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.

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

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

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

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.

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/