Friday, August 21, 2020
the liberals have never been very similar to what you may imagine as "centrist democrats" or something.
the chretien/martin government, a moderate government by canadian standards, made nader look fairly middle of the road. they were closer to bernie sanders than to al gore.
so, for example - the liberals in canada support universal health care, they voted against the war in iraq (and did not officially participate in it) and even for the correct reason that it was in contravention of international law, they were bringing in universal daycare and while they didn't support free tuition they did bring in large numbers of grants and bursaries that were targeted towards low income people. we could go down this road, but i'm making my point; what we called right-wing liberals in canada in 2005 were to the left of essentially all of the most left-wing members of the house of representatives in the united states. at the least, i can't think of anybody that's close.
dennis kucinich would have been a moderate in canada, at the time.
the democrats running at the time would have been more similar to the dying progressive-conservative party, led by joe clark and peter mackay (who appears ready to be the next prime minister, now).
and, dubya has always looked like nothing but a fascist, from canada.
the chretien/martin government, a moderate government by canadian standards, made nader look fairly middle of the road. they were closer to bernie sanders than to al gore.
so, for example - the liberals in canada support universal health care, they voted against the war in iraq (and did not officially participate in it) and even for the correct reason that it was in contravention of international law, they were bringing in universal daycare and while they didn't support free tuition they did bring in large numbers of grants and bursaries that were targeted towards low income people. we could go down this road, but i'm making my point; what we called right-wing liberals in canada in 2005 were to the left of essentially all of the most left-wing members of the house of representatives in the united states. at the least, i can't think of anybody that's close.
dennis kucinich would have been a moderate in canada, at the time.
the democrats running at the time would have been more similar to the dying progressive-conservative party, led by joe clark and peter mackay (who appears ready to be the next prime minister, now).
and, dubya has always looked like nothing but a fascist, from canada.
fwiw, yes, there was a corruption scandal at the time, but i don't even remember what it was about, and i don't remember having any kind of conversation with anybody about it, or anybody mentioning it or thinking about or caring about it....
it was all over the national post.
nobody else seemed to care.
it was all over the national post.
nobody else seemed to care.
i'm not 23 years old; i remember 2004, and i remember 2006, and i remember interacting with people that were voting for the ndp.
not a single one of them could articulate why.
they were mostly aware that the policy platforms were largely interchangeable, with minor differences that put them both at about the same place in the spectrum. the only substantive difference is that the ndp wanted higher tax rates on corporations, and the liberals thought that was bad economics.
even layton argued - and, in hindsight, it's hard not to call him a liar - that you should vote ndp because the conservatives promised not to undo the proposed liberal programs, anyways (and, of course, they undid every one of them, and then some).
the actual reasons that people came up with were stupid, vacuous things like "we need a change of government" (for the sake of it.), or "i'm tired of the liberals". these weren't even fully formed thoughts, they were just kneejerk, mindless behaviours.
and, i yelled at a lot of people for it, at the time; i could handle it if there was some kind of reason, but they were all just following their gut.
yeah, they followed their gut - and they vomited in everybody's face.
i voted for paul dewar a few times in 2008 and 2011, when i was in a downtown riding. dewar was a promising mp, and his opponents were not the best the liberals had to offer. but, the conservatives were not competitive in these ridings.
it was the people in the south and west of ottawa that i found myself yelling and screaming at...
and, you know what?
they admitted it.
they apologized...
maybe, biden and his army of zombie idiots should follow.
not a single one of them could articulate why.
they were mostly aware that the policy platforms were largely interchangeable, with minor differences that put them both at about the same place in the spectrum. the only substantive difference is that the ndp wanted higher tax rates on corporations, and the liberals thought that was bad economics.
even layton argued - and, in hindsight, it's hard not to call him a liar - that you should vote ndp because the conservatives promised not to undo the proposed liberal programs, anyways (and, of course, they undid every one of them, and then some).
the actual reasons that people came up with were stupid, vacuous things like "we need a change of government" (for the sake of it.), or "i'm tired of the liberals". these weren't even fully formed thoughts, they were just kneejerk, mindless behaviours.
and, i yelled at a lot of people for it, at the time; i could handle it if there was some kind of reason, but they were all just following their gut.
yeah, they followed their gut - and they vomited in everybody's face.
i voted for paul dewar a few times in 2008 and 2011, when i was in a downtown riding. dewar was a promising mp, and his opponents were not the best the liberals had to offer. but, the conservatives were not competitive in these ridings.
it was the people in the south and west of ottawa that i found myself yelling and screaming at...
and, you know what?
they admitted it.
they apologized...
maybe, biden and his army of zombie idiots should follow.
we were closer to universal daycare in 2005 than we are today.
and, why didn't it happen?
because jack layton pulled the plug on it.
(block javascript in your browser to access the article)
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/dryden-achieves-10-child-care-agreements/article990610/
and, why didn't it happen?
because jack layton pulled the plug on it.
(block javascript in your browser to access the article)
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/dryden-achieves-10-child-care-agreements/article990610/
this was the culmination of years worth of work; layton pulled the plug on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelowna_Accord
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelowna_Accord
martin's budgets were actually exceedingly liberal, as well - it's not like layton had some horrible things in front of him that he couldn't support.
there was a universal daycare program, for example, that nobody talks about anymore.
there were major increases in health transfers to the provinces.
there were major commitments to indigenous groups.
and, there were even the last serious commitments to climate change seen at the federal level, in this country.
these were good budgets, and layton should have supported them (they were possibly better than his own would have been), but layton didn't care - he wanted a run at power, and he knew he'd have a better chance of winning if the conservative were in power.
so, he cynically collapsed the government in order to maximize his own chances - the country, be damned.
fuck daycare. fuck healthcare. fuck the aboriginal. fuck the climate. what's important is jack. right jack?
asshole, to his core.
there was a universal daycare program, for example, that nobody talks about anymore.
there were major increases in health transfers to the provinces.
there were major commitments to indigenous groups.
and, there were even the last serious commitments to climate change seen at the federal level, in this country.
these were good budgets, and layton should have supported them (they were possibly better than his own would have been), but layton didn't care - he wanted a run at power, and he knew he'd have a better chance of winning if the conservative were in power.
so, he cynically collapsed the government in order to maximize his own chances - the country, be damned.
fuck daycare. fuck healthcare. fuck the aboriginal. fuck the climate. what's important is jack. right jack?
asshole, to his core.
yeah, hard-right son-of-a-conservative minister jack, who ruined the party that gave us healthcare, by caving in to the conservatives.
the guy was a right-wing asshole.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/biden-speech-evokes-layton-s-message-of-hope-days-before-9th-anniversary-of-former-ndp-leader-s-death-1.5073905
the guy was a right-wing asshole.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/biden-speech-evokes-layton-s-message-of-hope-days-before-9th-anniversary-of-former-ndp-leader-s-death-1.5073905
and, to answer the obvious question...
i don't want to be a teacher. at all. maybe i thought about it at some point as a way to sell my labour to exist, but i'd rather be a 40 year old in first year than a professor with tenure.
teaching is incredibly boring, as a job. you go over things you already know, to people you can't relate to. we all know the sad professor, and i would become that, i'm sure.
but, learning is always fun, so long as there's not too much pressure and, in the right scenario, i could see myself re-engaging.
i don't want to be a teacher. at all. maybe i thought about it at some point as a way to sell my labour to exist, but i'd rather be a 40 year old in first year than a professor with tenure.
teaching is incredibly boring, as a job. you go over things you already know, to people you can't relate to. we all know the sad professor, and i would become that, i'm sure.
but, learning is always fun, so long as there's not too much pressure and, in the right scenario, i could see myself re-engaging.
i actually would go back to school, but only if:
(1) i complete my discography
(2) i can get something like this happening:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/thoughts/trolls/floater.html
(1) i complete my discography
(2) i can get something like this happening:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/thoughts/trolls/floater.html
i skipped the last part.
i did too many mushrooms with some occupy activists in the spring of 2013 near a creek in orleans, and realized in the process that arguing about the foundations of law with stuck-up professors was a waste of existence, and i had to move on.
so, i hitchhiked to windsor, and here i am.
i did too many mushrooms with some occupy activists in the spring of 2013 near a creek in orleans, and realized in the process that arguing about the foundations of law with stuck-up professors was a waste of existence, and i had to move on.
so, i hitchhiked to windsor, and here i am.
nononononno.
imagine giving your landlord notice, moving out of the apartment and then showing up at the door with your stuff and being told "no. get lost.".
i probably could have figured something out if he hadn't lied to me, but it's the old work-or-die attitude; if i wasn't going to work a 9-5 job and put money away for his retirement, i could basically starve on the street and die.
imagine giving your landlord notice, moving out of the apartment and then showing up at the door with your stuff and being told "no. get lost.".
i probably could have figured something out if he hadn't lied to me, but it's the old work-or-die attitude; if i wasn't going to work a 9-5 job and put money away for his retirement, i could basically starve on the street and die.
maybe it's a good time to run through my education.
that picture on the side is from mid 2017, and i should really upload some new pics. that would make me 36 in the picture; i'm now 39. i know i look very young, and take pride in it.
1) i graduated from st. pius X high school in ottawa in 2000, with 8 oac credits in calculus, algebra, finite math, biology, chemistry, physics, computer science and english. i was lucky to go to a high school with a big music program, but you can only take so many courses. that was the last year for oac in ontario. sort of. i refused to enroll in grade 13 religion under the argument that it was a waste of time, and refused to complete the community service requirements in protest at the obligation to perform unpaid labour. so, i have a transcript (i got 99 in calculus and 97 in comp sci, and maybe should have picked something easier than gravity's rainbow for english), but i don't have a diploma. i'm not ashamed of this; i think my protests were grounded, and i'd do it again.
2) i went to ottawa u for a few weeks in a software engineering program, and switched into math-physics at carleton by early october. i switched into a four-year pure math program after first year, then into gender studies late in second year, and briefly enrolled in an english program in third year. so, i had no idea, really.
3) i dropped out a few weeks into third year to raise money for gender transition, and ended up hitching to bc with a friend, and coming back not much later. i was back in the math program at carleton after skipping a year.
4) i finished a four year b. mathematics (not a b. sc, not a ba. a b. math.) in 2006. i was frequently homeless, on drugs and generally kind of a messed up young person, and my marks reflect it - they're all over the place, and semester-dependent. it's the old oppressed queer kid sob story that is so normal to all of us. so, i got straight As some semesters when i was focused and straight Ds when i was sleeping on my ex-girlfriend's floor, and camping out in the loeb building. it worked out to a strong B+, which put me in a state of limbo for grad school.
5) i ended up working very entry level positions in the tech industry for a couple of big companies like microsoft from 2007-2008, when the tech jobs started disappearing after the crash. i didn't want any more debt, but my dad tricked me into going back to school by promising to pay for it, then bailed at the last minute.
6) so, i was admitted into a qualifying year for a master's program in math in 2008; i was admitted by carleton, but the masters in math (at least at the time) was jointly administered by both ottawa and carleton, together.
7) after my dad bailed on me, i switched into a b. sc. for computer science. my argument was that a masters degree in mathematics is not worth the paper it's printed on, but he insisted on it, and suckered me into it; as soon as i realized i'd have to pay for this myself, and had no ability to pull out (without defaulting on my apartment), i decided to switch into something i thought would be more marketable, in the long run.
8) somebody with a math degree is already mostly done a comp. sci. degree, so i was able to get to 19.5/20 credits in two years (including the summer). my average over these two years was in the high 90s.
9) but, i had a moment of reflection in 2010 and decided i didn't want to live that way, which led me into a narcotics-fueled mental breakdown, and eventually landed me back in transition. i did not finish this second degree; i'm a half credit short, specifically the honours thesis.
10) despite high grades, i was ineligible for further student loan funding over 2011 because i dropped out in 2010 and got evicted at the end of the year after being unable to find a full time job. i blame this eviction on my then wealthy father deciding to be an asshole and "teach me a lesson" (what a dimwit.), and had to move in with my grandmother as a last resort, after he tricked me, again; he told me i could move home, then refused to let me actually move home, after i'd loaded the truck up with my stuff. i did not speak to my father much after that; he died of brain cancer in 2013. he was diagnosed the same day i was evicted, after suffering his first seizure while i was yelling at him for tricking me into getting evicted.
11) i was eligible for osap again in 2012 and very quickly completed the equivalent of three years of a sociology of law degree (1 first year course over the summer of 2012, the 2nd year requirements in late 2012 and the third year requirements in early 2013). osap is better than welfare, basically. i did not formally switch into a law program.
12) i got into odsp (ontario disability) late in 2012 due to post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from my father purposefully tricking me into getting evicted from my apartment in order to "teach me a lesson". i remain on odsp.
13) from 2008-2013, i quietly completed the requirements of a masters degree in math by completing more than 4.0 credits at the graduate level. i did not formally apply, or even enroll.
so, i have a lot of credits in a lot of different subjects and it adds up to:
0) a high school equivalency, without diploma, because fuck unpaid labour and fuck religion class
1) one official b. math degree in mathematics, with diploma
2) 19.5/20 credits of a b.sc in computer science, without diploma
3) the full requirements of a three year sociology of law degree (a b.a.), without diploma
4) the course requirements of a masters in mathematics, without diploma
5) undeclared minors in physics, economics and music
i'm happy on odsp and would like to stay here, or otherwise move to a gai.
i just don't like people. that's the reality. give me an apartment to read and rant and create in.
am i not entertaining?
that picture on the side is from mid 2017, and i should really upload some new pics. that would make me 36 in the picture; i'm now 39. i know i look very young, and take pride in it.
1) i graduated from st. pius X high school in ottawa in 2000, with 8 oac credits in calculus, algebra, finite math, biology, chemistry, physics, computer science and english. i was lucky to go to a high school with a big music program, but you can only take so many courses. that was the last year for oac in ontario. sort of. i refused to enroll in grade 13 religion under the argument that it was a waste of time, and refused to complete the community service requirements in protest at the obligation to perform unpaid labour. so, i have a transcript (i got 99 in calculus and 97 in comp sci, and maybe should have picked something easier than gravity's rainbow for english), but i don't have a diploma. i'm not ashamed of this; i think my protests were grounded, and i'd do it again.
2) i went to ottawa u for a few weeks in a software engineering program, and switched into math-physics at carleton by early october. i switched into a four-year pure math program after first year, then into gender studies late in second year, and briefly enrolled in an english program in third year. so, i had no idea, really.
3) i dropped out a few weeks into third year to raise money for gender transition, and ended up hitching to bc with a friend, and coming back not much later. i was back in the math program at carleton after skipping a year.
4) i finished a four year b. mathematics (not a b. sc, not a ba. a b. math.) in 2006. i was frequently homeless, on drugs and generally kind of a messed up young person, and my marks reflect it - they're all over the place, and semester-dependent. it's the old oppressed queer kid sob story that is so normal to all of us. so, i got straight As some semesters when i was focused and straight Ds when i was sleeping on my ex-girlfriend's floor, and camping out in the loeb building. it worked out to a strong B+, which put me in a state of limbo for grad school.
5) i ended up working very entry level positions in the tech industry for a couple of big companies like microsoft from 2007-2008, when the tech jobs started disappearing after the crash. i didn't want any more debt, but my dad tricked me into going back to school by promising to pay for it, then bailed at the last minute.
6) so, i was admitted into a qualifying year for a master's program in math in 2008; i was admitted by carleton, but the masters in math (at least at the time) was jointly administered by both ottawa and carleton, together.
7) after my dad bailed on me, i switched into a b. sc. for computer science. my argument was that a masters degree in mathematics is not worth the paper it's printed on, but he insisted on it, and suckered me into it; as soon as i realized i'd have to pay for this myself, and had no ability to pull out (without defaulting on my apartment), i decided to switch into something i thought would be more marketable, in the long run.
8) somebody with a math degree is already mostly done a comp. sci. degree, so i was able to get to 19.5/20 credits in two years (including the summer). my average over these two years was in the high 90s.
9) but, i had a moment of reflection in 2010 and decided i didn't want to live that way, which led me into a narcotics-fueled mental breakdown, and eventually landed me back in transition. i did not finish this second degree; i'm a half credit short, specifically the honours thesis.
10) despite high grades, i was ineligible for further student loan funding over 2011 because i dropped out in 2010 and got evicted at the end of the year after being unable to find a full time job. i blame this eviction on my then wealthy father deciding to be an asshole and "teach me a lesson" (what a dimwit.), and had to move in with my grandmother as a last resort, after he tricked me, again; he told me i could move home, then refused to let me actually move home, after i'd loaded the truck up with my stuff. i did not speak to my father much after that; he died of brain cancer in 2013. he was diagnosed the same day i was evicted, after suffering his first seizure while i was yelling at him for tricking me into getting evicted.
11) i was eligible for osap again in 2012 and very quickly completed the equivalent of three years of a sociology of law degree (1 first year course over the summer of 2012, the 2nd year requirements in late 2012 and the third year requirements in early 2013). osap is better than welfare, basically. i did not formally switch into a law program.
12) i got into odsp (ontario disability) late in 2012 due to post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from my father purposefully tricking me into getting evicted from my apartment in order to "teach me a lesson". i remain on odsp.
13) from 2008-2013, i quietly completed the requirements of a masters degree in math by completing more than 4.0 credits at the graduate level. i did not formally apply, or even enroll.
so, i have a lot of credits in a lot of different subjects and it adds up to:
0) a high school equivalency, without diploma, because fuck unpaid labour and fuck religion class
1) one official b. math degree in mathematics, with diploma
2) 19.5/20 credits of a b.sc in computer science, without diploma
3) the full requirements of a three year sociology of law degree (a b.a.), without diploma
4) the course requirements of a masters in mathematics, without diploma
5) undeclared minors in physics, economics and music
i'm happy on odsp and would like to stay here, or otherwise move to a gai.
i just don't like people. that's the reality. give me an apartment to read and rant and create in.
am i not entertaining?
the ruling was just shit-disturbing activism, and they really had no choice but to appeal it. but, the other side would have appealed the ruling, too.
so, sometimes, when you have judges that know that a case is going up, they will try to frame it in a specific way. and, that's what the ruling was, in truth, about.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-government-appeals-federal-court-ruling-on-canada-u-s-refugee-pact-1.5074058
so, sometimes, when you have judges that know that a case is going up, they will try to frame it in a specific way. and, that's what the ruling was, in truth, about.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-government-appeals-federal-court-ruling-on-canada-u-s-refugee-pact-1.5074058
this law was written for people like navalny; he's the perfect example of somebody who should be prosecuted under the legislation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
if you know activists in germany, get them on this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
if you know activists in germany, get them on this.
he's a nazi.
and, we always support nazis in eastern europe - this isn't an exception, it's the norm.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/01/09/nava-j09.html
and, we always support nazis in eastern europe - this isn't an exception, it's the norm.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/01/09/nava-j09.html
they should charge him with promoting and distributing hate speech when he gets there.
this guy is a fascist thug and he actually does belong in a jail cell.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/21/alexei-navalny-to-be-flown-to-germany-for-suspected-poisoning-treatment
this guy is a fascist thug and he actually does belong in a jail cell.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/21/alexei-navalny-to-be-flown-to-germany-for-suspected-poisoning-treatment
why don't i join ______ party?
i will never join a political party; i'm an anarchist, it's ideological.
i don't want to be in your party, and i don't care what the members of your party think of me.
and you can denounce me all you want, i'll still endorse you and vote for you if i think you're the best candidate - because i vote for you, you don't vote for me.
i will never join a political party; i'm an anarchist, it's ideological.
i don't want to be in your party, and i don't care what the members of your party think of me.
and you can denounce me all you want, i'll still endorse you and vote for you if i think you're the best candidate - because i vote for you, you don't vote for me.
i understand why a bunch of people in their 70s might think gays and atheists are obscure fringe groups that everybody hates, but the fact is that they're not just wrong but ridiculously wrong.
besides white evangelicals, a dying breed, and hispanics, an in truth evasive and poorly defined group, the 10% of the population that are gay and the 25% of the population that are atheist are pretty much the single largest voting blocks in the country (along with the 50% that are women). they're also both popular groups that evoke large amounts of sympathy when they run for office.
they want to vote democrat, too.
and they gave us john kasich, instead,
so, the 70+ year olds are in truth just completely out of touch. sadly. and to their own detriment.
after trump wins re-election as a consequence of clueless tactical work by biden and his backers, the party has to make generational renewal an immediate necessity.
this has to be the last time that the democrats try to put together this incoherent coalition that doesn't make any sense.
besides white evangelicals, a dying breed, and hispanics, an in truth evasive and poorly defined group, the 10% of the population that are gay and the 25% of the population that are atheist are pretty much the single largest voting blocks in the country (along with the 50% that are women). they're also both popular groups that evoke large amounts of sympathy when they run for office.
they want to vote democrat, too.
and they gave us john kasich, instead,
so, the 70+ year olds are in truth just completely out of touch. sadly. and to their own detriment.
after trump wins re-election as a consequence of clueless tactical work by biden and his backers, the party has to make generational renewal an immediate necessity.
this has to be the last time that the democrats try to put together this incoherent coalition that doesn't make any sense.
you could hear it come out of sanders' campaign near the end, this completely data-ignorant perception that he got sunk by the gays.
if there was any truth to it, it was that he didn't do any outreach, and threw one of ten voters away because of it.
but, the more realistic reaction is that his campaign was just run by a lot of bigots that swallowed a lot of republican talking points from the 1970s, and refused to do proper research into actual, real demographics. if the campaign had actually understood the demographics, and actually resourced itself properly, it might have at least given biden a better run...
but, it was easier to blame it on the gays. it always is.
if there was any truth to it, it was that he didn't do any outreach, and threw one of ten voters away because of it.
but, the more realistic reaction is that his campaign was just run by a lot of bigots that swallowed a lot of republican talking points from the 1970s, and refused to do proper research into actual, real demographics. if the campaign had actually understood the demographics, and actually resourced itself properly, it might have at least given biden a better run...
but, it was easier to blame it on the gays. it always is.
how about the united states?
i really wish the democrats would look at the data more clearly.
mormons: 1.9%
jews: 1.6%
===============
6.7%
gays: 10%
atheists: 25%
women: 50%
so, if i was trying to get elected, i think i'd be focusing mostly on gays, women and atheists, not on fragmented religious groups.
i really wish the democrats would look at the data more clearly.
mormons: 1.9%
jews: 1.6%
muslims: 1.1%
buddhists: 1%
buddhists: 1%
hindus: 0.9%
sikhs: 0.2%===============
6.7%
gays: 10%
atheists: 25%
women: 50%
so, if i was trying to get elected, i think i'd be focusing mostly on gays, women and atheists, not on fragmented religious groups.
i'm going to presume that a third under-represented group would be disabled canadians, but i don't actually have rigorous data regarding the number of disabled mps in the house of commons.
there are two visually impaired members of congress, one liberal and one conservative. they both have prominent positions in their respective parties. that's 0.6% of the members of parliament.
while over 20% of the population self-identifies as having a disability, the definitions here are not consistent, and i know that they're not comparable.
but, these are the three groups that political parties in canada should be seeking to increase representation for: women, queers and the disabled.
they are also the three most oppressed groups in our society, by a substantive margin.
there are two visually impaired members of congress, one liberal and one conservative. they both have prominent positions in their respective parties. that's 0.6% of the members of parliament.
while over 20% of the population self-identifies as having a disability, the definitions here are not consistent, and i know that they're not comparable.
but, these are the three groups that political parties in canada should be seeking to increase representation for: women, queers and the disabled.
they are also the three most oppressed groups in our society, by a substantive margin.
actually, i can think of two groups that are clearly under-represented.
1) women. under 30% of the parliament is female, who make up a bit more than 50% of the population. that greatly exceeds any concept of error.
2) queer people only make up about 1% of the parliament, but make up roughly 10% of the population - a number greater than the number of blacks, indo-canadians and muslims, combined. this would be the single biggest under-represented group in parliament that i know of.
1) women. under 30% of the parliament is female, who make up a bit more than 50% of the population. that greatly exceeds any concept of error.
2) queer people only make up about 1% of the parliament, but make up roughly 10% of the population - a number greater than the number of blacks, indo-canadians and muslims, combined. this would be the single biggest under-represented group in parliament that i know of.
to finish the thought: there are 10 indigenous members, and would be 17 if it were proportional. that's actually within error, too - it's about a 2% difference. so, i do apologize for being misleading; even indigenous groups are within a reasonable error of a proportional representation, which i'm surprising myself by.
if there is some other group of under-represented canadians in parliament, i am not aware of them.
if there is some other group of under-represented canadians in parliament, i am not aware of them.
like i say, it's a subtle debate.
even if i conceded that a problem existed, it's not as easy as just running more candidates. there's racism in the society, and running more minority candidates doesn't resolve it, it just makes it harder to get elected.
it's a discussion that needs a careful analysis around the reality of racism in the country, and the role that political parties can play in addressing it.
even if i conceded that a problem existed, it's not as easy as just running more candidates. there's racism in the society, and running more minority candidates doesn't resolve it, it just makes it harder to get elected.
it's a discussion that needs a careful analysis around the reality of racism in the country, and the role that political parties can play in addressing it.
there are some minority groups - like indo-canadians and muslims today, and jews in the past - that are actually starkly noticeably over-represented.
there were 19 indo-canadians elected in 2015, when a proportional amount would have been more like 10. that's a 2.7% difference, which is pushing towards significance.
i'm not complaining about that. as far as i know, they won their seats fairly.
but, it's important to point to actual, real data when making political decisions in an actual party, as bad assumptions could lead to poor outcomes.
there were 19 indo-canadians elected in 2015, when a proportional amount would have been more like 10. that's a 2.7% difference, which is pushing towards significance.
i'm not complaining about that. as far as i know, they won their seats fairly.
but, it's important to point to actual, real data when making political decisions in an actual party, as bad assumptions could lead to poor outcomes.
indigenous groups in canada are starkly certainly noticeably under-represented in parliament. i would assume it's worse than any reasonable error, but i should look that up before i post it.
everybody else is roughly proportional, if you accept a reasonable margin of error.
that's not an opinion. that's data.
everybody else is roughly proportional, if you accept a reasonable margin of error.
that's not an opinion. that's data.
annamie is very purposefully and consciously positioning herself as a candidate that is interested in increasing the "diversity" of the democratic representation in canada, which opens up the obvious question as to whether we're experiencing a deficit of representation in the country when it comes to...."diversity" is a liberal party code word that racist white liberals use to refer to black and brown people, so i'm going to kind of drop it, but it's kind of getting me to the point of my concern, here. does canada have an issue with the proportionality of it's democratic representation? when i look at the elections i've experienced, what i notice is that all of the major parties consistently run a very wide selection of candidates that are often consciously chosen to reflect the demographics in their ridings, but that the most "diverse" of these candidates very often fail to win their seats. and, thus, i think the question is a little more subtle, when being approached from a leadership perspective. if we decide that the existing representation is not proportional, is it because parties are not doing enough outreach to present a representative slate or is it because voters are making different choices than parties are? and, if it's the latter, what are the reasons for that? annamie also demonstrated a tendency to use the race card in cynical ways that were intended to tar her opponents, and i worry if that might backfire with the broader canadian population, which may be sympathetic to legitimate demonstrations of racism and quick to bolt on a candidate that tries to play the race card in disingenuous ways. the members will need to weigh all of these issues, if they decide to walk down this path, and weight the relative importance of focusing on increasing "diversity" in parliament in the context of tackling the climate crisis.
as a long time viewer of the real news during the now apparently over paul jay period, i am much more familiar with dmitri than i am with any of the other candidates and it is actually for this reason that i'm a little apprehensive about voting for him as a leader, despite the fact that i think he'd make an excellent and very responsible member of parliament, much in the same way that elizabeth may is. dmitri is exceedingly strident in his opinions, and very much convinced of the correctness of them, in ways that may make it difficult for him to organize a political party. a dmitri lascaris led green party may be fun for a few years, but i would be concerned about his electoral viability, due to his tendency to take controversial positions and refuse to compromise on them. those supporting his candidacy should be aware that they are getting somebody with very strongly held opinions that holds to those opinions because he is certain he is right. that said, he's probably the best attorney general that the country will never actually have.
regarding bds....
the switch to the ndp was a little curious to me, given what happened to libby davies all those years ago. i'm, personally, a little bit apprehensive about bds as a tactic, for the reason that it seems likely to me to make things worse rather than better, which is a position i've adopted from listening to chomsky. but, i am exceedingly confident that dmitri is coming from a place of support for human rights, and not a place of support for something else.
regarding bds....
the switch to the ndp was a little curious to me, given what happened to libby davies all those years ago. i'm, personally, a little bit apprehensive about bds as a tactic, for the reason that it seems likely to me to make things worse rather than better, which is a position i've adopted from listening to chomsky. but, i am exceedingly confident that dmitri is coming from a place of support for human rights, and not a place of support for something else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)