spoiler: i endorsed trudeau for the singular reason that i thought he'd be better than mulcair on climate change.
it was a hail mary, granted. there was this infrastructure bank in the platform that has since evaporated.
it's been a disappointing several years. but, i'll stand by my claim that mulcair would have been worse.
it was a hail mary, granted. there was this infrastructure bank in the platform that has since evaporated.
it's been a disappointing several years. but, i'll stand by my claim that mulcair would have been worse.
i don't see anything i'm opposed to.
more money for science sounds good, but i don't know what that actually means. i doubt that the feminist bit ends up more than pr.
the absence of carbon transition commitments is no longer surprising but is jarring and disappointing.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/02/27/news/budget-delivers-new-conservation-fund-avoids-climate-commitments
more money for science sounds good, but i don't know what that actually means. i doubt that the feminist bit ends up more than pr.
the absence of carbon transition commitments is no longer surprising but is jarring and disappointing.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/02/27/news/budget-delivers-new-conservation-fund-avoids-climate-commitments
i'd like to comment on the janus case, but this is a situation where the american jurisprudence is so different than the canadian jurisprudence that i can barely understand it.
not only does right to work not exist anywhere in canada, but i am not aware of any politician at any level even thinking about contemplating it, for the reason that it would be instant political suicide. it would be on the absolute fringe of canadian politics. in fact, one of the demands that trudeau made around nafta was that the president abolish right to work at a federal level.
put bluntly, i don't understand what free speech has to do with union dues. not even abstractly. i can normally imagine an argument, and debunk it; but, i don't think that free speech and union dues have anything more to do with each other than bananas and sauerkraut - it's just incoherent on it's face.
so, i'd have to start at the very beginning, and walk very slowly down this path. i'm no doubt going to find many, many things that strike me as basic logical errors at the very beginning of the argument, and that even the american left has taken as precedent.
the way i would analyze this, without looking at the case law, would be that taking a job means signing a contract, and that if union dues are a part of the contract then employment becomes conditional on paying them. you can't sign a contract and then pick the parts you like, and then ask a judge to scratch out the parts you don't like, claiming "free speech". you can breach the contract if you like, but that would mean your employer could fire you for breach of contract.
i'm just not able to imagine where the first amendment enters into this, or at least not on my own.
canada and america are close neighbours and everything, but this is really foreign to me.
not only does right to work not exist anywhere in canada, but i am not aware of any politician at any level even thinking about contemplating it, for the reason that it would be instant political suicide. it would be on the absolute fringe of canadian politics. in fact, one of the demands that trudeau made around nafta was that the president abolish right to work at a federal level.
put bluntly, i don't understand what free speech has to do with union dues. not even abstractly. i can normally imagine an argument, and debunk it; but, i don't think that free speech and union dues have anything more to do with each other than bananas and sauerkraut - it's just incoherent on it's face.
so, i'd have to start at the very beginning, and walk very slowly down this path. i'm no doubt going to find many, many things that strike me as basic logical errors at the very beginning of the argument, and that even the american left has taken as precedent.
the way i would analyze this, without looking at the case law, would be that taking a job means signing a contract, and that if union dues are a part of the contract then employment becomes conditional on paying them. you can't sign a contract and then pick the parts you like, and then ask a judge to scratch out the parts you don't like, claiming "free speech". you can breach the contract if you like, but that would mean your employer could fire you for breach of contract.
i'm just not able to imagine where the first amendment enters into this, or at least not on my own.
canada and america are close neighbours and everything, but this is really foreign to me.
i've always just assumed that few people really believe the theology, anyways.
so, you can talk about a jew, a christian and amuslim buddhist walking into a bar and getting along, because none of them believe any of it, anyways. it's when they do believe it that they start fighting over it.
but, that's hardly optimal, then, is it? why don't they just drop the bullshit, so we can say "three people walked into a bar..."
https://www.alternet.org/story/149588/no%2C_atheists_don%27t_have_to_show_%22respect%22_for_religion
so, you can talk about a jew, a christian and a
but, that's hardly optimal, then, is it? why don't they just drop the bullshit, so we can say "three people walked into a bar..."
https://www.alternet.org/story/149588/no%2C_atheists_don%27t_have_to_show_%22respect%22_for_religion
a secular left would not be interested in making accommodations for religious minorities, but would rather deflect that kind of thing to the conservative parties.
instead, a secular left would lay down a system of civil rights and expect that the law conform to those civil rights, regardless of whether those laws contradict those texts or not.
instead, a secular left would lay down a system of civil rights and expect that the law conform to those civil rights, regardless of whether those laws contradict those texts or not.
what i am presenting is a secular left, and then arguing that it has no common cause with a "religious left" at all, which is in truth just the same thing as the religious right. a trojan horse, if you will.
the secular left is a far less racist choice than any religious left would be, and prioritizes equal rights for everybody, regardless of what obsolete bronze age texts claim, or what internalized systems of heteropatriarchy push down.
so, a secular left is not interested in debates about abortion or queer equality.
what i want to happen is for a competition to take place and voters to make their choice: do they want a secular left or a religious one?
again: i claim you cannot have both, and that the so-called religious left should realign on the right, where it belongs.
clearly, we don't like each other, do we?
so, let's let voters decide which option they like better.
i understand that i will lose this argument with older voters, including most millennial voters. but, i think my arguments will be quite well received by younger voters, over the upcoming years.
you can choose irrelevancy if you'd prefer. what do i fucking care?
the secular left is a far less racist choice than any religious left would be, and prioritizes equal rights for everybody, regardless of what obsolete bronze age texts claim, or what internalized systems of heteropatriarchy push down.
so, a secular left is not interested in debates about abortion or queer equality.
what i want to happen is for a competition to take place and voters to make their choice: do they want a secular left or a religious one?
again: i claim you cannot have both, and that the so-called religious left should realign on the right, where it belongs.
clearly, we don't like each other, do we?
so, let's let voters decide which option they like better.
i understand that i will lose this argument with older voters, including most millennial voters. but, i think my arguments will be quite well received by younger voters, over the upcoming years.
you can choose irrelevancy if you'd prefer. what do i fucking care?
see, i don't believe in morals, but i do believe in rights.
and, we get to make those rights up, too - we don't need a divine source or an objective truth.
but, if we're convinced of their truths, or even their idealistic projection as truths, via whatever argumentation, we should uphold them as best as we can.
yes - that will lead to conflict. this isn't just ok. it's necessary: that conflict will propel us forwards.
leftists, after all, are all about conflict. conflict drives progress...
if you want harmony, your home is on the right.
and, we get to make those rights up, too - we don't need a divine source or an objective truth.
but, if we're convinced of their truths, or even their idealistic projection as truths, via whatever argumentation, we should uphold them as best as we can.
yes - that will lead to conflict. this isn't just ok. it's necessary: that conflict will propel us forwards.
leftists, after all, are all about conflict. conflict drives progress...
if you want harmony, your home is on the right.
there's this group of anarcho-pacifists, but they're broadly seen as not getting it.
anarchists are, in truth, usually very dismissive of pacifism. we're radical revolutionaries, at the core. some of us are smarter than others regarding tactics, but we know we'll have to fight the existing structure to build the world we want, at some point along the way.
sorry.
anarchists are, in truth, usually very dismissive of pacifism. we're radical revolutionaries, at the core. some of us are smarter than others regarding tactics, but we know we'll have to fight the existing structure to build the world we want, at some point along the way.
sorry.
there are certain segments of the left that would call you paranoid for refusing to walk into a lion's den.
what is really behind this is not arrogance but white supremacism, but it's that kind of peculiar american white supremacism that extends to non-white americans, too: you might be better off to think of it as american supremacism, but you'd be deluding yourself into not understanding it as racism.
so, despite being a brutal fascist empire that is bent on colonial expansion and has already wreaked havoc through central and eastern asia, the chinese could not possibly be a threat to america, for two reasons:
1) as they aren't white, they aren't really threatening. they're just noble savages, really.
2) white america is, of course, invincible, anyways.
you can't win the argument because it isn't based in evidence, it's based on an internalized racial hierarchy that places america at the top - and can never be altered.
america will fall. that is certain. it will be violent, and deeply unpleasant for all. so, the question is in identifying which agents are most likely to bring us to this end point.
nobody with clear vision will pick anybody other than china.
besides, you could always ask them. you might not like what they tell you, or be prepared to hear it...
what is really behind this is not arrogance but white supremacism, but it's that kind of peculiar american white supremacism that extends to non-white americans, too: you might be better off to think of it as american supremacism, but you'd be deluding yourself into not understanding it as racism.
so, despite being a brutal fascist empire that is bent on colonial expansion and has already wreaked havoc through central and eastern asia, the chinese could not possibly be a threat to america, for two reasons:
1) as they aren't white, they aren't really threatening. they're just noble savages, really.
2) white america is, of course, invincible, anyways.
you can't win the argument because it isn't based in evidence, it's based on an internalized racial hierarchy that places america at the top - and can never be altered.
america will fall. that is certain. it will be violent, and deeply unpleasant for all. so, the question is in identifying which agents are most likely to bring us to this end point.
nobody with clear vision will pick anybody other than china.
besides, you could always ask them. you might not like what they tell you, or be prepared to hear it...