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
Sunday, September 27, 2015
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)