Thursday, May 31, 2018
this actually isn't the first time this has happened, either.
the reality is that this kind of paranoia is baked into the structure of the american right. it's not just trump. and, the nixon=trump comparison is apt, but it's not just that, either.
check the annals of history: due to his opposition to star wars, and general reluctance to partition the world into two parts, reagan actually honestly believed that the elder trudeau was a communist spy. like, that he was working for the kremlin. taking orders. a useful idiot. maybe he could have helped them write a constitution? but, it's not a joke, it's a historical fact. and, there's good evidence that it's the actual reason he stepped down.
it's also widely believed in canada that jean chretien was pushed out under heavy republican pressure for his refusal to go into iraq.
then, there was the time that lyndon johnson beat up lester pearson (who had years earlier won a nobel peace prize) for criticizing the american role in vietnam.
nobody remembers that igor guy anymore.
so republicans (and some democrats.) have had a hard time dealing with canadian liberals, and have often tended to view them as suspicious, as foreign agents, as communist sympathizers. trump is cartoonish, but he's not an isolated example.
the reality is that this kind of paranoia is baked into the structure of the american right. it's not just trump. and, the nixon=trump comparison is apt, but it's not just that, either.
check the annals of history: due to his opposition to star wars, and general reluctance to partition the world into two parts, reagan actually honestly believed that the elder trudeau was a communist spy. like, that he was working for the kremlin. taking orders. a useful idiot. maybe he could have helped them write a constitution? but, it's not a joke, it's a historical fact. and, there's good evidence that it's the actual reason he stepped down.
it's also widely believed in canada that jean chretien was pushed out under heavy republican pressure for his refusal to go into iraq.
then, there was the time that lyndon johnson beat up lester pearson (who had years earlier won a nobel peace prize) for criticizing the american role in vietnam.
nobody remembers that igor guy anymore.
so republicans (and some democrats.) have had a hard time dealing with canadian liberals, and have often tended to view them as suspicious, as foreign agents, as communist sympathizers. trump is cartoonish, but he's not an isolated example.
at
20:23
is canada a national security threat to the united states?
i can think of one thing, and you need to use this funny corporate logic about lost profits again, and that comes down to the oil exports.
i've made many arguments over many years that the americans consider canada's oil resources to be a strategic asset that belongs to them, and that they view any effort to export it as a threat. further, they consider the reserve to be of longterm strategic importance. that is, they wish to save our oil for later.
from the perspective of america's leadership, all of the pipelines and all of the geography and all of the export destinations are to be interpreted strictly through a national security filter around access to a strategic resource, rather than through an environmental filter or even through a profit motive. and, you know america is serious about something when it's more important than profits for shareholders.
if you think i'm crazy, mentally remove yourself from your body and float over north america for a moment. look out at the chaos and dominance projected by american hard power for the purpose of controlling the flow of oil. look at the bloodshed. look at the violence. look at the destruction of property. and, ask yourself: would america merely shrug as canada twins pipelines to export a resource it considers it's own to it's dominant competitor, in china?
and, who are these political leaders in canada facilitating this?
it's funny corporate logic. but, it's real, if you're in the pentagon, or the state department - or the white house.
i can think of one thing, and you need to use this funny corporate logic about lost profits again, and that comes down to the oil exports.
i've made many arguments over many years that the americans consider canada's oil resources to be a strategic asset that belongs to them, and that they view any effort to export it as a threat. further, they consider the reserve to be of longterm strategic importance. that is, they wish to save our oil for later.
from the perspective of america's leadership, all of the pipelines and all of the geography and all of the export destinations are to be interpreted strictly through a national security filter around access to a strategic resource, rather than through an environmental filter or even through a profit motive. and, you know america is serious about something when it's more important than profits for shareholders.
if you think i'm crazy, mentally remove yourself from your body and float over north america for a moment. look out at the chaos and dominance projected by american hard power for the purpose of controlling the flow of oil. look at the bloodshed. look at the violence. look at the destruction of property. and, ask yourself: would america merely shrug as canada twins pipelines to export a resource it considers it's own to it's dominant competitor, in china?
and, who are these political leaders in canada facilitating this?
it's funny corporate logic. but, it's real, if you're in the pentagon, or the state department - or the white house.
at
19:57
should nafta be renegotiated every five years?
well, it makes sense to me to suggest it should be re-evaluated on some regular basis of time, yes - although i don't know how important a five year interval is, or how appropriate the term "renegotiate" is.
one of the weird things about this process is how much pomp it's requiring, and we may be the ones going the furthest overboard. i understand why the government of canada is a little reluctant to have it's ministers of trade & foreign policy tied up in permanent trade negotiations with it's closest ally. the government is handling this at it's highest level because it sees it as of the utmost importance. but, maybe periodic reviews could be handled by the ambassador in the future, or even delegated to a separate department. there are going to be corruption & capture issues present, but we know the ministers are relying very heavily on their aides, anyways; enough that the necessity of this layer of formality is maybe up for some question.
that said, the american side is really not projecting the kind of trust required to institutionalize something that probably ought to be, at this point. trump may be technically right to make the request, but trudeau's reaction is not irrational, and the nature of it is, in large part, trump's actual own fault. i know trump likes to try and push his "partners" around. but, as a sovereign country, we would like to trust our allies and other partners we make agreements with - and i think that's reasonable.
if some resolution to the current reciprocity dispute presents itself soon, there will no doubt be further discussions again at some point in the future, and i would actually support periodic review being implemented at that time on something like a fifteen or twenty year period - but certainly not a less than eight year period, or one that appears to be designed for the american election cycle.
well, it makes sense to me to suggest it should be re-evaluated on some regular basis of time, yes - although i don't know how important a five year interval is, or how appropriate the term "renegotiate" is.
one of the weird things about this process is how much pomp it's requiring, and we may be the ones going the furthest overboard. i understand why the government of canada is a little reluctant to have it's ministers of trade & foreign policy tied up in permanent trade negotiations with it's closest ally. the government is handling this at it's highest level because it sees it as of the utmost importance. but, maybe periodic reviews could be handled by the ambassador in the future, or even delegated to a separate department. there are going to be corruption & capture issues present, but we know the ministers are relying very heavily on their aides, anyways; enough that the necessity of this layer of formality is maybe up for some question.
that said, the american side is really not projecting the kind of trust required to institutionalize something that probably ought to be, at this point. trump may be technically right to make the request, but trudeau's reaction is not irrational, and the nature of it is, in large part, trump's actual own fault. i know trump likes to try and push his "partners" around. but, as a sovereign country, we would like to trust our allies and other partners we make agreements with - and i think that's reasonable.
if some resolution to the current reciprocity dispute presents itself soon, there will no doubt be further discussions again at some point in the future, and i would actually support periodic review being implemented at that time on something like a fifteen or twenty year period - but certainly not a less than eight year period, or one that appears to be designed for the american election cycle.
at
19:06
Nowhere else in Ontario are Kathleen Wynne's Liberals polling
worse than in southwestern Ontario. That makes the region a microcosm of
the entire election — with the PCs dominant in the rural parts, the New
Democrats well-positioned to pick up urban Liberal seats and the
overall winner to be decided between the two.
this is the exact wrong analysis.
the fact that the liberals are polling worse in southwestern ontario than they are anywhere else makes the projections there inapplicable to places that they are polling better. when you see a situation where a party is doing worse in a specific area than they are anywhere else, you don't take that as the rule and extrapolate it, you eliminate it as an outlier. grenier is merely exposing his own biases, but that is the status quo in this election: the entire media establishment decided the liberals were hopeless before the writ even dropped.
if the liberals are underperforming their average in the southwest then that necessarily implies that they're overperforming it elsewhere, doesn't it eric? yeah. that's right. it does, doesn't it?
if you look at the graph in the article, it seems to me like a lot of liberals are voting strategically to defeat the pcs in areas that are both historically strong pc ridings and ridings where liberals are currently being seen as distant and toronto-centric. i've talked to some people in windsor, and while the logic is often blurry, the basic idea is that they think the liberal party doesn't care about the region and the ndp will spend more money here. the people here seem to feel abandoned by capital flight, are attaching that to liberal policies, are concluding that liberals only care about toronto, are feeling personally distraught by this and are concluding, for whatever specious reason, that the ndp have a deeper personal investment in ensuring the region thrives. unfortunately, it may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the liberals really do need to focus entirely on toronto, because it's the only place they can win.
if the result of a 20% swing from the liberals to the ndp in southern ontario is that a handful of seats swing from red to orange, that's going to skew the polls pretty hard - but not make a really big difference at queen's park.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-southwestern-ontario-1.4684641
this is the exact wrong analysis.
the fact that the liberals are polling worse in southwestern ontario than they are anywhere else makes the projections there inapplicable to places that they are polling better. when you see a situation where a party is doing worse in a specific area than they are anywhere else, you don't take that as the rule and extrapolate it, you eliminate it as an outlier. grenier is merely exposing his own biases, but that is the status quo in this election: the entire media establishment decided the liberals were hopeless before the writ even dropped.
if the liberals are underperforming their average in the southwest then that necessarily implies that they're overperforming it elsewhere, doesn't it eric? yeah. that's right. it does, doesn't it?
if you look at the graph in the article, it seems to me like a lot of liberals are voting strategically to defeat the pcs in areas that are both historically strong pc ridings and ridings where liberals are currently being seen as distant and toronto-centric. i've talked to some people in windsor, and while the logic is often blurry, the basic idea is that they think the liberal party doesn't care about the region and the ndp will spend more money here. the people here seem to feel abandoned by capital flight, are attaching that to liberal policies, are concluding that liberals only care about toronto, are feeling personally distraught by this and are concluding, for whatever specious reason, that the ndp have a deeper personal investment in ensuring the region thrives. unfortunately, it may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the liberals really do need to focus entirely on toronto, because it's the only place they can win.
if the result of a 20% swing from the liberals to the ndp in southern ontario is that a handful of seats swing from red to orange, that's going to skew the polls pretty hard - but not make a really big difference at queen's park.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-southwestern-ontario-1.4684641
at
16:56
i was initially flabbergasted that wynne thought that she might gain any insight into the existing situation by studying the last american election, but as i'm going through my notes on the rebuild, i'm realizing that the parallel is actually rather stark, you just need to be a little abstract to get it.
the 2018 ontario election may have a similar trajectory to what the 2016 american election would have been like had bernie sanders run. i'm seeing a number of parallels come up, including sanders starting to swing clinton's core supporters near the end.
i think bernie peaked too early, though.
the 2018 ontario election may have a similar trajectory to what the 2016 american election would have been like had bernie sanders run. i'm seeing a number of parallels come up, including sanders starting to swing clinton's core supporters near the end.
i think bernie peaked too early, though.
at
08:37
let's say you fund government by taking out debt. then, you're floating bonds. and, who buys the bonds?
the same fucking people you're taxing.
it doesn't matter.
the same fucking people you're taxing.
it doesn't matter.
at
08:21
corporate tax rates have never been demonstrated to have any effect on job creation or the broader economy at all, whatsoever. that's some class a flunkie harpernomics, is what that is.
kathleen wynne knows better than this. why is she doing this to herself?
this is one of those political questions that an empirical analyses tends to write off as irrelevant. horwath's plan to boost the tax rate by a single measly percent is likely to help in servicing the debt and have little other consequence, but do you want to help service the debt? why? i don't mind paying out interest on bonds to seniors. if you're going to cut that, you need to shift money into social services, and she's doing it. but, this is all just juggling, really, to try to appeal to a somewhat shallow understanding of things. this is just pointless emotional masturbation, at the end of the day: maybe it makes somebody feel good to stick it to the banks by voting for a 1% tax increase, or it makes somebody feel good to stand up for "free enterprise" by rejecting that.
but, there will not be any measurable consequence, one way or the other. it's just an empty endorphin rush.
i must have a personal preference? no. i'm a robot. if there's no consequence, it doesn't matter. but, some of the lateral movements might matter - you might prefer things juggled a specific way.
i have no interest in the topic.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/05/29/wynne-pledges-to-pump-another-900-million-into-helping-companies-expand-and-create-jobs-over-the-next-decade.html
kathleen wynne knows better than this. why is she doing this to herself?
this is one of those political questions that an empirical analyses tends to write off as irrelevant. horwath's plan to boost the tax rate by a single measly percent is likely to help in servicing the debt and have little other consequence, but do you want to help service the debt? why? i don't mind paying out interest on bonds to seniors. if you're going to cut that, you need to shift money into social services, and she's doing it. but, this is all just juggling, really, to try to appeal to a somewhat shallow understanding of things. this is just pointless emotional masturbation, at the end of the day: maybe it makes somebody feel good to stick it to the banks by voting for a 1% tax increase, or it makes somebody feel good to stand up for "free enterprise" by rejecting that.
but, there will not be any measurable consequence, one way or the other. it's just an empty endorphin rush.
i must have a personal preference? no. i'm a robot. if there's no consequence, it doesn't matter. but, some of the lateral movements might matter - you might prefer things juggled a specific way.
i have no interest in the topic.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/05/29/wynne-pledges-to-pump-another-900-million-into-helping-companies-expand-and-create-jobs-over-the-next-decade.html
at
08:07
but, really.
do you think the ndp gives a fuck about you?
do you think they're going to stack the house with environmentalists and union activists?
get fucking real.
do you think the ndp gives a fuck about you?
do you think they're going to stack the house with environmentalists and union activists?
get fucking real.
at
02:55
i actually liked the instant run-off voting.
i know. it's crazy. i voted liberal...and...get this....i did so because i liked their ideas.
that's right. i knew that the liberals support irvs, or stvs, and i knew the ndp supported pr. and, i voted for the liberals! because i supported the irv!
well, it wasn't a single issue thing, but you get the point.
then, to my confusion, when the liberals win, all anybody is talking about is the ndp's ideas. bizarre, that. i thought the ndp lost, and the liberals won?
i think, in the end, the liberals realized that the stv would help the ndp at the expense of the conservatives and decided that was a bad idea.
too bad.
i know. it's crazy. i voted liberal...and...get this....i did so because i liked their ideas.
that's right. i knew that the liberals support irvs, or stvs, and i knew the ndp supported pr. and, i voted for the liberals! because i supported the irv!
well, it wasn't a single issue thing, but you get the point.
then, to my confusion, when the liberals win, all anybody is talking about is the ndp's ideas. bizarre, that. i thought the ndp lost, and the liberals won?
i think, in the end, the liberals realized that the stv would help the ndp at the expense of the conservatives and decided that was a bad idea.
too bad.
at
02:46
i don't think that giving parties the right to appoint people to the legislature is in any remote way described using the word "democracy".
that's a system of oligarchy that removes any concept of accountability.
the funny thing about it is that the ndp supports abolishing the senate. but, what they really want to do is abolish the house and replace it with the senate, isn't it? the way that a system like this works itself out is that you get appointed in return for financial contributions of some sort. it's a way to put these seats up for sale.
i'd like to see a move towards more direct democracy, not towards a more technocratic concept of government. we need more accountability, not less of it; we need more power for people, and less power for so-called representatives.
this is the third try at this. canadians are clear that they don't like the status quo. but, hopefully the ndp is on the cusp of starting to understand that pr isn't the right path towards substantive democratic reform.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-bc-unveils-its-proposed-question-for-voters-in-electoral-reform/
that's a system of oligarchy that removes any concept of accountability.
the funny thing about it is that the ndp supports abolishing the senate. but, what they really want to do is abolish the house and replace it with the senate, isn't it? the way that a system like this works itself out is that you get appointed in return for financial contributions of some sort. it's a way to put these seats up for sale.
i'd like to see a move towards more direct democracy, not towards a more technocratic concept of government. we need more accountability, not less of it; we need more power for people, and less power for so-called representatives.
this is the third try at this. canadians are clear that they don't like the status quo. but, hopefully the ndp is on the cusp of starting to understand that pr isn't the right path towards substantive democratic reform.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-bc-unveils-its-proposed-question-for-voters-in-electoral-reform/
at
02:30
this is a good start; let's hope that, whatever happens after the election, the idea gets picked up on a little further.
if they can get highrises composting first, that's a natural first step to a green bin. this government is incrementalist; that's a constant.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/building-code-changes-ban-on-landfill-organics-aimed-at-condos-apartments-1.4661100
if they can get highrises composting first, that's a natural first step to a green bin. this government is incrementalist; that's a constant.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/building-code-changes-ban-on-landfill-organics-aimed-at-condos-apartments-1.4661100
at
02:04
but, it really is laughable, the whole line of thought - the idea that the conservatives have a more efficient vote, or that they're going to make the government more efficient, against all empirical historical evidence to the contrary.
if i was doug ford, i'd be more concerned about the efficiency of my liver.
if i was doug ford, i'd be more concerned about the efficiency of my liver.
at
00:47
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)