anti-harper direct action strategy...

you don't need to be a big media outlet to do this. you just need some way to draw attention to yourself, which is not hard nowadays. i won't be doing this myself - i want to get back to work and would neither enjoy this nor truly know what to look for - but it's something you can do in the short run that could make a difference.

i got the idea while looking at 2011 election results in cowichan-malahat-langford, which is in british columbia. this is a new riding, but if it were redistributed the outcomes in 2011 would be:

ndp: 44
cons: 43
grn: 7
lib: 6

now, let's imagine the liberal candidate were removed. current polling suggests that roughly 50% of the support would go to the ndp, 25% to the conservatives and 25% to the greens. new results:

ndp: 47
cons: 44.5
grn: 8.5

minor difference. but, potentially deciding, depending on turnout.

it turns out that the liberal candidate has actually resigned. she said something that somebody found upsetting, or something. in fact, there have been a lot of candidates removed for that reason over the last two months.

this is where the idea comes in. the ndp & liberals will not merge, and i don't even want them to merge, but in a situation like the above, where one party is 40 points out of competing? candidates should be dropped. it would be nice to see the green candidate dropped in a situation like that, too; the ndp would gain a plurality. but, they won't even do this.

i think that we can make this happen in some circumstances. we just need to identify ridings like the above (where the race is close and a third (and/or fourth) candidate is clearly not in contention, and is merely splitting the vote), use our collective technological capacities to dig up dirt on them (specifically things they said that some people may think is upsetting) and get that to the proper media outlets. these candidates will get dropped, which will hopefully break the splitting.

go forth, and let it be done.

see, there is not a debate here. chretien is not providing an opinion. he is stating fact.

if he loses the appeal (as he certainly will - i would even argue against even hearing the case, it's so ridiculous), harper will either need to override the constitution with the notwithstanding clause or open it up and rewrite it, and good luck with that.

and, sit down for this.

*that's why we have a constitution: so, that the majority cannot oppress minorities*.

it's not just that this is stupid, and irrelevant. it's actually even meaningless. it's not an unimportant issue; it's a non-issue. there is nothing that harper can do to enforce this, short of declaring himself dictator.

and, realizing this should make you think about your position on the topic.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/26/let-courts-rule-on-rights-of-muslim-women-accept-decision-chretien-urges_n_8201550.html

this really is remarkably refreshing, after so many years of absolute nonsense coming out of the leaders of all of the nato countries.

it's not whether he's right or wrong, it's just the idea of *not* being blindly anti-russian at every possible opportunity.

canada used to be very good at that.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/01/chretien-says-putin-s-help-in-syria-should-be-welcomed-by-canada_n_8230114

Mike Kulyk
russia INVADED crimea and now eastern ukraine !!! can that be construed as 'anti russian' ?

jessica amber murray
whatever the facts in the situation, slapping sanctions down and demonizing them doesn't accomplish anything. constructive solutions come in respectful dialogue.

the sanctions on russia have made them more aggressive, not less aggressive. since the sanctions were put down, the west has lost iran permanently due to russian strategic manoeuvring and has probably lost the window of opportunity that it had to influence events in syria. it is probably also in the process of losing iraq and lebanon to russian influence. it has led to indian accession to the shanghai co-operation agreement. neither the saudis nor the israelis are friends of america; rather, american power serves to keep them in check. the failure of the sanctions is being felt, with both of them looking elsewhere. it has also strained relations with parts of europe very badly, and made china even more suspicious of american motives. in short, the sanctions have been an absolute, unmitigated disaster. they've unravelled decades of carefully put together us policy, rewinding us back to before kissinger.

whatever you think of the russian actions in ukraine, the way to take them out is not to put sanctions on them - it is to negotiate with them. sanctions are an act of war. one must expect the proper response to a declaration of war.

if canada was functioning in the role that it normally functions in, i might hazard a guess that these sanctions would not have happened at all.

but, i need you to realize the scale of this.

the decision to place sanctions on russia last year may be the single largest strategic error in the history of the united states, up to this point. i'm certainly having difficulty thinking of anything else.

and, this gets to what i've been saying about mulcair for weeks and why i cannot vote for him.

his argument is actually that harper needs to get tougher on sanctions. put that in context. who's he trying to appeal to, here? it's the worst possible position he could take. 

Sean Gillhoolley
Russia is wrong on Ukraine, and shame on the west for not protecting that nation as the security agreement we have with Ukraine states we will. We agreed to that so that Ukraine would give up its nukes, which they did. I bet they regret doing that. If they still had nukes Russia would never have even considered invasion. That being said, I am glad to have Russia help in the middle east. I know they aren't in league with radical Islamists, which is more than I can say for the anti-Asaad rebels, who seem to blend easily among the ISIL folk.

jessica amber murray
well, i'm not going to deny that putin seized crimea, as some others have, because he clearly did. that is reality. but, it is also reality that it was in response to a us-backed coup, which kind of changes the game. on top of that, the budapest memorandum also existed within the context of a nato promise not to expand east of germany, which was broken in the 90s.

i don't want to take sides on this; my argument is really that taking sides, or at least doing so uncritically (we obviously have to and should want to take nato's side, in the end, if we have to), is counter-productive in the context of both sides breaking all kinds of agreements. canada should be acting as a mediator, not a cheerleader. the narrative near the supposed "end" of the cold war was all about mutual trust, which is something we helped build and something that the russians really took very seriously (maybe too seriously..), partially on our insistence, for quite a long time. canada has historically acted in a mediation role for the simple reason that building that mutual trust is in our national interest. the reason we refused co-operation in the missile shield is that it would have debris fall directly on edmonton.

an honest mediator needs to acknowledge that there's a strong argument that the united states created the problem and put pressure on the neo-cons (who are still running things...) to back off. but, it doesn't help to gloat about it or point fingers with a superior attitude.

it seems clear to me - i can't prove this, for obvious reasons - that the coup in kiev set off a russian war simulation that's currently being played out. that is, that the russians are acting as though world war three has already begun. and, worse, the americans are being consistently caught off guard - indicating that their own simulations are deeply lacking. that necessitates that talks begin immediately, before things get out of hand.

in the short term, having the russians step in to syria should act as a deterrent for further escalation. and, i think that's what chretien was actually getting at, in his typically cryptic smartass sort of way.

a russian-backed coup in mexico, or a chinese-backed coup in canada, are things that the american military has contingency plans for. if that somehow happens, that plan will be set in motion. none of us know exactly what it says. but, i'd suspect that an immediate occupation of certain areas of canada would be the first part of it. further, such a plan would be extremely difficult to stop or otherwise reverse, once it's set in motion.

it strains the imagination for me to think that russia does not have similar contingency plans in case of a us-backed coup in kiev. the reason the annexation of crimea happened almost bloodlessly (or literally; i'm not aware of any casualties) is no doubt because the russians had that plan sitting on the shelf for decades. it was just a question of activating it. and, these other things that are happening have no doubt been written out for a very long time. the russians have had "legitimate interests" in syria since the rise of arab socialism, which they were themselves instrumental in orchestrating.

one would think that the americans would realize this, but that's not at all clear to me, unless it's some kind of trick to make it look like they're incompetent, and then hit them by surprise. but, that's not a good scenario, either.

they're on the brink. they need to sit down and talk. historically, we've been useful at getting them to sit down and talk..

Nathan Weather
The only thing wrong about Ukraine is the historical example it sets: the only country to ever voluntarily give up nuclear weapons got invaded and lost territory. But look at the demographics - it wasn't really Ukranian - that was just an accident of where the Soviets drew the lines.

jessica amber murray
regardless of the arguments, and there are some from the perspective of the russian national interest, it's still an infringement of international law. when somebody kills somebody in self-defense, we may lesson their sentence but we still prosecute them. call it an infringement of the rule of international law in the second-degree if you must, but don't turn a blind eye to it. it's still serious. it can't be normalized.

that said, this is done, and likely irreversible. but we can't just be saying that this is ok. rather, we should be looking at the root causes, getting people sitting down and making sure agreements are worked out.

it's just that this is a lot harder now, because the russians have lost the trust, however naive it was, that they'd been holding on to since gorbachev. the kind of intermediary power that canada once was is really absolutely necessary. somebody has to step up...

--

Paul Smith
Wow, never thought that the Libs would welcome Putin into the Syrian conflict. Any Lib responses here????

jessica amber murray
i'm very far to the left of the liberals, but if you understand the nature of the conflict (which is essentially a saudi invasion of syria under the assumption that the russians are done as a great power), it follows that a reassertion of russian power in a traditional russian proxy is probably the fastest way to end the fighting.

canada does not have an interest in the outcome of the war, only an interest to have it end as soon as possible to stop it from costing us money.

this reeks of a broken promise. disappointing.

legalizing marijuana is just about the best economic policy i can think of.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-pot-marijuana-legalization-timeline-1.3252088

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?

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-change-in-the-air-alberta-1.3250557

this is alberta. realistically, she has to plan for a four or five year term, and expect to lose the next election. i know it's hard and maybe even dangerous for a party to think like that, but it's what she should be thinking - unless she just wants to get erased from history five years from now.

i like that she's thinking big. but, she has to work fast. she has to assume she has one term. and, she has to be thinking about traps for future governments that are going to stop them from repealing her entire period via omnibus. that means getting shovels in the ground asap, tying up investments in things that are broadly insoluble, etc.

i know; this is toxic. but, this is alberta.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/30/no-long-term-future-in-tar-sands-alberta-rachel-notley#comments