then, what do you call a society based on free markets and free speech, if conservatives are supposed to be about government domination over everything?

that would be called a liberal society, and it's proponents would be called liberals.

what do you actually call a society where the government runs everything?

it's called a monarchy, theocracy or feudalism.

and who promotes these systems?

these people are called conservatives.

well, it's a bullshit poll.

the right answer - that socialism is when the workers take control of the means of production - is not listed in the responses. so, how do you react to a poll that gives people a multiple choice set of responses, without providing the correct response?

to be clear,

1) "government ownership of some aspects of the economy" is a wrong answer. socialism is about the people running the economy, as a transitional phase to communism, which is when the state is abolished altogether. you should be exceedingly suspicious of anybody trying to tell you that socialism is about government control over the economy, as that is little more than a right-wing talking point.

2) "abolishing private property" is the closest thing to the right answer, but it is not the same thing as seizing control over production. there is a substantial intersection. i mean, if forced, i'd pick this one, while realizing it's lacking.

3) "lack of civil liberties" has nothing to do with socialism. wrong. right-wing talking point.

4) "end poverty and provide access to services" is a corollary, but not a definition. socialism would aspire to this, and it would be true in a functional socialist system, but it is not the definition of socialism.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/446377-20-percent-of-americans-cant-define-socialism-even-as-its

"and, now i would like to introduce our keynote speaker, jim balsilly, who is going to speak about how to make a competitive firm uncompetitive."

why not put him on an expert panel with kim campbell and michael cowpland?

there's a junta for canadian success, if i've ever seen one.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/is-it-time-to-delete-facebook-1.5155783/they-re-exploiting-a-regulatory-gap-former-rim-ceo-calls-for-penalties-on-social-media-companies-1.5159551

so, that was another sleepy day, but i'm actually back into my normal routine, with it.

i got all of the cleaning done this morning before nodding off around noon. now, i'm up and should be able to get a lot of typing of various types done tonight.

i've actually been arguing for a very long time that the liberals need to do something about the tory media in this country. but, i don't think that a bailout package is nearly enough or nearly understands the depth of the problem.

it is typical of this government to think you can get what you want by sucking up to people, and it's tempting to read something into trudeau's privileged upbringing; is the crux of the matter that the most important thing that trudeau learned from his father was how to butter him up to get what he wants? but, your dad is probably mostly on your side anyways, whereas the president of a neighbouring state and an inherently hostile media are not.

we have too much media concentration in this country, and some steps to break up the big companies and reduce their market share would be a big step in the right direction. ideally, that market share would be gobbled up by independent bloggers on the internet.

but, trudeau doesn't really want a diversity of sources - he wants to capture the industry, and use it to his advantage, much as his predecessor didn't want to shut down the cbc, so much as he wanted to take control of it (and did).

if harper's attempt to control the state media was frightening in it's authoritarianism, what do you say about trudeau's attempt to control private sector media?

as is the case with so many things right now, this is a serious issue in search of a serious policy maker to tackle.

this is a sad, embarrassing day to be a canadian.

i mourn for the loss of my country.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-venezuela-embassy-1.5159498

this appears to be a fact-based analysis of bernie's historical income sources and levels, and how many houses he's owned. and, it's actually rather flattering to him.

the idea that it is anti-semitic is desperate and wrong and should not be repeated further, as it harms the credibility of people making the claim.

you sound stupid, stop saying it.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/24/bernie-sanders-millionaires-226982

this is a projecting article, and i pointed this out weeks or even months ago.

i don't think the data is there, yet. but, this is what the establishment wants - it wants you to support warren instead of sanders, and it wants you to do that because her policies don't threaten it.  they've been setting this up from the start.

she does not support single payer health care, and her industry reforms are all in the form of setting up bodies that can be easily captured to avoid serious oversight.

she's exactly what the bankers want, right now - and that's why she gets such glowing media praise.

the establishment candidate is not joseph biden, and in fact they don't like him. the establishment candidate is elizabeth warren.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/as-sanders-reprises-greatest-hits-elizabeth-warren-is-surging

this is very silly, at this stage in the race.

in order for her to win the riding, she'd have to swing conservatives. ndp voters aren't going to be happy with her record on things like marijuana legalization, breathalyzers and assisted dying; conservatives might be, but they're viciously partisan, so it's a non-starter.

i actually think she would have probably been a liability in that riding to the liberals; i wouldn't have voted for her as a liberal, even before snc.

we will have to see who else ends up running. but, she will probably play spoiler, it's just not clear yet to whom.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jody-wilson-raybould-has-the-lead-over-trudeaus-liberals/