comes from "philistinia" (the ones david took on in the bible myth), and was indeed used to rename the area in an attempted roman genocide. the romans carried out several genocides, the worst of which was probably in carthage. but that doesn't change the reality that the palestinians are not genetic arabs - they are genetic hebrews, and cultural arabs.

it follows that they have an equal claim to the region. and, this is the point that needs to be addressed to get to a reasonable solution. the two-state solution is no longer a serious policy option, and hasn't been for upwards of fifteen years. there's just nowhere left to put it. the last gasp attempts to create a two-state solution required uprooting large amounts of jewish settlements, which is something that is not going to actually happen on the ground, and really shouldn't happen.

a state of israel needs to be built around the historical reality that some hebrews are jews and some hebrews are muslims and modify it's laws to allow for equal citizenship, equal land ownership and equal rights.

a one-state solution is the only serious option on the table. it can be a state where jews are granted special rights due to their religion, or it can be a state where all citizens have equal rights. and only the latter is sustainable.

from a historical perspective, i don't see anything that is factually incorrect about this former candidate's position. and it's both alarming to see him snuffed out and disorienting to see how out of touch the ndp leadership is on this position. but, i understand it's a pr decision by a party that would rather avoid frivolous battles of this nature than engage in them.