this is a distraction from important issues, and ought be a part of the vetting process for serious parties. the anti-gmo movement is intellectually equivalent to the anti-vaxxers, or people that think the moon landing was faked, or people opposed to teaching sex ed or evolution in public schools. it's worse than fringe. it's moronic. when i did my initial research in my riding, and saw the ndp candidate was openly anti-gmo, i immediately ruled out voting for her.
and, i'm very left-wing. it's just that it indicates a level of scientific illiteracy and general dumbassery that we should really be staunchly aware of in analyzing how we put people into positions of power. we can't be electing people that get their information from sketchy internet tabloids and don't have the academic background and/or intellectual abilities to do proper research to debunk it.
"i read it on the internet. it was even in a meme. how could it be wrong?"
if you're concerned about pesticides, that's a more valid concern. but, understand that the point of this was to minimize pesticide use. neither conventional nor "organic" agriculture are solutions - they're both worse. there is an answer, though - although brad wall won't like it.
if we were to grow indoors, we would not need pesticides because we could control the temperature and keep pests out with physical barriers. we could also layer growing, so as to increase production by multiple factors over the same piece of land.
i would really suggest people stop wasting their time arguing against gmos, and start spending it more productively in building infrastructure for indoor growing techniques.
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/10/13/brad-wall-to-party-leaders-whats-your-stance-on-gmos/
Mp
Quite right!
Please read my comment below. The NDP and Liberals used to be pro-GMO, and proudly so!
deathtokoalas
the liberals are the only pro-science party, and will not do anything stupid on this file.
ang
What the hell is a pro science party, oh you mean pro gmo paid for scientists, party, or paid for GSK scientists party, or paid for ie corrupt science party...........
Again what does science have to do with corruption of big corportations, tell me again?
deathtokoalas
a pro-science party is a party that bases it's decisions on empirical evidence, rather than ideological leanings. the liberals are famous for it. detractors claim they stand for nothing, they hold no convictions. i think the lack of an ideology is an attractive quality.
mp
But, doesn't Justin Trudeau claim that we need to follow the precautionary principle on GMOs? And isn't it a little late for that? And wouldn't the precautionary principle actually result in a complete slow-down in all forms of innovation?
Take the Keystone pipeline for instance. It's being held up with the precautionary principle, and this has cost Hilary Clinton the blue-collar vote.
deathtokoalas
i think you've misunderstood what he's said.
i'm not interested in stumping. i would not identify as a liberal. this is just a longstanding problem i've had with the ndp, and what passes for the left nowadays, in general.
and, what's stopping the keystone has nothing to do with a "precautionary principle". it's straight geo-politics. the americans don't want us exporting oil.
but, as a climate activist, i would argue that this is beyond precautions - it is settled science. we don't need more reviews. we don't need more studies. it is perfectly clear that we need to stop oil sands production altogether, and we should have stopped it yesterday.
if there was an option in this election that opposes any of the pipelines, i would support it.
--
4imps
A ton of science without an ounce of humanity is just dangerous science. Lots of science is done in the same way that the law is implemented. No humanity, no conscience. no story, no justice. Since when did man think he could do a better job of providing sustainable food on planet earth? When was it our job to "fix" nature rather than never break it? I find the arrogance of science and the greed of humanity in this regard to be the worst of who we are as a species. I'm convinced that the more science understands nature the more they will realize how wrong we have been in the way we have used and abused it rather than worked with it as our teacher and our most intelligent provider.
deathtokoalas
because 90% of species don't die out.
this is creationism in disguise.
4imps
I'd like you to clarify your comment about "because 90% of species don't die out" please.
deathtokoalas
most new species fail very quickly, because they're unable to adapt to or modify the environment around them. evolution is primarily composed of dead ends. the successes are rare and far between each other.
4imps
Like most comments on scientific research or heresay or wherever you got this information from it too is evolutionary and will most inevitably become as you say, a dead end.
deathtokoalas
i have no idea what you just said.
4imps
I'll try again. Scientific research is also evolutionary and as you said "evolution is primarily composed of dead ends".
deathtokoalas
i still don't really understand your point.
what i was pointing out is that humans have evolved to learn how to change our environment. that's what we do. it's kind of the basis of the entire field of anthropology. and, i'll cede the point that we need to be careful about how we change the environment, because it could lead us to a dead end, for example through climate change. but we also need to realize that our ability to change the environment is intrinsically intertwined with our survival, and that being cautious must not rule out changing it at all.
science isn't really "evolutionary", so much as it's based on trial and error. certainly, what we learn is subject to constant modification. but, i don't really see how you're tying that in to the discussion.
i don't really think that modifying corn to be resistant to pesticides is the best use of genetics. but, there's a lot of other possible uses - like the vitamin A in rice thing - that don't suggest to me the likelihood of this particular field being a dead end.
ang
That was a failure, the vitamin A in the rice thing, the rice didnt produce anywhere near the amount quoted, was cheaper to plant real ordinary rice, and buy a carrot for the vitamin A. The GMO company invested so much in all that publicity, a major marketing loss. Also they marketed (too aggressively) GMO cotton to illiterate farmers in India, the cotton failed, as they "forgot"to tell the Indian peasant farmers, that unlike their traditional cotton seed, this GMO seed needed irrigation. Crops failed, put animals on crops, animals died. The only way to get rid of their sudden debts, was for the husbands, to suicide, so they drank the u beaut glyphosate, that was part of the deal. Yes glyphosate does kill, when you drink it straight....... 40,000 peasant farmers, that survived using their own cotton seed, after using failed GMO seed, suicided........... GMO corn, with bt toxins in it, after 10 years, no longer kills the caterpillars, and nematodes it was designed to kill, but they cant get the toxins out of the corn in USA now, so the rest of the world are burning it before it can cross pollinate.
deathtokoalas
the vitamin A content in the rice has increased, and is now at very high levels. you're operating on very old information. and it's not easy to import carrots to poor people in asia. that's the point.
4imps
Well if a creationist is someone that trusts nature to be more intelligent than you for instance, sure.
deathtokoalas
so long as we're anthropomorphizing nature, tell me: what is it's gender?
yes: it's creationism. you're separating "humans" and "nature" out as two different things, which is the enforced garden of eden narrative. you're then pushing the biblical narrative that we were given the earth to take care of it.
it's a lot of nonsense.
nature is not separate from us; it *is* us. we are animals. we interact with what is around us. we change it. we have every right to - as a bird has a right to build a nest. there's no magic in it, no secret force that keeps things in "balance". that's fairy tale thinking. magic. disney films. religion...
i don't mind getting these arguments from the right. you expect it. but, it make me very angry to hear them coming from the left, which is supposed to be about secular, rational, empirical thinking.
4imps
I do not think we are separate from nature. I understand our connection which is exactly why I would not approve of someone genetically modifying me and expecting others to reproduce with me weather they liked it or not. I think man is so tiny in terms of our understanding of the whole and you can say that's biblical, spiritual or whatever makes you feel like you have the narrative you need to comfort you, that's assuming you ever need comfort. What do you know about the right and the left? Aren't we all one?
deathtokoalas
no, i think we're all individuals with individual thought processes and that attempts to have us conform to irrational, conforming, right-wing narratives should be fought with every possible tool we can fight them with.
are you aware that most domesticated agricultural crops are hybrids?
4imps
Yes, I am, and I also understand that every time we hybridize things we weaken its natural resistance to evolve in a way that would strengthen its survival. We have gone out on a very flimsy limb regarding our food production and medicine.
deathtokoalas
no. hybridization does not "weaken natural resistance to evolve", whatever that means. rather, there is a broadly observed effect called hybrid vigour that leads to greater fitness in hybrids. the theory that we've developed to fit this observation is that greater variation produces a higher likelihood of dominance through gene flow.
plants, particularly, hybridize very regularly in the wild. they don't need us to hybridize them. they can do that on their own.
again, there is a lingering creationism underlying your perspective that species are distinct, and any interbreeding is somehow unnatural. but, we have learned that the opposite is true: that hybridization occurs regularly in nature (especially in plants) and that it leads to greater fitness. it is one of the primary mechanisms of plant evolution.
ang
You are leading to the yes its OK to put pig genetics in plants, arent you, another Monsanto player, with a different stroke. hahaha, you all talking to yourselves again........ hilarious......... well deathtokoalas, you are earning your Monsanto money............ hahaha!
deathtokoalas
i don't see any particular reason why splicing pig genes with plant genes should be ruled out, in principle, if there's an understood benefit and no understood harm. i'm not exactly jumping to do it. but, if somebody has a good idea with it, i'm not going to rule it out on ideological reasons or unfounded fears.
4imps
Yes plants can hybridize/evolve on their own so let them. You're suggesting that we should take our right to force them into marriages they otherwise would not select.
Species are distinct in the way that I am a very small piece of the whole but because I am included in it I have a function. Holy shit, more Jesus talk I guess?
deathtokoalas
well, they don't have anything resembling free will. it's mostly randomness. you can't really talk about a plant making a choice. and, this idea of function is somewhat of a very careful point in evolutionary biology that it's probably better to step away from, right now.
are you equally opposed to selective breeding - specifically in plants?
4imps
Aha. You can only ever assume plants can't make choices. Otherwise you are taking on the role of the very deity you cannot accept in a spiritual way. I'm completely opposed to f#$@ing with nature. I feel like we have gone full circle with this conversation in that science is only ever good when it has some humanity attracted to it. Otherwise you're just dangerous, cold hearted scientists. Good day.
deathtokoalas
well, i think we can study plants and conclude that they don't have nervous systems. that's pretty convincing, i think.
what i'm pointing out is that if you really want to take this approach, then you need to reanalyze a lot of things you take for granted. gmos aren't such a dramatic shift from the things we've done in the past to control and shape the environment around us - it's just another type of artificial selection, and we've been doing that for millennia.
--
Sallyh
Note the Conservatives don't really answer the question but instead attack the other parties on their stance.
As larger corporate agri-businesses buy out smaller players the world will find itself relying on a monopolized industry for growing food . Smaller family operated farms subjected to cross contamination from GMO plots are being sued for infringement on corporate property rights today and as their power increases there will be a marked decrease in the number of independent farms world wide.
.As with every new technology that supposedly increases production and quality improvements all plants and animals will adapt and create new resistance strains. More and more chemicals and newer modifications will need to be developed with little to no research being done on the possible harmful effects on mammals fish ,plants or the environment.
Science needs to be very careful about implementing wide scale use of GMOs until we understand the all the ramifications of this technology.
Mp
So, thirty years of science isn't enough?
sallyh
What exactly have they been researching? Ways to increase yield, bug resistance, profit margins , market share? How much money is being spent on the affects on health and environment? Please give some figures that show where the research money is being spent and whether the research is being done by public scientist or corporate scientists. Are the result published or kept hidden?
deathtokoalas
this is equivalent to arguing that we don't know that apples aren't a risk factor for bubonic plague, because we haven't done any direct research.
but, we know what happens to the atoms that were once apples when we eat an apple, and we know what causes bubonic plague, and so we can say "while there has been no testing on a relation between apples and plague, we have no reason to think there is any connection."
the anti-gmo crowd does not have any kind of mechanism to present. they have no proposition as to how long term gmo consumption may have some effect. nor is there any reason to think we're going to digest chains of sugars differently because a chain of protein (which we also digest) is off by a few nucleotides.
it's not even science fiction. it's a very right-wing, ideologically conservative fear of the unknown.
sallyh
In others words let's modify the genetic make up of plants and animals and hope we aren't unleashing some new exotic disease around the globe. I have yet to receive an answer as to what research if any is being done to see if there is or isn't an impact on plants, animals or the environment. You have far more faith in the scientist working for these corporations then I. Their research is suppressed if it shows there may be negative consequences that will impact their bottom line as a result of using some of their products. Take a look at children born with deformities from Thalidomide if you want to see what can happen when companies ignore their responsibility to insure their products are safe.
By the way I am not now nor have I ever been a right-wing ideologically driven Conservative. I'm not foolish enough to trust that corporations care about anything other than their profits. Unfortunately there are plenty of people like you willing to take that risk.
jason
Seems like there would need to be a plausible way that you COULD unleash some exotic new disease around the globe by altering the genetic make up of plants before it would be worth while to worry about whether it will happen or not... right?
sallyh
How would you know if it is or isn't plausible if you don't do any research on the possibility? I'm no geneticist nor I suspect are you. There's new discoveries being made all the time that would never have occurred had no one gone looking. We wouldn't have the health and safety regulations we have today if no one did the research to find out what is or isn't dangerous to humans. Take asbestos as an example. Who knew the fibers would lodge in your lungs and could kill you yet we have stopped mining it and now remediate houses that have asbestos in them because of these findings. I suspect when asbestos was first mined and used in many industrial applications no one dreamt there was anything to be concerned about. Why would anyone object to having as much information as possible on new products.
jason
But what are you looking for? Shouldn't there be some mechanism that you're going to test? If there's no known mechanism that an effect would happen, how do you test for that? Take you asbestos example. At one time we did not know it was possible for fibers to lodge in lungs. So how could we specifically have tested for that? It would have taken somebody with exceptional foresight to come up with a plausible mechanism for harm, design a test for this theory and carry this out. Without that plausible mechanism, what are you testing?
Besides.., to say there has been no testing is an exaggeration. There has been testing and it has shown no evidence that there are any "unknown" issues that warrant further study.
No one is objecting to more information, but who wants to pay for blindly running tests in hopes of finding something that you don't even suspect exists? Where would that approach end?
sallyh
Isn't blind testing what drug companies are mandated to do when developing new medications? They spend millions in research and more often than not the new product never makes it to market because of the adverse reactions
jason
Drug companies have to go through safety testing, yes. New gmo introductions go through the exact same safety testing. But blind testing doesn't meant hey are "blindly" looking for any effect.
sallyh
I think drug companies have much more stringent regulations in place that require they do extensive testing in all areas before they will get approval. Most drugs never make it through the testing process because they cast such a broad net when doing their research.
jason
Nope... Same tests, regarding safety. Drugs also have to go through efficacy tests to insure they have the effect in humans that they're intended to have. But they only go onto efficacy once they've passed the safety tests. GMOs are not intended to treat any symptoms so are not required to test for that effect.
Many drugs fail in the efficacy tests because they don't show the intended effects.
sallyh
I'll take your word on that as my experience in dealing with drug companies was for animal use only.
deathtokoalas
i might even go so far as to suggest that, because we understand digestion, we can state with a high degree of certainty that there cannot be a difference between digesting corn that is or is not gmo. your stomach is unable to determine where the nucleotides are, or care. digestion works the same way, regardless.
the only mechanism i've seen is this idea of possible gene transfer to gut bacteria. but, there's no reason to think there's a greater chance of gene transfer in gmos than there is in non-gmos.
the kind of uncertainty that existed with asbestos, or with smoking, isn't really present. your body gets a bunch of molecules that are strung together with bonds, and breaks the bonds the same way it would with any other corn, or wheat, or whatever.
jackson
The only things that I can think of are things that are already known and tested for during the development process
1) Protein created in a GMO could have some domain that people are allergic to.
2) The new protein could catalyze a reaction that produces some compound that is toxic.
3) An siRNA construct designed to penetrate mammalian cells could target some mRNA strand necessary for cellular function.
deathtokoalas
yes. you want to make sure you check for these things, of course, before you put something on the market. and everybody at every step of the process realizes it.
it's the "unknown unknowns" they want to throw at you. and, it's hard to argue against besides pointing out that it's impossible. but, they take that as a concession! you get that argument with people challenging climate science, too. i had it the other day. i got him to admit that the ipcc report ruled out all known natural causes, but he wouldn't crack on the possibility of there being unknown natural causes. on some level he's right, but when you get to that point it's just an end to possible discourse.
it's just that if you want people to take you seriously, you need to provide some concept of cause and effect. the reason there hasn't been a lot of studies done, is that nobody can effectively articulate anything that needs to be studied. as mentioned, there aren't studies on links between apples and plague. there aren't studies on the links between oranges and tuberculosis.
the idea that there's some danger simply doesn't make any sense. it's right-wing fear mongering. and it's all a consequence of the fact that this is something that you don't understand.
sallyh
Thank God drug companies are forced to do research on possible cause and effect when developing new drugs rather then adopt your approach. The cost of identifying these possible complications is why new drugs are so expensive. I don't think that's fear mongering or an unreasonable means of developing new technology. Look at the stink being raised about fracking and how much misinformation is out there. Is it or isn't it responsible for contamination of drinking water? Who knows because nobody did the research to find out before they started drilling. Did the possibility even occur to these companies that that was a possibility? Are the concerns of people who live near these drilling sites just fear mongering?
All I'm saying is we need to proceed with caution when introducing new technologies and try to anticipate any possible adverse effects that may not become apparent for years and the best way to mitigate those possibilities is by thinking outside the box and looking at different theories.
deathtokoalas
no - i agree that when or where there are defined concerns, testing should be done. but it has been, and i'd defer to one of jackson's posts (things about allergies, or toxins). when a drug company does testing, it comes up with concrete concerns that it has developed through an understanding of the chemistry of the drug and our bodies. i'm in full support of that kind of testing with gmos. but, it's broadly been done already. and, if you have specific suggestions for further testing, i'm sure the applicable people would be eager to look into it, if your argument is compelling.
but, your position is "gmos might affect us in some way that we don't understand", and it's just not a reasonable position to take, relative to our rather deep understanding of the chemical processes involved in digestion. we can state with a great degree of certainty that there's absolutely no reason why it should. and, the limited concerns that have come up have been addressed.
do you have a specific concern that you'd like to see greater testing regarding?
sallyh
I do have concerns with what genes are being alter that change how the plants cells interact with the cells of naturally occurring spores, bugs and weeds they encounter in nature. Will it cause the cells or immunity systems in these living organisms to mutate in order to survive. Is this going to start a chain reaction of adaptation in nature? Do these modified genes react differently with human cells when the products are consumed? Will they effect our own immune system ? What testing has been done? Have GMOs been around long enough for some of these issues to occur? I probably have others but since this is far from being a subject I have spent much time thinking about I would be interested to read your comments .
deathtokoalas
gene transfer is a very rare phenomenon, especially across distances as far as plants and bugs. that can be ruled out a priori. insofar as the modifications we're doing are concerned, i'm not sure the effects of cross-pollination with weeds would be all that much of a concern, either. wheat would be more likely than corn, because it's a grass. but, you have to understand that not just any two plants can cross-pollinate. there's maybe some room for curiosity here, but i don't see any possible negative consequences.
i don't see any reason to suggest issues about plant immune systems.
i'm not sure which "human cells" you're thinking about. when you eat something, it goes into a pit of acid and is broken down into constituent parts. i don't know where interaction with "human cells" may occur. but, this is the area where testing has been done, and negative effects have been ruled out to the best of our current abilities - regarding possible toxins, allergins and other reactions we can think of and measure. your stomach really doesn't know the difference between one strand of protein and another - it breaks it all down the same way.
again, i don't know what kind of mechanism you would propose for an effect on the immune system, and think it can be ruled out fairly safely, a priori.
see, it's healthy that you're asking questions. but these questions do have answers.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
i think maybe you were undersampling them. that ndp bump in saskatchewan, especially, makes sense, in terms of strategic voting. and, the fact that you’re broadly in line with nanos is nice in terms of developing a little consistency.
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/liberals-maintain-lead-over-conservatives/
Johnsmith
Have to laugh at those wildly optemistic Lieberal share of the vote in Ontario. I see the NDP is building momentum again taking vote share from the Liberals.
graham
Well, it’s actually in line with the other companies.
deathtokoalas
yeah, and the liberals are up over the last ekos poll.
the last provincial election was
liberals – 38.65
conservatives – 31.25
ndp – 23.75
…and the polls consistently got the liberals and ndp about right, but overestimated conservative support.
that was enough for a liberal majority in ontario.
the ridings are not identical, but they’re close enough to ballpark it. that would convert to 64 federal seats at 38.65%. with the conservatives and ndp both running lower, and the liberals up almost ten points on it, i don’t think 75-80 seats is an unreasonable projection.
that said, that brick wall of rural ridings is a real thing and there may be a kind of ceiling, where it no longer matters much if they get 43% or 48% or 52% even in terms of seat totals. they’d have to really push higher to start thinking about winning those seats. they may be nearing that ceiling, or may be past it.
these uniform swing models are going to be brutal at correctly distributing a 30+% swing. you’re going to see 50% swings in some ridings, and 5% swings in others. it matters less with a 6% swing or something. but, this is huge and they will get a lot of it wrong.
i saw some polling in larry miller’s riding that suggests the liberals are in striking distance, but there’s some extra circumstances there that are probably not transferable to other rural ridings.
but, if they’re running that high, and the ndp are down, then you need to look at them maybe winning a few long time ndp seats. maybe. don’t anybody get their hopes up. maybe even in the north. and, if the conservatives are running under 30 then the entire ring around toronto swings or is at lest very close – brantford, kitchener, newmarket, barrie, peterborough…i think that’s where you start seeing those 40-50% swings….
it would be useful for grenier or whoever else is doing this to come out and say this, so strategic voters understand to be extra careful with the model this time around.
with a 30% swing in ontario? you can’t use a uniform swing. it’s just too big.
and, a uniform swing in alberta makes little sense in the smallest of changes.
and quebec? and bc? yeah. good luck modelling that…
graham
Actually, the Conservative vote federally tends to be underestimated by the pollsters.
It was underestimated 2% to 6% in 2011
deathtokoalas
i agree that this was an anomaly. but, the last provincial election in ontario consistently had the conservatives at or above 35. grenier had them at 35.8, with a minimum of 32.8. that led to a prediction of a liberal minority.
my best guess on that is low turnout. see, here’s a twist pollsters haven’t yet considered: they claim the over 65 is more likely to vote. i don’t disagree. but is the over 75 more likely to vote? can they get to a polling station?
my guess is that what happened in ontario was they oversampled the really, really old voters, and they just couldn’t get there to do it. and i might suggest that’s something to be aware of.
now, does that mean i’m suggesting 28 is exaggerated? probably not. but i wouldn’t expect harper to outperform hudak, either.
it’s a valid question, though. the demographics are 65+. but, your average 65 year old is mobile. your average 80 year old is not. how much of the sample is 65-80, and how much is 80-100?
there’s a whole host of issues with the oldest voters, which are a substantial and increasing percentage of the population.
can someone drive them?
will they remember what day voting day is?
will they be too sick or sore that day?
might their kids decide to not let them vote, due to disagreements?
this is a provincial map, with the liberals at 39% and the conservatives at 31%. you can see what i’m saying.
http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/2014/06/13/ElxnResultMapTAB.jpg
grenier’s map (with a uniform swing with the liberals at 42 and conservatives at 42) has the conservatives winning a lot of those ridings, and the liberals overperfoming in places like haldimand.
that’s because he’s applying the swing evenly, which is probably underestimating liberal support in the places they won provincially and overestimating it in the places they didn’t.
http://stephenmcmurtry.org/election_map
i would be more likely to bet on the provincial map being closer, which is going to bet liberals seats in brantford, cambridge, kitchener, thornhill, milton, flamborough (maybe; the riding splits), burlington, newmarket, barrie, durham, peterborough, northumberland – it’s a nearly clean sweep all the way around toronto.
and, you add it up, and it gets close to 80.
sorry, the projection map is with the liberals at 42 and the conservatives at 32, clearly. but i’m really checking to see if everything is getting moderated, or just the posts with links.
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/liberals-maintain-lead-over-conservatives/
Johnsmith
Have to laugh at those wildly optemistic Lieberal share of the vote in Ontario. I see the NDP is building momentum again taking vote share from the Liberals.
graham
Well, it’s actually in line with the other companies.
deathtokoalas
yeah, and the liberals are up over the last ekos poll.
the last provincial election was
liberals – 38.65
conservatives – 31.25
ndp – 23.75
…and the polls consistently got the liberals and ndp about right, but overestimated conservative support.
that was enough for a liberal majority in ontario.
the ridings are not identical, but they’re close enough to ballpark it. that would convert to 64 federal seats at 38.65%. with the conservatives and ndp both running lower, and the liberals up almost ten points on it, i don’t think 75-80 seats is an unreasonable projection.
that said, that brick wall of rural ridings is a real thing and there may be a kind of ceiling, where it no longer matters much if they get 43% or 48% or 52% even in terms of seat totals. they’d have to really push higher to start thinking about winning those seats. they may be nearing that ceiling, or may be past it.
these uniform swing models are going to be brutal at correctly distributing a 30+% swing. you’re going to see 50% swings in some ridings, and 5% swings in others. it matters less with a 6% swing or something. but, this is huge and they will get a lot of it wrong.
i saw some polling in larry miller’s riding that suggests the liberals are in striking distance, but there’s some extra circumstances there that are probably not transferable to other rural ridings.
but, if they’re running that high, and the ndp are down, then you need to look at them maybe winning a few long time ndp seats. maybe. don’t anybody get their hopes up. maybe even in the north. and, if the conservatives are running under 30 then the entire ring around toronto swings or is at lest very close – brantford, kitchener, newmarket, barrie, peterborough…i think that’s where you start seeing those 40-50% swings….
it would be useful for grenier or whoever else is doing this to come out and say this, so strategic voters understand to be extra careful with the model this time around.
with a 30% swing in ontario? you can’t use a uniform swing. it’s just too big.
and, a uniform swing in alberta makes little sense in the smallest of changes.
and quebec? and bc? yeah. good luck modelling that…
graham
Actually, the Conservative vote federally tends to be underestimated by the pollsters.
It was underestimated 2% to 6% in 2011
deathtokoalas
i agree that this was an anomaly. but, the last provincial election in ontario consistently had the conservatives at or above 35. grenier had them at 35.8, with a minimum of 32.8. that led to a prediction of a liberal minority.
my best guess on that is low turnout. see, here’s a twist pollsters haven’t yet considered: they claim the over 65 is more likely to vote. i don’t disagree. but is the over 75 more likely to vote? can they get to a polling station?
my guess is that what happened in ontario was they oversampled the really, really old voters, and they just couldn’t get there to do it. and i might suggest that’s something to be aware of.
now, does that mean i’m suggesting 28 is exaggerated? probably not. but i wouldn’t expect harper to outperform hudak, either.
it’s a valid question, though. the demographics are 65+. but, your average 65 year old is mobile. your average 80 year old is not. how much of the sample is 65-80, and how much is 80-100?
there’s a whole host of issues with the oldest voters, which are a substantial and increasing percentage of the population.
can someone drive them?
will they remember what day voting day is?
will they be too sick or sore that day?
might their kids decide to not let them vote, due to disagreements?
this is a provincial map, with the liberals at 39% and the conservatives at 31%. you can see what i’m saying.
http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/2014/06/13/ElxnResultMapTAB.jpg
grenier’s map (with a uniform swing with the liberals at 42 and conservatives at 42) has the conservatives winning a lot of those ridings, and the liberals overperfoming in places like haldimand.
that’s because he’s applying the swing evenly, which is probably underestimating liberal support in the places they won provincially and overestimating it in the places they didn’t.
http://stephenmcmurtry.org/election_map
i would be more likely to bet on the provincial map being closer, which is going to bet liberals seats in brantford, cambridge, kitchener, thornhill, milton, flamborough (maybe; the riding splits), burlington, newmarket, barrie, durham, peterborough, northumberland – it’s a nearly clean sweep all the way around toronto.
and, you add it up, and it gets close to 80.
sorry, the projection map is with the liberals at 42 and the conservatives at 32, clearly. but i’m really checking to see if everything is getting moderated, or just the posts with links.
at
18:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i guess transcanada was upset at being told how to lobby.
they're used to telling the government how to operate.
this is how government works, kids. not much of a story.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/14/liberal-campaign-co-chair-advised-transcanada-on-lobbying-next-government_n_8295514.html
Barbara Mitchell
yeah I guess. But it would have been nice if he'd waited till they actually WERE the government first! LOL
jessica amber murray
well, he can always pull the project and award it to somebody else, right? bwahahahaha. keep me away from power, i've got a nasty streak. but, i truly wouldn't be expecting many favours after this if i were transcanada. but, hey - if anybody wasn't sure about who the oil industry's guy was, it should be clear now.
i'd say that if you're smart, you might want to unload some soon to be worthless stocks.
Pierre Cyr
It actually is a story of basic prepping for influence peddling. And the liberal campaign co chair Gagne was an associate of Bruce Carson. Who happens to be in court for, you guessed it, influence peddling...
jessica amber murray
i'm sorry - what did you expect? should they fill out a form, and have it approved by a central committee, first?
surely, you don't think they shouldn't talk at all?
it's a big company. there'd be something wrong if they *weren't* talking. i'm sure they're talking to executives in a wide array of industry, as well. i would hope they are, anyways. it would be a little offsetting if they weren't.
i just don't understand how you're conceptualizing what capitalism is. the whole point is the confluence between business and government: the revolving door, the lobbying. it's what a capitalist government is. if you take that away, you negate the purpose of the state in the capitalist model. we'd be left with what right-wingers call "anarchism".
it's not different than what harper does, and it wouldn't be different from what mulcair would be.
so, how do you imagine that government and industry communicate with each other in existing capitalism if not in the way suggested in the article?
they're used to telling the government how to operate.
this is how government works, kids. not much of a story.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/14/liberal-campaign-co-chair-advised-transcanada-on-lobbying-next-government_n_8295514.html
Barbara Mitchell
yeah I guess. But it would have been nice if he'd waited till they actually WERE the government first! LOL
jessica amber murray
well, he can always pull the project and award it to somebody else, right? bwahahahaha. keep me away from power, i've got a nasty streak. but, i truly wouldn't be expecting many favours after this if i were transcanada. but, hey - if anybody wasn't sure about who the oil industry's guy was, it should be clear now.
i'd say that if you're smart, you might want to unload some soon to be worthless stocks.
Pierre Cyr
It actually is a story of basic prepping for influence peddling. And the liberal campaign co chair Gagne was an associate of Bruce Carson. Who happens to be in court for, you guessed it, influence peddling...
jessica amber murray
i'm sorry - what did you expect? should they fill out a form, and have it approved by a central committee, first?
surely, you don't think they shouldn't talk at all?
it's a big company. there'd be something wrong if they *weren't* talking. i'm sure they're talking to executives in a wide array of industry, as well. i would hope they are, anyways. it would be a little offsetting if they weren't.
i just don't understand how you're conceptualizing what capitalism is. the whole point is the confluence between business and government: the revolving door, the lobbying. it's what a capitalist government is. if you take that away, you negate the purpose of the state in the capitalist model. we'd be left with what right-wingers call "anarchism".
it's not different than what harper does, and it wouldn't be different from what mulcair would be.
so, how do you imagine that government and industry communicate with each other in existing capitalism if not in the way suggested in the article?
at
18:02
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
in all seriousness, legalized marijuana shops with safe distribution chains would likely reduce petty crime in the riding. i mean, if you think there's no pot in oakville, you're certainly smoking something - even if cocaine is no doubt preferable to the upper class, white folks (many, who no doubt vote conservative) that make it their home. the reality is that it comes in through shady vectors, and brings shady people in with it. if you're concerned about property value and criminal activity, you should interpret legalization as a net positive in keeping organized crime out of the riding. and, hey - maybe you might even want to think about relaxing on your no doubt substantial deck, putting on a tune and smoking one up with a nice glass of wine and some friends. who knows: you might even smile. no laws broken, no harm done.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/13/terence-young-brothels-oakville-video_n_8288538.html
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/13/terence-young-brothels-oakville-video_n_8288538.html
at
17:42
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
my issue with alberta is that you're distributing the numbers uniformly. i'm going to throw some data at you, regarding a mainstreet poll that was released yesterday in edmonton mills that had the conservatives at 36%. they got 61% in that riding last election.
now - i know - the polls could be wrong. the respondents could be lying. but let's take them at their word for a moment.
the conservatives got 66% in alberta last election, and grenier's model had them at 53 last i checked. that's a 20% drop. but what all of the models do is then distribute that 20% across the whole province. that would suggest they should be polling around 45% or so - which is what the models do say. so, how do you explain the discrepancy, while taking the poll at face value?
i would argue that the uniform swing is the error. and that this is something that we have more than enough data to come to good conclusions regarding.
if you look at the data in rural alberta going back many years, it doesn't really change much. they win seats by huge numbers. 70. 80. it's big wins. and there's not a lot of variability.
but, if you look at the numbers in the cities, you see a lot more variability. they even elect the odd liberal or new democrat from time to time.
that suggests to me that when you see a 20% drop, province wide, you should not distribute it equally across the whole province but proportionally in the areas most likely to swing. this is an observation that is...not exactly unique to alberta, but certainly not applicable country wide.
now, we don't have to do any algebra here because, by chance, the combined populations of calgary and edmonton are close to half of the province. so, i might suggest that rather than say the conservatives are down 20% across the whole province, they're probably down 0% in their rural strongholds and 40% in the cities of calgary and edmonton. that balances out to 20% province wide.
as it turns out, that would predict a result of around 36% in edmonton mills - which is consistent with the polling. and, this relation also holds in the other recently polled alberta ridings.
i would consequently challenge the idea that the conservatives running at 50% suggests they'll perform well province wide. i might rather suggest that that would imply they're running at the same 65+ they always run at in the rural regions, but probably an average of around 35 in the cities. and that could open up around ten seats.
50 v 49 might not make much of a difference. but 66 v 53 could be pretty substantial.
something similar would be true in ontario, but perhaps less drastic. but this particular election is seeing a 30% swing in ontario. a uniform model would suggest 30% everywhere. do we really think the liberals are up 30% in haldimand-norfolk, or simcoe grey? that's maybe a little hard to believe. maybe it's more believable that they're up 40-50% in cambridge and brantford and barrie, and maybe 5% in simcoe grey, if that.
if it was a smaller swing - 7-8% - the differences in projections from a uniform swing model and a more targetted one would be minimal. but, at 30%? anything using a uniform swing is going to be broadly inaccurate in ontario in this specific election. that applies to all models that i am aware of.
rather, if you want to know what ontario is going to look like, i would suggest consulting a map of the last provincial election, which had the liberals at 39% and the conservatives at 31%. that gave the liberals an almost clean sweep all the way around toronto - including brant, cambridge, kitchener, newmarket, barrie, durham, peterborough and northumberland. these are the likely candidates for the very large local swings that a 30% province-wide boost is likely to produce and, it seems likely that the liberals will poll higher than 39%, while 31% for the conservatives looks about right. that might mean an extra seat or two around kitchener.
i'm not even going to try and guess how you deal with quebec and bc, other than to point out that the most substantial movement in quebec appears to be from the ndp to the liberals, and that will both help the liberals where they are competitive and help the bloc where they are not.
i am suggesting extreme caution regarding all models in this election, due to their use of uniform swing. it can be useful in an election with small swings. but, big swings break this kind of model.
i believe that calgary and edmonton are in play, and that the liberals above 40% will sweep not just the gta but into the furthest reaches of communities around toronto, from brantford to kitchener, newmarket and barrie, and peterborough south to the lake - with the perhaps sole exception being around whitby and oshawa.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/14/canada-election-polls-ontario-liberals-conservatives_n_8294430.html
now - i know - the polls could be wrong. the respondents could be lying. but let's take them at their word for a moment.
the conservatives got 66% in alberta last election, and grenier's model had them at 53 last i checked. that's a 20% drop. but what all of the models do is then distribute that 20% across the whole province. that would suggest they should be polling around 45% or so - which is what the models do say. so, how do you explain the discrepancy, while taking the poll at face value?
i would argue that the uniform swing is the error. and that this is something that we have more than enough data to come to good conclusions regarding.
if you look at the data in rural alberta going back many years, it doesn't really change much. they win seats by huge numbers. 70. 80. it's big wins. and there's not a lot of variability.
but, if you look at the numbers in the cities, you see a lot more variability. they even elect the odd liberal or new democrat from time to time.
that suggests to me that when you see a 20% drop, province wide, you should not distribute it equally across the whole province but proportionally in the areas most likely to swing. this is an observation that is...not exactly unique to alberta, but certainly not applicable country wide.
now, we don't have to do any algebra here because, by chance, the combined populations of calgary and edmonton are close to half of the province. so, i might suggest that rather than say the conservatives are down 20% across the whole province, they're probably down 0% in their rural strongholds and 40% in the cities of calgary and edmonton. that balances out to 20% province wide.
as it turns out, that would predict a result of around 36% in edmonton mills - which is consistent with the polling. and, this relation also holds in the other recently polled alberta ridings.
i would consequently challenge the idea that the conservatives running at 50% suggests they'll perform well province wide. i might rather suggest that that would imply they're running at the same 65+ they always run at in the rural regions, but probably an average of around 35 in the cities. and that could open up around ten seats.
50 v 49 might not make much of a difference. but 66 v 53 could be pretty substantial.
something similar would be true in ontario, but perhaps less drastic. but this particular election is seeing a 30% swing in ontario. a uniform model would suggest 30% everywhere. do we really think the liberals are up 30% in haldimand-norfolk, or simcoe grey? that's maybe a little hard to believe. maybe it's more believable that they're up 40-50% in cambridge and brantford and barrie, and maybe 5% in simcoe grey, if that.
if it was a smaller swing - 7-8% - the differences in projections from a uniform swing model and a more targetted one would be minimal. but, at 30%? anything using a uniform swing is going to be broadly inaccurate in ontario in this specific election. that applies to all models that i am aware of.
rather, if you want to know what ontario is going to look like, i would suggest consulting a map of the last provincial election, which had the liberals at 39% and the conservatives at 31%. that gave the liberals an almost clean sweep all the way around toronto - including brant, cambridge, kitchener, newmarket, barrie, durham, peterborough and northumberland. these are the likely candidates for the very large local swings that a 30% province-wide boost is likely to produce and, it seems likely that the liberals will poll higher than 39%, while 31% for the conservatives looks about right. that might mean an extra seat or two around kitchener.
i'm not even going to try and guess how you deal with quebec and bc, other than to point out that the most substantial movement in quebec appears to be from the ndp to the liberals, and that will both help the liberals where they are competitive and help the bloc where they are not.
i am suggesting extreme caution regarding all models in this election, due to their use of uniform swing. it can be useful in an election with small swings. but, big swings break this kind of model.
i believe that calgary and edmonton are in play, and that the liberals above 40% will sweep not just the gta but into the furthest reaches of communities around toronto, from brantford to kitchener, newmarket and barrie, and peterborough south to the lake - with the perhaps sole exception being around whitby and oshawa.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/14/canada-election-polls-ontario-liberals-conservatives_n_8294430.html
at
17:27
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
calgary, edmonton - get some polls out, quick!
To: media@leadnow.ca
hi.
the results you got back from edmonton yesterday are going to confuse people, but i saw this coming. i just want to explain what i think is happening and why these polls are useful, and could lead to huge upsets in calgary and edmonton.
if you go to the aggregate sites, like cbc, the apply a uniform swing model across the provinces. the reality is that this is not a smart way to build a model. there's not a lot of difference between rural alberta and rural saskatchewan, so that would make sense; but there are large differences between rural and urban alberta (and rural and urban ontario).
so, for example, the conservatives got 66% in alberta in 2011. they appear to be down about 20%, into the low 50s. the way that the models work is they tale 20% off everybody, under the assumption that a 20% decrease in conservative support is uniform across the province. it assumes the conservatives are down by the same amount in edmonton as they are in yellowhead.
but, i think a little bit of clear thinking concludes that this is a ridiculous assumption. so, let's start from a more reasonable assumption. given that rural conservative support has been roughly steady for roughly a century (there was actually a socialist movement in alberta a hundred years ago, but it's been stable since), let's assume that that holds and that, despite the conservatives being down 20% province wide, they have not changed in the rural ridings. that would mean all the changes are in the urban ridings.
we can make the math easy because, by a fluke, the population of calgary and edmonton is, together, roughly half the population of all of alberta.
that would mean that a 20%job drop, province wide, should translate to a 40% drop in the urban centers.
and, that would mean that calgary is probably in play.
you've actually demonstrated this little bit of math i've been throwing around; thank you. conservatives are down far more in edmonton than the models are suggesting, and what i've done here is explain why.
but, consider the possibilities.
.55 - .55*.4 = .33
.65 - .65*.4 = .39
.75 - .75*.4 = .45
they're all in play. even harper's riding.
but, this mathematical argument is useless in determining where liberal and ndp support are or how they're distributed. i would have argued the liberals were ahead in the ridings you've shown the ndp are ahead in. so, getting riding polls is key if you want to, say, knock jason kenney off.
and, hey - best way to get right of stephen harper is to have him lose his seat, right?
j
hi.
the results you got back from edmonton yesterday are going to confuse people, but i saw this coming. i just want to explain what i think is happening and why these polls are useful, and could lead to huge upsets in calgary and edmonton.
if you go to the aggregate sites, like cbc, the apply a uniform swing model across the provinces. the reality is that this is not a smart way to build a model. there's not a lot of difference between rural alberta and rural saskatchewan, so that would make sense; but there are large differences between rural and urban alberta (and rural and urban ontario).
so, for example, the conservatives got 66% in alberta in 2011. they appear to be down about 20%, into the low 50s. the way that the models work is they tale 20% off everybody, under the assumption that a 20% decrease in conservative support is uniform across the province. it assumes the conservatives are down by the same amount in edmonton as they are in yellowhead.
but, i think a little bit of clear thinking concludes that this is a ridiculous assumption. so, let's start from a more reasonable assumption. given that rural conservative support has been roughly steady for roughly a century (there was actually a socialist movement in alberta a hundred years ago, but it's been stable since), let's assume that that holds and that, despite the conservatives being down 20% province wide, they have not changed in the rural ridings. that would mean all the changes are in the urban ridings.
we can make the math easy because, by a fluke, the population of calgary and edmonton is, together, roughly half the population of all of alberta.
that would mean that a 20%
and, that would mean that calgary is probably in play.
you've actually demonstrated this little bit of math i've been throwing around; thank you. conservatives are down far more in edmonton than the models are suggesting, and what i've done here is explain why.
but, consider the possibilities.
.55 - .55*.4 = .33
.65 - .65*.4 = .39
.75 - .75*.4 = .45
they're all in play. even harper's riding.
but, this mathematical argument is useless in determining where liberal and ndp support are or how they're distributed. i would have argued the liberals were ahead in the ridings you've shown the ndp are ahead in. so, getting riding polls is key if you want to, say, knock jason kenney off.
and, hey - best way to get right of stephen harper is to have him lose his seat, right?
j
at
01:39
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm pretty sure there's some people peeking in here, so let me say it.
i've been posting in a few places that edmonton and calgary are in play. like, the whole cities. guh? what? none of the models say they are.
aha. the models are shit. and, allow me to explain why.
first, let us look at the results of a riding poll released at midnight. and, understand that my argument says nothing of liberal or ndp support, it is only able to measure conservative support - and then argues we need polling for strategic voting.
the riding is edmonton-mill woods.
2011 results: 61%
cbc projection:45%
torstar projection: 46%
riding poll: 36%
my calculation: 36%
36% is in play. and, that would suggest that the other ridings in edmonton and calgary they won with 60% are also in play.
ok, so here's how this works.
the conservatives are down about 20% province wide. the models use a uniform swing that takes the same amount off of every riding. 61 - 0.2*61 = 48. i'm using rough numbers, so i'm less accurate, but you get the point.
but, this is daft. rural alberta has been voting in the same proportions for 100 years. it's ludicrous to suggest a uniform swing on an area that demonstrates total stasis. rather, it makes sense to suggest all of the movement is in the urban ridings. because calgary and edmonton are roughly half the population of alberta, you can roughly double the loss, there, to 40%. so, instead of saying they're down 20% across the whole province, i'm saying they're own 40% in the cities and 0% in the rest of the province.
and, nicely, 61 - .4*61 = 36.6.
now, if that calculation holds, we should expect roughly the following shifts in edmonton and calgary, for the conservatives:
55% ---> 55 - 55*.4 = 33
65% ---> 65 - 65*.4 = 39
75% ---> 75 - 75*.4 = 45
as we can see, many seats are in play.
but, upon calculating where the conservatives are likely running, i am none the wiser as to where the liberals or ndp are running, whether one is actually winning and which should be supported, strategically. that's up for the people that do these things to do.
i'm just pointing out what's in play.
http://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/friends-of-canadian-broadcasting/
i've been posting in a few places that edmonton and calgary are in play. like, the whole cities. guh? what? none of the models say they are.
aha. the models are shit. and, allow me to explain why.
first, let us look at the results of a riding poll released at midnight. and, understand that my argument says nothing of liberal or ndp support, it is only able to measure conservative support - and then argues we need polling for strategic voting.
the riding is edmonton-mill woods.
2011 results: 61%
cbc projection:45%
torstar projection: 46%
riding poll: 36%
my calculation: 36%
36% is in play. and, that would suggest that the other ridings in edmonton and calgary they won with 60% are also in play.
ok, so here's how this works.
the conservatives are down about 20% province wide. the models use a uniform swing that takes the same amount off of every riding. 61 - 0.2*61 = 48. i'm using rough numbers, so i'm less accurate, but you get the point.
but, this is daft. rural alberta has been voting in the same proportions for 100 years. it's ludicrous to suggest a uniform swing on an area that demonstrates total stasis. rather, it makes sense to suggest all of the movement is in the urban ridings. because calgary and edmonton are roughly half the population of alberta, you can roughly double the loss, there, to 40%. so, instead of saying they're down 20% across the whole province, i'm saying they're own 40% in the cities and 0% in the rest of the province.
and, nicely, 61 - .4*61 = 36.6.
now, if that calculation holds, we should expect roughly the following shifts in edmonton and calgary, for the conservatives:
55% ---> 55 - 55*.4 = 33
65% ---> 65 - 65*.4 = 39
75% ---> 75 - 75*.4 = 45
as we can see, many seats are in play.
but, upon calculating where the conservatives are likely running, i am none the wiser as to where the liberals or ndp are running, whether one is actually winning and which should be supported, strategically. that's up for the people that do these things to do.
i'm just pointing out what's in play.
http://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/friends-of-canadian-broadcasting/
at
01:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
i don’t really agree with this, and i find the characterization troubling.
the niqab isn’t a values issue. it’s just a tyranny of the majority. there’s a constitutional right on the table. it’s not an issue that is up for debate, or is to be determined by majority decree. the government doesn’t have the ability to legislate the way it’s claiming to. the court is going to overturn all of it.
so, even if there’s truly a perception of these trivialities being important and defining in some way, there’s no means to that end. we’d have to suspend the constitution.
which means this is either a lot of meaningless hot air, or those comparisons to hitler are less extreme than so-called moderate voices may suggest. there’s not a middle point.
you don’t expect conservatives to take tyranny of the majority style positions, urinating all over de tocqueville’s grave. it’s a big part of what a conservative is supposed to be.
and you don’t expect anybody at all to openly campaign on them; not in a liberal democratic society.
so, your context is there: sure. the idea that this is some kind of an issue to be voted on at all is a big victory for totalitarianism, and a strong loss for liberal democracy. but, it’s hard to see how this goes anywhere beyond empty electoral rhetoric.
i dunno. maybe i’m just saying this can’t happen here…
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/so-who-will-win-the-42nd-federal-election
shob
Minority rights have limits. They can’t infringe on others rights. And there are things in Canadian society people can’t consent to.
We can’t advocate hate of any identifiable group in Canada. Wearing a Niqab is threatening. I will put forward that it advocates hate of women’s rights. We also live in a society where security trumps rights. People need to be identified. They can’t walk into a band wearing a hoodie. We also have lots of other laws about clothing in restaurants for public health reasons, on public transit. I can’t get on a bus without shoes on. Wearing a niqab is no more a right than wearing a bondage outfit to grade school. That wouldn’t be allowed either.
I don’t believe the niqab should be allowed in open Canadian society. If they want to wear that garment at home, or in their mosque that’s fine. Not in public, anywhere. I find it infringes on my rights to not be threatened by radical misogyny in public.
I am absolutely fine with head coverings, but the face goes to far. What if they make all women wear dog collars and leashes next, with an electrical shock if they speak? Will that be ok, if the woman says she’s good with it and it’s her choice?
Women choose to be in abusive situations all the time. Canada has a right to make it against the law. The niqab is abuse of women in public.
To pretend this a simple religious choice is absurd. This comes from cultures that stone women to death, or gang rape them at the whim of the village elders if they step out of line.
It’s fine for Canada to say no to this symbol of oppression.
deathtokoalas
see, i don’t even think your points are worthwhile enough to address. you’re either ridiculously ignorant of how our legal system works, or you’re disingenuously stoking up fear.
the reason we have a supreme court with nine learned judges on it is because we realize that this isn’t the kind of decision that can be left up to the general public – because they will no doubt present the kind of absurd arguments that you’re presenting. call it elitist if you want, and it is, a little. but, the reality is that our constitution is built to prevent the braying masses from attacking minority rights. and, the only way to break through the constitution is to discard it.
it does lead to some frightening conclusions, in the abstract, even if the more likely scenario is that this goes nowhere at all.
i’ve said this before: the most enduring legacy of stephen harper, the part that survives his lifetime and carries on through the generations, is going to be the supreme court rulings against him. there’s not much legislative law that he’s written that’s going to outlast him. but, he has unwittingly greatly enriched the judicial precedents to be used in upholding the constitution, and it’s charter of rights.
Shob
Do you know why its law in Canada that domestic abuse has to be prosecuted, even if the victim says it’s fine and they are ok? Because it happens all the time.
The Niqab is abuse of women and it should be illegal in public, not just at the polling station. it doesn’t matter if she says it’s her choice. It’s abuse and it stands for the complete dehumanizing of women and the removal of their rights.
deathtokoalas
so, i suppose you’re comfortable with harper suspending the constitution, then?
are we to expect the fashion police to actually patrol the streets?
again: so-called reasonable voices may suggest that it’s all a lot of hubris.
but, the ramifications are actually quite frightening, and cause for some rather serious alarm.
Mk
deathtokoalas: it’s your points that aren’t worthwhile and you’re completely ignorant if you think people’s fear of a barbaric practice and culture invading Canada isn’t justified. The niqab is all about oppressing women, why do these women cover their faces? So the their men don’t feel like raping them. Why should Canadian women put up with this obvious misogyny? Either you’re a sexist yourself or you’re so desperate to defend Trudeau that you’ll just make up excuses.
People should not be allowed to cover their face in public, it’s bad enough they wear those bulky burqa things. I’ve seen little kids flee in terror when catching sight of these black blobs gliding down the streets. They don’t even look human, and that’s the point, to dehumanize women. If Muslims want to keep being misogynistic, they need to stay in their own countries not come here and force their backwards beliefs on civilized people.
deathtokoalas
well, then i suppose you think we have an equal right to ban fat people in bikinis, or hipsters wearing glasses with no lenses, or any other fashion decision you don’t like, right?
all hail the fashion police!
fortunately, we have a constitution with a bill of rights. you can howl all you want. it makes no difference.
if you want to live in a society without a bill of rights that bans articles of clothing, i’d suggest moving to egypt or pakistan.
--
i suppose i should post a prediction, as well – although it’s a fool’s game.
liberals – 150-169.
i think there’s a brick wall there. the models are using uniform proportional swing, which i think is overweighting them in rural areas and underweighting them in urban areas. for example, cbc has them winning in haldimand-norfolk and losing in kitchener. i think, at 40%+ they win kitchener, and it’s hard to see how they win haldimand at all without a split. it looks to me like they will sweep most of the urban areas – and that may include calgary and edmonton, if there is some strategic voting. the only exception seems to be quebec city.
conservatives – 100-120
it’s all rural seats, at this point. the ridings nobody else could possibly win.
ndp – 40-60
they’ll get a few seats in quebec, but i think the ndp are back to their traditional seats after this election.
bloc – 10-30
i know ekos is charting them downwards, but at the end of the day i don’t see how the ndp keeps those seats without the additional boost from the liberals. see, that’s the tricky part. the ndp got a big swing from the bloc in 2011, it is true. they also got a 10 point boost from the liberals. and, they would not have beat the bloc in a lot of places without that ten point swing from the liberals. you take that way, and the bloc only have to run around 20 to win a lot of seats back. again: i don’t like uniform swing models, and they’re especially tricky in quebec.
oh yeah. greens get the one.
if it’s really close, i think the liberals can get a few floor crossings. i think they’re going to want to avoid any kind of actual agreement with elizabeth may; i’m not even convinced they’d welcome her into caucus.
i mean, if the liberals get 169 seats and lose five seats to the conservatives by a margin that is less than the green vote, it’s hard to see how they interpret her as anything less than a pariah. the last thing they want to give her is a platform to speak over. she’d have to cross; that’s the only acceptable condition. but, what the liberals are going to actually want to do is push some solid environmental policy to try and get rid of them. a floor-crossing would help deflate them. but, she’s so remarkably invested in the party, that it’s almost hard to take the premise seriously.
another idea: maybe she’d like a nice seat in the senate.
you get the point.
the niqab isn’t a values issue. it’s just a tyranny of the majority. there’s a constitutional right on the table. it’s not an issue that is up for debate, or is to be determined by majority decree. the government doesn’t have the ability to legislate the way it’s claiming to. the court is going to overturn all of it.
so, even if there’s truly a perception of these trivialities being important and defining in some way, there’s no means to that end. we’d have to suspend the constitution.
which means this is either a lot of meaningless hot air, or those comparisons to hitler are less extreme than so-called moderate voices may suggest. there’s not a middle point.
you don’t expect conservatives to take tyranny of the majority style positions, urinating all over de tocqueville’s grave. it’s a big part of what a conservative is supposed to be.
and you don’t expect anybody at all to openly campaign on them; not in a liberal democratic society.
so, your context is there: sure. the idea that this is some kind of an issue to be voted on at all is a big victory for totalitarianism, and a strong loss for liberal democracy. but, it’s hard to see how this goes anywhere beyond empty electoral rhetoric.
i dunno. maybe i’m just saying this can’t happen here…
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/so-who-will-win-the-42nd-federal-election
shob
Minority rights have limits. They can’t infringe on others rights. And there are things in Canadian society people can’t consent to.
We can’t advocate hate of any identifiable group in Canada. Wearing a Niqab is threatening. I will put forward that it advocates hate of women’s rights. We also live in a society where security trumps rights. People need to be identified. They can’t walk into a band wearing a hoodie. We also have lots of other laws about clothing in restaurants for public health reasons, on public transit. I can’t get on a bus without shoes on. Wearing a niqab is no more a right than wearing a bondage outfit to grade school. That wouldn’t be allowed either.
I don’t believe the niqab should be allowed in open Canadian society. If they want to wear that garment at home, or in their mosque that’s fine. Not in public, anywhere. I find it infringes on my rights to not be threatened by radical misogyny in public.
I am absolutely fine with head coverings, but the face goes to far. What if they make all women wear dog collars and leashes next, with an electrical shock if they speak? Will that be ok, if the woman says she’s good with it and it’s her choice?
Women choose to be in abusive situations all the time. Canada has a right to make it against the law. The niqab is abuse of women in public.
To pretend this a simple religious choice is absurd. This comes from cultures that stone women to death, or gang rape them at the whim of the village elders if they step out of line.
It’s fine for Canada to say no to this symbol of oppression.
deathtokoalas
see, i don’t even think your points are worthwhile enough to address. you’re either ridiculously ignorant of how our legal system works, or you’re disingenuously stoking up fear.
the reason we have a supreme court with nine learned judges on it is because we realize that this isn’t the kind of decision that can be left up to the general public – because they will no doubt present the kind of absurd arguments that you’re presenting. call it elitist if you want, and it is, a little. but, the reality is that our constitution is built to prevent the braying masses from attacking minority rights. and, the only way to break through the constitution is to discard it.
it does lead to some frightening conclusions, in the abstract, even if the more likely scenario is that this goes nowhere at all.
i’ve said this before: the most enduring legacy of stephen harper, the part that survives his lifetime and carries on through the generations, is going to be the supreme court rulings against him. there’s not much legislative law that he’s written that’s going to outlast him. but, he has unwittingly greatly enriched the judicial precedents to be used in upholding the constitution, and it’s charter of rights.
Shob
Do you know why its law in Canada that domestic abuse has to be prosecuted, even if the victim says it’s fine and they are ok? Because it happens all the time.
The Niqab is abuse of women and it should be illegal in public, not just at the polling station. it doesn’t matter if she says it’s her choice. It’s abuse and it stands for the complete dehumanizing of women and the removal of their rights.
deathtokoalas
so, i suppose you’re comfortable with harper suspending the constitution, then?
are we to expect the fashion police to actually patrol the streets?
again: so-called reasonable voices may suggest that it’s all a lot of hubris.
but, the ramifications are actually quite frightening, and cause for some rather serious alarm.
Mk
deathtokoalas: it’s your points that aren’t worthwhile and you’re completely ignorant if you think people’s fear of a barbaric practice and culture invading Canada isn’t justified. The niqab is all about oppressing women, why do these women cover their faces? So the their men don’t feel like raping them. Why should Canadian women put up with this obvious misogyny? Either you’re a sexist yourself or you’re so desperate to defend Trudeau that you’ll just make up excuses.
People should not be allowed to cover their face in public, it’s bad enough they wear those bulky burqa things. I’ve seen little kids flee in terror when catching sight of these black blobs gliding down the streets. They don’t even look human, and that’s the point, to dehumanize women. If Muslims want to keep being misogynistic, they need to stay in their own countries not come here and force their backwards beliefs on civilized people.
deathtokoalas
well, then i suppose you think we have an equal right to ban fat people in bikinis, or hipsters wearing glasses with no lenses, or any other fashion decision you don’t like, right?
all hail the fashion police!
fortunately, we have a constitution with a bill of rights. you can howl all you want. it makes no difference.
if you want to live in a society without a bill of rights that bans articles of clothing, i’d suggest moving to egypt or pakistan.
--
i suppose i should post a prediction, as well – although it’s a fool’s game.
liberals – 150-169.
i think there’s a brick wall there. the models are using uniform proportional swing, which i think is overweighting them in rural areas and underweighting them in urban areas. for example, cbc has them winning in haldimand-norfolk and losing in kitchener. i think, at 40%+ they win kitchener, and it’s hard to see how they win haldimand at all without a split. it looks to me like they will sweep most of the urban areas – and that may include calgary and edmonton, if there is some strategic voting. the only exception seems to be quebec city.
conservatives – 100-120
it’s all rural seats, at this point. the ridings nobody else could possibly win.
ndp – 40-60
they’ll get a few seats in quebec, but i think the ndp are back to their traditional seats after this election.
bloc – 10-30
i know ekos is charting them downwards, but at the end of the day i don’t see how the ndp keeps those seats without the additional boost from the liberals. see, that’s the tricky part. the ndp got a big swing from the bloc in 2011, it is true. they also got a 10 point boost from the liberals. and, they would not have beat the bloc in a lot of places without that ten point swing from the liberals. you take that way, and the bloc only have to run around 20 to win a lot of seats back. again: i don’t like uniform swing models, and they’re especially tricky in quebec.
oh yeah. greens get the one.
if it’s really close, i think the liberals can get a few floor crossings. i think they’re going to want to avoid any kind of actual agreement with elizabeth may; i’m not even convinced they’d welcome her into caucus.
i mean, if the liberals get 169 seats and lose five seats to the conservatives by a margin that is less than the green vote, it’s hard to see how they interpret her as anything less than a pariah. the last thing they want to give her is a platform to speak over. she’d have to cross; that’s the only acceptable condition. but, what the liberals are going to actually want to do is push some solid environmental policy to try and get rid of them. a floor-crossing would help deflate them. but, she’s so remarkably invested in the party, that it’s almost hard to take the premise seriously.
another idea: maybe she’d like a nice seat in the senate.
you get the point.
at
23:53
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Ron Alberta
It is all on the table now. By the end of the week, we'll have brothels on every street corner, and a three day work week, so we have time for all the vice.
jessica murray
that would be terrible, wouldn't it?
gotta love that old protestant work ethic. just how could we be enslaved without it?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tom-mulcair-marijuana-legalization-1.3269664
It is all on the table now. By the end of the week, we'll have brothels on every street corner, and a three day work week, so we have time for all the vice.
jessica murray
that would be terrible, wouldn't it?
gotta love that old protestant work ethic. just how could we be enslaved without it?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tom-mulcair-marijuana-legalization-1.3269664
at
23:27
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i wonder if mulcair realized who he was talking to.
looking good, damian. ask him about why.
regarding the policy, it's not much of a change, it's pretty obvious it's where he was going, it's just that he was afraid to come out and say he it, because he didn't want to lose votes.
and, you know, there's an argument that being careful is a good quality.
but, on this? kind of makes him come off as an old fuddle-duddle, if you see what i'm saying.
it's maybe a good indication of mulcair having a foot stuck in the past. and i think that's a big part of the poll movement.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tom-mulcair-marijuana-legalization-1.3269664
looking good, damian. ask him about why.
regarding the policy, it's not much of a change, it's pretty obvious it's where he was going, it's just that he was afraid to come out and say he it, because he didn't want to lose votes.
and, you know, there's an argument that being careful is a good quality.
but, on this? kind of makes him come off as an old fuddle-duddle, if you see what i'm saying.
it's maybe a good indication of mulcair having a foot stuck in the past. and i think that's a big part of the poll movement.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tom-mulcair-marijuana-legalization-1.3269664
at
23:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
they're very much missing the point.
i'd rather live in debt and have fun and die when i'm 60 than focus on saving for a future i don't plan on having. you can put kids through five or ten years of this stuff if you want, it's not going to matter if their priorities are in the here and now. and, that's a consequence of a consumer society that's focused on short term profit over long term thinking.
i don't think people don't understand, i think people don't care.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/why-kids-should-be-taught-personal-finance-in-school-and-at-home-1.3212530
Think twice
You are probably on to some thing. However, it is also a sign of maturity, they will probably care when they mature.
Right now, they don't know what they don't know.
Plus the good news is that I am many others will prosper because of this.
Apple shares are doing well:) so is Starbucks:)
jessica murray
i think that's a pretty warped concept of maturity. if the choice is between living to plan for a future that might not exist, and living for the here and now, i think there's a strong argument that the latter is the more mature argument.
we only really have what is in front of us. you get diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, and all the best laid plans are destroyed: all you have left is regret that you didn't live it up while you had the chance.
coming to terms with the reality of our own mortality, and the subsequent futility of existence, is the ultimate sign of true maturity. and it leads us to the conclusion that we are only young once, and should enjoy it the best we can. this is what truly matters.
Think twice
Yesterday is history, tomorrow unknown, we only have today.........
It's a great quote for movie heroes but unrealistic. You might get cancer yes, but you might fall in love with someone at 60 too.
I agree with the premise, but must it be tied to consumerism? I doubt true happiness will be achieved this way.
jessica murray
well, no, i didn't quite mean to say it should be tied to consumerism, so much as it's broadly a consequence of it.
Think twice
I am losing your thoughts....
Consumerism is tied to living for today which brings happiness?
I live for today, I invest in my health, education and social network and relationships.
I also plan for my future years.
jessica murray
i may have overemphasized the point.
what i was actually getting at was the difference in economic models, regarding the idea of rationality. there's this classical liberal idea that is often referred to as "homo economicus". this erects a construction of rationality that is maybe naive. it is often contrasted with empirical sociological findings that comprise a new underpinning of rationality, which we refer to as behavioural economics.
the behavioural model suggests that we prioritize short term gains over long term planning; it's kind of an argument about human nature, really.
what i was getting at is that a consumer culture that focuses on now strongly suggests that a behavioural model is more useful than the classical liberal model in understanding why people don't seem to be concerned about debt
i'd rather live in debt and have fun and die when i'm 60 than focus on saving for a future i don't plan on having. you can put kids through five or ten years of this stuff if you want, it's not going to matter if their priorities are in the here and now. and, that's a consequence of a consumer society that's focused on short term profit over long term thinking.
i don't think people don't understand, i think people don't care.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/why-kids-should-be-taught-personal-finance-in-school-and-at-home-1.3212530
Think twice
You are probably on to some thing. However, it is also a sign of maturity, they will probably care when they mature.
Right now, they don't know what they don't know.
Plus the good news is that I am many others will prosper because of this.
Apple shares are doing well:) so is Starbucks:)
jessica murray
i think that's a pretty warped concept of maturity. if the choice is between living to plan for a future that might not exist, and living for the here and now, i think there's a strong argument that the latter is the more mature argument.
we only really have what is in front of us. you get diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, and all the best laid plans are destroyed: all you have left is regret that you didn't live it up while you had the chance.
coming to terms with the reality of our own mortality, and the subsequent futility of existence, is the ultimate sign of true maturity. and it leads us to the conclusion that we are only young once, and should enjoy it the best we can. this is what truly matters.
Think twice
Yesterday is history, tomorrow unknown, we only have today.........
It's a great quote for movie heroes but unrealistic. You might get cancer yes, but you might fall in love with someone at 60 too.
I agree with the premise, but must it be tied to consumerism? I doubt true happiness will be achieved this way.
jessica murray
well, no, i didn't quite mean to say it should be tied to consumerism, so much as it's broadly a consequence of it.
Think twice
I am losing your thoughts....
Consumerism is tied to living for today which brings happiness?
I live for today, I invest in my health, education and social network and relationships.
I also plan for my future years.
jessica murray
i may have overemphasized the point.
what i was actually getting at was the difference in economic models, regarding the idea of rationality. there's this classical liberal idea that is often referred to as "homo economicus". this erects a construction of rationality that is maybe naive. it is often contrasted with empirical sociological findings that comprise a new underpinning of rationality, which we refer to as behavioural economics.
the behavioural model suggests that we prioritize short term gains over long term planning; it's kind of an argument about human nature, really.
what i was getting at is that a consumer culture that focuses on now strongly suggests that a behavioural model is more useful than the classical liberal model in understanding why people don't seem to be concerned about debt
at
22:48
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
the liberals are currently on track to win 60-70 seats in ontario. that's a 30-40 seat loss for the conservatives, and a 50-60 seat net gain. what's left are union strongholds (like hamilton) and conservative strongholds in the rural provinces.
it is true that the road to power is through ontario, but there's also only so far that the liberals can go in increasing their seat count.
if the liberals want a majority, they need to win seats in calgary and edmonton on top of their 60 seat gain in ontario, which at this point seems solely dependent upon turnout.
i would advise liberal strategists to ignore the advice of their enemies. campaigning in hamilton will at best accomplish nothing and at worst elect a conservative on the split. get to calgary, asap.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/federal-election-leaders-must-win-ontario-1.3267647
*rural parts of the province.
can you just allowing editing, already? yeesh. it's 2015.
Wisewoman
Jessica, in case you hadn't noticed, except for the GTA and a few big centres like London & Windsor, Ontario IS rural, and the Conservatives will win most those ridings.
jessica murray
well, i think you've got the balance wrong in terms of number of seats, though. if you look at a map, it's broadly rural. but if you look at where the seats cluster, it's in urban areas.
if the liberals are really running over 40, as the aggregates are suggesting, then you can expect them to get around 70 seats - and those 70 seats are mostly in toronto and ottawa.
but, my point was that once you get past that, they have almost no chance of further gains. and, that doesn't add up to a majority.
they can't win without toronto & ottawa (& montreal & vancouver). but, they need to find a secondary strategy, and the best chance right now is calgary & edmonton.
it is true that the road to power is through ontario, but there's also only so far that the liberals can go in increasing their seat count.
if the liberals want a majority, they need to win seats in calgary and edmonton on top of their 60 seat gain in ontario, which at this point seems solely dependent upon turnout.
i would advise liberal strategists to ignore the advice of their enemies. campaigning in hamilton will at best accomplish nothing and at worst elect a conservative on the split. get to calgary, asap.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/federal-election-leaders-must-win-ontario-1.3267647
*rural parts of the province.
can you just allowing editing, already? yeesh. it's 2015.
Wisewoman
Jessica, in case you hadn't noticed, except for the GTA and a few big centres like London & Windsor, Ontario IS rural, and the Conservatives will win most those ridings.
jessica murray
well, i think you've got the balance wrong in terms of number of seats, though. if you look at a map, it's broadly rural. but if you look at where the seats cluster, it's in urban areas.
if the liberals are really running over 40, as the aggregates are suggesting, then you can expect them to get around 70 seats - and those 70 seats are mostly in toronto and ottawa.
but, my point was that once you get past that, they have almost no chance of further gains. and, that doesn't add up to a majority.
they can't win without toronto & ottawa (& montreal & vancouver). but, they need to find a secondary strategy, and the best chance right now is calgary & edmonton.
at
22:23
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
there's my quarterly stomach ace.....
it's officially fall in windsor.
it's officially fall in windsor.
at
00:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Monday, October 12, 2015
the best thing trudeau can do to win, right now, is keep his mouth shut and let harper continue to hang himself.
he needs to keep to the platform, repeat his talking points, avoid controversy and let the other guys take the risks. and don't fall for any obvious bait.
it's hard to see where he can get the seats for a majority. if current ontario numbers hold, he could get upsets in seats like newmarket, but it's still not enough. rural quebec is a waste of time. and, the liberals are in a distant third in the union ridings (hamilton, windsor); he gets a breakthrough there, it's just going to elect a conservative. northern ontario is a stretch for cultural reasons.
i'm skeptical about models that give them 4-5 seats in alberta. but, these are urban ridings and they have the same concerns as other urban ridings. cutting right into the heart of the beast is probably his best tactic, right now. if i were him, i'd be flying into alberta and staying there for several days. a hard sell, but the best fight he's got.
"the ndp can't win, vote liberal"
the conservatives are usually under 50% in most of the urban ridings. and albertans tend to vote in blocks. it's feasible.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/multimedia/strategy-time-what-the-liberals-need-to-do-to-win-1.3264658
Thetop1%
Most albertans seem to remember his dad. He will never win a seat in Alberta.
jessica murray
you know, it's interesting that you bring that up.
because i'm 34 years old. and my parents were not old enough to vote for trudeau, except in 1980. my octagenarian grandmother has memories of him, but that's about as close as i'm going to get.
let's do the math.
if you were 20 years old in 1968, you would be 67 years old today. you would need to be retired to have any concept of trudeaumania.
and, if you were 20 years old in 1984, you would be 51 today.
that means that anybody under 50 has no meaningful recollection of pierre trudeau.
now, if you want to debate the merits of the nep, we can do that, too. just so long as you don't tell me to freeze in the dark.
he needs to keep to the platform, repeat his talking points, avoid controversy and let the other guys take the risks. and don't fall for any obvious bait.
it's hard to see where he can get the seats for a majority. if current ontario numbers hold, he could get upsets in seats like newmarket, but it's still not enough. rural quebec is a waste of time. and, the liberals are in a distant third in the union ridings (hamilton, windsor); he gets a breakthrough there, it's just going to elect a conservative. northern ontario is a stretch for cultural reasons.
i'm skeptical about models that give them 4-5 seats in alberta. but, these are urban ridings and they have the same concerns as other urban ridings. cutting right into the heart of the beast is probably his best tactic, right now. if i were him, i'd be flying into alberta and staying there for several days. a hard sell, but the best fight he's got.
"the ndp can't win, vote liberal"
the conservatives are usually under 50% in most of the urban ridings. and albertans tend to vote in blocks. it's feasible.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/multimedia/strategy-time-what-the-liberals-need-to-do-to-win-1.3264658
Thetop1%
Most albertans seem to remember his dad. He will never win a seat in Alberta.
jessica murray
you know, it's interesting that you bring that up.
because i'm 34 years old. and my parents were not old enough to vote for trudeau, except in 1980. my octagenarian grandmother has memories of him, but that's about as close as i'm going to get.
let's do the math.
if you were 20 years old in 1968, you would be 67 years old today. you would need to be retired to have any concept of trudeaumania.
and, if you were 20 years old in 1984, you would be 51 today.
that means that anybody under 50 has no meaningful recollection of pierre trudeau.
now, if you want to debate the merits of the nep, we can do that, too. just so long as you don't tell me to freeze in the dark.
at
23:48
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Mac Skychief
Irrespective of the mass media agenda, I see a guy with long hair..
jessica murray
you know, as a trans person i don't exactly disagree with this.
the problem in this debate is that it sets up this strawman that trans people see ourselves as biologically identical to the gender we identify as. of course we don't. i'm fully aware that i don't menstruate, for example. but, it's really missing the point.
whether you wish to define transwomen as exceedingly effeminate men that choose to live in a female gender role or as female souls converting their exterior to better match their personality is a broadly irrelevant debate around meaningless points of semantics. i, personally, do not really care which of these things you actually think. i just expect a level of basic respect to be attached to my life decisions.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-transgender-woman-challenges-social-media-with-topless-photos-1.3267068
Iknewthat
You have my respect. It's just hard for most of us to understand, because we don't have your point of view and never will. It's confusing.
jessica murray
a lot of people will throw science at you, but if you ask them to actually cite any you won't get any good answers. there's a hypothesis that there may be genetic factors. i'm not going to throw the idea out the window entirely because there are certainly people born with unusual chromosome matchings and it does stand to reason that there may be additional factors. but there's not actually any hard data on the table, and i'm pretty skeptical about it being a general explanation.
i've been posting here a lot since the election call, and i've let on more than once that i'm somewhat of an anarchist that is leaning liberal at the moment. but, social anarchism is essentially extreme liberalism on social issues. and, my actual viewpoint on this is that it's none of your business. a truly liberal perspective on transsexuality is perfectly comfortable with arguing that transition is a harmless personal choice, and that harmless personal choices should be respected for what they are. that applies as equally well to gender identity as it does to marijuana consumption, sexual orientation or whatever other harmless personal choice you want to cite.
that's going to get me on the wrong side of a lot of debates. but, i think we're collectively asking the wrong question, and it's the fact that we're asking the wrong question that's created all these ridiculous perspectives.
Albertasucks
So if I think I'm a chick I can use the chick change room? I can request a police search from a chick? Use the chick washroom? Scream sexual harassment and get a large cheque if a male colleague smiles at me? Just like a chick? Even though I'm a 200 pound male that likes hockey and wears a shirt and tie?
jessica murray
i'm just curious - what's you're opinion on lesbians using the female change room? or gay men using the male change room?
you don't actually have a point. i mean, do you want to tell a trans male with a beard to use the women's change room? or a trans female with breast augmentation to use the men's? but, even if you did, you might want to think it through a bit more. the reality is that gay people exist, and they use public facilities. it is already a fact of life that you have a relatively high chance of bumping into somebody that may be attracted to you when you're using a public facility.
just as an aside about the police check thing, though. about a year ago, i had to go over to detroit to get my border papers signed. i don't have a vehicle, so getting in to the border office was difficult [i ended up getting a lift by a kind fellow at the "welcome to the usa" info station]. in trying to figure out how to get in, i accidentally ended up walking past security on the ambassador bridge, looking for some cops to talk to. they said that the only way they could shuttle me over was to pat me down first, due to protocol, but they couldn't do it because they didn't have any female border guards. i was not able to wave the necessity of being patted down by a female officer, and allow a male officer to pat me down instead. thankfully, that wasn't a huge problem, but it could have been.
the consequences of all of these things can be pretty complicated, when you actually work them out beyond simplistic analyses.
Irrespective of the mass media agenda, I see a guy with long hair..
jessica murray
you know, as a trans person i don't exactly disagree with this.
the problem in this debate is that it sets up this strawman that trans people see ourselves as biologically identical to the gender we identify as. of course we don't. i'm fully aware that i don't menstruate, for example. but, it's really missing the point.
whether you wish to define transwomen as exceedingly effeminate men that choose to live in a female gender role or as female souls converting their exterior to better match their personality is a broadly irrelevant debate around meaningless points of semantics. i, personally, do not really care which of these things you actually think. i just expect a level of basic respect to be attached to my life decisions.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-transgender-woman-challenges-social-media-with-topless-photos-1.3267068
Iknewthat
You have my respect. It's just hard for most of us to understand, because we don't have your point of view and never will. It's confusing.
jessica murray
a lot of people will throw science at you, but if you ask them to actually cite any you won't get any good answers. there's a hypothesis that there may be genetic factors. i'm not going to throw the idea out the window entirely because there are certainly people born with unusual chromosome matchings and it does stand to reason that there may be additional factors. but there's not actually any hard data on the table, and i'm pretty skeptical about it being a general explanation.
i've been posting here a lot since the election call, and i've let on more than once that i'm somewhat of an anarchist that is leaning liberal at the moment. but, social anarchism is essentially extreme liberalism on social issues. and, my actual viewpoint on this is that it's none of your business. a truly liberal perspective on transsexuality is perfectly comfortable with arguing that transition is a harmless personal choice, and that harmless personal choices should be respected for what they are. that applies as equally well to gender identity as it does to marijuana consumption, sexual orientation or whatever other harmless personal choice you want to cite.
that's going to get me on the wrong side of a lot of debates. but, i think we're collectively asking the wrong question, and it's the fact that we're asking the wrong question that's created all these ridiculous perspectives.
Albertasucks
So if I think I'm a chick I can use the chick change room? I can request a police search from a chick? Use the chick washroom? Scream sexual harassment and get a large cheque if a male colleague smiles at me? Just like a chick? Even though I'm a 200 pound male that likes hockey and wears a shirt and tie?
jessica murray
i'm just curious - what's you're opinion on lesbians using the female change room? or gay men using the male change room?
you don't actually have a point. i mean, do you want to tell a trans male with a beard to use the women's change room? or a trans female with breast augmentation to use the men's? but, even if you did, you might want to think it through a bit more. the reality is that gay people exist, and they use public facilities. it is already a fact of life that you have a relatively high chance of bumping into somebody that may be attracted to you when you're using a public facility.
just as an aside about the police check thing, though. about a year ago, i had to go over to detroit to get my border papers signed. i don't have a vehicle, so getting in to the border office was difficult [i ended up getting a lift by a kind fellow at the "welcome to the usa" info station]. in trying to figure out how to get in, i accidentally ended up walking past security on the ambassador bridge, looking for some cops to talk to. they said that the only way they could shuttle me over was to pat me down first, due to protocol, but they couldn't do it because they didn't have any female border guards. i was not able to wave the necessity of being patted down by a female officer, and allow a male officer to pat me down instead. thankfully, that wasn't a huge problem, but it could have been.
the consequences of all of these things can be pretty complicated, when you actually work them out beyond simplistic analyses.
at
23:24
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i don't expect the liberals to support proportional representation; i expect them to push for preferential voting. i'd actually expect them to vote against pr. i also think it's more likely to win a referendum than pr, which i don't think canadians will ever support. the ndp would have to push it through against large scale opposition. the serious options on the table are av, or the status quo. we don't like fptp, but we like local representation [as a trade-off for taxation].
and, i wouldn't expect trudeau to budge much on his platform, either.
a lot of this depends on how fast mulcair goes. easiest answer is he loses his seat, and that's probably likely - it's outremont, and the liberals are way up in montreal. the cbc projections won't budge on it, but they seem to have some kind of clause built in for the party leader; most of the other models are calling for a liberal win in outremont. then, the ndp have to turtle and we get at least one budget in before there's any serious sabre-rattling.
even if he wins his seat, you have to expect he's going to face pressure to resign after losing close to half his caucus. is there a leadership review soon? it's clear that the base is unhappy. then, the ndp has an opportunity to step back from the brink, reconfigure itself and adopt some more characteristic positions.
and, if he somehow holds on and wants to play chicken? i'd expect trudeau to call his bluff and call another election. let's see the ndp try to argue their way out of that one...he'd be more likely to get a majority on it, while the conservatives are picking their own new leader.
it's true that the setup is to vote against the budget. that's what the balanced budget thing is about, it's a tactic to take down a conservative minority, but translates now into a tactic to take down a liberal minority. and, if it's a small minority then expect the government to come down before the first budget - mulcair can't vote for deficit spending, not after the fuss he made about it. he was supposed to get harper on it (expect a deficit next year, regardless of who wins). but, he painted himslf into the corner. however, it seems as though the liberals are like to get a pretty strong minority right now, and that gives them a strong upper hand and mulcair the door.
the large ticket items in the ndp platform are consequently almost certainly off the table. trudeau is going to be able to push through almost whatever he wants. the optimal ndp strategy for the immediate future is going to be to claim victory on a few of the shared points in their platform. they're actually going to want to avoid pushing any of their own signature policies, because they know the liberals will get credit for it.
so, it's...
weak minority - expect another election soon
strong minority - mulcair is done, and the liberals get at last one free budget through.
ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/william-watson-platforms-might-not-mean-much-without-a-majority
and, i wouldn't expect trudeau to budge much on his platform, either.
a lot of this depends on how fast mulcair goes. easiest answer is he loses his seat, and that's probably likely - it's outremont, and the liberals are way up in montreal. the cbc projections won't budge on it, but they seem to have some kind of clause built in for the party leader; most of the other models are calling for a liberal win in outremont. then, the ndp have to turtle and we get at least one budget in before there's any serious sabre-rattling.
even if he wins his seat, you have to expect he's going to face pressure to resign after losing close to half his caucus. is there a leadership review soon? it's clear that the base is unhappy. then, the ndp has an opportunity to step back from the brink, reconfigure itself and adopt some more characteristic positions.
and, if he somehow holds on and wants to play chicken? i'd expect trudeau to call his bluff and call another election. let's see the ndp try to argue their way out of that one...he'd be more likely to get a majority on it, while the conservatives are picking their own new leader.
it's true that the setup is to vote against the budget. that's what the balanced budget thing is about, it's a tactic to take down a conservative minority, but translates now into a tactic to take down a liberal minority. and, if it's a small minority then expect the government to come down before the first budget - mulcair can't vote for deficit spending, not after the fuss he made about it. he was supposed to get harper on it (expect a deficit next year, regardless of who wins). but, he painted himslf into the corner. however, it seems as though the liberals are like to get a pretty strong minority right now, and that gives them a strong upper hand and mulcair the door.
the large ticket items in the ndp platform are consequently almost certainly off the table. trudeau is going to be able to push through almost whatever he wants. the optimal ndp strategy for the immediate future is going to be to claim victory on a few of the shared points in their platform. they're actually going to want to avoid pushing any of their own signature policies, because they know the liberals will get credit for it.
so, it's...
weak minority - expect another election soon
strong minority - mulcair is done, and the liberals get at last one free budget through.
ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/william-watson-platforms-might-not-mean-much-without-a-majority
at
23:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
he was being more reasonable last week, but we see he's back to the demagoguery again.
get as much information about your local riding as you can if you plan to vote strategically.
but, he surely knows that the liberals are ahead in most of the lower mainland right now. and, his argument about existing seats is so ridiculous as to be insulting.
same old same old.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulcair-blitzes-western-provinces-where-ndp-hopes-to-make-gains/article26770357/
get as much information about your local riding as you can if you plan to vote strategically.
but, he surely knows that the liberals are ahead in most of the lower mainland right now. and, his argument about existing seats is so ridiculous as to be insulting.
same old same old.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulcair-blitzes-western-provinces-where-ndp-hopes-to-make-gains/article26770357/
at
22:18
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i actually think it's mostly pretty clear, but take my word carefully - and check as much information as you can before you make a choice.
the general rules are...
- heavily unionized ridings (hamilton, windsor) are ndp locks. liberals are not competitive in rural ridings in most of the country, outside of southern ontario - that has to do with things like gun rights. the other exceptions are the northern prairies and out east. there are also a handful of legitimately solid mps (like paul dewar) in what should otherwise by liberal ridings that have earned their seat. if you're in a riding with a multiple term high profile ndp mp, consider the incumbency effect.
- liberals are the more competitive option in almost all non-unionized urban and suburban ridings, and in rural ridings in southern ontario. the exceptions are ndp-liberal races, and some western ridings. it should be obvious to most people in saskatchwan that the ndp is more competitive, and it should be obvious to most people in toronto that the liberals are more competitive.
the places where it gets confusing are in mixed ridings. that kitchener riding is a good example. kitchener has some union workers, but it's also somewhere between a big town and a small city, so it gets the rural/urban split vote. but, it's the exception, not the rule. most small town ridings are still too small town for this to work itself out. but, i'd keep an eye on growing cities like kelowna and lethbridge in the next election.
so, thankfully, i really don't think the split is as much a concern as it seemed like it was going to be, because the vote seems to be aligning rationally. i was freaking out a few weeks ago that the ndp were going to get a boost in ontario, and it would just elect conservatives. but, thankfully, that's not actually happening.
excluding the mixed ridings, the only other place where i think this is going to be a big issue is alberta. the conservatives are down. it seems like they're polling in the high 30s and low 40s in a lot of places. but, the vote is not coalescing around either the liberals or the ndp. it seems like long time conservative supporters are giving the liberals a sort of a break, here. it remains to be seen whether ndp supporters line up or not. if they do, we could finally see edmonton and calgary align with the cross-country urban consensus. and, i think that would not just be good for the parliament, but good for the country. the really key argument that both leadnow and the liberal party need to make right now is to line up behind the liberals in calgary and most of edmonton (excluding those two ridings where the ndp are ahead).
there's also eastern quebec, where bloc/ndp splits may elect conservatives. that should also be keyed on, but it probably won't affect the outcome of the election.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections/the-big-experiment-of-voting-strategically-this-election/article26767617/
Formerlyrbfromcalgary
Outrageously funny misreading of Alberta data, I hope your incompetence is reflected in other areas.
There are precisely 6 out of 34 Alberta ridings, and that would be 6 out of 19 urban Alberta ridings where non-Tories have a good chance of winning.
Percentage of vote for the Tories, province wide AND in totalled in urban ridings will be well over 50%
The NDP support is clustered in 2 Edmonton ridings: elsewhere they are almost non existent.
Of the 28 Alberta ridings with the Tories polling in the lead, there are a total of 6 of those ridings where 100 % of the combined vote for the Libbies and NDP would exceed the Tories.
Given the massive buyers remorse at the provincial NDP victory, it would be fair to assume that any strategic voting in Alberta would have a quite different target - Mulcair.
A "big issue" in Alberta?
Too funny
deathtokoalas
i'm going to reiterate that if you look at the data more closely, you'll see that the conservatives are down a good ten points, at least. you can exaggerate that a little in the urban ridings. so, that takes them down to the high 30s and low 40s. strategic voting could pull off some upsets, if they're targeted well.
if i was the liberal party, i'd have trudeau on a plane to calgary. it's his best fight right now. let toronto's local candidates keep up the fight in the 905.
and, frankly, i think the idea of trudeau showing up and campaigning in harper's riding is excellent theatre across the country.
2011 results - 66%.
cbc poll average - 53%
Formerlyrbfromcalgary
You're numbers vis a vis Alberta are way out. Check out ThreeHundredEight.
Their history is actually pretty good. In the few ridings where Tory support is in the thirties, those ridings can be expected to go Liberal or NDP already.
Elsewhere, not even close for the vast majority.
Absolutely no groundswell for Libbies or dippers breaking through meaningfully
in Alberta.
In fact, a reasonable chance that NDP percentage of vote will be lower than last election
deathtokoalas
i have a background in math, and trust me when i say that those models are making a lot of guesses. they use a proportional model, and they argue that it's better across the board. i think the better argument is that you need to use a mixed model, based on what you understand about the specific cases. in alberta, you don't expect rural ridings to swing much, so you want to avoid the kind of proportionality they're using, which is going to underestimate the swing by distributing it province wide. you want the opposite effect. so, if they're down 10-15 points province wide, then they're down 20-25 points in the cities, to balance out for stasis in the rural regions. that means 55-65 falls down from 30-35, to 40-45.
but, you're not really getting what i'm saying - what i'm saying is that if strategic voting groups get behind the liberals (who are clearly polling higher in calgary and most of edmonton), then getting ndp voters to support the liberals could create some serious upsets.
the models haven't been very good with the last few alberta elections, and i think this is the reason why - they take the province wide numbers and proportionally decrease them. so, 66--->53 would be a 20% decrease. they would then conclude that they're down 20% across the province. so, if they got 80% in some rural riding in 2011, they would cut them down 20%, which is 16 points, to 64. but that's likely inaccurate. they're probably still running at 80% in those rural ridings.
conversely, if they won a riding with 55%, they would take that down 20%, which is 11 points, to 44. but considering that they're running down 20%, and they're probably not down at all in the rural ridings, what you want to actually do is amplify that so that the total gets to 20%. it turns out calgary and edmonton are about half of the population of alberta. so, what you want to actually do is double it 40%.
then 55% becomes 33%, and 65% becomes 43%.
(sorry. the 55-65 is urban. to be clear.)
but don't listen to me. nobody ever does. just wait for the result to prove me right, and watch edmontonians and calgarians bang their head against the wall for splitting the vote.
the general rules are...
- heavily unionized ridings (hamilton, windsor) are ndp locks. liberals are not competitive in rural ridings in most of the country, outside of southern ontario - that has to do with things like gun rights. the other exceptions are the northern prairies and out east. there are also a handful of legitimately solid mps (like paul dewar) in what should otherwise by liberal ridings that have earned their seat. if you're in a riding with a multiple term high profile ndp mp, consider the incumbency effect.
- liberals are the more competitive option in almost all non-unionized urban and suburban ridings, and in rural ridings in southern ontario. the exceptions are ndp-liberal races, and some western ridings. it should be obvious to most people in saskatchwan that the ndp is more competitive, and it should be obvious to most people in toronto that the liberals are more competitive.
the places where it gets confusing are in mixed ridings. that kitchener riding is a good example. kitchener has some union workers, but it's also somewhere between a big town and a small city, so it gets the rural/urban split vote. but, it's the exception, not the rule. most small town ridings are still too small town for this to work itself out. but, i'd keep an eye on growing cities like kelowna and lethbridge in the next election.
so, thankfully, i really don't think the split is as much a concern as it seemed like it was going to be, because the vote seems to be aligning rationally. i was freaking out a few weeks ago that the ndp were going to get a boost in ontario, and it would just elect conservatives. but, thankfully, that's not actually happening.
excluding the mixed ridings, the only other place where i think this is going to be a big issue is alberta. the conservatives are down. it seems like they're polling in the high 30s and low 40s in a lot of places. but, the vote is not coalescing around either the liberals or the ndp. it seems like long time conservative supporters are giving the liberals a sort of a break, here. it remains to be seen whether ndp supporters line up or not. if they do, we could finally see edmonton and calgary align with the cross-country urban consensus. and, i think that would not just be good for the parliament, but good for the country. the really key argument that both leadnow and the liberal party need to make right now is to line up behind the liberals in calgary and most of edmonton (excluding those two ridings where the ndp are ahead).
there's also eastern quebec, where bloc/ndp splits may elect conservatives. that should also be keyed on, but it probably won't affect the outcome of the election.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections/the-big-experiment-of-voting-strategically-this-election/article26767617/
Formerlyrbfromcalgary
Outrageously funny misreading of Alberta data, I hope your incompetence is reflected in other areas.
There are precisely 6 out of 34 Alberta ridings, and that would be 6 out of 19 urban Alberta ridings where non-Tories have a good chance of winning.
Percentage of vote for the Tories, province wide AND in totalled in urban ridings will be well over 50%
The NDP support is clustered in 2 Edmonton ridings: elsewhere they are almost non existent.
Of the 28 Alberta ridings with the Tories polling in the lead, there are a total of 6 of those ridings where 100 % of the combined vote for the Libbies and NDP would exceed the Tories.
Given the massive buyers remorse at the provincial NDP victory, it would be fair to assume that any strategic voting in Alberta would have a quite different target - Mulcair.
A "big issue" in Alberta?
Too funny
deathtokoalas
i'm going to reiterate that if you look at the data more closely, you'll see that the conservatives are down a good ten points, at least. you can exaggerate that a little in the urban ridings. so, that takes them down to the high 30s and low 40s. strategic voting could pull off some upsets, if they're targeted well.
if i was the liberal party, i'd have trudeau on a plane to calgary. it's his best fight right now. let toronto's local candidates keep up the fight in the 905.
and, frankly, i think the idea of trudeau showing up and campaigning in harper's riding is excellent theatre across the country.
2011 results - 66%.
cbc poll average - 53%
Formerlyrbfromcalgary
You're numbers vis a vis Alberta are way out. Check out ThreeHundredEight.
Their history is actually pretty good. In the few ridings where Tory support is in the thirties, those ridings can be expected to go Liberal or NDP already.
Elsewhere, not even close for the vast majority.
Absolutely no groundswell for Libbies or dippers breaking through meaningfully
in Alberta.
In fact, a reasonable chance that NDP percentage of vote will be lower than last election
deathtokoalas
i have a background in math, and trust me when i say that those models are making a lot of guesses. they use a proportional model, and they argue that it's better across the board. i think the better argument is that you need to use a mixed model, based on what you understand about the specific cases. in alberta, you don't expect rural ridings to swing much, so you want to avoid the kind of proportionality they're using, which is going to underestimate the swing by distributing it province wide. you want the opposite effect. so, if they're down 10-15 points province wide, then they're down 20-25 points in the cities, to balance out for stasis in the rural regions. that means 55-65 falls down from 30-35, to 40-45.
but, you're not really getting what i'm saying - what i'm saying is that if strategic voting groups get behind the liberals (who are clearly polling higher in calgary and most of edmonton), then getting ndp voters to support the liberals could create some serious upsets.
the models haven't been very good with the last few alberta elections, and i think this is the reason why - they take the province wide numbers and proportionally decrease them. so, 66--->53 would be a 20% decrease. they would then conclude that they're down 20% across the province. so, if they got 80% in some rural riding in 2011, they would cut them down 20%, which is 16 points, to 64. but that's likely inaccurate. they're probably still running at 80% in those rural ridings.
conversely, if they won a riding with 55%, they would take that down 20%, which is 11 points, to 44. but considering that they're running down 20%, and they're probably not down at all in the rural ridings, what you want to actually do is amplify that so that the total gets to 20%. it turns out calgary and edmonton are about half of the population of alberta. so, what you want to actually do is double it 40%.
then 55% becomes 33%, and 65% becomes 43%.
(sorry. the 55-65 is urban. to be clear.)
but don't listen to me. nobody ever does. just wait for the result to prove me right, and watch edmontonians and calgarians bang their head against the wall for splitting the vote.
at
22:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Shannon Mitchell
Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but aren't you the guy who helped run the Liberal Party into the ground?
jessica amber murray
dion was competitive. the conservatives didn't improve their vote share much; it was a redistrbution of votes on the left that cost him, and i don't think he was responsible for that. i think he would have improved his vote share had he stayed on and run in 2011. it was ignatieff that was unelectable, created an increase in conservative support and is solely responsible for nearly destroying the party.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/stephane-dion/two-sides-of-the-ndp_b_8209544.html
Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but aren't you the guy who helped run the Liberal Party into the ground?
jessica amber murray
dion was competitive. the conservatives didn't improve their vote share much; it was a redistrbution of votes on the left that cost him, and i don't think he was responsible for that. i think he would have improved his vote share had he stayed on and run in 2011. it was ignatieff that was unelectable, created an increase in conservative support and is solely responsible for nearly destroying the party.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/stephane-dion/two-sides-of-the-ndp_b_8209544.html
at
21:08
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
there's a constitutional idea in canada called the division of powers that separates provincial and federal responsibilities. it has historically led to some lengthy court battles. that firewall between provincial and federal politics is a big part of the legal framework of the country. it is the federal government's legal responsibility to *not* involve itself.
this is really just another media construction. next, we're going to be arguing about evolution because the headlines are good click bait....
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/12/greater-toronto-area-home-to-a-few-distinct-fights-in-this-election_n_8278682.html
this is really just another media construction. next, we're going to be arguing about evolution because the headlines are good click bait....
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/12/greater-toronto-area-home-to-a-few-distinct-fights-in-this-election_n_8278682.html
at
20:45
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
wackado
Mulcair blew the election on the niqab issue.... now JT will gather all the orange wave in Que. ,,, Oh well
Elvislevel
Anybody have a theory of how the niqab issue hit the NDP but not the Liberals who have the same position? One theory is that the pro-racism parties picked up NDP votes in Quebec but then lost it all in the rest of Canada, where the "defending women" argument makes a lot of people want to throw up.
deathtokoalas
it's nonsense. if anything, it seems to have helped the liberals in toronto and vancouver, which the conservatives needed to win. and, the polling has not consistently demonstrated a bump for the conservatives in quebec, either. my read is that a bit of sampling error coincided with the fiasco, and the media jumped all over it like the vultures that they are.
you can explain the ndp's fall almost entirely on their collapse in quebec. they were never running much higher than 20 anywhere else, to begin with.
when people look back on this election, they're going to point to the niqab as a massive blunder, not as a brilliant tactic. it's going to cost the conservatives the election on a massive urban and suburban collapse.
it's beginning to look like they may lose every single urban seat they have outside of alberta, and even calgary and edmonton are starting to loosen up.
the ndp got a lot from the bloc in 2011, yes. but, they also got a nice ten point swing from the liberals in quebec. now, they're down that same ten points to the liberals and really only a couple to the bloc, while the conservatives have stayed roughly steady. i don't think you really need an explanation for this at all. it was just soft support, based on perceptions and other things. the biggest thing trudeau has going for him is that he's not ignatieff - and that he's a native french speaker, as well. and, everybody should have known it was going to be hard for the ndp to hold bloc support.
the media wants an easy to understand story. they want cause and effect. i don't think that's what is actually happening. i think the lead was sort of an apparition in the first place, and all that soft support is just realigning with where it really always was in the first place.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections/parties-take-aim-at-trudeau-as-liberals-lead-polls/article26768494/
Mulcair blew the election on the niqab issue.... now JT will gather all the orange wave in Que. ,,, Oh well
Elvislevel
Anybody have a theory of how the niqab issue hit the NDP but not the Liberals who have the same position? One theory is that the pro-racism parties picked up NDP votes in Quebec but then lost it all in the rest of Canada, where the "defending women" argument makes a lot of people want to throw up.
deathtokoalas
it's nonsense. if anything, it seems to have helped the liberals in toronto and vancouver, which the conservatives needed to win. and, the polling has not consistently demonstrated a bump for the conservatives in quebec, either. my read is that a bit of sampling error coincided with the fiasco, and the media jumped all over it like the vultures that they are.
you can explain the ndp's fall almost entirely on their collapse in quebec. they were never running much higher than 20 anywhere else, to begin with.
when people look back on this election, they're going to point to the niqab as a massive blunder, not as a brilliant tactic. it's going to cost the conservatives the election on a massive urban and suburban collapse.
it's beginning to look like they may lose every single urban seat they have outside of alberta, and even calgary and edmonton are starting to loosen up.
the ndp got a lot from the bloc in 2011, yes. but, they also got a nice ten point swing from the liberals in quebec. now, they're down that same ten points to the liberals and really only a couple to the bloc, while the conservatives have stayed roughly steady. i don't think you really need an explanation for this at all. it was just soft support, based on perceptions and other things. the biggest thing trudeau has going for him is that he's not ignatieff - and that he's a native french speaker, as well. and, everybody should have known it was going to be hard for the ndp to hold bloc support.
the media wants an easy to understand story. they want cause and effect. i don't think that's what is actually happening. i think the lead was sort of an apparition in the first place, and all that soft support is just realigning with where it really always was in the first place.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections/parties-take-aim-at-trudeau-as-liberals-lead-polls/article26768494/
at
20:08
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
careful...
i'm not arguing. i'm just saying: carefully, please.
the ndp is about as far down as it's going to go, out of quebec. that's mission accomplished. this is what he's gotta do, now.
it's just...
careful. please.
ipolitics.ca/2015/10/12/confident-trudeau-makes-pitch-to-conservative-voters-in-areas-held-by-rivals/
i'm not arguing. i'm just saying: carefully, please.
the ndp is about as far down as it's going to go, out of quebec. that's mission accomplished. this is what he's gotta do, now.
it's just...
careful. please.
ipolitics.ca/2015/10/12/confident-trudeau-makes-pitch-to-conservative-voters-in-areas-held-by-rivals/
at
19:43
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
so, the deficit.
a lot of people think it's what gave trudeau a boost. and, it's likely to be a big factor in passing a budget if we end up with a liberal minority that needs ndp support. so, what's the deal with this, anyways?
the conservatives made a big stink about balancing the budget, and they're within a sort of error point. a budget is an estimate. it has a margin of error. so, you're up a billion, down a billion - it doesn't matter.
what allowed them to pull this off this year was a large sell-off of automotive shares. that goes back to the bailouts. canada actually had a substantial interest in some auto companies for a while. selling those shares brought in a lot of cash, which got them just over the hump.
but, there's another side of this: oil revenues. had oil not crashed early this year, they would have posted a substantial surplus on the back of the sell-off. but, oil crashed, and it's pulled them down to the margin of error.
now, a big part of the conservative party's messaging to it's own base is about balancing budgets. i'm very to the left on this; i don't think money is real, i'm ok with printing it, and i don't care. but, it's a big thing for conservatives that naively understand the government as needing to follow a family-style budget. there's been much written about this, i won't bother. but it doesn't really matter, so long as interest rates are at reasonable levels.
but, the fact that oil has crashed, and probably isn't coming back for a while, means that the conservatives are not going to be able to balance the budget next year, because they won't have the auto sell-off. they'll say otherwise. but, it's pretty clear.
enter the ndp. a few weeks ago, it seemed like the most likely outcome of the election was going to be a conservative minority with an ndp opposition. that would create a parliament where the ndp is waiting to pull the plug on the conservatives - and the usual way to do this would be to vote against the budget. so, they came up with this strategy of being staunchly opposed to deficits. the plan was that they could vote down the budget because of the deficit, then hopefully convince conservatives to vote for them.
so, the liberals decided that they would run deficits. now, you can analyze this a few different ways. the conventional analysis is that it was to position themselves left of the ndp, and it may have some truth to it - i'm certainly more in favour of that. but, it may have also been because they realized there was going to be a deficit due to oil sales, and they wanted to give themselves a little bit of room to not automatically vote against the budget. last month, it would have been reasonable to conclude that a snap election on the ndp rejecting the budget could have hurt them pretty badly.
so, the key thing to understand is that this is all about the next budget. the ndp are trying to create a situation where they can vote against it on terms favourable to conservative voters that they'd like to swing, and the liberals are trying to position themselves in a way that they're not forced into a second election that, relative to polling last month, could have been a disaster for them.
which is not to say that the liberals are being disingenuous, it's more to point out that the logic is something along the lines of "if we're going to run a deficit anyways, let's not set ourselves up to get nailed when we do, and let's get some infrastructure done that needs to be built anyways.". the liberals are very pragmatic, always have been.
so, now, weeks later, the polls have changed dramatically, with the ndp falling to a distant third and the liberals in possible reach of a majority. the most likely scenario at this point appears to be a liberal minority that will need ndp support to survive.
we're going to have a deficit anyways because of the oil; it's not just because of the spending, this is unpreventable - even if you think it matters. but, the ndp have painted themselves into a corner, where it's going to be very hard for them to support the liberals, even if they want to - or, indeed, feel they need to. the situation may even be reversed - trudeau could see himself want to push for an election to try and get a majority.
there's a twist: mulcair is actually probably going to lose his seat. he's actually running in pierre trudeau's old riding. when liberal support in montreal goes up, outremont goes liberal. it's like gravity. he's just in the wrong riding.
if he loses, the situation changes.
but, if he wins then prepare yourself for this.
the media is pushing this idea that the ndp and liberals are the same, and they'll have a "coalition" and it's all rosy and they'll get along just fine. the reality is almost the exact opposite: the ndp have set this up on purpose, and unless the leadership changes you should not expect the liberals to be able to pass a budget. we will have another election within a year.
the way out is a liberal majority. but, it's hard to see how that might be possible without some kind of a tectonic shift in quebec, or very extreme strategic voting in edmonton and calgary.
so, that's what is with the deficit. oil prices make a surplus impossible. the conservatives will run a deficit next year. the liberals will run a deficit next year. and, if the ndp somehow manages to win, they're going to run a deficit, too. but, if the liberals do not get a majority, and mulcair remains leader of the ndp until that point, you can bet a hefty sum that the budget will be unable to pass, because of that deficit.
a lot of people think it's what gave trudeau a boost. and, it's likely to be a big factor in passing a budget if we end up with a liberal minority that needs ndp support. so, what's the deal with this, anyways?
the conservatives made a big stink about balancing the budget, and they're within a sort of error point. a budget is an estimate. it has a margin of error. so, you're up a billion, down a billion - it doesn't matter.
what allowed them to pull this off this year was a large sell-off of automotive shares. that goes back to the bailouts. canada actually had a substantial interest in some auto companies for a while. selling those shares brought in a lot of cash, which got them just over the hump.
but, there's another side of this: oil revenues. had oil not crashed early this year, they would have posted a substantial surplus on the back of the sell-off. but, oil crashed, and it's pulled them down to the margin of error.
now, a big part of the conservative party's messaging to it's own base is about balancing budgets. i'm very to the left on this; i don't think money is real, i'm ok with printing it, and i don't care. but, it's a big thing for conservatives that naively understand the government as needing to follow a family-style budget. there's been much written about this, i won't bother. but it doesn't really matter, so long as interest rates are at reasonable levels.
but, the fact that oil has crashed, and probably isn't coming back for a while, means that the conservatives are not going to be able to balance the budget next year, because they won't have the auto sell-off. they'll say otherwise. but, it's pretty clear.
enter the ndp. a few weeks ago, it seemed like the most likely outcome of the election was going to be a conservative minority with an ndp opposition. that would create a parliament where the ndp is waiting to pull the plug on the conservatives - and the usual way to do this would be to vote against the budget. so, they came up with this strategy of being staunchly opposed to deficits. the plan was that they could vote down the budget because of the deficit, then hopefully convince conservatives to vote for them.
so, the liberals decided that they would run deficits. now, you can analyze this a few different ways. the conventional analysis is that it was to position themselves left of the ndp, and it may have some truth to it - i'm certainly more in favour of that. but, it may have also been because they realized there was going to be a deficit due to oil sales, and they wanted to give themselves a little bit of room to not automatically vote against the budget. last month, it would have been reasonable to conclude that a snap election on the ndp rejecting the budget could have hurt them pretty badly.
so, the key thing to understand is that this is all about the next budget. the ndp are trying to create a situation where they can vote against it on terms favourable to conservative voters that they'd like to swing, and the liberals are trying to position themselves in a way that they're not forced into a second election that, relative to polling last month, could have been a disaster for them.
which is not to say that the liberals are being disingenuous, it's more to point out that the logic is something along the lines of "if we're going to run a deficit anyways, let's not set ourselves up to get nailed when we do, and let's get some infrastructure done that needs to be built anyways.". the liberals are very pragmatic, always have been.
so, now, weeks later, the polls have changed dramatically, with the ndp falling to a distant third and the liberals in possible reach of a majority. the most likely scenario at this point appears to be a liberal minority that will need ndp support to survive.
we're going to have a deficit anyways because of the oil; it's not just because of the spending, this is unpreventable - even if you think it matters. but, the ndp have painted themselves into a corner, where it's going to be very hard for them to support the liberals, even if they want to - or, indeed, feel they need to. the situation may even be reversed - trudeau could see himself want to push for an election to try and get a majority.
there's a twist: mulcair is actually probably going to lose his seat. he's actually running in pierre trudeau's old riding. when liberal support in montreal goes up, outremont goes liberal. it's like gravity. he's just in the wrong riding.
if he loses, the situation changes.
but, if he wins then prepare yourself for this.
the media is pushing this idea that the ndp and liberals are the same, and they'll have a "coalition" and it's all rosy and they'll get along just fine. the reality is almost the exact opposite: the ndp have set this up on purpose, and unless the leadership changes you should not expect the liberals to be able to pass a budget. we will have another election within a year.
the way out is a liberal majority. but, it's hard to see how that might be possible without some kind of a tectonic shift in quebec, or very extreme strategic voting in edmonton and calgary.
so, that's what is with the deficit. oil prices make a surplus impossible. the conservatives will run a deficit next year. the liberals will run a deficit next year. and, if the ndp somehow manages to win, they're going to run a deficit, too. but, if the liberals do not get a majority, and mulcair remains leader of the ndp until that point, you can bet a hefty sum that the budget will be unable to pass, because of that deficit.
at
04:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Sunday, October 11, 2015
so, i'm starting to get notifications on status updates, and it's pissing me off, so i'm just unfriending everybody.
the reality is that i don't read my news feed. if you want to follow me, go ahead.
the reality is that i don't read my news feed. if you want to follow me, go ahead.
at
17:07
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this gentle dreamer v. hopeless cynic thing has always bothered me. you just need to throw a little realism in there to break the false dichotomy.
gentle dreamer + empirical analysis = hopeless cynic.
i'm a cynic *because* i'm a dreamer.
there's no contradiction in dreaming of things that never were and asking why not, and being realistic about what the answer actually is.
gentle dreamer + empirical analysis = hopeless cynic.
i'm a cynic *because* i'm a dreamer.
there's no contradiction in dreaming of things that never were and asking why not, and being realistic about what the answer actually is.
at
13:58
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Saturday, October 10, 2015
ah, but what's the age of the earth? brain freeze.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp5kHO0Jyfk
see, friedman is right but he's not taking it to it's logical conclusion. there's a widespread understanding that these regimes can only stay in place due to us backing. so, there's really some truth in the idea that getting to the united states is a kind of root cause analysis.
there's not a way to really take the monarchy in saudi arabia down, if we're constantly propping it up with weapons sales and building bases there and everything else.
it's politics first. religion is the means to the end to carry out the politics. and the foreign policy issue is the logical conclusion of the political concern. you're not picking and choosing to get the right answer, it's all interrelated.
but, it's not any real concern about the united states. it's a lack of concern for the lives of american citizens, in carrying out a tactical strike that they think will be useful in carrying out their regional geopolitical aims.
and, that's understood by the pentagon. it's why they've created a mess in the region, to keep the fight there.
i'm generally with dawkins on most things, but he seems to get the causality on this backwards. maher...he usually has a valid point to make, but he often ruins it with fuzzy thinking. you need to be a lot more careful with maher; he's usually right, but only in warped ways, and only if you correct his over generalizations. i don't exactly think he's a racist, so much as i think he's prone to generalizing specifics and legitimately doesn't understand what's wrong with it. it's not that he's approaching things with a discriminatory mindset, so much as that he's not very good at analyzing information, and honestly draws poor conclusions as a consequence of it.
but, religion is being brandished as a tool, here; it's not the root cause. if you could get in the way somehow, it might help, but only to a point. you can replace religion with nationalism or some other means of brainwashing. it's the political motives that are the actual concern, and we do share quite a bit of the blame for creating necessary reactions to obvious crimes.
the difference is that i think dawkins is going to see the logic in that. he might push back a little, but he's going to broadly agree. i consider him more in line with hitchens, who would certainly agree [if i'm not indirectly quoting him in the first place]. maher and harris and a few of the others are going to make excuses. or try and invalidate that, or say there's some answer, or draw foolish comparisons, or whatever else. and, they'll cross lines, sometimes. with maher, i get the impression he often doesn't know any better; i can't give harris the same benefit of the doubt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp5kHO0Jyfk
see, friedman is right but he's not taking it to it's logical conclusion. there's a widespread understanding that these regimes can only stay in place due to us backing. so, there's really some truth in the idea that getting to the united states is a kind of root cause analysis.
there's not a way to really take the monarchy in saudi arabia down, if we're constantly propping it up with weapons sales and building bases there and everything else.
it's politics first. religion is the means to the end to carry out the politics. and the foreign policy issue is the logical conclusion of the political concern. you're not picking and choosing to get the right answer, it's all interrelated.
but, it's not any real concern about the united states. it's a lack of concern for the lives of american citizens, in carrying out a tactical strike that they think will be useful in carrying out their regional geopolitical aims.
and, that's understood by the pentagon. it's why they've created a mess in the region, to keep the fight there.
i'm generally with dawkins on most things, but he seems to get the causality on this backwards. maher...he usually has a valid point to make, but he often ruins it with fuzzy thinking. you need to be a lot more careful with maher; he's usually right, but only in warped ways, and only if you correct his over generalizations. i don't exactly think he's a racist, so much as i think he's prone to generalizing specifics and legitimately doesn't understand what's wrong with it. it's not that he's approaching things with a discriminatory mindset, so much as that he's not very good at analyzing information, and honestly draws poor conclusions as a consequence of it.
but, religion is being brandished as a tool, here; it's not the root cause. if you could get in the way somehow, it might help, but only to a point. you can replace religion with nationalism or some other means of brainwashing. it's the political motives that are the actual concern, and we do share quite a bit of the blame for creating necessary reactions to obvious crimes.
the difference is that i think dawkins is going to see the logic in that. he might push back a little, but he's going to broadly agree. i consider him more in line with hitchens, who would certainly agree [if i'm not indirectly quoting him in the first place]. maher and harris and a few of the others are going to make excuses. or try and invalidate that, or say there's some answer, or draw foolish comparisons, or whatever else. and, they'll cross lines, sometimes. with maher, i get the impression he often doesn't know any better; i can't give harris the same benefit of the doubt.
at
03:23
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
actually, stem majors have the highest degrees of unemployment nowadays. what you’re saying was true 30 years ago. but, then we were all told to study stem courses, and we’ve ended up with a giant surplus of people with stem degrees, which has both driven down wages and let to mass underemployment.
i’ve seen jobs that require biology degrees *and* experience that start at $11/hr. i’ve met people with phds in mathematics that have to rely on their physical appearance to get jobs as servers.
i’m 34, and probably belong in the 35-50 demographic for cultural reasons [i’d identify as gen x], but there’s a lot of good reasons why young people are going to want to grasp on to the party most likely to defeat the conservatives, which is clearly the liberals at this point. i think what’s more interesting is trying to answer why people in retirement are so keen on voting conservative, and my best guess is they don’t want their stocks taxed.
if you look at changes in income over the last thirty years, the only people that have benefited are older people. there’s a reason for it: the financial system is designed that way. so, if you ask the question “are you better off…”, the truth is that older people really are – but younger people definitely are not.
none of the parties are really pushing any kind of wealth redistribution from the older to the younger, but the conservatives have done a few things to prevent that kind of redistribution, and the fear may be that some of it may end up getting undone.
so, yeah, it’s rational: but only if you’re actually an older person, and are commanding the wealth.
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/liberals-and-conservative-in-dead-heat/#comment-58062
i’ve seen jobs that require biology degrees *and* experience that start at $11/hr. i’ve met people with phds in mathematics that have to rely on their physical appearance to get jobs as servers.
i’m 34, and probably belong in the 35-50 demographic for cultural reasons [i’d identify as gen x], but there’s a lot of good reasons why young people are going to want to grasp on to the party most likely to defeat the conservatives, which is clearly the liberals at this point. i think what’s more interesting is trying to answer why people in retirement are so keen on voting conservative, and my best guess is they don’t want their stocks taxed.
if you look at changes in income over the last thirty years, the only people that have benefited are older people. there’s a reason for it: the financial system is designed that way. so, if you ask the question “are you better off…”, the truth is that older people really are – but younger people definitely are not.
none of the parties are really pushing any kind of wealth redistribution from the older to the younger, but the conservatives have done a few things to prevent that kind of redistribution, and the fear may be that some of it may end up getting undone.
so, yeah, it’s rational: but only if you’re actually an older person, and are commanding the wealth.
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/liberals-and-conservative-in-dead-heat/#comment-58062
at
00:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Friday, October 9, 2015
they still have baseball?
umm. is pedro martinez still playing?
let's go! ex-pos!
i somehow doubt kids in montreal are going to react very well to getting a blue jays sweater in the mail from...geez, kids aren't even going to know what eatons was...
point is: far less people care than is being suggested. i tuned out after the 1994 strike, and never tuned in. 'cause the fact is that it really is ridiculously boring. and, most of the country feels little, if any, connection to toronto.
maximum impact scenario is that it keeps some rob ford voters at home.
www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/mlb/blue-jays-rangers-game-2-extra-innings-1.3264555
umm. is pedro martinez still playing?
let's go! ex-pos!
i somehow doubt kids in montreal are going to react very well to getting a blue jays sweater in the mail from...geez, kids aren't even going to know what eatons was...
point is: far less people care than is being suggested. i tuned out after the 1994 strike, and never tuned in. 'cause the fact is that it really is ridiculously boring. and, most of the country feels little, if any, connection to toronto.
maximum impact scenario is that it keeps some rob ford voters at home.
www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/mlb/blue-jays-rangers-game-2-extra-innings-1.3264555
at
23:31
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
see, this is another example of tactics backfiring. look at that line. it's all seniors that decided they were going to vote conservative in 2015 some time around 1973. nothing's going to sway these cats, so they want to get their votes in early. it's the last minute voters that he wants to slow down, not the sure and steady card-carrying advance voters...
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/election-2015-toronto-voters-report-long-lines-at-advance-polls-1.3265731
my name must be unique
actually, a lot of those people are voting early because they don't want to deal with improper de-registration on Oct. 19, they want to make sure their vote against harper actually counts
jessica murray
mmmhmmm.
some polls are suggesting that harper may be pulling in as much as 50% of the senior vote right now.
Strategic Voter
my Strategic vote was in as of this afternoon
jessica murray
not very strategic, then. what if the data flips this week?
Me like Harper, Ugh!
Don't count on it being seniors, Jessica. I'm 65 next month and I despise the harperoid. In 1973 I was all idealistic and 'love conquers all'ish. I have never changed my value system and I'm pretty sure most of my fellow seniors think like me...unless they got stupid-rich in the meantime.
Strategic voting is riding based. Polls down to the riding level don't happen that often.
jessica murray
well, it's what the data says, and that's more valuable than your personal anecdote. i don't really understand it, either.
i've grown up with the understanding of the baby boomers not as the generation of the summer of love but as the generation of radical individualism, neo-liberal reform, randian objectivism and selfishness as a virtue. it's the nixon-thatcher-reagan generation. the "me generation". the overwhelming conservative bias in the baby boomer generation is not a new phenomenon, and not connected to passing through into retirement; it's been consistent since they were in their 20s. and, they've moved the center of society radically to their right as they've aged.
my guess is that they're more concerned about stock markets than social security. it may seem short-sighted, self-centered and irrational. but, that's fully consistent with their past decisions.
i'm speaking in aggregate, of course, and fully understand that trends don't necessarily apply to individuals.
there have been quite a few riding polls released, and it's often....well, *i* don't find it hard to reasonably interpolate data a day or two beforehand. but this is a red herring. regardless of how much data is or is not available, it never makes sense to vote strategically in advance polls.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/election-2015-toronto-voters-report-long-lines-at-advance-polls-1.3265731
my name must be unique
actually, a lot of those people are voting early because they don't want to deal with improper de-registration on Oct. 19, they want to make sure their vote against harper actually counts
jessica murray
mmmhmmm.
some polls are suggesting that harper may be pulling in as much as 50% of the senior vote right now.
Strategic Voter
my Strategic vote was in as of this afternoon
jessica murray
not very strategic, then. what if the data flips this week?
Me like Harper, Ugh!
Don't count on it being seniors, Jessica. I'm 65 next month and I despise the harperoid. In 1973 I was all idealistic and 'love conquers all'ish. I have never changed my value system and I'm pretty sure most of my fellow seniors think like me...unless they got stupid-rich in the meantime.
Strategic voting is riding based. Polls down to the riding level don't happen that often.
jessica murray
well, it's what the data says, and that's more valuable than your personal anecdote. i don't really understand it, either.
i've grown up with the understanding of the baby boomers not as the generation of the summer of love but as the generation of radical individualism, neo-liberal reform, randian objectivism and selfishness as a virtue. it's the nixon-thatcher-reagan generation. the "me generation". the overwhelming conservative bias in the baby boomer generation is not a new phenomenon, and not connected to passing through into retirement; it's been consistent since they were in their 20s. and, they've moved the center of society radically to their right as they've aged.
my guess is that they're more concerned about stock markets than social security. it may seem short-sighted, self-centered and irrational. but, that's fully consistent with their past decisions.
i'm speaking in aggregate, of course, and fully understand that trends don't necessarily apply to individuals.
there have been quite a few riding polls released, and it's often....well, *i* don't find it hard to reasonably interpolate data a day or two beforehand. but this is a red herring. regardless of how much data is or is not available, it never makes sense to vote strategically in advance polls.
at
04:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
pics or it didn't happen.
i'm just trying to piece together the chain of logic, and not really getting it. is he trying to make a fashion statement?
now, if he was trying to make a point, what he'd have to do is show up to a citizenship ceremony with a confederate flag wrapped around his face. would he be denied access to the ceremony? i somehow doubt it. they may ask him to make a little space for his mouth, so they can see he's saying the oath.
and, even then, what's his point?
that said.
and in fairness.
where does this "wearing a disguise with intent" law come from? is it a felony? does intent need to be proven, here? can he get off if mens rea is disproven? was this law written in the nineteenth century?
"while my client admits to wearing a disguise, we believe it is clear that there was no intent, and we request that the charges be reduced to wearing a disguise in the second degree."
ok. ok. it's wearing a disguise with intent...to commit a crime.
...and it seems to be the anti-mask protesting law that the conservatives brought in. i remember that.
but, this is neither a riot nor an unlawful assembly.
listen: it's obviously a goofy thing to do. i don't want to stand up for him, exactly. but, he's got a pretty good case that the law is unconstitutional.
lots of irony, here.
i'm a little bit wrong. the anti-mask bill was built on top of existing legislation. love the internet era.
Possession of break-in instrument
351. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on them, has in their possession any instrument suitable for the purpose of breaking into any place, motor vehicle, vault or safe under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument has been used or is or was intended to be used for such a purpose,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Disguise with intent
(2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
i sincerely hope this goes to the supreme court.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/confederate-flag-clad-man-disrupts-calgary-candidates-debate-1.3264849
i'm just trying to piece together the chain of logic, and not really getting it. is he trying to make a fashion statement?
now, if he was trying to make a point, what he'd have to do is show up to a citizenship ceremony with a confederate flag wrapped around his face. would he be denied access to the ceremony? i somehow doubt it. they may ask him to make a little space for his mouth, so they can see he's saying the oath.
and, even then, what's his point?
that said.
and in fairness.
where does this "wearing a disguise with intent" law come from? is it a felony? does intent need to be proven, here? can he get off if mens rea is disproven? was this law written in the nineteenth century?
"while my client admits to wearing a disguise, we believe it is clear that there was no intent, and we request that the charges be reduced to wearing a disguise in the second degree."
ok. ok. it's wearing a disguise with intent...to commit a crime.
...and it seems to be the anti-mask protesting law that the conservatives brought in. i remember that.
but, this is neither a riot nor an unlawful assembly.
listen: it's obviously a goofy thing to do. i don't want to stand up for him, exactly. but, he's got a pretty good case that the law is unconstitutional.
lots of irony, here.
i'm a little bit wrong. the anti-mask bill was built on top of existing legislation. love the internet era.
Possession of break-in instrument
351. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on them, has in their possession any instrument suitable for the purpose of breaking into any place, motor vehicle, vault or safe under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument has been used or is or was intended to be used for such a purpose,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Disguise with intent
(2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
i sincerely hope this goes to the supreme court.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/confederate-flag-clad-man-disrupts-calgary-candidates-debate-1.3264849
at
03:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
"Despite what the NDP and Liberals says, we cannot borrow or tax our way to prosperity."
he says that like prosperity is a thing we may have some day, rather than something that we already have.
it's just another example of a statement that's really meaningless nonsense. i mean, consider it applied in other circumstances, and tell me how much sense you think it makes.
"we cannot cheer our way into being dominant at hockey."
"we cannot consume our way into having ample amounts of fresh water reserves."
"we cannot freeze our way into being cold."
it's hard to argue with him a lot of the time, because he's often not expressing anything resembling a coherent thought. if canada is not a prosperous country, what country is?
i think it should be clear to everybody that we have prosperity already. and, what a government should be doing in a prosperous country is finding ways to take advantage of that prosperity in ways that benefit actual people.
the reason we're in a deficit in the first place is that he cut taxes too far relative to revenues. and, then he grew himself out of it. there's huge amounts of untapped prosperity. you can throw a dart at a wall of policy proposals.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-conservative-party-platform-1.3264597
he says that like prosperity is a thing we may have some day, rather than something that we already have.
it's just another example of a statement that's really meaningless nonsense. i mean, consider it applied in other circumstances, and tell me how much sense you think it makes.
"we cannot cheer our way into being dominant at hockey."
"we cannot consume our way into having ample amounts of fresh water reserves."
"we cannot freeze our way into being cold."
it's hard to argue with him a lot of the time, because he's often not expressing anything resembling a coherent thought. if canada is not a prosperous country, what country is?
i think it should be clear to everybody that we have prosperity already. and, what a government should be doing in a prosperous country is finding ways to take advantage of that prosperity in ways that benefit actual people.
the reason we're in a deficit in the first place is that he cut taxes too far relative to revenues. and, then he grew himself out of it. there's huge amounts of untapped prosperity. you can throw a dart at a wall of policy proposals.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-conservative-party-platform-1.3264597
at
02:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
"protect our economy with a balanced budget"
????
you can't even make sense of what they're trying to say. and they suggest their opponents are clueless?
this is desperate, and if they think they're going to reverse weeks of ndp-->liberal momentum with a few cheap shots they're wrong, but it's at least nice to put the racism away.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ad-hawk-conservative-target-trudeau-economy-1.3263482
????
you can't even make sense of what they're trying to say. and they suggest their opponents are clueless?
this is desperate, and if they think they're going to reverse weeks of ndp-->liberal momentum with a few cheap shots they're wrong, but it's at least nice to put the racism away.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ad-hawk-conservative-target-trudeau-economy-1.3263482
at
01:47
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
the sucking it out part sounds like a good idea. the reusing it part doesn't. i'd rather see it pumped underground, where it came from. but, then, where's the business model?
and, fast-forward two-hundred years when we're dealing with dangerously low levels of greenhouse gasses, because we're sucking them all down to drive to work.
we can make this stop. we have better technologies - but they're less profitable. that's why we need to forget about the private sector and look towards government. the private sector has never been able to create any sort of real innovation; it's always comes from massive state investment into technology, and mostly through university research. from the manhatten project to the internet and beyond, the private sector has very little to show for itself in terms of true innovation. it just profits off of state-funded research.
yet, when faced with a serious crisis, we turn to the private sector for answers instead of government? that's completely irrational.
the private sector can do things like grow apples.
but, you can't expect it to succeed in achieving anything complicated, as the profit motive will interfere.
serious problems need to be solved by government.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/carbon-capture-squamish-1.3263855
KevinMcKinney
I don't think we'll ever see this process creating dangerously low levels of CO2; certainly in today's context, the risk is all the other way.
Should your scenario ever come to pass, it would be pretty simple to fix; just recycle less...
jessica murray
this creates a business model that is no less threatening to climate sustainability. you shouldn't be using the term "recycle"; it's not a valid comparison. but, scaling down production would decrease profits.
it'd be great if we could call up exxon, explain the crisis to them and have them scale down production. but, it's almost comically absurd.
again: we have better technology. but, it's less profitable. so, we need governments to develop it.
Commenter42
You get that the CO2 is returned to the atmosphere during that drive to work, don't you? It would be a cycle, where it's captured, turned into fuel, the fuel is burned, it's released again, the captured, and so on.
jessica murray
it'll never work like that. corporations are driven purely by profit motives.
there's absolutely no reason to hold on to obsolete technologies, other than an aversion to change.
to put it another way, you're putting faith in the corporate sector to regulate the carbon in the atmosphere. but, if that faith were well rooted, then we wouldn't be in this problem in the first place. it's not an answer. the answer is to stop polluting.
if you break it down, it's a technical question about demand. if you assume that demand keeps growing, it hits a point where we're sucking down more than we've emitted. that's why we need two hundred years to get there. but, it's inevitable.
in two hundred years, we might have anti-matter or something. fair enough. but, why bother? we have a plethora of other options.
Commenter42
I agree about the profit motives of corporations, but if the technology is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it to fuels whose consumption returns it to the atmosphere, how is the profit drive going to change that? That's what the technology is! I get that money can twist things along the way, but I don't get how this leads to too little CO2 in the atmosphere.
Demand for fuel means that fuel is being consumed. Consuming the fuel releases the CO2 back into the atmosphere. This is similar to trees sequestering CO2 until they die and decompose (or burn) and releasing it again. Unless someone is stockpiling such an enormous amount of fuel that it actually affects atmospheric concentrations (and the cost of this would be gigantic, with no purpose), then I don't see how your breakdown works. Even if this were to happen, there's a simple solution--burn it.
Somehow, you've managed to make me sound like a right-wing corporate shill, but that is not the case. I'm commenting only on the possibilities for such technology (I don't know whether it can even live up to these possibilities yet).
jessica murray
first, you always have to have more fuel available than is being consumed. second, pulling it in and out is not the same thing as letting it sit. i want to be clear that i understand your argument, but it's just sort of a naive understanding. if you envision the system as working as though you have a pipe from your car to the factory [a conceptual oversimplification that demonstrates the point], you can conceptualize how it breaks the greenhouse effect, even if emissions are continual.
where the serious potential problem arises is when the net pull begins to exceed the net output, since whatever year. let's say 1980. then, the net effect is actually a reversal of the greenhouse effect, and we should see global cooling.
and, if you assume rising demand and depleting carbon reserves, you can set the date on your calendar.
Commenter42
So you're saying that a simplified model of the system, a factory, a fuel pipe to a consuming device, a device that consume the fuel and releases the CO2 somehow leads to a breaking of the CO2 effect?? It's that simple model I'm using to say the opposite. Where is the break?
jessica murray
i'm sorry that you're not able to make sense of the points. i'll try a few different ways to present it.
you seem to be ignoring the fact that oil is a non-renewable resource, and that we're either very close to or past peak oil. if you set up a system like this, then the atmosphere eventually becomes the only remaining carbon reservoir, and the only way to continue to meet increasing demand is to pull an increasing net amount down. it's not and can't be carbon neutral, unless we halt all growth. and, as mentioned, that's in addition to the necessity of having fuel stores.
the "recycling" part of this [and there's energy in, so it's not really recycling, but let's ignore that] can only cycle around if we assume a stagnant economy. you can only get enough cycling to maintain existing demand. x out only allows for x in (under ideal technology). but x is consistently increasing. so, we will need to pull more and more down. and, the curve will eventually intersect, so long as demand continues to rise.
so, consider the pipe-to-factory conceptualization. that can meet existing net demand. but, as demand increases, we have to pull more and more down out of the atmospheric reservoir. the amount that we're cycling will continue to increase, as growth increases. but, we'll need to pull more and more down to meet new demand. then, we'll be looking at decreasing ppms and a threat of global cooling.
it's just putting off a transition we need to make, anyways. right now, we're hurdling towards venus; this will reverse the curve and send us hurdling towards mars. we need to find a way to maintain our middle point.
and, fast-forward two-hundred years when we're dealing with dangerously low levels of greenhouse gasses, because we're sucking them all down to drive to work.
we can make this stop. we have better technologies - but they're less profitable. that's why we need to forget about the private sector and look towards government. the private sector has never been able to create any sort of real innovation; it's always comes from massive state investment into technology, and mostly through university research. from the manhatten project to the internet and beyond, the private sector has very little to show for itself in terms of true innovation. it just profits off of state-funded research.
yet, when faced with a serious crisis, we turn to the private sector for answers instead of government? that's completely irrational.
the private sector can do things like grow apples.
but, you can't expect it to succeed in achieving anything complicated, as the profit motive will interfere.
serious problems need to be solved by government.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/carbon-capture-squamish-1.3263855
KevinMcKinney
I don't think we'll ever see this process creating dangerously low levels of CO2; certainly in today's context, the risk is all the other way.
Should your scenario ever come to pass, it would be pretty simple to fix; just recycle less...
jessica murray
this creates a business model that is no less threatening to climate sustainability. you shouldn't be using the term "recycle"; it's not a valid comparison. but, scaling down production would decrease profits.
it'd be great if we could call up exxon, explain the crisis to them and have them scale down production. but, it's almost comically absurd.
again: we have better technology. but, it's less profitable. so, we need governments to develop it.
Commenter42
You get that the CO2 is returned to the atmosphere during that drive to work, don't you? It would be a cycle, where it's captured, turned into fuel, the fuel is burned, it's released again, the captured, and so on.
jessica murray
it'll never work like that. corporations are driven purely by profit motives.
there's absolutely no reason to hold on to obsolete technologies, other than an aversion to change.
to put it another way, you're putting faith in the corporate sector to regulate the carbon in the atmosphere. but, if that faith were well rooted, then we wouldn't be in this problem in the first place. it's not an answer. the answer is to stop polluting.
if you break it down, it's a technical question about demand. if you assume that demand keeps growing, it hits a point where we're sucking down more than we've emitted. that's why we need two hundred years to get there. but, it's inevitable.
in two hundred years, we might have anti-matter or something. fair enough. but, why bother? we have a plethora of other options.
Commenter42
I agree about the profit motives of corporations, but if the technology is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it to fuels whose consumption returns it to the atmosphere, how is the profit drive going to change that? That's what the technology is! I get that money can twist things along the way, but I don't get how this leads to too little CO2 in the atmosphere.
Demand for fuel means that fuel is being consumed. Consuming the fuel releases the CO2 back into the atmosphere. This is similar to trees sequestering CO2 until they die and decompose (or burn) and releasing it again. Unless someone is stockpiling such an enormous amount of fuel that it actually affects atmospheric concentrations (and the cost of this would be gigantic, with no purpose), then I don't see how your breakdown works. Even if this were to happen, there's a simple solution--burn it.
Somehow, you've managed to make me sound like a right-wing corporate shill, but that is not the case. I'm commenting only on the possibilities for such technology (I don't know whether it can even live up to these possibilities yet).
jessica murray
first, you always have to have more fuel available than is being consumed. second, pulling it in and out is not the same thing as letting it sit. i want to be clear that i understand your argument, but it's just sort of a naive understanding. if you envision the system as working as though you have a pipe from your car to the factory [a conceptual oversimplification that demonstrates the point], you can conceptualize how it breaks the greenhouse effect, even if emissions are continual.
where the serious potential problem arises is when the net pull begins to exceed the net output, since whatever year. let's say 1980. then, the net effect is actually a reversal of the greenhouse effect, and we should see global cooling.
and, if you assume rising demand and depleting carbon reserves, you can set the date on your calendar.
Commenter42
So you're saying that a simplified model of the system, a factory, a fuel pipe to a consuming device, a device that consume the fuel and releases the CO2 somehow leads to a breaking of the CO2 effect?? It's that simple model I'm using to say the opposite. Where is the break?
jessica murray
i'm sorry that you're not able to make sense of the points. i'll try a few different ways to present it.
you seem to be ignoring the fact that oil is a non-renewable resource, and that we're either very close to or past peak oil. if you set up a system like this, then the atmosphere eventually becomes the only remaining carbon reservoir, and the only way to continue to meet increasing demand is to pull an increasing net amount down. it's not and can't be carbon neutral, unless we halt all growth. and, as mentioned, that's in addition to the necessity of having fuel stores.
the "recycling" part of this [and there's energy in, so it's not really recycling, but let's ignore that] can only cycle around if we assume a stagnant economy. you can only get enough cycling to maintain existing demand. x out only allows for x in (under ideal technology). but x is consistently increasing. so, we will need to pull more and more down. and, the curve will eventually intersect, so long as demand continues to rise.
so, consider the pipe-to-factory conceptualization. that can meet existing net demand. but, as demand increases, we have to pull more and more down out of the atmospheric reservoir. the amount that we're cycling will continue to increase, as growth increases. but, we'll need to pull more and more down to meet new demand. then, we'll be looking at decreasing ppms and a threat of global cooling.
it's just putting off a transition we need to make, anyways. right now, we're hurdling towards venus; this will reverse the curve and send us hurdling towards mars. we need to find a way to maintain our middle point.
at
01:02
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)