Wednesday, March 20, 2019
i'm really in no way interested in what the shooter thought, and what he thought really has nothing to do with anything i've said about it, or will say about it. it's just not an important part of the story.
think of it like this: if a group of klansmen opened fire on a nazi rally, would it be that different to you than if a crazy loner did it? would you have more or less compassion for the nazis if it was a crazy loner? would you condemn the tactics more or less depending on who carried them out?
now, you might be aghast that i'm comparing "peaceful worshippers" to nazis, but you can make all of the same arguments. as i pointed out the other day, nazis and muslims are actually astonishingly similar in their belief systems. the comparison is not ghastly; it is in fact both apt and quite astute. arguments have in fact been made for years that nazi marches should be permitted because they aren't actually harming anyone, and if you look at these arguments from nazi apologists and muslim apologists you see the same basic components - it's free speech, it's diversity of thought, etc.
but, we have this kind of mental block around it. for some reason, we very clearly understand the threat that nazis pose to us and immediately react, but we don't seem to understand the threat that muslims pose to us - despite the belief systems sharing the same basic oppressive foundations.
i take things a step further, as i so often do, and i recognize that it may be as a consequence of experience. as i was largely raised as an atheist, and have almost no experience with personal religion, i fundamentally don't understand this argument for personal worship. muslims famously don't accept a separation of church and state, and i actually agree with them on this point; i've never swallowed this line of personal faith, but have always seen religion as a political activity. it follows that attending a mosque is fundamentally the same thing as attending a political rally and the attempt to categorize them as different types of activities should be discarded entirely.
and, if you consequently view a muslim religious gathering as a political rally where hateful statements are being read from the mic, minorities are being targeted, etc - as is the norm - then the difference becomes almost solely linguistic. it follows that i have a hard time victimizing muslims for the same reason that i have a hard time victimizing nazis.
i'm not justifying the shooting; as mentioned, i reject the tactic as counter-productive. further, circumstance can be cruel - there may have been atheists or children caught up in the massacre, who may have been more legitimate innocents. i don't know these things.
but, my initial reaction was something like "let the fuckers kill each other off", and the motives and factors for the shooting aren't a meaningful factor in revising that.
think of it like this: if a group of klansmen opened fire on a nazi rally, would it be that different to you than if a crazy loner did it? would you have more or less compassion for the nazis if it was a crazy loner? would you condemn the tactics more or less depending on who carried them out?
now, you might be aghast that i'm comparing "peaceful worshippers" to nazis, but you can make all of the same arguments. as i pointed out the other day, nazis and muslims are actually astonishingly similar in their belief systems. the comparison is not ghastly; it is in fact both apt and quite astute. arguments have in fact been made for years that nazi marches should be permitted because they aren't actually harming anyone, and if you look at these arguments from nazi apologists and muslim apologists you see the same basic components - it's free speech, it's diversity of thought, etc.
but, we have this kind of mental block around it. for some reason, we very clearly understand the threat that nazis pose to us and immediately react, but we don't seem to understand the threat that muslims pose to us - despite the belief systems sharing the same basic oppressive foundations.
i take things a step further, as i so often do, and i recognize that it may be as a consequence of experience. as i was largely raised as an atheist, and have almost no experience with personal religion, i fundamentally don't understand this argument for personal worship. muslims famously don't accept a separation of church and state, and i actually agree with them on this point; i've never swallowed this line of personal faith, but have always seen religion as a political activity. it follows that attending a mosque is fundamentally the same thing as attending a political rally and the attempt to categorize them as different types of activities should be discarded entirely.
and, if you consequently view a muslim religious gathering as a political rally where hateful statements are being read from the mic, minorities are being targeted, etc - as is the norm - then the difference becomes almost solely linguistic. it follows that i have a hard time victimizing muslims for the same reason that i have a hard time victimizing nazis.
i'm not justifying the shooting; as mentioned, i reject the tactic as counter-productive. further, circumstance can be cruel - there may have been atheists or children caught up in the massacre, who may have been more legitimate innocents. i don't know these things.
but, my initial reaction was something like "let the fuckers kill each other off", and the motives and factors for the shooting aren't a meaningful factor in revising that.
fwiw, i haven't read the new zealand shooter's manifesto, and i'm not going to, and i don't care. his actual opinions about the world, whatever they are/were, don't change the content of my analysis, or my refusal to rush to the aid of a system of thought that cannot be justified for any reason or under any set of circumstances. that's my actual point, here - that i'm rejecting the mass reflex, that i'm not rallying around this.
i took the media at face value; maybe that was wrong, but it doesn't matter, and i'm not looking for nuance, here.
i took the media at face value; maybe that was wrong, but it doesn't matter, and i'm not looking for nuance, here.
closer to relaunch. yeah, i know - i've crashed on relaunch more often than apollo.
their kids are probably dead.
here's what has survived from my summer, 2013 playlist, which is first up:
to be clear: that's just what made it from that point to the current point.
i got some sleep today, which was overdue. but, i don't have an answer on my prints, yet. they've agreed to waive the processing fee, which is welcome, and i suppose a consolation on the wait - although i'd rather the process was already dealt with.
i'll need to make some calls in the morning....
i could finish filing tonight.
their kids are probably dead.
here's what has survived from my summer, 2013 playlist, which is first up:
to be clear: that's just what made it from that point to the current point.
i got some sleep today, which was overdue. but, i don't have an answer on my prints, yet. they've agreed to waive the processing fee, which is welcome, and i suppose a consolation on the wait - although i'd rather the process was already dealt with.
i'll need to make some calls in the morning....
i could finish filing tonight.
she would make a good drama teacher.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-mp-caesar-chavannes-caucus-1.5064544
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-mp-caesar-chavannes-caucus-1.5064544
the scandisk finally finished this evening. i have one big copy operation left, and the rest should be pretty quick...
i got a response back on the prints, and they're telling me that they're willing to start the process, now. that is, a process i started in november - and i'm not happy about it.
i will need to find a way to figure out how to react over the next day or two. as it is, the forecast just changed, so i'm back to not wanting to go anywhere for the foreseeable future...
the thing is that i still don't know if the border cops can see the prints or not, and i am not volunteering my prints to them if i don't have to. if i convince a judge in the end that my prints were taken illegally, that ruling has no jurisdiction in the united states, and i can't get them back. this could cause me all kinds of problems. one would think this would be a simple problem to solve, but the access to information request came back as useless.
i may have to actually call the cbsa tomorrow to figure out how to do this.
so, i'll need to make some more calls tomorrow...
for the night, i'm going to try to get over that hump with the filing.
i got a response back on the prints, and they're telling me that they're willing to start the process, now. that is, a process i started in november - and i'm not happy about it.
i will need to find a way to figure out how to react over the next day or two. as it is, the forecast just changed, so i'm back to not wanting to go anywhere for the foreseeable future...
the thing is that i still don't know if the border cops can see the prints or not, and i am not volunteering my prints to them if i don't have to. if i convince a judge in the end that my prints were taken illegally, that ruling has no jurisdiction in the united states, and i can't get them back. this could cause me all kinds of problems. one would think this would be a simple problem to solve, but the access to information request came back as useless.
i may have to actually call the cbsa tomorrow to figure out how to do this.
so, i'll need to make some more calls tomorrow...
for the night, i'm going to try to get over that hump with the filing.
you can easily put together the narrative.....
trudeau won in 2015 by getting a lot of young people out to vote for the first time, and out of some combination of a desire to change the world and to get high without breaking the law, in whatever order. he then broke every one of his promises to left-leaning voters, but kept his promise to let people get high. so, this mass of young voters is abandoning him for something else.
if he wants to repeat, he'll need to find some way to regain the attention of the kids that voted for him last time and find some way to tap into the next group of kids coming up. but, given his total abandonment of almost everything he ran on, this is going to be a hard sell on both counts.
and, he actually seems to realize that, opting instead to try and win over conservative voters by pushing a harperesque free market messaging and pandering to religious groups, thereby abandoning his own base, which he may have decided he doesn't really like, after all. but, this is a recipe for disaster - one we've seen too many times, already.
trudeau will almost certainly fail at convincing right of centre votes to switch to him. but, he's already committed to it.
in the mean time, the question of how badly they lose reduces to how much of their base they can keep from wandering - and whether they even realize how much trouble they're actually in.
i want a liberal minority, followed by a caucus revolt and leadership review. but, a conservative majority is not impossible if his base, which he has abandoned, just stays home.
trudeau won in 2015 by getting a lot of young people out to vote for the first time, and out of some combination of a desire to change the world and to get high without breaking the law, in whatever order. he then broke every one of his promises to left-leaning voters, but kept his promise to let people get high. so, this mass of young voters is abandoning him for something else.
if he wants to repeat, he'll need to find some way to regain the attention of the kids that voted for him last time and find some way to tap into the next group of kids coming up. but, given his total abandonment of almost everything he ran on, this is going to be a hard sell on both counts.
and, he actually seems to realize that, opting instead to try and win over conservative voters by pushing a harperesque free market messaging and pandering to religious groups, thereby abandoning his own base, which he may have decided he doesn't really like, after all. but, this is a recipe for disaster - one we've seen too many times, already.
trudeau will almost certainly fail at convincing right of centre votes to switch to him. but, he's already committed to it.
in the mean time, the question of how badly they lose reduces to how much of their base they can keep from wandering - and whether they even realize how much trouble they're actually in.
i want a liberal minority, followed by a caucus revolt and leadership review. but, a conservative majority is not impossible if his base, which he has abandoned, just stays home.
nanos clearly has the best data. but, it's also widely misunderstood - and i've been over this before, but let's do it again. this has everything that is useful in the tracking poll, and it actually says that there's really been minimal movement lately.
you'll note the little blurb there, explaining that this is a rolling sample. the gigo models want you to believe that you're better off average everything out, which is actually just going to produce middling data; the best predictor of an election is to look at a snapshot poll conducted as close to the date of the election as is possible, as it prevents old and out of date data from corrupting the sample.
what nanos does is the exact opposite of that, and it's not some kind of accident, but he does it this way because he's not trying to predict an election but rather trying to measure party branding, which is going to fluctuate a little week over week. nik is basically trying to smooth the data out, which is arguably more useful in determining the effects of a scandal on a party brand, as intended, but isn't going to tell you who is going to win the election tomorrow. and, there isn't an election tomorrow. but, we have to understand what we're actually looking at, here.
if you look at the line for the liberals across the top, you can see that they're down by some amount, pretty much across the board. so, the liberals have lost some support, clearly.
but, if you look at the results for the conservatives and the ndp, you see a different story.
the conservatives went down a little over the course of the week, but this is just noise relative to the margin of error, which is actually pretty big. the conservatives are in fact down from the year's highs, but mostly moving sideways. there is no evidence here of the conservatives taking advantage of the decrease in liberal support, at all.
the ndp are up over the week, but that is also just noise in the long count. while the trendline is moving in one direction recently, it would be wrong to conclude meaningful movement, relative to the margin and they, too, are down from their year high. there is not any convincing evidence that they are taking advantage of this, either.
so, where is the support from the liberal party actually going?
i previously surmised that maybe the greens were picking something up, but they don't appear to be, either. nor is the bloc.
so, this is very strange - how can the liberals be down if nobody else is up? and, the answer must be that people are disengaging.
we saw this in 2011, when liberals neither wanted to vote for ignatieff nor for his opponents, and the conservatives won a majority by accident.
it's way too early to make predictions, but if the apathy sets in long term, trudeau's primary opponent may end up being reheated pizza, easy access to pot and still-stupid reruns of friends.
"i was going to get up and vote, but then i got high."
you'll note the little blurb there, explaining that this is a rolling sample. the gigo models want you to believe that you're better off average everything out, which is actually just going to produce middling data; the best predictor of an election is to look at a snapshot poll conducted as close to the date of the election as is possible, as it prevents old and out of date data from corrupting the sample.
what nanos does is the exact opposite of that, and it's not some kind of accident, but he does it this way because he's not trying to predict an election but rather trying to measure party branding, which is going to fluctuate a little week over week. nik is basically trying to smooth the data out, which is arguably more useful in determining the effects of a scandal on a party brand, as intended, but isn't going to tell you who is going to win the election tomorrow. and, there isn't an election tomorrow. but, we have to understand what we're actually looking at, here.
if you look at the line for the liberals across the top, you can see that they're down by some amount, pretty much across the board. so, the liberals have lost some support, clearly.
but, if you look at the results for the conservatives and the ndp, you see a different story.
the conservatives went down a little over the course of the week, but this is just noise relative to the margin of error, which is actually pretty big. the conservatives are in fact down from the year's highs, but mostly moving sideways. there is no evidence here of the conservatives taking advantage of the decrease in liberal support, at all.
the ndp are up over the week, but that is also just noise in the long count. while the trendline is moving in one direction recently, it would be wrong to conclude meaningful movement, relative to the margin and they, too, are down from their year high. there is not any convincing evidence that they are taking advantage of this, either.
so, where is the support from the liberal party actually going?
i previously surmised that maybe the greens were picking something up, but they don't appear to be, either. nor is the bloc.
so, this is very strange - how can the liberals be down if nobody else is up? and, the answer must be that people are disengaging.
we saw this in 2011, when liberals neither wanted to vote for ignatieff nor for his opponents, and the conservatives won a majority by accident.
it's way too early to make predictions, but if the apathy sets in long term, trudeau's primary opponent may end up being reheated pizza, easy access to pot and still-stupid reruns of friends.
"i was going to get up and vote, but then i got high."
what is my record on recent election predictions?
- my prediction in 2015 was a large liberal minority - that they would almost get a majority, but not quite. this was considerably better than any of the aggregate sites, which i criticized very heavily. the reason i was off was that i traced the ndp collapse to an increase in bloc support, and it ultimately ended up helping the liberals more than the bloc. with four way splits and small sample sizes, the polling in quebec was vague and messy, and nobody saw what happened coming; i at least got the right idea. the reason i was able to make a very good prediction here is that it was a long election and that there was a lot of data. my writing exists on this page, but the basic takeaway is to take aggregate sites with a grain of salt because they utilize too much flawed data; it's largely garbage in, garbage out.
- after the field stabilized a little, it became clear to me that trump would win because he was the most moderate candidate in the republican field, and i do believe that this is the truth of the matter, regardless of the narrative around it. had the party picked a moderate, they could have beat him; instead, people ended up voting for trump because he just wasn't nearly as bad as rubio or cruz.
- i paid more attention to the democratic side, and found myself having to learn the demographics of a foreign country in order to keep up. i figured out very early on that the polling companies were skewing the data on purpose, and i made some good predictions - i predicted sanders winning michigan, for example. i also predicted clinton winning kentucky, which surprised a lot of people. when i made errors, and i did, it was mostly due to a misunderstanding of those demographics, or a lack of clarity as to the process. for example, i assumed that the large black population of dc would transfer over to northern virginia, and it did not - stuff like that happened over and over. i also come face to face with the reality of voter suppression in the democratic primary system, and the difficulty in trying to analyse polling in a system that isn't actually fair. i stand by the focus of my analysis, and by my critique of the media narrative around race as such a defining issue in a race between two older white folks. i largely corrected myself as i went through, and would defer to my own writing. in the end, my record was mixed but at least as good as anybody else's, even if the larger takeaway was a learning experience about the process.
- my prediction in the 2016 election - and this is still sitting in those files - was that the shadow government would rig the election for trump. that doesn't sound very scientific, granted, but it's what allowed me to avoid the error that everybody else made. i guess that silver came closest with his gigo-model, but he was simply less wrong. the fact is that the data clearly projected a clinton victory, and i realized that, but i also realized the election was rigged. so, when the narrative switched to the russians rigging the election, i just rolled my eyes - it was an inside job, and i saw it coming. there's two ways to talk about this, after the fact. the first is that you can reference vague, shadowy bodies without any real evidence, which is both obvious and sketchy at the same time; call it a vast, right-wing conspiracy if you must, but realize that it is the obvious truth. the second is to point to more concrete concerns about voter suppression, the civil rights act, etc.
- my analysis of the 2018 ontario conservative leadership convention was nearly spotless, if cynical and distant.
- the 2018 ontario election might seem like a spot on my record at first glance, but i disagree with that. there are two things i tried to make clear, here. the first is that the polling was really not detailed enough to be predictive - we had tons of online research, but almost no actual polling, and the little bit of polling we had was not focused enough on regional variation. the gigo models actually drastically underestimated conservative numbers, so to suggest they were accurate is to hit a very large target - the conservative numbers were mostly well outside the margin of error in the polling. so, i tried to make that point clear - i didn't have enough data to work with. the second point i tried to make is that ford was repeating all of the same warning signals we heard from trump around the fairness of the election, specifically these projections that the vote isn't fair. i also became suspicious of these online panels, and what they were really up to. i stopped short of explicitly predicting a stolen election and instead suggested an ndp minority is most likely (with very low confidence due to a deficit of data), but i am extremely skeptical of the numbers i saw come in and have called for an investigation. so, i don't have a lot of confidence in my analysis of this election, but i don't trust the results, either; and, if some process of stuffing ballots is shown to be true in the end, i think my analysis gets upheld.
- i did not pay attention to the 2018 midterms in the united states, but pointed out the importance of the democrats finding a way to win white voters.
i don't expect to be as interested in either of the upcoming cycles, but how well i do in any of these elections will depend on whether i can get enough data to identify flaws in the gigo models and whether or not the elections are fair in the first place.
- my prediction in 2015 was a large liberal minority - that they would almost get a majority, but not quite. this was considerably better than any of the aggregate sites, which i criticized very heavily. the reason i was off was that i traced the ndp collapse to an increase in bloc support, and it ultimately ended up helping the liberals more than the bloc. with four way splits and small sample sizes, the polling in quebec was vague and messy, and nobody saw what happened coming; i at least got the right idea. the reason i was able to make a very good prediction here is that it was a long election and that there was a lot of data. my writing exists on this page, but the basic takeaway is to take aggregate sites with a grain of salt because they utilize too much flawed data; it's largely garbage in, garbage out.
- after the field stabilized a little, it became clear to me that trump would win because he was the most moderate candidate in the republican field, and i do believe that this is the truth of the matter, regardless of the narrative around it. had the party picked a moderate, they could have beat him; instead, people ended up voting for trump because he just wasn't nearly as bad as rubio or cruz.
- i paid more attention to the democratic side, and found myself having to learn the demographics of a foreign country in order to keep up. i figured out very early on that the polling companies were skewing the data on purpose, and i made some good predictions - i predicted sanders winning michigan, for example. i also predicted clinton winning kentucky, which surprised a lot of people. when i made errors, and i did, it was mostly due to a misunderstanding of those demographics, or a lack of clarity as to the process. for example, i assumed that the large black population of dc would transfer over to northern virginia, and it did not - stuff like that happened over and over. i also come face to face with the reality of voter suppression in the democratic primary system, and the difficulty in trying to analyse polling in a system that isn't actually fair. i stand by the focus of my analysis, and by my critique of the media narrative around race as such a defining issue in a race between two older white folks. i largely corrected myself as i went through, and would defer to my own writing. in the end, my record was mixed but at least as good as anybody else's, even if the larger takeaway was a learning experience about the process.
- my prediction in the 2016 election - and this is still sitting in those files - was that the shadow government would rig the election for trump. that doesn't sound very scientific, granted, but it's what allowed me to avoid the error that everybody else made. i guess that silver came closest with his gigo-model, but he was simply less wrong. the fact is that the data clearly projected a clinton victory, and i realized that, but i also realized the election was rigged. so, when the narrative switched to the russians rigging the election, i just rolled my eyes - it was an inside job, and i saw it coming. there's two ways to talk about this, after the fact. the first is that you can reference vague, shadowy bodies without any real evidence, which is both obvious and sketchy at the same time; call it a vast, right-wing conspiracy if you must, but realize that it is the obvious truth. the second is to point to more concrete concerns about voter suppression, the civil rights act, etc.
- my analysis of the 2018 ontario conservative leadership convention was nearly spotless, if cynical and distant.
- the 2018 ontario election might seem like a spot on my record at first glance, but i disagree with that. there are two things i tried to make clear, here. the first is that the polling was really not detailed enough to be predictive - we had tons of online research, but almost no actual polling, and the little bit of polling we had was not focused enough on regional variation. the gigo models actually drastically underestimated conservative numbers, so to suggest they were accurate is to hit a very large target - the conservative numbers were mostly well outside the margin of error in the polling. so, i tried to make that point clear - i didn't have enough data to work with. the second point i tried to make is that ford was repeating all of the same warning signals we heard from trump around the fairness of the election, specifically these projections that the vote isn't fair. i also became suspicious of these online panels, and what they were really up to. i stopped short of explicitly predicting a stolen election and instead suggested an ndp minority is most likely (with very low confidence due to a deficit of data), but i am extremely skeptical of the numbers i saw come in and have called for an investigation. so, i don't have a lot of confidence in my analysis of this election, but i don't trust the results, either; and, if some process of stuffing ballots is shown to be true in the end, i think my analysis gets upheld.
- i did not pay attention to the 2018 midterms in the united states, but pointed out the importance of the democrats finding a way to win white voters.
i don't expect to be as interested in either of the upcoming cycles, but how well i do in any of these elections will depend on whether i can get enough data to identify flaws in the gigo models and whether or not the elections are fair in the first place.
so, here's the fun twist of it - maduro's days are probably still numbered, and perhaps more so than ever. but, it's the kremlin that is taking control of the venezuelan command, and the russians that get to pick his successor.
aaaaah haaa haaa haaa haaa.
they'll probably run an election, in the end.
and, the phony consulate in washington can enjoy the furniture.
if venezuela exits the us market, it's actually good for canada, but we know that freeland doesn't get along with the kremlin, and this is essentially an accident. go-go gadget nose.
aaaaah haaa haaa haaa haaa.
they'll probably run an election, in the end.
and, the phony consulate in washington can enjoy the furniture.
if venezuela exits the us market, it's actually good for canada, but we know that freeland doesn't get along with the kremlin, and this is essentially an accident. go-go gadget nose.
so, the russians get free oil to pay off the debt, and will then resell it on the market at a higher price.
the dominant narrative is going to be that the trump administration tried to isolate venezuela and it backfired, and this is clearly true, but it's missing the point: america is an empire, and it needs to be able to control resources in order to survive. that's not going to stop me from criticizing it, but my criticism of empire can hardly be taken seriously by the empire itself.
the actual problem here is that they fucked around for weeks, trying to employ a series of hare-brained schemes to avoid the use of hard power. and, the lesson that the americans ought to learn from this - and they should have in fact learned this years ago, when the sanctions against iran failed - is that the era of soft power is over.
soft power required american hegemony; it rested on the assumption of total american military dominance, and the absence of any serious competitor. but, as the russians have regained their space as the second-tier power, and china has become increasingly assertive, those assumptions no longer hold.
all that soft power did here was give the russians time to move in.
they should have physically blockaded the country like i told them to; but, here we have it - they fucked around like a bunch of doddering old men and they've lost venezuela to the russians.
bravo.
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Venezuela-Halts-Oil-Exports-To-India.html
the dominant narrative is going to be that the trump administration tried to isolate venezuela and it backfired, and this is clearly true, but it's missing the point: america is an empire, and it needs to be able to control resources in order to survive. that's not going to stop me from criticizing it, but my criticism of empire can hardly be taken seriously by the empire itself.
the actual problem here is that they fucked around for weeks, trying to employ a series of hare-brained schemes to avoid the use of hard power. and, the lesson that the americans ought to learn from this - and they should have in fact learned this years ago, when the sanctions against iran failed - is that the era of soft power is over.
soft power required american hegemony; it rested on the assumption of total american military dominance, and the absence of any serious competitor. but, as the russians have regained their space as the second-tier power, and china has become increasingly assertive, those assumptions no longer hold.
all that soft power did here was give the russians time to move in.
they should have physically blockaded the country like i told them to; but, here we have it - they fucked around like a bunch of doddering old men and they've lost venezuela to the russians.
bravo.
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Venezuela-Halts-Oil-Exports-To-India.html
"In 2015, you elected a government that was going to invest in the middle
class, grow the economy, and make a real difference for you and your
family."
actually, that was what we tried - and apparently failed - to get rid of.
what canadians elected in 2015 was a government that was going to transition the economy away from carbon extraction, change the way elections are conducted, re-establish canada as a champion of multilateralism on the world stage and strategically carry through with a continuing liberalization of society.
the people that voted for family values and the middle class are members of the other party.
ultimately, we voted to send stephen harper directly to hell and to tear all his legislation up into tiny little pieces.
it seems like justin's just a little bit confused; it seems like he thinks we wanted more harper and has just kept things moving according to plan.
actually, that was what we tried - and apparently failed - to get rid of.
what canadians elected in 2015 was a government that was going to transition the economy away from carbon extraction, change the way elections are conducted, re-establish canada as a champion of multilateralism on the world stage and strategically carry through with a continuing liberalization of society.
the people that voted for family values and the middle class are members of the other party.
ultimately, we voted to send stephen harper directly to hell and to tear all his legislation up into tiny little pieces.
it seems like justin's just a little bit confused; it seems like he thinks we wanted more harper and has just kept things moving according to plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)