i think the court is wrong. and i'm openly queer, fwiw.

i'm a canadian, so i'm approaching it from a slightly different perspective. but the issue the way i would understand it is related to the question of general service v. individual service. there's a difference between walking into a store and ordering a pre-made cake and requesting that a cake be made with a specific design on it. while the discrimination law ought to apply to the rejection of discrimination on general service (walking in and buying a pre-made good), i don't see any legal precedence or coherent argument that suggests that a store owner does not have the right to deny individual service, for whatever reason it could possibly imagine. it could deny a floral pattern because it doesn't like flowers. it doesn't have to explain or justify this, and it's really beyond any legal scope to question it. so, it's not a question of religious freedom, or even a first amendment protection. it's just the basic autonomous right of individuals to choose who they wish to carry out business with. the entire question is really outside of the scope of law; this case should have never even been heard, and the arguments are really not relevant in the context of any of the discussions being had. so, i would expect the supreme court to reverse this ruling, if it gets there. this is an example of what you call judicial activism - it's not legally rooted.

i would further expand on the issue as it relates to access. in canada, there is a specific circumstance where the court would rule that the business must provide service, and that is only if it has a monopoly. that would apply mostly to government services. so, you can't deny a driver's license for this reason, for example. that's what anti-discrimination laws actually exist for. but, we're talking about wedding cakes on the free market, here. chances are pretty high that you can just go to the next store down the street. and, that's what the judge really should have said - that the government does not exist to police this sort of thing.

there's an irony underlying the situation. you don't have to agree with this guy - i certainly don't. but you have to respect his rights to make his own autonomous decisions and carry out his own autonomous actions. you're the one that's being aggressive here, not him; you have no right to try and force him to bake a cake if he doesn't want to - and it doesn't remotely matter what the reason is.

to be more succinct: this doesn't have anything anything to do with the first amendment, it doesn't have anything to do with religious freedom and it doesn't have anything to do with anti-discrimination laws. it has to do with somebody trying to order somebody to do something they don't want to.

there's no fancy legal argument necessary, and getting lost in one is just confusing. the most powerful legal argument the store owner has is the following simple statement:

"no. i don't want to."

once the layers of superfluous arguments are stripped away and that simple point is understood, there's really no further room for debate.

underlipetx
+deathtokoalas except for the fact that if you turn the tables it's okay. When someone wants to have a cake done with a bible verse on it and the bakery refuses, the courts favor the bakery. There's a bias agenda in here people refuse to acknowledge...

the simple statement would not be "no, I don't want to" but "no, it violates my religious beliefs",

deathtokoalas
+underlipetx see, this is a typical right-wing culture war argument, and i don't really want to get into it. the courts should uphold the autonomous rights of individuals to make decisions as to the nature of the business they carry out. critical theory would tend to come down on the other side of this, but activism in the judiciary exists on both the right and the left. the bottom line is that they're both wrong, and this isn't a spectrum issue - it's an issue of fundamental rights and freedoms to not be ordered to do something you don't want to.

the religious freedom clause in the united states constitution is widely interpreted, and widely misinterpreted. but, one thing that is absolutely clear is that it's not meant to be applied to financial transactions on the open market.

the point, though, is that it doesn't matter what the reason is. that reason belongs to the individual making it, and it is not within the realm of state criticism.

as stated - the case should have been thrown out.

underlipetx
+deathtokoalas yes "right wing culture war argument" as in point out the hypocrisy, but then of course we just label it as "right wing culture war argument" and feel okay about it...... Freedom of religion act is meant for protection wherever you go. It's religious discrimination when someone believes that religions place is only "in the household and churches"

although I believe we agree on the issue as well.

wouldn't that go against the view of right to healthcare as well? Honest question since you're from Canada, cause that "right" is saying that you can force someone(a doctor) to treat you.

Drew Gaughan
+underlipetx No, it's not hypocritical because those doctors are government employees providing a service which every Provincial citizen is guaranteed. They aren't baking you a cake.

underlipetx
+Drew Gaughan doctors aren't governmental employees, even in Canada they still have "super hospitals" or privately owned ones, even so, that statement would say it's okay to force a doctor to do something cause the government says so isn't valid. Just a note in not comparing this to baking a cake, it's a separate question.

Drew Gaughan
+underlipetx We don't have privately owned hospitals here in Canada, save for a few in major cities. The problem here is your conflating a life-saving profession with baking a cake. Should a police officer have the right to refuse answering a 911 call because they don't like the colour of the house which they were called to? No, and neither should a doctor refuse to perform a surgery because they dislike the patient.

underlipetx
I said earlier, I'm not comparing this to baking a cake, its a separate honest question I was asking, and since 2005 where the founder of the Canadian healthcare system was sued and deemed that his care system  was " a crime against humanity" they allowed the establishment of super hospitals, which in America is just called hospitals. 

deathtokoalas
+underlipetx i'm not getting your reference to a 2005 case. i think the closest thing to a "founder" of health care in canada would be tommy douglas, and he died in 1986.

i'm going to take a step back and try and go over this slowly.

first, freedom of religion in the united states is about the government. it's not about behaviour between individuals. what it says is that there can't be laws that force people to do certain religious things or give people certain religious benefits. the basis for this law was to prevent denominations from fighting with each other, which was a legitimate issue at the time. for example, you couldn't pass a law that states that the trinity is true and unitarians are heretics. it's that sort of thing that it meant to address.

the truth is that this part of the constitution is very antiquated and should really read off as rather quaint.

there are a lot of conclusions to draw from this, some better than others. but, the interpretation you're pulling out of it is really just simply wrong. none of the people involved in the process would have for a moment thought it a good idea to get the state involved in policing market transactions - one way or the other. they would have neither supported a religious restoration type act (for reasons other than the first amendment) nor would they argue that the state has the right to order a baker to make a cake. they would have just said that this is a crazy thing to contemplate, and that the entire discourse is tyrannical. the baker decides to make the cake. the customer goes to another store if they're refused. now, let's all smoke a j.

however, they would have all mostly argued that the market is a useful tool to carry out social change. they would have certainly supported the idea of boycotting the bakery in order to put pressure on the baker to change his position. and, some of them may have argued that the anti-discrimination law is in breech of the first amendment, while rejecting the idea that the baker's opinions are protected by "freedom of religion". the idea is that the anti-discrimination act would be a law establishing the primacy of irreligion. let's be clear that this is a very different argument. and it's a bit of a stretch. but, it's the one you need to make if you're walking down this path.

so, the idea that the first amendment bestows rights on individuals in market transactions is wrong. it's just not what is in your constitution. however you feel about the discussion, this is simply not a first amendment issue.

however, the baker still has a constitutional argument. it's just not a first amendment, religious argument - it's more basic than that.

in canada, our human rights laws have specific scope. the federal human rights code deals with issues under federal jurisdiction - government services, basically. the provincial human rights code deals with issues of power. it's actually very specific in what it reduces itself to, but the idea is that somebody in power cannot discriminate against somebody they hold power over. canadian law would be entirely silent on the issue at hand, and the case would no doubt be thrown out of court.

i will address the doctors in a new reply.

deathtokoalas
canada has a clause in it's constitution that will come off as rather alien to americans. it is the following:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

it looks a little bit familiar: you have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. but, the difference is rather dramatic.

canadian courts have interpreted this part of the constitution, in conjunction with relevant legislation, to mean that canadians have a constitutional right to receive health care (see the morgantaler cases).

now, let's consider the driver's license thing again. let's say the guy that works at the dmv is a religious fundamentalist and is absolutely insistent that women should not drive. is it tyrannical to force him to hand out licenses? the answer is no: because he can quit his job. as an employee of the dmv, he is required to carry out a job description, and that job description is to uphold the rights of women to not be discriminated against when they're getting their license.

this is the kind of argument that we use in canada with doctors and care. patients have a right to certain access; as a doctor, it is a part of their job to provide that. the state will not force them to provide care. rather, it will tell them that if they do not want to do their job then they can find another job.

conversely, nobody has a right to buy a cake. i certainly suspect that the case was driven by entitlement issues. but, that's not an actual right - not in canada, not in the united states, not in the un - nowhere.

underlipetx
+deathtokoalas
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoulli_v_Quebec_%28AG%29

I will rephrase that it was deemed "a violation of human rights"

The person I was thinking of is Claude Castonguay, the former Minister of Health who was in office when the current medicare legislation was enacted.

deathtokoalas
+underlipetx the chaoulli case has not led to any concrete reforms in canada. but, this is not related to the question at hand.

the canadian health care system is essentially a system of insurance monopolies. every province has it's own insurance monopoly, which is funded through progressive taxation. that means everybody uses the same system, which means nobody gets to jump ahead.

the case in question was asking the question of whether this is constitutional. the argument was that the absence of a market increases wait times, which breaks the clause i referenced previously.

a lot of the debate circles around the validity of the idea that an open market would actually reduce wait times. the general opinion is that this is false. this is important, because if the premise is flawed then the argument collapses.

but, no, this case did not rule the system a crime against humanity, and did not create superhospitals. it has not led to any legislation whatsoever

underlipetx
I rephrased as a "Violation of human rights"(it was also deemed a crises as well) and its has led to the ability to have privatized healthcare which they do have that in Canada

deathtokoalas
+underlipetx that's still not quite right. again: this has gone off-topic. the issue in this case was not whether doctors may be allowed to refuse service, but whether the provincial government may be allowed to maintain a monopoly in health insurance. canadian court rulings can sometimes be very subtle and hard to understand from the outside.

what the ruling did was give the quebec government a choice to increase funds to reduce wait times (and uphold the right publicly) or allow that part of the law to expire (thereby theoretically allowing for faster access in a theoretical private system). it was based solely on the idea that the existing system was not providing fast enough service, and that reality was infringing on the existing right.

now, a lot of people have read the ruling as an attempt for the court to increase public investment, rather than allow private practice. but, the government did not amend any legislation or react with any greater funding.

the result has been a small industry of private doctors in quebec that cater solely to the ultra-rich. it's what is called "two-tier healthcare", and does in fact allow the extremely wealthy to jump the queue ahead of everybody else. it's well outside of the financial means for the average person, and has consequently not altered the health care system in any meaningful way.

the general consensus is that should the private system be expanded then the wait times will reappear. at the end of the day, you have x patients and y doctors. whether it's a public or private system doesn't have any effect on how long it takes for those x patients to get to see those y doctors - unless you create a special category of doctors that only the rich can get access to. then, they can get in faster while everybody else has to wait.

there's an argument that a class-action suit would reverse this ruling by arguing that the two-tier health care is increasing wait times by taking resources out of the public system. it hasn't yet materialized, because the private industry is only capable of appealing to the elite and is consequently only siphoning the system of minimal resources.

this is a provincial ruling, not a federal one. most provinces in canada prohibit private practices.

underlipetx
its not off topic as much as comments to the others on this thread, however I do believe your comment is wrong to say that it "cater solely to the ultra-rich"

What is a reality is that if you do not have private health insurance and you want to do something as little as a blood test, that can take up to 2-3 years on a waiting list for a family doctor.

here is a video from a youtube personality who shows the results of such instances:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

(yes hes a youtube personality, so its done in a  bit of a goofy way.)

deathtokoalas
+underlipetx you have a tendency to exaggerate.

blood tests are actually done largely by private offices, or at hospitals. remember: canada's system is an insurance monopoly, it's not government operated. so, you go to the private clinic and they accept your health card. they then bill the insurance company for it.

if you go to a doctor and they want a blood test, they usually send you to one of those private clinics. they tend to give you a few days so you can carry out instructions, like prepare to fast for a few hours.

i've had plenty of blood tests done. i've really never taken notice of how long it was - a couple of days. i mean, they'll book you based on your schedule. i may have not taken the first opening. two-three years is ridiculous.

the market forces at play in quebec act to keep prices disproportionately high; there is a high-quality tax-funded public system available, and, yes, people complain about the waits, but people are whiners. despite the language in the court ruling, the private industry is selling the privilege to jump ahead based on social status.

mris, for example, run into the tens of thousands of dollars. if you can wait a month or two for the people ahead of you to finish, the public system will pay for it. most people make the obvious choice. but, if you've got tens of thousands to burn...

Emmanuel Villa
If your a private business you should be allowed to serve who you please

L1ttleT3d
+deathtokoalas You feel the same about black people, right? I should be able to deny service to black people if I wish? And women? I should be able to deny women jobs or service if I want to?

deathtokoalas
+L1ttleT3d see, this is the part of the thing that the authoritarian left has a very hard time understanding - they think all situations are comparable in these broad general ways, and everybody should always be forced to abide by state dictates in all circumstances. this is not a liberal position. it's a totalitarian statist position. liberals need to be very subtle in terms of how they analyze freedom, and allow for complex clauses that are specific to certain contexts and circumstances.

your question is consequently impossible to answer because the way that it's phrased is incoherent and nonsensical. i cannot answer a question about always denying or not denying service to any specific identifiable group - and it's absurd to suggest anybody should. if you'd like to be a little bit more specific, i'll be happy to expand upon my views.

again: i'm a canadian. our constitution is probably the apex of applied liberalism; it's not the un charter, but it's as close as anybody's ever gotten. and, our rights are all subject to exceptions within the limits of a free and democratic society. rights are always a balance of interests. i'm not able to think in these simplistic, generalized, binary terms that give one side a sickle and the other five minutes to run. it's not a culture i exist in, or a legal tradition i understand.

so, you'll have to be more specific, please. i need a specific scenario. and i will deny you the right to generalize it.

L1ttleT3d
+deathtokoalas Sure thing. Specific question 1: Mary and Peter are up for the same management job. Mary is infinitely more qualified but is a woman and so will inevitably need time off for "woman issues" and pregnancy. It's my business. I don't want to hire Mary - I WANT to hire Peter. Are you going to make me do something I don't want to do? You're not one of these authoritarian government intervention lefties, are you?

Specific question number 2: I have a flower business. I believe mixing the races is abhorrent and violates natural law. A mixed race couple wish me to provide flowers for their wedding. I don't WANT to. Are you going to make me do something I don't want to do? You're not one of these authoritarian government intervention lefties, are you?

Specific question number 3: I am a landlord. I have various tenants applying for housing. Jews are shifty and can't be trusted. As such I don't WANT to let my house to any Jews. I wish to place an ad in the paper that specifies "NO JEWS NEED APPLY." You're not going to make me do something I don't want to do, are you? You're not one of these authoritarian government intervention lefties are you? It's MY house. 

deathtokoalas
+L1ttleT3d regarding the first question, there is not a jurisdiction in the world that would force you to hire mary. however, some jurisdictions may require you to compensate her for discriminatory hiring practices. i would agree that this is the proper balance.

the second question is similar to the issue at hand. the couple can go to another store. that is the proper rights balance. however, they are also free to draw attention to the situation in media, organize boycotts and do other things to inform consumers of the views of the store in question and try and convince people to not shop there.

the third issue is similar to the first, with the difference that some jurisdictions will force the landlord to allow the tenancy due to the nature of housing. housing is in a category of rights that is only weakly enforced, but it is at least abstractly recognized as a right. most jurisdictions, however, would approach the situation by rewarding compensation for discrimination rather than forcing unwanted tenancy.

you can see that there is a pattern: people are free to be assholes, but may have to pay a fee for it. and, i'd like you to step back and ask yourself the following questions:

1) would mary want to work in this establishment, given that she understands the views of management?
2) would a mixed race couple want to support this business?
3) would the jewish person in question want to live in a property owned by anti-semites?

L1ttleT3d
+deathtokoalas regarding the first question, there is not a jurisdiction in the world that would force you to hire mary. however, some jurisdictions may require you to compensate here for discriminatory hiring practices. i would agree that this is the proper balance.

I live in New Zealand. YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HIRE MARY. You're talking like you're an expert on law. You clearly are not. You need to change your language accordingly.

1) would mary want to work in this establishment, given that she understands the views of management?
2) would a mixed race couple want to support this business?
3) would the jewish person in question want to live in a property owned by anti-semites?

Your position is fairly consistent. I'm cool with that in a way - liberty over equality. We just prioritise them slightly differently.

These responses are nonsense however. If you live in a place where you are a small reviled minority then you're not going to get any support for your boycott. Black people in the 60s could have all the boycotts they want - they weren't welcome anyway. Also fining people IS coercion. I don't understand why you think financial penalties aren't coercive... that's bizarre... 

deathtokoalas
+L1ttleT3d i am a moderate expert in canadian law; i took three years of it, before i decided it was just a charade for the ruling class. i naively thought it might be a useful way to fight the corporatocracy. the truth is the rules of the game are rigged.

new zealand doesn't count. it's in the middle of nowhere. you have giant crickets and weird birds running around all over the place. you can have your unique legal practices if you wish, but understand that you're living in a bubble. and, to be honest, i'm rather skeptical - although i cannot dispute your point.

the reason i asked you those questions was to have you see that forcing compliance is not a solution to anything. it's not a question of prioritizing one over the other, it's just a realization that you can't get to equality by beating it into people with a stick. at best, it forces people to be dishonest in public. at worst, it fuels resentment. getting to a proper balance that promotes harmony requires working with a scalpel, not a sickle.

so, it's not that i'm arguing against coercion. it's that i'm arguing that forcing people to do things against their will is not a good approach. i'm recognizing that discrimination is an offense, and agreeing it requires compensation - but i'm pointing towards what is almost universally agreed to be the better approach in remedying the injustice.

the civil rights movement in the 60s was a populist movement where whites and blacks worked together. that said, this dynamic was an urban phenomenon. there was a large migration of blacks out of the south in the middle part of the last century. the government passed laws that forced equal treatment in restaurants, motels and other contexts. it didn't work; white southerners just got more violent. in the end, the most immediate answer was escape. but, if you really want to get to the root of discrimination in racialized societies, you need to analyze systemic root causes. this is the basis of the critical race theory that came out of the failure of the 60s reforms; while i'm not entirely in agreement with their analysis, the basic premise that they're working with is quite difficult to dispute. on some level, you're right - but forcing them to sell them the flowers hardly addresses the issue.

anti-discrimination laws are not powerful enough to eliminate discrimination and oppression - they can only provide for compensation in situations where a clear loss or injustice can be demonstrated.

L1ttleT3d
+deathtokoalas i took three years of it, before i decided it was just a charade for the ruling class

We were taught that day 1 of Law 101. I'm not even kidding. I remember it very well. The definition of law was discussed and it was defined as basically a mechanism for maintaining the status quo. The rich keep their stuff because the police work for them. It's a shame your university lecturer wasn't as forthright as mine, I guess. :P

new zealand doesn't count. it's in the middle of nowhere. 

Sure. That's an odd response but I'll take it. It's right next to Australia (and has almost identical laws to Australia and the UK)... but then I guess that's the "middle of nowhere" too, probably.

you have giant crickets and weird birds running around all over the place. 

Well we're not quite overrun. I'm not sitting in my house with Weta's and Kakapo clawing at my windows... but O... K...

it's just a realization that you can't get to equality by beating it into people with a stick 

I disagree. You can do anything you want if you're willing to get violent enough. We're not willing to impose totalitarianism onto ourselves of course - but technically you CAN beat people into doing what you want.

at best, it forces people to be dishonest in public. at worst, it fuels resentment. getting to a proper balance that promotes harmony requires working with a scalpel, not a sickle.
 
Fair point. Fines are a sickle, though. Not a scalpel. You need to find a better tool.

you need to analyze systemic root causes. this is the basis of the critical race theory that came out of the failure of the 60s reforms 

Now THIS I agree with. Treat the disease not the symptom. Couldn't agree more. The main thing overlooked the the race issues of the USA by many is that it really isn't about race... not really. This is a class thing - with Black people as the underclass. Fix social inequality and the rest will follow, in my opinion.

deathtokoalas
+L1ttleT3d white supremacy didn't come to exist by accident. it was very carefully created by a combination of landholding interests and religious groups to enforce an economic system by theological decree. over time, that evolved into a divide and conquer strategy where poor whites and poor blacks were played off against each other in order to prevent them from uniting to change the status quo. the social aspect of it is the part that's hard, not the class aspect of it. the race issue has to be resolved before the class issue can be addressed. it's really the desperately poor and strikingly uneducated white underclass that is the biggest problem on the ground, even as they take their cues from the top.

it's not that i wasn't told that the law is a tool to maintain the status quo. it's a widely held opinion, even amongst people that have never taken a law course. it's that i didn't realize the extent of it until i actually read the cases. you walk in thinking you've got a hill to climb, but with optimism that you can make a difference. it takes some time for it to really sink in.

L1ttleT3d
+deathtokoalas Oh, don't get me wrong, racism exists. I just think the social inequality / class aspect of it is far more meaningful than pretending this is a simple race issue would lead you to believe.

Alicia Etler
+deathtokoalas You make a valid point, and I do agree with you. The cake example is a poor example to use here. The only ones truly hurt are the business owners who aren't making money off of a potential customer. And even more potential business for anyone agreeing with the gay couple's opinion. A business owner shouldn't need to pander to customers. Yes, they tend to be more successful if they do, but it's not a requirement. A florist who doesn't carry daisies doesn't have to suddenly go out and get some just because the customer requests it in a bouquet. A restaurant doesn't have to offer an all-you-can-eat buffet just because a customer wants it.

However, while that example doesn't fit, I'm sure you agree there's plenty of examples that do. A person applying a job shouldn't be turned away for being homosexual or transgender. Beliefs have no right to be used in determining job performance. If they're qualified to perform a task, and perform it well, why shouldn't they be allowed to? As a specific example, my mom works for a bookkeeping company. A few years back, a transgendered individual applied for a job there. They were perfectly qualified, but they were denied for being transgendered. The excuse given was that they were worried about anyone coming into the office and seeing them, given they would sorta be representing the company. The company is even an Equal Opportunity Employer, to make matters worse, but North Carolina law doesn't protect transgendered people under that. This is a very common practice in far too many states.

As an analogy, the saying "women must work twice as hard for the same amount of money", while slightly inaccurate, is generally true, given the proven pay differential between genders. However, being transgender or homosexual means doing even more work than that because of the sheer amount of businesses that will reject them or hinder their progression (raises, etc.) because of it. Far more than if they were cis female.

P.S. For the record, I'm both mtf transgender and lesbian, so the only thing I have going for me in the sense of job security and otherwise being treated like a sentient being is that I'm white.

deathtokoalas
+Alicia Etler i don't have a point of disagreement with you. but what the actual law in both the united states and canada (and i suspect australia, the uk and new zealand, despite the previous poster's comments) says is not that the employer must hire the individual if they are found guilty of breaking discrimination laws, but that they must pay them a fee to compensate them for losses. it's what is called tort law - it deals solely with financial damages. the idea of the government dictating hiring decisions in private businesses is outside of it's jurisdiction in common law countries; it can set hiring practices, but they can only be enforced by threat of fine.

it's not that the cake example is really fundamentally different. it's just that it's difficult to establish any kind of damage or loss.

Alicia Etler
+deathtokoalas Wow... umm... my apologies. I just realized my other comment massively failed to say the original thing I wanted to say: Thank you for opening my eyes, as I never thought much about the cake incident until reading your comment. Once I did, I realized some irony that is probably your underlying main point. That event is getting far too much publicity for what it deserves, and partly due to people associating it with things it doesn't relate to. The owner has as much of a right to not do business with a customer as that customer has to complain about the owner. Anyone who wants the owner to do anything about it is just as bad as those trying to abolish gay marriage. Both acts are attempting to force someone to do something against their will.

Naomi Nabbit
+deathtokoalas IANAL, but my understanding of the law in the US is that if you offer something to one person, you must offer it to everyone. You cannot legally give preferential treatment to one person over another in a business. A landlord can't deny a black man an apartment who meets all the specified conditions for renting just because "I don't like him." A job can't refuse a woman employment but offer the same position to a man (jobs are actually forbidden from knowing the gender of a candidate before the first interview, though the name usually gives it away, just like they can't know the candidate's age or ethnicity) even if they say it was because "I didn't like her."

Do these things happen? Yes, probably all the time, but that doesn't make them legal, and that doesn't mean they'd win a court case. You can refuse anyone service or fire anyone for any reason you want, but if it comes out that the reason was solely due to the person's membership in a protected minority class, it is not legal in the US, no matter what the person says or believes. Of course, different states have different protected minority classifications, which is what that non-discrimination bill is all about. It's about adding protections at the federal level so that in addition to things like race, gender, and religion which are already there, sexual orientation and gender identity are added to the list everyone has to use. 

Donald Lanoux
You see, if all LGBTQ individuals thought like you, they would all collectively better themselves and their community, and have my respect.

deathtokoalas
+Naomi Nabbit you've got the right idea, using official language. i'm just taking what is called a "critical" approach to the law in seeing it how it actually is.

which is that the state cannot prevent or reverse or order behaviour. it can just make you pay a fine if it doesn't like what you're doing.

you're right in saying that if you have general service available, then you need to make it available to everybody. that doesn't apply in this circumstance, and it's easy to come up with circumstances where specific services are not for everybody. like a midwife, for example. or perhaps even a stripper. tutors. and etc. but, if you have something sitting on the shelf, and the transaction involves walking it to the cash? the law says that if you will not serve the person, you are entitled to pay a fine.

that's the "critical" part. the law says "thou shalt not be an asshole". it's just language. in practice, the reality is "thou shalt pay a fine should one decide to be an asshole.". and, worse, half the judges are assholes.

deathtokoalas
+Donald Lanoux i don't think it's a good idea to stereotype people one way or another.

deathtokoalas
+Naomi Nabbit i should clarify a little, i didn't mean to say i'm merely thinking critically. it's a type of legal philosophy. the search term is "critical legal studies". and, it's actually firmly rooted on the left.

Donald Lanoux
+deathtokoalas In a perfect world. Unfortunately a stereotype holds true until presented with opposing evidence. Anyway, I applaud your defense of individual rights 

Alicia Etler
+Donald Lanoux "If all LGBTQ individuals thought like you, they would all collectively better themselves and their community, and have my respect." No disrespect meant, but that stereotype is immensely incorrect. Replacing "LGBTQ" with "Christians" is just as inaccurate and wrong. There's many religious people out there that follow their religion's teachings properly. In this case, that means "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself." Just because the media focuses on the extreme views doesn't mean the vast majority of us are like them. Most homosexual/transgender people are sensible, just like most religious people are sensible. The media aims to label all of us based on a few extremists under the "one bad apple ruins the bunch" idea, and so far, it looks like they succeeded with you.

deathtokoalas
+Alicia Etler yeah, it runs across the spectrum of portrayal in a lot of ways. with transgendered people, specifically, the whole point is that we're trying to fade in. we want people to focus on everything except that aspect of us. even when the media portrays us in what are really absurd (and often regressive) stereotypes, they get applauded - because those stereotypes are the only way that most people interact with transgendered people on the level of them being transgendered because the vast majority of us are really just trying to not draw attention to it, and the vast majority of people, even people that mean well, consequently legitimately don't know better.

i've been a bit of an activist for a while. both online and off. and i could interact with a group like occupy in ways i couldn't interact with a queer rights group, because the trans component invariably ends up dominated by drag queens, which are essentially very dominant queeny gay men that just don't think like transgendered women. there's a spectrum. i'm not trying to box anybody in or cast anybody out. but even the people in these groups that identify as trans tend to think like gay men. those dominant gay male voices end up drowning everything out, and it becomes very hard to get a word in. the general passivity of trans women in face-to-face circumstances makes it hard to get heard over this.

and, it's not just the dominant gay men. i think there's an argument that the t doesn't really belong in lgbt. often times, the transgendered person ends up presenting what is essentially a straight perspective (straight relative to their transitioned role) in what is an overwhelmingly queer group, and ends up far outside the spectrum of acceptable opinion within it.

but, media doesn't seem to want to get beyond the glamour of drag culture to deal with the reality that your average trans person is really a pretty average person with pretty average perspectives and is really just seeking acceptance on the basis of no longer being interpreted as abnormal.

Naomi Nabbit
+deathtokoalas While I agree with some of your larger points, I feel that there are a lot of holes and assumptions in your arguments. Yes, your average trans person is really a pretty average person just seeking acceptance. So is the average homosexual person, bisexual person, intersexed person, asexual person, queer person, and two-spirit (blanket term for Native American people who identify as their native culture's third or fourth gender) person. The average person in a minority that;s discriminated against doesn't want to be discriminated against and they don't want special treatment. They just want to be treated like any other average person.

Heck, the United States was founded on that very principle - an oppressed minority didn't want to be discriminated against just because of where they lived or what religion they practiced, so they rebelled and made their own country. Yes, it was more complicated than that, but at its core, that's what the Declaration of Independence says - we're being treated differently by the government, and that's wrong. Now, I'm not saying we LGBT(QIA2S) folk should throw a bunch of tea into the harbor next year during Pride, just that the US was founded by people who were upset that they were being treated differently for being a minority.

And the reason the T belongs in LGBTQIA2S is that it was in the original term and the original movement (in the US - can't speak for Canadia). The modern LGBT movement in the states started with the Stonewall Riots, which Pride commemorates every year. There were LGB and T people at Stonewall. Yes, there were dragqueens there, but there were also trans people. (Dragqueens, from what I understand, generally identify as gay male crossdressers, not transwomen, but I haven't actually met any dragqueens.) It's part of the same movement because it is the same movement, started at the same time, in the same place, for the same reasons. Yes, straight transgendered folk have a non-marginalized sexual orientation, just like cisgendered homosexuals/bisexuals/etc have a non-marginalized gender identity. That doesn't innately segregate the civil rights movements (even if trans folk often get thrown under the bus by gay rights activists in exchange for LGB rights - being a minority within a minority isn't always easy).
Also, many of the trans people I happen to know, including myself, are also bisexual (or pansexual). I think it's common because we often see gender differently than cisgendered folk. Or, it's just common for people I know because the social circles I tend to hang around include a substantial number of bisexuals. Either way, referring to transgender people as typically straight is pretty heteronormative.

Yes, most transwomen just want to be treated like any other woman, just like most homosexual couples just want to be treated like any other couple. 

deathtokoalas
+Naomi Nabbit what i'm getting at is that queeny gay men revel in their rejection of norms, their open flamboyancy and their desire to stand apart from the crowd. they want you to know they're gay and will yell it from the loudest rooftops. it forms the core of their identity, and the filter they desire to be interpreted through.

trans people tend to prefer to fade in to the background and not be noticed. broadly speaking, they'd rather you didn't know that they're trans. they tend to be very shy. they don't base their identities around it, or want you to interpret them through that filter.

this is just diversity. that's fine. the problem is that the queeny gay men almost entirely control the narrative on trans issues, which distorts the public perception on it. and, because we interpret things broadly differently, we tend to disagree more often than we agree. that distortion consequently creates a large disconnect between perception and reality.

there's obviously power in numbers. i don't propose that transgendered people disassociate from the broader queer movement. but, outside observers - especially friendly ones - should realize the limitations that exist.

Naomi Nabbit
+deathtokoalas Aren't you using some pretty negative media stereotypes of gay men? Isn't that exactly what you're complaining about other people doing regarding transwomen? I know quite a few gay men - exactly zero of them are as you've described. You can't argue against stereotypes by using them. That's not how this works. Most gay men I know don't want to be perceived as gay men, they want to be perceived as men, just like we transwomen want to be perceived as women.

I guess it's reasonable for a member of one minority group to be prejudiced against members of another minority group and only see them through the lens of stereotype, but it certainly doesn't support your case or make you sound sympathetic. It just makes you sound like the people you are speaking out against.

Donald Lanoux
+Alicia Etler Fair enough. But I'm a firm believer in silencing extremists and zealots who infringe on others. The problem is the individual above is the first of his/her kind that I have witnessed calling out these zealots. Regardless of a zealot advancing your cause, if he or she infringes on the rights of others who disagree with you, IT IS YOUR DUTY for your cause to check them. 

deathtokoalas
+Naomi Nabbit i'm not speaking of these characteristics negatively. if queeny gay men want to be queeny gay men, that's entirely their prerogative - and i don't hold that against them. i'm just pointing out the reasons that the media presentation of transwomen is so thoroughly lacking: transwomen are not gay men.

there's (at least) three transwomen on this thread. we all have pictures up. have you ever seen a media portrayal of a transwoman that looks like one of us?

Dalton Reyburn
+deathtokoalas i'm just curious, would you support the same cake shop's hypothetical decision to not serve people of color? i suppose you're right, ideally the free market would just elevate shops that were more inclusive. but at the same time, don't you think there ought to be some basic protection against people being denied service for things that they can't control? it's not like anybody was asking the baker to graphically depict anal sex on the cake. for all we know, it could have just been the names of two men.

deathtokoalas
+Dalton Reyburn you have to set the hypothetical situation up comparably, and there's not really a very good comparison. an almost comparable situation would be a cake shop owner refusing to make a cake with a black panther flag on it, or something. that's not the same thing as outright refusing general service.

and, i'm also not exactly supporting the decision. i certainly don't actually agree with the store owner. i'm just pointing out that the court ruling is overstepping itself.

thatcher remains a lightning rod. our canadian "new labour" party is modelling itself after blair; it seems to be a bit behind the times. but, she's dead. maybe we can take a step back and be a bit more objective.

in certain terms, she was a disaster to the working class in britain. this is beyond dispute.

but, if you follow her carefully, it's not entirely fair to call her heartless. it's less that she thought the poor ought to starve, and more that she thought it should be up the church to step in and provide the services that were cut by the state. and, that wasn't just lip service. she really honestly believed that, and she was very much behind pushing religious institutions to step into the void.

the criticism should consequently be refocused. at the core of this was a kind of social engineering that attempted to reverse the movement of britons towards secularism. in her mind, a more religiously aware society would both provide for greater services and instill that famous protestant work ethic - the absence of which, is what she felt was at the root cause of poverty.

it's warped. absolutely. deeply flawed - no question. and, it will inevitably need to be reversed.

but it's less that she was heartless and more that she was just a tory - and demonstrated the typical level of delusional thinking that is associated with this.

(posted to google+)

it seems like youtube posts are no longer cross-linked here. that kind of defeats the point, now, doesn't it?

hopefully, they provide a stream somewhere or other.

for now, what i'll be doing is posting hyperlinks to my comments here.

Kevin in Vancouver
Is the economy on the right track. Here are the facts and if you read you will see exports are responding to the low dollar.

Exports grew to CAD 44.6 billion in June, the first increase in six months. Exports of consumer goods rose 17.2 percent to a record CAD 6.0 billion, led by pharmaceutical and medicinal products (+41.7 percent), prepared and packaged seafood products (+128.9 percent) and miscellaneous goods and supplies (+17.1 percent). Exports of metal and non-metallic mineral products grew 10.8 percent to CAD 5.1 billion, mainly driven by higher sales of precious metals and precious metal alloys (+18.3 percent). Excluding energy products, shipments were up 6.9 percent.

Jessica Murray
i'm not going to check the numbers, because i believe it. a lower dollar is good for our economy. so, why, then has harper done everything he can to keep the dollar as high as possible?

this growth in exports is in despite of harper, not because of him.

imagine how well we could have been doing if he hadn't gone out of his way to keep the dollar high...

he was beaming with pride when we hit parity, spinning it like it was a source of national pride that had been suppressed by the treasonous "previous government".

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberals-infrastructure-deficits-1.3205535

does harper think we have the memories of lab rats? he pushed that stimulus program in 2009 as an exchange for ignatieff's support of the budget. and, he howled and screamed about it at the time. now, he's saying it was his idea and a consequence of his sound training?

again: it's less that he lies. you expect that. it's more that he's the worst liar i've ever seen.

the trolls on this very board, and many boards like it, were going on about the "ignatieff deficit" and howling at the injustice of it all...

"on probation". remember that?

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberals-infrastructure-deficits-1.3205535

some sanity! thank you!

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-chris-hall-analysis-deficit-debate-1.3204828

i think the error that a lot of these studies make is that they compare serious music before 1955 to folk music after 1955. there's certainly been a merging of the ideas starting with zappa and the beatles and pink floyd. but, i really don't think these differences come out if you do like comparisons: debussy to stockhausen or nirvana to ledbetter or bjork to billie holiday or one direction to traditional nursery rhymes.

the only thing i'd pull out as probably being substantially different is that you previously wouldn't expect people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s to experience the kind of arrested development they experience today. they would have grown out of the nursery rhymes, not latch on to successive ones until they're grandparents. so, the real issue is the juvenilization of society.

www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/science-proves-pop-music-has-actually-gotten-worse-8173368/?no-ist

"manage the economy", again.

what does that mean !?!?!?

at least we got a little data on budget spending, here. this is what i've been thinking, it's nice to see a little support for it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadians-believe-economy-is-in-recession-okay-with-deficit-poll/article26119298/

no, tom. tax cuts *don't* create jobs!

it doesn't work when a conservative does it, it doesn't work when a liberal does it and it doesn't work when a member of the ndp does it, either.

it might work if an mlm did it, because they'd just make up the employment report after and put you in jail if you argue.

in general, though, it doesn't matter what party somebody is in when they cut taxes. nary a job will appear.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-mulcair-manufacturing-1.3204311

i'm in the group of people that doesn't expect a rebound any time soon. the factors keeping oil down are pretty long term, and more likely to exacerbate. there will not be another reset in american-russian relations, nor is russia likely to fall apart any time soon as they've been banking on.

this should hopefully allow local businesses an opportunity to rebuild. i'm sick of buying tomatoes from mexico and strawberries from california. let's get the infrastructure for indoor growing up and running. you do it in bulk, you cut down on costs. and, the bigger the space, the more solar panels you can set up.

the reality is that a low dollar is a far better job creation strategy than any kind of tax cut or pipeline scheme - but it has to be maintained. and, hopefully we can get some leadership in place that's more concerned about jobs in the local economy, and is willing to set rates to keep the dollar low, than it is about investors and money launderers.

www.cbc.ca/news/business/enjoy-canada-s-low-dollar-while-you-can-don-pittis-1.3203133

Andy the Great
Low dollar is good for the super rich, not the common person!

You must be love the super rich then, the low dollar only helps them. Also it does not affect the labour market since most companies are not spending because of the low CDN!

As for Russia. Most people there only earn $500 CDN a year. Yeah let copy them

Jessica Murray
the reason the dollar is down is that the united states has put sanctions in place to hurt the russian economy. it's always funny that conservatives continue to be stuck in the 20th century in their insinuations that leftists have some kind of affiliation with russia. russia is one of the most right-wing countries in the world. and the fact is that stephen harper and vladimir putin have a lot in common.

one of the things they have in common is that they both banked very strongly on high oil prices. what that means is that sanctions designed to hurt russia by cutting the price of oil will also drive down the canadian dollar, because harper's economic policies are very similar to putin's, which has put us in a situation where we will suffer the same effects as they are from the sanctions put in place to harm them.

oops.

the truth is that there's a long list of similar screw-ups, including selling our oil to our protector's largest competitor. that's not going to happen.

it follows that the continued tensions between the united states and russia will have a long-term effect on the canadian dollar. which means you should get used to a low dollar.

one way around this is to diversify the economy. my understanding is that this will require a change in government.

now, regarding the dollar, the idea that it helps the rich is pretty much completely absurd. i'm not sure where you're getting that from, but it sounds like a conservative talking point - because it's the precise opposite of the reality of the situation.

as mentioned, it makes our labour costs relatively lower, which attracts investment. it makes our exports more competitive. and, it acts as somewhat of a tariff in the sense that it makes locally produced products cheaper than imports. these are all excellent things for the working class.

but, it's bad news for people with currency reserves, currency manipulators, certain types of investors and a long list of other wealthy people.

as an aside, the reason there's been little spending by corporations is because there's been little demand for products. this is largely an issue related to stagnant wages and rising *household* debt - people don't have a lot of disposable income. there's a few ways to try and stimulate that. a tax cut for middle wage earners is a good idea in principle. as might be traditional keynesian spending.

i'd personally take somewhat of a step back from that, due to recent structural changes in the economy. a lower dollar might actually help to reverse those changes, in the sense that it acts somewhat as a tariff. that would take time.

but, nobody would ever argue that a lower dollar would act as a disincentive for investment in canada. quite the opposite would be true.

Andy the Great
Good solution, one currency for North America and call it the dollar !

Jessica Murray
that's the one and only way to turn canada into greece. no thanks.

again: it's just all a giant exercise in absurdity. first, we had the conservatives claiming they were best at managing the economy. now, we've got everybody arguing over who is going to best manage the economy.

governments don't manage the economy.

tax cuts for businesses don't create jobs. tax increases for businesses don't destroy jobs. targeted tax cuts for consumers can increase purchases, but it's no longer clear that this creates jobs, either. direct investment can create jobs, but there are now rules in place that restrict our ability to do this. the only thing government can do to create middle class jobs is directly hire people - it can expand itself.

a low dollar makes us more competitive for jobs with high capital mobility (like call centers), and more competitive with exports (like cheese). in the context of expanding free trade, this is a good thing and should be maintained.

budget deficits do not affect the economy.

just, please, do me a favour: when you finally get rid of this government, do everything you can to change the ballot question and the narrative. we've reduced elections to a process of deciding which party is better at doing something that government doesn't do, and erected an entire vocabulary of nonsense in the process. the whole narrative is completely in the realm of fantasy. and, we wonder why nobody votes...

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-justin-trudeau-accuses-tom-mulcair-of-austerity-over-balanced-budget-pledge-1.3202773

i just want to point out that there's no such thing as a blue liberal. i know it seems fair and everything, so your sense of fair play and equal treatment will scream at you. you want the symmetry, at least. but? nope. and there really never has been. there's not a trace of these people in any poll ever taken. the truth is that they're all red tories, there in that fiscally responsible and socially liberal space. once you get left of red tory, harper's never had - and never will have - a fighting chance. it's an impenetrable brick wall of perpetual concern regarding social issues.

but, i'm going to give harper a gift, because i'd like to realign the spectrum. what we've got going on currently isn't of much use to me. i don't want a right-wing ndp government.

something harper seems to have missed in his micro-polling and over-targeting is that there's a significant pool of voters that could be called "tim horton's socialists". i've been in broad contact with these people through various social organizing. the provincial ndp in ontario has been targeting these voters to varying effects, but is limited by where it can move. harper is less limited on this front, because he's more aligned with a syncretic kind of social credit position than anything traditionally conservative. the dynamic is reversed: these are voters that are socially conservative and fiscally socialist. they want big spending and help for the poor, but are rather right-wing on a host of issues from immigration to abortion to the death penalty.

if you conservatives want to help the left get rid of these voters, i think we'd both be better off.

ipolitics.ca/2015/08/25/its-not-your-first-election-mr-harper-time-to-stop-screwing-up/

this is scott brison's riding. i suspect it's a deal to ensure the ndp doesn't split the vote, in exchange for a cabinet position should they win. the ndp were not likely to win the riding, but a bigger than normal ndp turnout could cut into the liberal vote enough to swing it to the conservatives.

https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/death-of-a-candidacy

thoughts on the latest spencer krug recording

i've listened to a few tracks off this record, and i'll admit that i grasp why a pop audience would react positively to it - it sounds fancy. i'm not being an ass on purpose (although i probably couldn't prevent myself), but it's the basic idea. it gives you the opportunity to put down the garbage you normally listen to and feel sophisticated and upper class for an hour. and, maybe it might act as somewhat of a gateway.

but, it's just so terribly contrived. the cadences. the crescendos. it's blatant cliche, and clearly consciously designed to maximize itself as such. and, on top of that, he plays the instrument like a blunt poke in the eye - most of the record sounds like a player piano. not a sequencer. you can program dynamics into a sequencer. this is just straight artillery fire.

the guy has demonstrated potential. and his refusal to do what he's expected is definitely refreshing. but, i'm sorry to say that this is some of the deadest piano music that i've heard.

this is uncharacteristically interesting, coming from spencer krug. it's evidence that he maybe needs to slow down a little and focus on writing a handful of good songs every few months rather than a constant stream of mediocre ones. to put it another way, it's evidence that he's able to create a really good record if he wants to. electronic pop is such a saturated space nowadays, and so little of it is worth engaging with. it's a treat when you do run across that rare solid disc in the constant stream of fluffy noise.

thoughts on the new pinkish black single

the last one took a bit to click, but it eventually did, and this is likewise a bit disorienting. you have to give this band full marks for a subtle evolution. but it comes with the caveat that they're getting harder to follow because they seem to be getting poppier and poppier.

this is moving slowly into something like spencer krug territory.

(that one record he did, organ music - not vibraphone music like i hoped, is actually uncharacteristically interesting. it's a saturated space, with a lot of mediocrity, but nothing hits you in the gut like a good, dark, smart synth pop song.)

yup.

actual weekly results

To: nnanos@nanosresearch.com

hi.

i'm just curious if you'd be willing to start releasing your actual weekly results in your pdfs. i know your sample sizes are small, so it's important to be cautious and everything. but i'm sure you're aware that the media tends to (on purpose or not) not understand the difference between a snap poll and a rolling average, and is consistently reporting your results as a snap poll. i realize there's value in what you're doing. but, if you were to put the actual weekly data at the bottom of the pdf somewhere, it would help people construct and understand your results better.

j

it's a scam. it's not a way to reduce emissions. it's a way to convert emissions into an abstraction that can be inflated and deflated into profits for investors. in a sense, it's the sacred cow that industry has been looking for since the beginning of industrialization: how can we turn waste products into profits?

the basic premise is that the solution to capitalism is more capitalism.

people are going to look back at cap & trade as the defining symptom of an utterly insane society.

i've never liked this question, because it's not clear what it means for a government to "manage an economy" in a global free market system. i mean, it's a perception thing, i get that. but, then you're not really measuring what people actually think - you're doing market research on the effectiveness of the conservative election propaganda. they themselves never actually explain what they mean by "managing the economy". i pay pretty close attention, and have for many years, and ten years on it's still just a vague slogan. the entire narrative has always been incoherent.

i mean, i could understand the marxist-leninist-maoist party running on a platform of "managing the economy". they'd lay out their four year economic action plans, and we'd get our chance to put some input into it. of course, they probably wouldn't listen. nor would they respect the results of the election. i digress.

it's important because if the question is just a measurement of how people are reacting to ads then it's not actually an election driver. it would become interchangeable with whatever else is being advertised, because it's just the repetition of a slogan. people changing their mind wouldn't suggest any change in opinion so much as it would say something about the effectiveness of various ads. i don't think that's actually true - or at least not broadly. i give people more credit than that. but unless the question is specified, it's not clear what people mean when they're changing their views, or what they even meant in the first place. even if it's just a perception, there must be a thought process underlying it.

if they could be a little bit more specific, it would be helpful in understanding if this is actually an election issue or if it's just an advertising issue.

i've generally interpreted the shift in this question as the populace stepping back from neo-liberalism and free markets and re-evaluating keynesianism and social democracy. there's also some evidence that marx has become somewhat trendy recently, although i'm not sure how relevant that is, or how well people understand any of it. but, the neo-liberal model has taken a bit of a beating in the public sphere (and quite badly over social media) so it seems rational and consistent with my experience that people that are rejecting the conservatives on "managing the economy" - or not managing the economy - are swinging left on it.

but, i'm not entirely sure that that's justified.

it would certainly help the direction of public policy over the next decade if some polling could clarify.

more pointedly: are they rejecting the neo-liberal ideology, or are they rejecting the conservative party?

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-economy-leaders-aug25-1.3201735

you have to understand that the nanos polling is a rolling average, not a snap poll. it's not nik's fault. he's clear about what he's doing. but, it's consistently reported inaccurately.

this report does not suggest that the parties are running at that level right now. it suggests that it is the average level of support that they ran at last month. to present it as a snap poll is dishonest - perhaps accidentally, as i know that journalists are often not so good at math.

the value of this kind of polling is to track long term trends. and, because nik's samples are so small and consequently vary a lot, it works together to smooth itself out.

it's a measure of party viability. and, because this election is so long, it may be useful in understanding where people's brains really are in the long run, rather than where their votes are in the short-run.

it's just important that you understand what you're actually reading. and, it would help if the media were clearer about it.

nik's polls have a lag built into them - it's by design. it's just measuring something else. they will align with the current consensus over the next month, as they catch up. but, by then, the consensus may have changed, and they'll be behind again.

right now, they're useful because the race is young and there's a lot of undecideds. but, as we get closer and closer to the election, this method will be unable to predict last minute changes.

for example, something you can pull out of nik's polling that you won't see elsewhere is that the ndp support base in quebec is relatively weak - some of that support is torn between the bloc and the ndp, whereas some of it is torn between the ndp and the liberals. it's not that snap polling would be over-estimating current support so much as it's pointing out that the current support level is not strong, not decided and still open to switching.

it also suggests that the ndp support in ontario is very weak, and possibly driven by perception about who has a better chance of winning. again: that's not to suggest that the snap polling is wrong. it's to suggest that the support is not strong.

and, so the takeaway is that the race is still wide open, and that the snap polling at this early stage should be taken with some caution.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/three-main-federal-parties-tangled-in-three-way-tie-nanos-poll/article26090470/

see, i share this concern. but, it's why i think it's important to stand up. remember when we claimed no allegiance to countries, to leaders or states? when we would kill the generals on our own side to stop the war, rather than continue to fight it? so, why are we marching in lock stop with this party as it swings well to the right of the liberals?

there's an alternate outcome of this sad tale: the caucus revolts, starts a new party and rejuvenates itself. will there be enough independent voices left to do so? if not in parliament, then certainly outside of it.

we will win most of our battles in court. we all know this. but, if we continue to support the same policies under a different slogan, we embolden them to continue.

you don't have to stand in line. you can vote for another party to send a  message. or not vote at all to send an even stronger one, if you see nothing you can truly support.

and, if harper wins again? well, can you point to a single policy point where the ndp is truly preferable?

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/j-baglow/2015/08/mulcairs-lead-polls-does-not-protect-him-criticism

these articles never say anything about transmarginal inhibition. i think we're all mostly ultra-paradoxical on most advertising, and that it can consequently backfire badly.

the opposition hasn't helped, either. i think the truth is that all the liberals had to do to win last election was not run a war criminal. they couldn't figure out how to find a candidate that wasn't a war criminal, apparently. the liberals that did vote swung to the ndp.

it's a kind of a correlation v. causality thing. when the dust lifts, i think we're going to realize that we're attributing far more to harper than we ought to, and that rather than being some kind of evil genius, the truth is that he's really an absolute imbecile that's had the good fortune of dealing with the most incompetent opposition in canadian history.

thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/24/Polarizing-Voter-Tactics/

we need to turf that fixed elections law.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-economy-markets-1.3201727

farmers,

i wouldn't expect the conservatives to move on this. they benefit from maintaining their print media bias, and restricting the spectrum of opinions. and you, our necessary producers of the only thing we all absolutely need, are their rock solid core of support. they'd rather you just keep your subscription to the national post.

this is something you could move on yourselves by laying cables. it's actually very easy and relatively inexpensive to set up a broadband internet connection - it's really just a question of laying cables. with a bit of starting capital, your kids could relatively easily set up isp businesses.

www.techvibes.com/blog/rural-canadians-internet-election-2015-08-24

this is a specific discussion forum. the logic underlying his decision to pull out of general debates without harper is strategically understandable, if questionable - there's a cost-benefit analysis, there. but, there's really only three reasons he could be seen to pull out of something like this:

1) elizabeth may. i think that's the big issue. he'd have been more likely to participate if it were an all male debate, or if there were at least two women. but, he's concerned that putting himself in a women's debate with a single female candidate is something that cannot end well. and, i think everybody can agree that he's probably right. that's something that trudeau's team probably should have thought through a bit better. there is only one possible winner of the debate.

2) the ndp is currently leading in the female vote. he doesn't want to risk that by contrasting himself with the other candidates.

3) how can i say this? his personal hygiene and general appearance is not his utmost priority. even with harper on the stage, he's clearly the least attractive of the candidates. this is a kind of an intangible, but mulcair is running a very psychologically-driven campaign and i have no doubt that this is a big part of the calculus.

to be honest with you, i'm not sure it's a great idea to have three or four guys and a sixty year-old pro-life female minister get together and talk women's rights, anyways. i don't see where that's going...

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/24/womens-issues-debate-called-off-after-mulcair-drops-out-organizers/

dtgraham
Personal hygiene? You can smell him through the TV? This is getting stupid at this point.

deathtokoalas
the beard is flat out gross. deal with it.

(deleted coment)

deathtokoalas
that wasn't intended as an insult. nor am i suggesting that women are going to just pick the cute one. but, there are complex psychological concerns at play here that the mulcair campaign was no doubt aware of.

running for prime minister is not a beauty contest, and this shouldn't be an issue in the campaign. but, that doesn't mean that there aren't certain optics that the mulcair campaign is going to seek to avoid, regarding the context of him standing next to trudeau.

(deleted comment)

deathtokoalas
if you would like to interpret my accurate observations as insults, that's your prerogative. but, a true statement does not have a moral value judgement attached to it. and, if you wish to cry over neutral and valid observations, i would suggest you find yourself a nice, isolated basement to do it in. once there, you won't have to deal with the oppression of the real world anymore. and, there's a bonus for the rest of us adults - we can discuss things openly, honestly and bluntly without having to worry about hurting your feelings.

i don't care if you're insulted or not. his appearance is unhygienic. that's a problem his campaign is aware of and will need to manage.

and, i will continue to speak over your obfuscating, politically correct howls.

Diggersin
Not shaving is not unhygienic. You sound OCD.

deathtokoalas
see, calling me ocd out of the blue is shitty form - that's the kind of thing you don't do, unless you're an asshole and have it branded on your t-shirt.

i live on disability for psychological reasons. i do have symptoms that align with ocd, but they are not very strong. your suspicion is mildly accurate.

but, it doesn't change the reality the facial hair is, in fact, both unhygienic on a practical level and unclean looking on an impressions level.

unlike most of the people that post on these sites, i am neither paid to support a party nor am i partisan hack. i'm interested in breaking through the noise and providing an objective, fact-based analysis. and i'm not concerned about tip-toeing around people's feelings as i do so.

fwiw, my education is more broad than it is specialized. like many young people, i was not able to determine what i wanted to study. in the process, i ended up completing multiple partial degrees. i only have one piece of paper, but you will find few people that have completed as many credits as i have. and i'm very confident that i'm speaking from an informed perspective.

if you are an expert in psychology, i would behoove you to expand upon my point rather than deflect from it.

dtgraham
Yes, you are suggesting that women are going to just pick the cute one. Otherwise why on earth would Mulcair have a problem with appearing on stage with Trudeau at a women's issues debate when he has no problem being on stage with him at any other debate that Harper attends? You have a very shallow opinion of women voters. If what you're saying were actually true, then Elizabeth May might as well skip it too.

deathtokoalas
i'm sorry that you were not able to understand the subtlety of my observations. it's a subconscious, psychological thing. and, it's not an obscure point, either. it's well understood that we form opinions based on first impressions, and that appearances are paramount in that process. if you set up a debate about women's issues with a bunch of dudes talking, you exacerbate that process. then, you end up with unconscious biases.

again: mulcair is running a very psychological campaign. this is first year stuff that his campaign is no doubt aware of. you can bet it was a part of the calculus.

every candidate has pros and cons. mulcair's a policy wonk, but he's kind of creepy looking and that's a liability in certain contexts. you can expect his campaign to continue to strategize around that.

i believe that the technical term for what i'm describing is "beardo".

this is definitely the set up to a stephen king novel, where the marionette takes control of the person that finds it and slowly drives them insane.

like, i'm sorry - but this is pornography. it's even porn music. i don't want to get all moral on your ass or something; i don't care if you enjoy porn. whatever. but, let's stop pretending that this is a music video. it's porn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWnXB2tDvog

is this a plea to restore nasa funding?

"baby, you were there when we took our first step,
but now you've sold me out to investors on the free MAR-KET!"

baby, take me back..

it really does look like some kind of sea creature around 1:47.

it reminds you that we really don't know what's under the ice.

close, but not quite.

putin is an old style tory, in the image of somebody like winston churchill. except, of course, that's he russian and not british. what that means is that in addition to his traditional social conservative views, he also supports a welfare state, state capital and the maintenance of empire. that's british toryism. to a tee.

that's going to put him at odds with neo-liberals, and most of the populist right in the united states. but, it fits very well with the historical canadian right.

mulcair is backpedaling on the corporate tax rate this afternoon. the truth is that there's never been a left-wing ndp government elected anywhere, ever. they consistently end up further right than the liberals once they actually get in power.

more change in canadian politics happens through the court system than the political system. the three parties are almost exactly the same, with the liberals coming out furthest left on some social issues. activists need to focus on protests and legal challenges. the best message voters can send is low turnout. if we can get turnout to 30%, it might change the spectrum a little.

there was a time when john manley was considered to be on the left of the liberal party. he was responsible for reversing the paul martin budget cuts when he took over as finance minister. i don't think he's really the boogeyman he's being presented as, here.

and, the minimum wage is for federal workers; canada doesn't have a federal minimum wage, it's set by the provinces. this is the first time i've seen it presented dishonestly.

there are specific ridings where there are good mps running - most of them liberals - that i wouldn't advocate non-voting in.

but, the ndp slate is mostly zombie candidates that will do whatever party headquarters dictates. and, that is going to be a very right-wing agenda.

i have to broadly advocate not voting in this election.

if you really want satan out of your lives, i'd advise purchasing the Satan Spray and applying it generously across your window sills. that's where the bad spirits come in.

i think the more fundamental problem is that we tend to view marriage as an undissolvable permanent contract, rather than a short term arrangement. if both parties enter into the agreement on fully rational terms, and with the understanding that goals and dreams and opinions change and evolve, then the process of moving on can be taken out of the irrational space that religion places it in.

if a partner in a relationship begins to look elsewhere, that is not some kind of "sin". it's just a reflection of unhappiness. if the relationship was stable, that wouldn't happen. and, people should act on those impulses rather than try and suppress them. the only moral issue at play, here, is being honest with your partner about this. maintaining an unhappy relationship benefits nobody, especially not the kids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilFuzKURvhk

i'd hold off on this. quebec can swing on a dime, and will if mulcair says exactly the wrong right-leaning thing at exactly the wrong time. if the liberals are polling at 20-25% (and some recent polls put them closer to 30-35), then that's comparable to their numbers from 2008 and could actually see them more than double their seat count. ah, but those inconvenient truths don't help the narrative.

the quebec-centric (do you have a better term?) vote is less than 40%, meaning that if the bloc is polling near 15 then roughly half of the ndp vote is federalist. this should be remembered when you're calling them a bunch of separatists. the ndp polled around 10% before 2011. that constructs a 10% swing amongst federalists on the left, which we can see in the higher end of the liberal predictions.

the way the vote is distributed may make this matter little. the liberals are probably not competitive outside of greater montreal, and the ndp will probably sweep the bulk of the province even if they come in at something like 37. but, there's plenty of seats around the island. is mulcair further to the right than trudeau? this is of greater importance than anything else.

while it's clearly mulcair's race to lose, there are decent betting odds of him managing it.

ipolitics.ca/2015/08/22/why-you-dont-see-trudeaus-face-on-campaign-posters-in-quebec/

ndp cabinet material

- libby davies
- joe comartin
- bruce hyer
- bill siksay

oh. wait...

to be fair, there's enough to form a small cabinet:

- nycole turmel
- romeo saganash
- peggy nash
- megan leslie
- peter julian
- jack harris
- linda duncan
- paul dewar
- david christopherson
- nikki ashton

after that, it trails off pretty quick.

LoggerheadShrike
Sure, if you call Andrew Thomson "trailing off". LOL. You've deliberately excluded the finance minister (the most important of the entire bunch!) among others.

deathtokoalas
well, he's gotta win his seat, first. he might have a hard time convincing torontonians to vote for him, considering that he's from saskatchewan. and the ndp are not usually competitive in the riding, to begin with. that's a pretty long shot candidate, really.

i think you can expect scott brison to be finance minister. i think that's the point of getting rid of morgan wheeldon. gotta get them trilateral commission stooges in....

LoggerheadShrike
The NDP aren't usually competitive there because it's usually a stronghold for either the CPC or LPC. It's a battleground riding now, pretty much up for grabs. The NDP has a decent shot at taking it. Not guaranteed, of course, but I wouldn't say it's a stretch by any means.

The Liberals missed their chance to run their star candidate there, as she failed to win nomination, so they're running a lightweight who will probably sit as a backbencher on the off chance he gets elected and the Liberals do well enough to form a government. That's not much to offer. The CPC are running their finance guy, and prior to the NDP announcing Thomson, he was only neck and neck with this minor Liberal, Mendocino - so he can't be very popular. The NDP, meanwhile, before any candidate was committed, was still riding at 20 percent. The NDP has a very good shot at seizing this riding, now that they're willing to commit their finance portfolio there.

deathtokoalas
that's an intriguing perspective of the nomination process in the riding.

LoggerheadShrike
Nothing in my post mentions the nomination process - only the outcome of that process (that Eve Adams failed to win nomination). What are you intrigued by, then? I think it's my turn to be intrigued here!

deathtokoalas
i have reason to think that scott brison may be in negotiations to cross. i think that's what the mess in the riding was about.

if i was ralph, i'd think about it.

there's a few others that, depending on the outcome, may be swayed. including elizabeth may.

LoggerheadShrike
Scott Brisson isn't in that riding. We're talking about Eglington-Lawrence which happens to be the riding the CPC and NDP are running their finance guys in (Joe Oliver, Andrew Thomson). Scott Brisson is also a finance guy (for the LPC) but he's not running in that riding - he is in a very secure riding in Nova Scotia, no mess at all. I think you got confused somewhere.

Brisson is certainly not going to cross to the NDP. He's a red Tory, and was originally elected as a Tory. One thing to cross to the Libs, but crossing to the NDP is a bridge too far to be believed.

deathtokoalas
you got confused; please go back and read the previous posts. you may also want to google morgan wheeldon to understand what i'm talking about.

the ndp are campaigning as conservatives, and have governed as conservatives at the provincial level. the current ndp leadership likely views brison's past as a red tory as an asset. he has cabinet experience. that's what the ndp are going to be going out of their way to pull away from the liberals if the result allows for it. you heard it here first: he's the most likely candidate for finance minister.

the bigger question with elizabeth is that i'm not sure they'd have her.

voxfox
Interesting to see even populist activists repeating the self-serving dross from the likes of the Fraser institute and other shills for the 1%. We need a firm commitment for a large (at least 25%) increase in taxes on the rich & their corporations from the NDP (the Liberals are just talkers).

therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14533

deathtokoalas
mulcair is backpedaling on the corporate tax rate this afternoon. the truth is that there's never been a left-wing ndp government elected anywhere, ever. they consistently end up further right than the liberals once they actually get in power.

more change in canadian politics happens through the court system than the political system. the three parties are almost exactly the same, with the liberals coming out furthest level on some social issues. activists need to focus on protests and legal challenges. the best message voters can send is low turnout. if we can get turnout to 30%, it might change the spectrum a little.

Scalito
How ignorant must you be to not know that the various NDP provincial governments have a better record of delivering balanced budgets than the Cons and Libs combined.

deathtokoalas
i'm quite aware that the ndp have a history of austerity budgets. that's why i'm saying you shouldn't vote for them - they will slash spending. there's never been a left-wing ndp government anywhere, ever. they've always been deeply conservative.

Scalito
"In truth there's never been a left-wing NDP government elected anywhere, ever"

Now, all of a sudden, you seem to be aware of the fact that there have been, but you have to equivocate. You're making a fool of yourself with your self-serving flip-flopping.

deathtokoalas
you seem to be having difficulty understanding what i typed. i think i was really quite clear. however, i will quote precisely what i typed and explain it in further detail so that it's entirely understood:

"the truth is that there's never been a left-wing ndp government elected anywhere, ever. they consistently end up further right than the liberals once they actually get in power."

now, if it were not for the second sentence, i could understand how you could possibly have thought i meant to say that the ndp have never been elected. this would in fact be a false statement. the ndp have formed several governments across the country in multiple provinces.

but, i think it's quite clear that that is not what i meant to say. i will repeat the second part:

"they consistently end up further right than the liberals once they actually get in power."

that's the important part. now, let's go over what i typed one last time:

"the truth is that there's never been a left-wing ndp government elected anywhere, ever. they consistently end up further right than the liberals once they actually get in power."

is it understood, now?

Scalito
Nice try, chucklehead. You never mentioned any thing about NDP provincial governments, until I called you on it. Your statement was unequivocal, but now you're backtracking as fast as you can. Piss off until you can tell the truth.

deathtokoalas
i don't even understand what you're misunderstanding anymore.

if an ndp government is elected, they will cut services and attack the unions under belt-tightening austerity arguments. that's what every ndp government that's ever been elected has done. expecting otherwise is delusional.

i don't have kids and don't really care about fiscal restraint, so i'd never vote on this and ultimately don't care. but, i think you ought to look at each of these plans as short term in order to really understand them.

first, the ndp are probably not going to actually carry through with what they're promising. the liberals promised this for...as long as i can remember, anyways. it never happened. it's a function of the size and complexity of the country. cost of living varies drastically. this will be the first thing they bail on, and they'll probably stick with what currently exists - and then slowly scale it back. ndp governments tend to be very, very fiscally conservative. in the long run, i would expect them to phase this out entirely and leave people with nothing. shocked? well, that's what the ndp does

second, the conservatives are using it as a vote-buying scheme and social engineering tactic and will continue to modify it for those purposes. if they can change certain aspects to hone in on their voting base, they will. expect them to add further aspects to target key voting demographics, and remove parts to punish demographics that don't vote for them. also expect them to continue playing with it in a way that incentivizes the traditional arrangements of the nuclear family. it's not enough to pay for child care; it's a baby bonus. that's how these guys tick.

third, the liberal plan is something they're viewing as a necessary evil. they can hardly stand up and claim they want to scrap it. so, they'll try and make it a smarter plan by distributing it better using the principles of progressive taxation. if we must have childcare subsidies, this is very consistent with how liberals would do such a thing. but must we have this? would we not be better off finding ways to raise incomes, or finding ways to get people to work more at home? for now, they're fixing it. and, the fix is an improvement. but, the long term aim will be to replace government dependence with financial independence.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-comparing-the-major-parties-on-child-care-promises-1.3201117

yet another right-wing ndp leader. how's this going to turn out, do you think? more right-wing than bob rae? than roy romanow? than stephen harper?

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-mulcair-scales-back-magnitude-of-ndp-s-promised-corporate-tax-hike-1.3201087

TruthUponYou
the world had turned upside down. tom is right and steve is left. if you really want left vote steve.

Jessica Murray
the three of them are essentially indistinguishable on the economy, the environment and most other issues. but the liberals are solidly to the left of the ndp on social issues.

when you take 90% of the issues off the table by everybody agreeing with each other, marijuana policy starts to become an election driver. and that is the most cynical thing i've ever said.

Walter
A right wing NDP is still very far left from a Neo-Con Con government. That's a fact.

Jessica Murray
the fraser institute might disagree with you. they've had glowing praise for roy romanow.

TruthUponYou
the NDP daycare plan will not be a savings to most families, we have child care figured out by working different shifts, so the NDP will not save us any money. it will cost us more when they increase taxes.

Jessica Murray
the bottom line is that we've heard daycare promises before, and they don't come through because it doesn't make sense to implement it at a federal level. it's a provincial issue. that's a promise i wouldn't put much faith in.

see, this is a better way to target tax cuts. but, it's very thatcherian, and there's a solid criticism of it.

when you target tax credits like this, you put charitable work in the dictates of the people making the donations. now, a chorus of people are going to tell me that that's democracy, and that's all fine and good to a certain point. but, it then gives top-down hierarchical organizations more power to carry out their interests, and that's a force that is working against democracy.

i'm going to use somewhat of a cliched example, and i'm using this because it's broadly untrue in 2015 but gets the idea across. it's something that i know from first hand experience happens in the developing world. i have a family member that volunteered for a christian aid group in haiti. when she got there, she was disgusted to find that the compound was located behind barbed wire fences and handed out food in exchange for conversion. not willing to convert, attend service and help build the church? no food, for you. sorry...

now, up here in canada, we're a long ways from private organizations holding food over the head of the poor in order to get them to do what they want (unless you want to talk about wage slavery). but, the idea of putting all this power in the hands of private organizations at the expense of the most vulnerable is a giant problem.

unfortunately, when you put the impetus for charity in the hands of private citizens, they disproportionately choose these types of organizations - in large part because it's membership in these organizations that are driving the donations in the first place. it's generally a fundamental aspect of the group, whatever the group is.

secular state aid gets around this by putting standards in place that minimize those interests.

in the end, it's more reducible to a concept of what democracy is than a question of which is more democratic. but, i'd argue rather strenuously that it's more democratic to put aid in the hands of the people (which, right now, unfortunately means the state) and let them distribute it based on need and based on targets determined by study, rather than allowing private interests to use it as a tool to carry out their social engineering objectives, regardless of the popular will or what has been determined to be (in)effective.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-stephen-harper-unveils-tax-credit-plan-for-service-club-memberships-1.3200851

mulcair is backpedaling on the corporate tax rate this afternoon. the truth is that there's never been a left-wing ndp government elected anywhere, ever. they consistently end up further right than the liberals once they actually get in power.

more change in canadian politics happens through the court system than the political system. the three parties are almost exactly the same, with the liberals coming out furthest left on some social issues. activists need to focus on protests and legal challenges. the best message voters can send is low turnout. if we can get turnout to 30%, it might change the spectrum a little.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/22/what-would-tommy-douglas-say-liberals-target-ndps-left-flank/15:13

Jh
Ignorant or Stupid? Roy Romanow, Saskatchewan. Bob Rae Ontario, Rachel Notley, Alberta. That's just off the top of my head. None of these premiers ever went as right as the Liberals have although they certainly have made compromises as governments. Too early to say for Rachel. Liberals copy NDP ideas and pretend that they are theirs. Trudeau senior with national healthcare is a classic example. Its time we reward the people with the real new ideas and make Canada a better place.

deathtokoalas
neither: informed. much more than you are. romanow & rae are two of the most right-wing premiers that the country has ever seen and both of them managed to completely destroy the party's base in their respective provinces.

to this day, in ontario, you will not find a major union that supports the ndp. every single one of them supports the liberals. such is the extent of the catastrophe to the left that was bob rae.

and, romanow is often cited by the fraser institute as an example of good conservative governance.

Dw
Citations, please?

deathtokoalas
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fraser+institute+roy+romanow

jh
Unions are like businesses and vote and fund their interests and many are not what I'd call ' left.' The Fraser institute is not what I'd call a credible organization. Honestly I don't care if they are right or left so long as they have good policy ideas for the public and a party apparatus that will implement those ideas. The Liberals historically have been far more willing to preach principle and practice the opposite than the NDP.

deathtokoalas
see, i think that's the question that is up for debate. the stuff in the 90s is sort of complicated (they had to cut things temporarily to prevent the imf from cutting the credit rating, which is the only meaningful consequence of budget deficits, and they brought spending back when they could. blame the imf. it's fun. but the liberals have taken the bulk of the blame for having to make difficult choices to fix mulroney's mess.), but if you take the bc liberals (and maybe the quebec liberals) out, because they're not really liberals, i think the opposite is more true. the liberals have to walk a line in the centre that restricts them from cracking down on labour too hard, whereas the ndp consistently take the labour vote for granted and then poke sticks in their eyes and make faces at them, while they kick them in the shins. it's just the historical reality of it.

when bob rae took over in ontario, he set up mandatory unpaid days off called "rae days" in order to "fight the deficit". only the ndp could have done something so absurd to get to the conservative aim of a balanced budget. it would have led to a general strike if the liberals tried something like that. and, this sort of thing is true of ndp governments across the country.

i'm broadly happy with the liberal government in ontario. they've taken concrete steps on carbon emissions. they've made positive structural changes on income inequality - they're modest, but they'll be felt. i'd like to see them re-nationalize the grid, but not even the ndp are talking about that. really, the ndp are just pushing tax cuts and yelling about corruption. again: they sound like conservatives. and, they have to - because they simply can't get unionized workers to vote for them anymore. all they've got left is the "tim horton's vote".

it's not a clear-cut issue, or anything. but i think that a careful, objective analysis will demonstrate that the liberals have generally stayed closer to their principles and leaned further to the left.

Jh
I disagree. I was a union steward when Rae days came along. We loved them. Much of organized labour hated Rae for that but it was a mistake. They paid for that when Mike Harris showed up on the scene and many of those opposed to Rae ideas ate crow as jobs were destroyed.

I think presuming all unions are left is a mistake. Some are, some are not. They do what they feel is in their members interests. As you pointed out many became Liberal but many went back to the NDP. I do not think the NDP took the labour vote for granted. Quite the opposite. I think many labour leaders couldn't believe Rae didn't do exactly as they wanted.

Rae days - Considering the economic and budget context - it was lose your job or take some time off. I think time off was and is the best choice. It worked. The economy recovered quickly under Rae. To manage the economy well is not a conservative or right issue. Harris did a terrible job in Ontario leaving it 3 billion in debt. Same pumpkins now are in Ottawa.

The Liberals also had choices and made them. They pulled far right under Chrétien and Martin. They balanced the budget and good for them. But a careful objective analysis reveals a Liberal campaigns left and when in power fails to keep those promises. Time and again. Federally it's why they got destroyed last election. Now they've put all their Eggs with Justin who seems like a nice guy. He's just with the wrong party if he wants to be a real progressive. Wynne is no different. I admire some of her policies like the pension plan but the privatization of Hydro is a very bad idea.

Cutting and pasting other party ideas and calling it a grand vision is what Liberals do. There is no consistent liberal vision, there are no consistent liberal principles there is only say what seems the middle at the time to get elected. Liberals are 'conveniently progressive' which to my mind are the worst kind.

deathtokoalas
see, again: you have to keep in mind that the issue federally was the credit rating. the next step is imf restructuring, including privatization. we had a really hard choice, there: if we didn't find a way to improve the credit situation, we'd be in a situation where we'd start losing things like our health care system. that sounds like a scare tactic, but look around at the world. these financial institutions are vampires.

what the feds had to do was raise taxes and temporarily cut services, then put them back once the revenue stream was put in order. mulroney got the tax in place, at least. and, they followed through with the rest. i've been over this with a lot of people. and, it's very hard to explain it. but, they weren't acting out of ideological persuasion. again: these institutions were horrid.

rae was not under the same pressure. there was nothing stopping him from raising corporate taxes, or even just running a deficit. instead, he went after workers. it's consistent...

jh
Rae was under even more pressure. Ontario did lose its credit ratings of double AA. Whoopdi do. To this day you can find Conservatives that think he was the anti Christ. Despite this he found an interesting solution in very challenging times. The federal Liberals on the other hand caved like wet cardboard. I do agree there was some things they had to do to retain a credit rating at the time but they went way overboard. The cuts were deep and the services not restored. By the way these are the same agencies that gave AAA credit to Lehmans before the 2008 collapse.

The IMF cannot call the shots on Canada because we own a disproportionate share of their financial drawing rights and represent other middle powers of similar standing. We could have threatened to withdraw that cash built up since WW2 to pay down sovereign debt. They wouldn't like that. This was not even investigated nor entertained by the Liberals because they let fear, not hope guide their policy decisions. This is not ideological- just practical.

The IMF and the World bank now have a new world bank to deal with because their policies have failed over and over again around the world and they failed to respond to demands from emerging economies. The consortium is led by China and has 53 countries signed up including the UK.

deathtokoalas
AA is not junk status. there was serious talk of default. and, while it would be nice to see the feds push back like that on a utopian level, the reality is that the retaliation would be swift. it's not something you can seriously entertain.

Jh
"Retaliation would be swift." Really? What would or could the IMF do? The rating agencies? We might take a hit to credit ratings for a brief period at worst. We attack their analysis and conclusions for the nonsense it was. Hell South Korea came out of the Asian financial crisis better and by taking on the IMF and ignoring most of their advice. Seriously? Liberals - no principle and no courage, take credit for others work. Its a consistent pattern.

I understand and accept the Liberals contributed to healthcare in Canada with Mackenzie King and Trudeau but it was the CCF/NDP that had the courage and skill and did the heavy lifting. I apologize for my earlier remark. You are better informed than many on this site.

deathtokoalas
if we were to legitimately give the imf the finger like that, they'd probably launch a coup. i think canada is too big and close to the united states for them to be able to put somebody like pinochet in power. but, the sitting government would be gone pretty quickly, one way or another.

as an aside, the health care thing was a joint effort. the ndp pushed for it, but there was legitimate desire from the liberals for it. also, it was pearson & douglas, not trudeau & lewis.

dtgraham
That was strictly an NDP Tommy Douglas thing in Saskatchewan in 1944. Eventually, bible Bill Aberhart in Alberta bought in and a few others did later, but there was no legitimate desire from the federal Liberals for it at that time. None. That came much later.

deathtokoalas
i know that the ndp likes to pretend that it's entirely responsible for the health care system, but it's simply not accurate.

after the war, mackenzie-king set up a commission to discuss the issue with the full intent of creating a single-payer system like the one in britain. talks fell apart. it was only after these talks fell apart that tommy douglas set the ball rolling on a number of things. however, his initial plan in 1944 was not universal - it was restricted to special categories like pensioners. in 1947, he created a hospital insurance plan that was universal (but this is still not universal medicare). this was emulated by paul martin's father (a liberal mp) in 1957 and passed as a private member's bill while diefenbaker was prime minister. so, this was a liberal bill based on an ndp idea passed in a conservative legislature. sometimes, good ideas are good ideas and get cross-partisan support.

it wasn't until 1962 that a universal health insurance plan was set up in saskatchewan, but it was a very different system than we're used to - it was a traditional insurance plan that everybody pays into. closer to obamacare than single payer. the hospital adaptation was pretty spot on emulation. but the federal health insurance system is really not a direct adaptation of the system initially devised in saskatchewan; it is far superior. pearson introduced this legislation in 1965 and once again got cross-party support for it. pearson did not require douglas' support for the bill to pass, he could have passed it with support from diefenbaker.

in 1984, trudeau then took the acts from '57 and '66 and put them together into the canada health act. this was under a liberal majority.

while one can argue with some likelihood that medicare in canada would be rather different if it were nor for douglas, one can argue just as strenuously that it would also be rather different if douglas had written the legislation.

Jh
Medicare would not have happened without Tommy Douglas and the CCF and the NDP. Period. Certainly Liberals jumped on the bandwagon as the political opportunists they are (hooray :-( ) but let's not pretend the Liberals would have done it on their own. The NDP made it work and the federal Liberals followed cause it was very popular. One could argue otherwise but then they would be wrong.

deathtokoalas
i think that what's more accurate to say is that the liberals would not have had the popular support to do it on their own. if you want to know how canada actually reacted to health care, take a look at the debate in the states. there were howls and cries of government tyranny and dictatorial socialism. the doctors went on strike. that's why the mackenzie-king commission fell apart. and, that was douglas' real accomplishment - he fought the doctors, he set it up and he proved it could work without bringing in death panels. that created a shift in public attitudes that allowed the liberals to bring in single-payer to popular support rather than public outcry.

Jh
I know how they reacted. I know that the NDP led the fight for socialized medicine against doctors and insurance companies and Tommy made it work and consequently more popular. I know the Liberals of the time thought 'hey we should try and take some credit for that idea and movement that the other party represents.' Just like now. The Liberals deserve credit for nationalizing healthcare but they had to. The NDP was growing much stronger and the Liberals made the right political calculus for time. Your initial comment was the NDP try to take all the credit for national healthcare. Well it was their idea, they fought the tough battles, they popularized it and they implemented the first large scale working model. The Liberals copied and nationalized it. So let's agree that the NDP are historically responsible for healthcare in Canada but the Liberals deserve some credit in copying a good policy idea when they saw one and tweaked it to make it work at a national level.

deathtokoalas
as mentioned previously, the discussions for a national health care system in canada were set off by mackenzie-king right after the war, with the intention of emulating the british national health service. tommy douglas began fighting for a provincial system after the breakdown of those talks. his success in building that system allowed the liberals to carry through with their original plan.

want a metric on how weird the election is going to be?

a lawn sign for my zombie ndp candidate just went up on my lawn, presumably from my landlord's brother (who lives in one of the units).

this is a person that has tried to argue with me to stop recycling. solid ndp supporter, apparently.

i suspect he's in support of the energy rebate from the last *provincial* election. energy costs seem to be a priority in the unit. they've been swapping out the electric heaters for gas furnaces. i don't like this, but i can't argue with them - the price of electricity in ontario has become ridiculous.

it's just one example. but, support seems to be solidifying in rather unusual - and perhaps somewhat unpredictable - ways.

listen: this is ridiculous. trying to frame an election around trust is just going to suppress turnout, because....i mean, honestly. politicians. trust. it's absurd. it's a very rare circumstance when voters aren't making a lesser evil calculation. it doesn't matter what kind of voters you're talking about, either; an anti-abortion voter is making the same basic calculation that an environmentalist is: who is going to get me the closest to what i want, with the least damage to what i care about. nobody lines up perfectly behind any kind of platform. there's no trust involved; there's a mental calculation to minimize distrust. it's a house of representatives, it's not a bloody church.

if you can somehow warp me into accepting this narrative and force me to vote based on nothing but trust, i'm going to conclude they're all scheming liars and i'm not going to vote at all. and, the target becomes the benefactor.

i like to say "i wouldn't trust a politician in ottawa to tell me the time of day when we're standing underneath the peace tower". and, it's broadly true. across the spectrum. you want to push this, really? you want to enumerate the lies and psychologically manipulative half-truths told by mulcair and trudeau on the campaign trail, type them up and publish them? do it candidate-by-candidate, riding by riding?

in the end, we'll all be writing in dudley do-right.

voting is a calculated risk. part of the process is working this out - trying to figure out which lies are obviously ridiculous, which lies are attempts to obscure positions, which lies are a big problem in where you stand and which lies don't really matter. but, you don't expect not to be lied to. not unless you're the most ridiculous caricature of the naive canadian ever imagined.

you don't get the opportunity to run for acting and effective head of state in an oecd country unless you've proven yourself an effective liar - or perhaps come from a political dynasty, in which case you've got an uphill battle in figuring the art out.

harper's problem is less that he's a liar. it's more that he's not very good at it, and/or has become flippant and haphazard about it.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/20/message-management-in-the-harper-pmo-replacing-one-lie-with-another/

JACKROU
WE LEARNED MULCAIR SAID ABSOLUTELY NO PIPELINES UNDER HIS GOV
OIL WILL STAY IN THE GROUND
AND THERE WILL BE A NATIONAL CARBON TAX
AND QUEBECERS LOVE IT

Jessica Murray
actually, i think what he's said - consistently - is that he'll use a rubber stamp review process to try and convince environmentalists to stop opposing the pipelines - in so much psychologically tricky language. because he thinks you're stupid. just like harper....

his basic argument is that gutting the environmental reviews is the cause of the opposition, and that if the government was performing it's proper orwellian functions than the "ministry of the environment" would be properly functioning as the "ministry of industry", and nobody would be upset about this. therefore, in order to get opposition levels down to a point where they can build the pipelines, the government needs to put the environmental review process back in place. it's what people in britain refer to as "new labour psychology".

it's just that he went bond criminal on it and explained it open view - at the *debates*, actually.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-learned-this-week-aug22-1.3196750

this is what happens when you push evangelical christianity down on children with the force of a twenty tonne fist: they reject it in bizarre ways, and identify with it's opposite. the social engineers need to get up to date with some more modern psychological techniques.

the best way to get kids to grasp moral principles is to raise them as atheists and let them arrive at them through reason.

in terms of pure numbers, stalin's holocaust of the ukrainians was larger than hitler's holocaust of the jews. i've seen a lot of criticism of the conflation. but, it's rooted in a denial of how brutal stalin was. a lot of the outside world sees the soviet union as liberators and gets confused by it. but, it's easy to understand the conflation from a ukrainian standpoint if you're aware of the history.

you don't need these kinds of restrictions here in canada because they're universally reviled.

the cape to cairo railroad? geez. that's nineteenth century british imperialist policy, pushed mostly by cecil rhodes, iirc. that old society. can't get rid of these guys, huh? you'd think they'd maybe update it a bit, though.

forget about highways. let's move forwards. how about a high speed electric rail system?

"we want african countries to compete with each other"

africa needs to avoid falling into this trap. for, it is true - if the country next door offers even lower wages and even lower standards, then the company will get up and move. the more that african countries compete with each other, the worse off they all are - as a whole.

rather, the african solution needs to be to form trade blocs that align common standards to prevent that kind of race to the bottom. i hope that african leaders see that, but the corruption on the continent is discouraging. and, there are those pesky trade agreements...

there aren't a lot of circumstances where markets look like a better approach, but i have to accept this is one of them - with some strong caveats.

i think everybody understands that flooding corrupt governments with cash doesn't accomplish anything, except political bribery. it gets a military on the west's side. it doesn't alleviate poverty. this is true whether we're talking about dictatorships or democracies. and while not every government in africa is corrupt, a substantial number of them are rotten beyond any sort of possible redemption - and it takes a lot of corruption for somebody standing in north america to say that.

so, if you look at the three development possibilities - government, co-operatives, markets - it sort of immediately reduces the actual choice to one between co-operatives and markets. and, you know where a good reliable lefty comes down in a discussion between co-operatives and markets.

i think a good strategy would be co-operative oriented. and, my understanding of how the culture in most of africa is inherently suggests it would be difficult for a market strategy to ignore co-operative development. but, at the end of the day co-ops can't do things like build power plants. and, it's those sorts of inputs that are necessary for a seriously co-operative economy.

i think capitalism is fooling itself if it thinks it can swing africa entirely. it just fooled itself into thinking it could swing india entirely. and, we're generally very good at deluding ourselves. but, african capitalism could never be western capitalism. it would necessarily have deep social roots.

however, focusing on private investment seems like the right step forwards to get things moving. and, you don't need a marxist concept of history to realize that. or a nice check from the gates foundation.

aug 6 is the anniversary of....

her appointment in the department. so, it will be a day of celebration. let there be an explosion of happiness. i'm sure everybody will have a positive reaction. let's throw a party that makes it look like the place got hit by a bomb!

"...as we get ready for the onslaught..."

egads.

i'm going to rain angry fire down on mulcair if he even thinks about it.

ricohman
Markets are falling, oil will be $30 a barrel soon and this is what Tom considers important to Canadians.

Jessica Murray
marijuana is the future of the economy. oil is not.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-mulcair-marijuana-decriminalization-1.3199532

further demonstrating harper's dishonesty is spitting on a fish. it's been clear he's a pathological liar since at least 2008.

72% say it doesn't matter because that's the swing vote on the left. you can take that down further by ignoring conservative base supporters.

the best-case estimates for the liberals are that there's about a 10% red tory swing vote, mostly in the suburbs, that will be irritated enough about it that they think harper's lost the "moral authority" to govern, or something.

but, for the vast majority of voters, it doesn't matter because they'd never vote for the conservatives, anyways.

that won't stop the media from confirming it's own irrelevancy when the conservatives are at least reduced in october. but, the harsh truth is that it's just another subplot in what has been a fantasy media narrative for many years, now.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-duffy-aug21-1.3199132

i mean, what do you want, exactly? for people to vote for some other party twice?

it's like suggesting that 70% of people don't consider hitler's perspective on cartels important in supporting the aims of the second world war. a difference of scale, sure. but the basic idea is what the polling is measuring - that this is minor, in comparison to philosophical differences in *policy*.

ad scam did not lead to liberal party collapse - that's the same imaginary media narrative. if that was true, the swing would have moved right. it actually swung left. the fall in liberal voters at the time was correlated with an increase in ndp support and stagnation in conservative numbers. and, the reason was that people didn't want to vote for paul martin because they opposed his budget cuts and general reputation as a fiscal conservative [which is only half fair].

that doesn't suggest voter ignorance, so much as it reflects an ability for voters to prioritize issues properly as they matter to them.

people arguing that this ought to be an issue are the same people that remain confused by canada's complete rejection of ignatieff. they think he was a brilliant philosopher; most canadians saw him as a war crimes collaborator, and not a particularly deep thinker, either. it's this class of people that think they're brilliant, but that in truth are really quite dense.

so, when 72% say that it's not going to affect their vote, that doesn't mean 72% don't care at all. that's a logical fallacy in reasoning. it just means that 72% prioritize actual issues, rather than media circuses and what are essentially protestant accusations of moral impiety. this evil-doer rhetoric doesn't fly here. we're a broadly secular country.

it's a right-wing strategy to sway a very significantly left-leaning electorate.

but, whatever, i've been banging my head against the wall since 2004, warning liberals that the ndp are going to steal all their votes if they don't change their strategy. nobody's listened. but, hey - take a look at the polls, eh?

--

Kit's Kat
After what we have seen this week about the Harper PMO in action, I am not sure why anyone would vote for Harper and the Conservative candidates.

Jessica Murray
this is another talking point that's of no use in convincing anybody.

there's a handful of issues that are unpopular in urban canada but command a majority in rural canada - opposition to abortion (which, if you think is not an issue, you should think again), a certain type of support for the military that makes liberals cringe, vengeance-based crime policy (including capital punishment), etc. a lot of this is off the radar, but it's still driving voters because there remains this perception that the conservatives will carry through with it - it's irrational projection, but it's real. and mark my words: if the conservatives end up having to deal with a long term scorched earth policy in the urban centres, you can expect them to hail mary on some of this stuff, as they fall back into their reform roots. the blunt reality is that you can't convince an anti-abortion voter with much of anything, if you continue to support abortion.

it's an ideological gulf. there's no way to break through it. and, it's been cemented in canadian politics for at least 80 years.

the conservative polling numbers right now ought to be seen as an absolute best case scenario for the liberals & ndp. remember: they haven't polled under 29% since world war two, and the only time they polled under 30% was when joe clark endorsed the liberals. it's astounding that they're consistently polling in the 20s. this is a historic shift unto itself that liberals should be jumping at glee over. don't get greedy....

i remain exceedingly skeptical that they'll finish under 30% in the general. it's just demographically infeasible. and if they land at 27% or lower, *it will be the worst showing for the conservative party since confederation*.

nothere4ueither
@Jessica Murray Good observations. There seems to be a belief in a lot of supposed Canadian laws and traditions that never really did exist.

Jessica Murray
borden swept bc in the 1911 election under the slogan "a white canada", getting 60% of the vote and all 7 seats. it's a little more complicated today than it was then. but, the rejection of pearsonian multiculturalism remains a vote driver on the rural right.

i think the long term trend suggests that the conservative party is moving into the space that the socreds used to occupy - a sort of fringe western right-wing party. whomever replaces harper is likely to be a lot more right-wing on social issues. it's kind of "phase 2", from what i can gather. and, they're kind of stuck. they only pretend to hug the middle for so long before the strategy seems pointless, and unable to bear fruitful results (from their perspective). and, it's consequently only so long before the party heads have to make a choice between carrying through on these projections and watching the party collapse again. i suspect they won't let it collapse a second time.

but, if we're optimistic, we can look at 25% as an absolute minimum floor, for this election. and, that extra cut is going to come mostly in ridings where they're not particularly competitive in the first place.

this is rock bottom for the conservative party. people need to deal with that.

nonsense. i immediately understood both statements as limited to federal workers. every time i've heard mulcair himself state the $15/hr raise, he's stated "for federal workers".

there's been absolutely no ambiguity, and it's been entirely clear from the start.

some voters like to project their fantasies on to candidates. that's something we've seen before.

for example, consider obama & the iraq war. barack obama was always crystal clear: he opposed the iraq war because he thought it was bad strategy. he thought they should have attacked pakistan, instead. he never suggested he was anti-war or any kind of dove on the anti-war spectrum. and, yet, masses of people pulled that out of the clouds somehow and interpreted "we should have bombed pakistan instead of iraq" as some kind of adherence to gandhian principles of non-violence.

that's not obama's fault. Drone Strike Tuesdays are obama's fault. but, he was perfectly clear that he was going to be an absolute war monger.

the truth is that voters just made stuff up. they heard what they wanted to hear, not what was actually said. and they'll do that. repeatedly. and predictably.

an example of that kind of thing this election may come out in the coalition question. it might not matter how unequivocally trudeau rejects this. it's what voters *want* to hear. and, they want to hear it so much that it might prove almost impossible to get through to them on the point.

ipolitics.ca/2015/08/20/details-details-promising-whats-up-to-the-provinces-to-deliver/

Mallius62
If you say children, do you mean multinational corporations?

Then yeah...Harper loves them.

Jessica Murray
it's specifically when they say *dependent* children that they mean multinational corporations.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-parents-aug21-1.3197844 

Cyrus Manz
NEWSFLASH
ONTARIO TEACHER UNIONS have just announced that they will be on strike across the province starting on the start of the school year in a couple of weeks from now.

So now whatever help Ontario parents get from the federal government will have to be spent on RAISED salaries for their teachers.

Think about it!

Jessica Murray
you gotta pay teachers. otherwise, you end up with conservative voters.

if you're dead set on not printing money, we could always cancel some military contracts.

more seriously, the ontario government takes a class war approach to this that's designed to keep the fight up so they're rewinning the same battles rather than breaking new ground. it's unavoidable. and, from their perspective, they have to be pro-active. so, they'll start all kinds of fights and then back off and then pick it back up.

the traditional conservative dream of class harmony through strict obedience to social hierarchy is a pipe dream in a modern economy. this is a perpetual struggle that can never be won, but can only be fought into perpetuity.

if your interests are on the side of the state, you just have to accept there's going to be conflict and you're going to lose the fight, sometimes. which is why you have to support being pro-active in throwing wrenches into things to consistently give the state a better bargaining position, or move the battle into an area that's already been decided. and, if your interests are with the teachers, then you've just got to grab a sign and get at it.

i think what's more relevant is his citing of tony blair as a model to emulate - because blair largely adopted thatcherism. and would probably be found guilty of war crimes, too, i might add, should he be tried.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-defends-praise-for-margaret-thatcher-s-winds-of-liberty-and-liberalism-1.3196265

Jessica Murray
@Björga  the reason i pointed this out is that it doesn't mention tony blair. some off-handed comment about thatcher is mindless gotcha politics. but, his elevation of blair to a role model to emulate is pretty real.

that's great as an election promise and everything for voters that are sort of clueless on the topic, but every study ever done has indicated that putting more cops on the street doesn't reduce crime, it just puts more people in jail. it's the "disincentivize" canard based on homo economicus that has been thoroughly debunked over and over again.

it's kind of sad that i'm sitting here criticizing the ndp for not understanding crime prevention, and not focusing on root causes. but, i understand that people have warped perceptions, and there's an election going on. what i want to hear - and what more educated members of the affected communities are going to want to hear - is that in addition to the pointless policing increase, there will be funding for crime *prevention* in the form of social programs.

a few years ago, i'd take that for granted. nowadays, i think that needs to be articulated, so i'm not left thinking that they're pushing the same stupid, failed policies that don't work.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-promises-250m-for-2-500-new-police-officers-1.3196461

mulcair is on record more than once clarifying that his plan for the ndp is to emulate the labour party under tony blair.

what's worse is that he's purged the party of it's better mps, which has been the only real hope of the ndp since the liberals walloped them over nafta. they legitimately had quality mps, relative to the limitations of the system. but, they're pretty much all standing down this election, or retired quietly. on top of that, he's been merciless in stamping anything out that deviates from the party line. they removed "socialist" from the party in 2013, but these are the same crappy tactics you continually get from the authoritarian left - party line politics that is intolerant of dissent or free thought, centralized power, cult of leadership....it's actually feeling worse than a cave to capital, it's starting to get a little creepy.

it's to the point where i'm wavering between voting for a bourgeois liberal that happens to be mildly critical of free trade and launching an online campaign to suppress voting. i'm starting to feel that the only thing that's going to get through to the system is non-voting on a serious, large scale. if they were to wake up on election day and see a 25% turnout, it might be the most effective tool at this point.

www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/08/19/cana-a19.html

oh, yeah. then there was the getting caught spying on indians thing, too. brilliant, guys. you really outdid yourselves.

with all this incompetency, it's almost like the president forgot to clear all of the republicans out of the state department or something.

wait..