welcome to canada!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnIIgOEONa0
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/heres-how-canada-is-preparing-refugees-for-the-winter-/60765/
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Saturday, December 5, 2015
i guess i'm mostly directing this to people outside the country. concerned onlookers should realize that the truth is somewhere between the activist position that they're still in bed with the oil companies and the government position that they're going to save the world, with flair.
if you were paying attention during the election, you will realize that the government is not proposing anything close to a moratorium on fossil fuel development - that they did support keystone and are in favour of east-west, while expressing unhappiness about other pipeline projects. you have to be careful about how you interpret the keystone part. but, we are going to absolutely require blockades and court battles to make east-west unprofitable. otherwise, they will do this.
that said, you also have to realize that a lot of these kids are not old enough to remember living in a liberal government. if you're 23 today, you were around 14 when stephen harper was elected. i know paul remembers the chretien government; i must admit i'm not old enough to remember the first trudeau government, either, although he certainly is. but, what i'm getting at is that growing up in a world run by a democrat that cites reagan in speeches and is to the right of the first george bush on most issues, and where the left is constantly arguing that we're under a one-party system, is going to make understanding the liberal party of canada almost impossible for these kids. the liberals are not perfect - any leftist will find lots to criticize. but, they are a legitimately center-left party, too. it's been decades since the democrats could say that.
so, no: the liberals will not put a moratorium on tar sands. yes, they will work with industry to get the oil to market. but, expecting anything else is really pretty much absurd, given how economically important oil is to revenue (canada is currently in recession due solely to the cut in oil prices). the idea of keeping 80% of the tar sands in the ground is one way to reduce emissions. it's not the only way. that is, itself, american propaganda. the tar sands are bad but they are not fundamentally worse than burning coal, or methane release from fracking - which obama has championed. total canadian emissions are only 1.5% of global emissions. tar sands emissions are a fraction of that 1.5%. now, if they expand dramatically while other sources decrease dramatically? ok. but, it's a hypothetical argument that collapses when you reverse certain assumptions.
but, you can reasonably expect them to do a lot of other things. first, we have to diversify our economy a little. one of the best ways is switching to the production of clean energy, although the marijuana legalization should also help. increasing revenue from other sources will change the discourse dramatically, but the liberals will not dive in head first on this. they're also putting down $20 billion dollars on "green infrastructure", which is going to go into things like converting public transit, converting wastewater facilities and doing what's left to transition the grid. they'll put pressure on industry; expect some sort of carbon pricing. and, with a little bit of the kind of pressure that you're seeing here, stronger initiatives for conversion to electric vehicles are a strong likelihood.
it will not immediately come as a consequence of reducing tar sands production, but they will likely substantially reduce emissions in other ways. they will meet reasonable targets, relative to our share of emissions.
and, that is part of the reason these kids are being ignored. i mean, the major reason is that it's bad press - obviously. but, they're not pushing a reasonable plan, either. whether they realize it or not, and whether they like it or not, the government will accomplish more in talking to industry than they will in talking to students. and, when it's stated this bluntly, that's really pretty obvious.
despite the press, the outside world should not expect the world from this government. it should not expect them to shut down fossil fuel development in the short term (and, understand that the government cannot snap it's fingers and stop development, anyways - it's mostly privately owned). however, it should expect them to focus on diversifying the canadian economy, which will allow for better options in the near future. and, it should expect to see significant net reductions in emissions - even if it's not at the source of the tar sands.
canadians, on the other hand, should continue to put pressure on the government to act. they may not always get an audience. sometimes, they may end up in jail. but, the difference between the liberals and the democrats is that the liberals will act if they feel that fire on their feet and feel they can in a way they consider to be "responsible" - which is a reasonable concept of responsibility. so, as a canadian activist, you need to keep it burning. you'll get better results than the world you've grown up in might lead you to expect.
if you were paying attention during the election, you will realize that the government is not proposing anything close to a moratorium on fossil fuel development - that they did support keystone and are in favour of east-west, while expressing unhappiness about other pipeline projects. you have to be careful about how you interpret the keystone part. but, we are going to absolutely require blockades and court battles to make east-west unprofitable. otherwise, they will do this.
that said, you also have to realize that a lot of these kids are not old enough to remember living in a liberal government. if you're 23 today, you were around 14 when stephen harper was elected. i know paul remembers the chretien government; i must admit i'm not old enough to remember the first trudeau government, either, although he certainly is. but, what i'm getting at is that growing up in a world run by a democrat that cites reagan in speeches and is to the right of the first george bush on most issues, and where the left is constantly arguing that we're under a one-party system, is going to make understanding the liberal party of canada almost impossible for these kids. the liberals are not perfect - any leftist will find lots to criticize. but, they are a legitimately center-left party, too. it's been decades since the democrats could say that.
so, no: the liberals will not put a moratorium on tar sands. yes, they will work with industry to get the oil to market. but, expecting anything else is really pretty much absurd, given how economically important oil is to revenue (canada is currently in recession due solely to the cut in oil prices). the idea of keeping 80% of the tar sands in the ground is one way to reduce emissions. it's not the only way. that is, itself, american propaganda. the tar sands are bad but they are not fundamentally worse than burning coal, or methane release from fracking - which obama has championed. total canadian emissions are only 1.5% of global emissions. tar sands emissions are a fraction of that 1.5%. now, if they expand dramatically while other sources decrease dramatically? ok. but, it's a hypothetical argument that collapses when you reverse certain assumptions.
but, you can reasonably expect them to do a lot of other things. first, we have to diversify our economy a little. one of the best ways is switching to the production of clean energy, although the marijuana legalization should also help. increasing revenue from other sources will change the discourse dramatically, but the liberals will not dive in head first on this. they're also putting down $20 billion dollars on "green infrastructure", which is going to go into things like converting public transit, converting wastewater facilities and doing what's left to transition the grid. they'll put pressure on industry; expect some sort of carbon pricing. and, with a little bit of the kind of pressure that you're seeing here, stronger initiatives for conversion to electric vehicles are a strong likelihood.
it will not immediately come as a consequence of reducing tar sands production, but they will likely substantially reduce emissions in other ways. they will meet reasonable targets, relative to our share of emissions.
and, that is part of the reason these kids are being ignored. i mean, the major reason is that it's bad press - obviously. but, they're not pushing a reasonable plan, either. whether they realize it or not, and whether they like it or not, the government will accomplish more in talking to industry than they will in talking to students. and, when it's stated this bluntly, that's really pretty obvious.
despite the press, the outside world should not expect the world from this government. it should not expect them to shut down fossil fuel development in the short term (and, understand that the government cannot snap it's fingers and stop development, anyways - it's mostly privately owned). however, it should expect them to focus on diversifying the canadian economy, which will allow for better options in the near future. and, it should expect to see significant net reductions in emissions - even if it's not at the source of the tar sands.
canadians, on the other hand, should continue to put pressure on the government to act. they may not always get an audience. sometimes, they may end up in jail. but, the difference between the liberals and the democrats is that the liberals will act if they feel that fire on their feet and feel they can in a way they consider to be "responsible" - which is a reasonable concept of responsibility. so, as a canadian activist, you need to keep it burning. you'll get better results than the world you've grown up in might lead you to expect.
there's a lot of information being thrown around, and it's very hard to determine what is good information and what isn't.
my brief analysis of the situation is as follows:
1) information suggesting that the oil is being transported through turkey should be taken skeptically.
2) information suggesting that the oil is moving south should be taken less skeptically.
the reason for this is that one of the major conflicts in the region is between the turks and saudis for control of the oil. all information suggests that the primary mover here is the saudis, rather than the turks. turkish proxies remain in fierce battle with saudi proxies. it is contradictory to conclude that saudi proxies are shipping oil through turkey.
that said, it's not impossible that isis has switched sides. but, i don't see any direct evidence of this.
so, why would the russians do this? it is likely for internal consumption, and may signal a shift in russian hostilities to turkey. this would hopefully further shift nato's focus out of ukraine, which is what the russians were always angling for in syria.
the turks should take this extremely seriously.
3) suggestions that iraq is shifting towards russian influence should be taken seriously.
4) suggestions that the americans are funding isis as a part of a destabilization regime, and are not seriously targeting them, should be taken seriously.
my understanding is that the "big plan" here is saudi expansion into iraq and syria - and probably jordan and eventually lebanon as well. this is also happening in libya. sisi is essentially a saudi pawn. together, this creates the context of saudi territorial expansion. short term boundary lines are constructed around iran, turkey and algeria- although all three may see eventual destabilization. the idea is the reconstruction of a saudi-centered caliphate. the americans would have various reasons to support this, but it's being primarily driven by saudi money that is pushing for the historical british promise of a recreated arab empire, which was made during world war one and put on hold during the cold war due to russian influence in the region.
5) the possibilities for "blowback" are unclear, but substantial.
my brief analysis of the situation is as follows:
1) information suggesting that the oil is being transported through turkey should be taken skeptically.
2) information suggesting that the oil is moving south should be taken less skeptically.
the reason for this is that one of the major conflicts in the region is between the turks and saudis for control of the oil. all information suggests that the primary mover here is the saudis, rather than the turks. turkish proxies remain in fierce battle with saudi proxies. it is contradictory to conclude that saudi proxies are shipping oil through turkey.
that said, it's not impossible that isis has switched sides. but, i don't see any direct evidence of this.
so, why would the russians do this? it is likely for internal consumption, and may signal a shift in russian hostilities to turkey. this would hopefully further shift nato's focus out of ukraine, which is what the russians were always angling for in syria.
the turks should take this extremely seriously.
3) suggestions that iraq is shifting towards russian influence should be taken seriously.
4) suggestions that the americans are funding isis as a part of a destabilization regime, and are not seriously targeting them, should be taken seriously.
my understanding is that the "big plan" here is saudi expansion into iraq and syria - and probably jordan and eventually lebanon as well. this is also happening in libya. sisi is essentially a saudi pawn. together, this creates the context of saudi territorial expansion. short term boundary lines are constructed around iran, turkey and algeria- although all three may see eventual destabilization. the idea is the reconstruction of a saudi-centered caliphate. the americans would have various reasons to support this, but it's being primarily driven by saudi money that is pushing for the historical british promise of a recreated arab empire, which was made during world war one and put on hold during the cold war due to russian influence in the region.
5) the possibilities for "blowback" are unclear, but substantial.
the tactical value of a protest march has never been to create pressure on policy or raise awareness. activists have always understood that there are better approaches for these things. the purpose of the march has always been to intimidate - it is a militant process that demonstrates strength. if you could ask gandhi, he would tell you this. bluntly. whatever the reason for the march, or whatever the type, the idea has always been to reclaim the streets. and, as such, the apparently draconian response from the state is entirely justified in terms of self-preservation.
i need to be clear: i'm ideologically aligned with the protesters. i think we should reclaim the streets. but, only the most disconnected and most naive believe that the march is a purely peaceful act of protest that exists within a vacuum created by the event. marching is a revolutionary act. it always has been. and, of course the state will employ violence against those that organize against it.
the reason that marches are useless today is in the uneven level of weapons technology. even if marchers could arm themselves, even if they would choose to, there would be no fair fight with the security forces. in the real world, david never defeats goliath. it is simply a foolish tactic to take a drastically superior foe head-on.
staffing blockades is, in fact, the smarter approach. but, that in itself must be paired with legal action. i can only speak for the legal realities in canada, but the way we have to do this here is to create an indigenous protest, force the opponents to get an injunction and then tie the issue down in court. the ultimate legal question in most of these issues reduces to questions of private property rights, meaning the issues *must* be dealt with in courts, rather than in legislatures. the reality is that the elected officials often have little ability to intervene if they wanted to.
the message that a 500,000 or million or ten million person march sends is "this is the size of our army". it must intimidate the state into making a calculation.
the calculation the state needs to make is whether it feels it can defeat that army, or if it is better off avoiding the conflict in giving into those demands.
the british decided they could not defeat gandh's army. in the 60s, the democrats made a similar calculation regarding civil rights - that legislative changes were preferable to civil war.
but, today, we need such a large army to defeat their technology that the premise is virtually unthinkable. i mean, you could calculate a critical mass. but you'd need millions - tens of millions - to be in any way intimidating.
the targeted legal battles over property are consequently going to be far more effective in stopping further development and presenting financial arguments for transition. divestment is another more useful strategy.
this is useful;
http://central.d127.org/library/classprojects/gandhi/Documents/GandhisNonVioasaTactic.pdf
www.independent.co.uk/voices/dont-bother-protesting-at-the-paris-climate-change-conference-there-are-better-ways-to-tackle-global-a6760311.html
i need to be clear: i'm ideologically aligned with the protesters. i think we should reclaim the streets. but, only the most disconnected and most naive believe that the march is a purely peaceful act of protest that exists within a vacuum created by the event. marching is a revolutionary act. it always has been. and, of course the state will employ violence against those that organize against it.
the reason that marches are useless today is in the uneven level of weapons technology. even if marchers could arm themselves, even if they would choose to, there would be no fair fight with the security forces. in the real world, david never defeats goliath. it is simply a foolish tactic to take a drastically superior foe head-on.
staffing blockades is, in fact, the smarter approach. but, that in itself must be paired with legal action. i can only speak for the legal realities in canada, but the way we have to do this here is to create an indigenous protest, force the opponents to get an injunction and then tie the issue down in court. the ultimate legal question in most of these issues reduces to questions of private property rights, meaning the issues *must* be dealt with in courts, rather than in legislatures. the reality is that the elected officials often have little ability to intervene if they wanted to.
the message that a 500,000 or million or ten million person march sends is "this is the size of our army". it must intimidate the state into making a calculation.
the calculation the state needs to make is whether it feels it can defeat that army, or if it is better off avoiding the conflict in giving into those demands.
the british decided they could not defeat gandh's army. in the 60s, the democrats made a similar calculation regarding civil rights - that legislative changes were preferable to civil war.
but, today, we need such a large army to defeat their technology that the premise is virtually unthinkable. i mean, you could calculate a critical mass. but you'd need millions - tens of millions - to be in any way intimidating.
the targeted legal battles over property are consequently going to be far more effective in stopping further development and presenting financial arguments for transition. divestment is another more useful strategy.
this is useful;
http://central.d127.org/library/classprojects/gandhi/Documents/GandhisNonVioasaTactic.pdf
www.independent.co.uk/voices/dont-bother-protesting-at-the-paris-climate-change-conference-there-are-better-ways-to-tackle-global-a6760311.html
“when you do your best, you can’t do better.”
still the master of tautologies, i see.
he would have won a fourth majority. and, that might have spared us from harper altogether. but, it’s time to look forwards, now.
www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jean-chretien-on-throne-speeches-honeymoons-and-hard-work/
still the master of tautologies, i see.
he would have won a fourth majority. and, that might have spared us from harper altogether. but, it’s time to look forwards, now.
www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jean-chretien-on-throne-speeches-honeymoons-and-hard-work/
Friday, December 4, 2015
i think what people are saying with this is that, while they might not fully support military action, or may be uneasy about it if they do tentatively support it, they take the position that if we're going to fight this fight then we should fight it at full strength.
i mean, you've got 47% supporting total withdrawal and 60% supporting the continued use of jets. contradiction? not entirely, if the people that are supporting the jets are taking the position of "if we're going to fight them, let's go in full strength and get it over with and then come home right after."
see, that then brings up the question of whether that is a reasonable position. and, nobody informed of the position on the ground will argue that this can be done quickly.
honestly? i don't think this is an election driver, either. pollsters are still polling around the narrative put in place by the previous government - security, taxes and "strong leadership". that's not going to be the narrative of this government, and won't be the polling questions that will be relevant over the next four years. none of these issues were at the top of the list of any voters' survey.
but, if you take that step back from the data and think about it for a second, it's obvious. there's little reasons to think canadians would want this fight. but, we understand that they're bad guys, too. so, we're approaching it like toilet cleaning duty. we don't like it. we wish there was a better way. but, we know it's necessary.
what that means is that the government's task is to convince people that the pivot it's putting in place is the most practical way to deal with the issue. i think it's already halfway there, but it does seem to be losing the messaging on the planes - and i think that's largely because the media isn't "getting it". it's being presented as a pacifist way out, rather than a pragmatic tactical shift to best accomplish the goal of taking them out and then taking ourselves out.
(link to globe article lost)
i mean, you've got 47% supporting total withdrawal and 60% supporting the continued use of jets. contradiction? not entirely, if the people that are supporting the jets are taking the position of "if we're going to fight them, let's go in full strength and get it over with and then come home right after."
see, that then brings up the question of whether that is a reasonable position. and, nobody informed of the position on the ground will argue that this can be done quickly.
honestly? i don't think this is an election driver, either. pollsters are still polling around the narrative put in place by the previous government - security, taxes and "strong leadership". that's not going to be the narrative of this government, and won't be the polling questions that will be relevant over the next four years. none of these issues were at the top of the list of any voters' survey.
but, if you take that step back from the data and think about it for a second, it's obvious. there's little reasons to think canadians would want this fight. but, we understand that they're bad guys, too. so, we're approaching it like toilet cleaning duty. we don't like it. we wish there was a better way. but, we know it's necessary.
what that means is that the government's task is to convince people that the pivot it's putting in place is the most practical way to deal with the issue. i think it's already halfway there, but it does seem to be losing the messaging on the planes - and i think that's largely because the media isn't "getting it". it's being presented as a pacifist way out, rather than a pragmatic tactical shift to best accomplish the goal of taking them out and then taking ourselves out.
(link to globe article lost)
this is mostly nonsense. it made sense ten years ago, when the topic was bombing iraq for no discernible reason. but, bombing isis is not the same thing as bombing saddam hussein. that's the error this article is making, and perhaps the error that a small number of canadians continue to make.
what you see when you look at polls on this is not a stark ideological division, but a difficulty choosing between two aspects of our cultural heritage. we are both the country that avoided pointless fights in vietnam and iraq and the country that fought the hardest (western) battles in world war two, when the war was worth fighting. this isn't a wedge issue. it's two sides of the same coin: we don't like to fight, but we will when we feel we must. the hard part is in trying to understand what it is that is before us: is this a pointless fight for geostrategic positioning, or is there a really nasty enemy here that needs to be thoroughly annihilated? is it even somewhere in between? canadians will react relative to how they perceive this question.
the reality is that this was not at the top of any voters issue lists. the issues at the top of the list were health care and jobs. the liberals won the election on a rejection of conservative economic austerity, whether that austerity was real or perceived.
and, the reality is that the decision is neither political nor cultural but simply strategic.
you want obama comparisons? you can make a good one, here. it was well publicized that obama opposed the invasion of iraq. but, this was widely misunderstood by the media as a pacifist position. obama's position was actually very clear, to those that took the time to learn it: he did not oppose the invasion of iraq because he was a pacifist, or even because it was illegal, but simply because he thought it was strategically foolish. he thought it was going to bog his forces down in a pointless and unwinnable conflict, and he would have preferred to invade pakistan, instead, where the roots of the problem could be more effectively rooted out. you can look this up, it's absolutely accurate. now, he may not have been fully briefed. but, over a decade later, it is clear that he was right - if you accept the narrative we're presented with. iraq was a mistake because it prevented the americans from containing the bad guys in central asia.
ten years from now, it will probably be equally clear that the right choice is to train local forces to create stable, local governments, and not to rain down fire from the sky. but, it's less clear that our allies have the foresight to realize this and less clear that he's going to be able to stop them from making that error.
the irony here is that the mere idea of the wedge issue is a consequence of the previous government.
liberals have historically defined themselves via subtle thinking, not picking one side of a fight.
"involvement if necessary, but not necessarily involvement".
it's easy to call this "weak". but, this is our actual identity.
if it gets really bad, we'll send troops under a un or nato mandate.
and, virtually everybody will support that.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/alan-ramon-ward/isis-bombing-campaign_b_8700124.html
what you see when you look at polls on this is not a stark ideological division, but a difficulty choosing between two aspects of our cultural heritage. we are both the country that avoided pointless fights in vietnam and iraq and the country that fought the hardest (western) battles in world war two, when the war was worth fighting. this isn't a wedge issue. it's two sides of the same coin: we don't like to fight, but we will when we feel we must. the hard part is in trying to understand what it is that is before us: is this a pointless fight for geostrategic positioning, or is there a really nasty enemy here that needs to be thoroughly annihilated? is it even somewhere in between? canadians will react relative to how they perceive this question.
the reality is that this was not at the top of any voters issue lists. the issues at the top of the list were health care and jobs. the liberals won the election on a rejection of conservative economic austerity, whether that austerity was real or perceived.
and, the reality is that the decision is neither political nor cultural but simply strategic.
you want obama comparisons? you can make a good one, here. it was well publicized that obama opposed the invasion of iraq. but, this was widely misunderstood by the media as a pacifist position. obama's position was actually very clear, to those that took the time to learn it: he did not oppose the invasion of iraq because he was a pacifist, or even because it was illegal, but simply because he thought it was strategically foolish. he thought it was going to bog his forces down in a pointless and unwinnable conflict, and he would have preferred to invade pakistan, instead, where the roots of the problem could be more effectively rooted out. you can look this up, it's absolutely accurate. now, he may not have been fully briefed. but, over a decade later, it is clear that he was right - if you accept the narrative we're presented with. iraq was a mistake because it prevented the americans from containing the bad guys in central asia.
ten years from now, it will probably be equally clear that the right choice is to train local forces to create stable, local governments, and not to rain down fire from the sky. but, it's less clear that our allies have the foresight to realize this and less clear that he's going to be able to stop them from making that error.
the irony here is that the mere idea of the wedge issue is a consequence of the previous government.
liberals have historically defined themselves via subtle thinking, not picking one side of a fight.
"involvement if necessary, but not necessarily involvement".
it's easy to call this "weak". but, this is our actual identity.
if it gets really bad, we'll send troops under a un or nato mandate.
and, virtually everybody will support that.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/alan-ramon-ward/isis-bombing-campaign_b_8700124.html
i agree that it's a very bad precedent to set to pick and choose parts of an agreement you want to enforce.
but, if you want to be honest about this, the reality is that, as a canadian, i see little reason to hold to the agreement at all. it's not just marijuana - there's a few other substances that should be liberalized. and, the international law is obviously not preventing access to the ones that should remain illegal (meth, heroin, cocaine...). so, if we gain nothing by holding to the agreement, why kneecap ourselves on the pot for the sake of compliance?
i think canada should just withdraw from the treaties altogether, and support the creation of new treaties to replace them that focus on new approaches to restrict trafficking of the worst drugs.
but, if you want to be honest about this, the reality is that, as a canadian, i see little reason to hold to the agreement at all. it's not just marijuana - there's a few other substances that should be liberalized. and, the international law is obviously not preventing access to the ones that should remain illegal (meth, heroin, cocaine...). so, if we gain nothing by holding to the agreement, why kneecap ourselves on the pot for the sake of compliance?
i think canada should just withdraw from the treaties altogether, and support the creation of new treaties to replace them that focus on new approaches to restrict trafficking of the worst drugs.
Thursday, December 3, 2015
right now, i'm more concerned about passing legislation. this is the kind of thing i expected to see in the last week of his mandate, not the first week. so, i'm just glad the process is moving - that they're serious about making sure nothing gets stuck in the senate. that sounds insane, and it would be insane, and nobody would react in any way short of disbelief, but a lot fuzzy thinking could have interpreted it as a way to make the opposition look bad.
again: my primary concern is that it seems like they're focused on governing rather than politicizing the issue further, and that is a positive sign.
as for the proposal?
it seems symbolic, or at least does from those four points. i would have thought it would be formalized through the civil service. we'll see how that works.
basically? whatever.
i need to be clear that this was not a significant election issue, to me. not even top twenty issues. might make top 50, barely. the only way it worked into my thinking at all was in the context of being equally strongly opposed to an elected senate and an abolished one (but i would have considered voting ndp anyways, because i knew they couldn't do it). i would have actually preferred to vote for the status quo on the senate, if the option were available. the liberal ideas were preferable to me, simply for the reason that they were the closest to the status quo.
but, it otherwise had absolutely no effect on how i voted.
my primary concern is that their position on the senate does not become an albatross on the government - that it does not slow down legislation, or otherwise interfere with their ability to implement the substantive parts of their platform. this is a step in that direction, and that is good.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-advisory-board-non-partisan-leblanc-monsef-1.3348531
Johhnyb
Non-partisan is non-partisan. I would think that a partisan senate could slow down bill passage if it's partisan in favour of the opposition and could not do due diligence if it's partisan for the gov't. We'll always have Progressive and Conservative thinkers in the Senate and that's great. Now we will have senators appointed on merit not partisanship. You have to admit this Trudeau approach is the best yet and is doable now. Of course only time will tell.
jessica murray
i don't share your perspective on rejecting partisanship. when i hear terms like "bipartisan", what comes to mind is the idea of a corporate oligarchy controlling both sides of the debate. it's basically equivalent to doing away with the democratic process altogether, and placing power in the hands of the elite. this is not something that has helped obama, or made him appear in a more positive light to voters. rather, it's fueled a lot of apathy in government. americans thought they were electing a progressive democrat and instead got a moderate republican. it's emboldened the right, and collapsed the base. it's really a disaster, and trudeau should really be learning from this in trying to avoid rather than trying to emulate it. it plays right into the left's narrative that conservatives and liberals are basically the same thing.
i think the best way for left leaning policy makers to get their initiatives across is to start from a position to the left of where they really are, and let the debate pull them into where they actually are. ceding ground to the right merely shifts the entire discussion to the right. and, the liberals have hopefully learned that you can't do that in canada and hold power, because we don't have a two-party spectrum.
but, even if you could convince me that bipartisanship is a good idea, it's a ridiculous premise to begin with. even if you can drop the actual parties (and that's not within the realm of possibility), you're still left with convictions. or, at least, i hope we're still left with convictions. otherwise, we collapse into oligarchy.
we're consequently not really being given a choice between partisanship and non-partisanship. we're being given a choice between democracy and oligarchy.
i would prefer to see a liberal dominated senate that rubber stamps legislation than see that legislation slowed down and cut-up by a conservative body that pretends that it is somehow "non-partisan". and, if that body ends up rubber-stamping legislation, then it is not "non-partisan", either.
that's fine. like, i say - whatever. i don't care. i just don't want to see bills that i support sent back.
i'll acknowledge that the idea of putting limits on patronage appointments is a positive idea. i can't remember who it was, but harper actually appointed somebody that didn't know how to read. that is utterly ridiculous. it is a good idea to ensure that there are higher standards...
but, partisanship itself? that's not a bad idea, at all.
--
yokelman
The PM and MP's should not be allowed to appoint senators, the senate members should be voted in by the people and have an 8 year term limit.
jessica murray
yeah, then we can get absolute gridlock like in the united states. in the process, we can completely ignore our constitutional history, which explicitly attempted to prevent this.
great idea.
in fact, here's a better idea: why don't we just elect senators to their senate?
again: my primary concern is that it seems like they're focused on governing rather than politicizing the issue further, and that is a positive sign.
as for the proposal?
it seems symbolic, or at least does from those four points. i would have thought it would be formalized through the civil service. we'll see how that works.
basically? whatever.
i need to be clear that this was not a significant election issue, to me. not even top twenty issues. might make top 50, barely. the only way it worked into my thinking at all was in the context of being equally strongly opposed to an elected senate and an abolished one (but i would have considered voting ndp anyways, because i knew they couldn't do it). i would have actually preferred to vote for the status quo on the senate, if the option were available. the liberal ideas were preferable to me, simply for the reason that they were the closest to the status quo.
but, it otherwise had absolutely no effect on how i voted.
my primary concern is that their position on the senate does not become an albatross on the government - that it does not slow down legislation, or otherwise interfere with their ability to implement the substantive parts of their platform. this is a step in that direction, and that is good.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-advisory-board-non-partisan-leblanc-monsef-1.3348531
Johhnyb
Non-partisan is non-partisan. I would think that a partisan senate could slow down bill passage if it's partisan in favour of the opposition and could not do due diligence if it's partisan for the gov't. We'll always have Progressive and Conservative thinkers in the Senate and that's great. Now we will have senators appointed on merit not partisanship. You have to admit this Trudeau approach is the best yet and is doable now. Of course only time will tell.
jessica murray
i don't share your perspective on rejecting partisanship. when i hear terms like "bipartisan", what comes to mind is the idea of a corporate oligarchy controlling both sides of the debate. it's basically equivalent to doing away with the democratic process altogether, and placing power in the hands of the elite. this is not something that has helped obama, or made him appear in a more positive light to voters. rather, it's fueled a lot of apathy in government. americans thought they were electing a progressive democrat and instead got a moderate republican. it's emboldened the right, and collapsed the base. it's really a disaster, and trudeau should really be learning from this in trying to avoid rather than trying to emulate it. it plays right into the left's narrative that conservatives and liberals are basically the same thing.
i think the best way for left leaning policy makers to get their initiatives across is to start from a position to the left of where they really are, and let the debate pull them into where they actually are. ceding ground to the right merely shifts the entire discussion to the right. and, the liberals have hopefully learned that you can't do that in canada and hold power, because we don't have a two-party spectrum.
but, even if you could convince me that bipartisanship is a good idea, it's a ridiculous premise to begin with. even if you can drop the actual parties (and that's not within the realm of possibility), you're still left with convictions. or, at least, i hope we're still left with convictions. otherwise, we collapse into oligarchy.
we're consequently not really being given a choice between partisanship and non-partisanship. we're being given a choice between democracy and oligarchy.
i would prefer to see a liberal dominated senate that rubber stamps legislation than see that legislation slowed down and cut-up by a conservative body that pretends that it is somehow "non-partisan". and, if that body ends up rubber-stamping legislation, then it is not "non-partisan", either.
that's fine. like, i say - whatever. i don't care. i just don't want to see bills that i support sent back.
i'll acknowledge that the idea of putting limits on patronage appointments is a positive idea. i can't remember who it was, but harper actually appointed somebody that didn't know how to read. that is utterly ridiculous. it is a good idea to ensure that there are higher standards...
but, partisanship itself? that's not a bad idea, at all.
--
yokelman
The PM and MP's should not be allowed to appoint senators, the senate members should be voted in by the people and have an 8 year term limit.
jessica murray
yeah, then we can get absolute gridlock like in the united states. in the process, we can completely ignore our constitutional history, which explicitly attempted to prevent this.
great idea.
in fact, here's a better idea: why don't we just elect senators to their senate?
the government, almost entirely under mcguinty, did a very good job in transitioning the source of electricity, and for this they should be applauded.
but, they are approaching it with the wrong economic perspective. and, the more they deregulate, the worse this gets.
consider chiarelli's statement. "we needed to attract investment.". that's absurd. they could have created a revenue stream if they put the money down.
the ontario liberals are not the federal liberals. they don't have the same economic competency level.
the red tories actually had this right, but they're long gone. and, so, i really hope that the ndp comes out with a comprehensive plan to retake state control of the entire energy sector, from generation to transmission.
that is the only way that prices will ever come down.
yeah. the old ontario conservatives used to believe that electricity generation ought to be a publicly owned resource. and, this is actually a classical liberal position, as well. the current crops of ontario liberals and conservatives are both taking a very radical hayekian or rothbardian (dare i suggest randian) position on this that is simply not consistent with their ideological underpinnings.
the only hope on this file is the ndp. and, i really hope they take a strong initiative on a bold position. it's actually a guaranteed election win for them, if they can pull together the right vision.
i may even go so far as to suggest it's the only issue on the horizon in ontario that has any chance of leading to a change of government. and, i'd follow that up with the suggestion that it's important enough that it should happen.
we have excess capacity, and that is a good thing. if we want to seriously reduce emissions, we're going to need it. but, we shouldn't be punishing anybody for it or pushing for conservation schemes. we should be taking control of it and providing incentives to transition towards it.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontarians-paid-37-billion-above-market-price-for-electricity-over-eight-years-ag/article27560753/
--
Guest9
"Ontarians have paid $37-billion more than market price for electricity over eight years and will pay another $133-billion extra by 2032 as a result of haphazard planning and political meddling, a report from the Auditor-General says."
That is a completely misleading statement by the G&M and the Author of this article. The AG report does not say that at all. It does not say that the $37 bn and $133 bn excess payments are due to haphazard planning and political meddling. The AG report only says that those are its estimates of the Global Adjustments paid in the electrical system. Clearly, the Author has very little knowledge of how the electrical system works in Ontario and how to interpret the AG report. Global Adjustments are an important and necessary part of the electricity system and market in Ontario and they are not a waste of money for taxpayers or ratepayers. They do not come about because of mismanagement and politics. Now if the Author and the G&M want to debate whether Ontario's electric system should have a Global Adjustments system then that is a completely different topic and something that we can be debated. This is a completely misleading article and very poor interpretation of the AG report.
deathtokoalas
the global adjustment was actually initially meant as a rebate, but the suppliers figured out that was bad pr and spun the situation around. the "market price" is an essentially meaningless number, because it's kept artificially low to prevent those rebates from coming off as bad pr.
we can't get ahead on this unless we take control out of the hand of private producers and put it back in the hands of the people.
it creates this situation where people think if you "took the government out of the way" they'd be paying three cents per kwh, or whatever it's at. which is ridiculous. everybody would shut down. if you "took the government out of the way", the per hour price would simply rise to what you're already paying - and perhaps a little more, as the oeb does have some regulatory power.
but, they are approaching it with the wrong economic perspective. and, the more they deregulate, the worse this gets.
consider chiarelli's statement. "we needed to attract investment.". that's absurd. they could have created a revenue stream if they put the money down.
the ontario liberals are not the federal liberals. they don't have the same economic competency level.
the red tories actually had this right, but they're long gone. and, so, i really hope that the ndp comes out with a comprehensive plan to retake state control of the entire energy sector, from generation to transmission.
that is the only way that prices will ever come down.
yeah. the old ontario conservatives used to believe that electricity generation ought to be a publicly owned resource. and, this is actually a classical liberal position, as well. the current crops of ontario liberals and conservatives are both taking a very radical hayekian or rothbardian (dare i suggest randian) position on this that is simply not consistent with their ideological underpinnings.
the only hope on this file is the ndp. and, i really hope they take a strong initiative on a bold position. it's actually a guaranteed election win for them, if they can pull together the right vision.
i may even go so far as to suggest it's the only issue on the horizon in ontario that has any chance of leading to a change of government. and, i'd follow that up with the suggestion that it's important enough that it should happen.
we have excess capacity, and that is a good thing. if we want to seriously reduce emissions, we're going to need it. but, we shouldn't be punishing anybody for it or pushing for conservation schemes. we should be taking control of it and providing incentives to transition towards it.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontarians-paid-37-billion-above-market-price-for-electricity-over-eight-years-ag/article27560753/
--
Guest9
"Ontarians have paid $37-billion more than market price for electricity over eight years and will pay another $133-billion extra by 2032 as a result of haphazard planning and political meddling, a report from the Auditor-General says."
That is a completely misleading statement by the G&M and the Author of this article. The AG report does not say that at all. It does not say that the $37 bn and $133 bn excess payments are due to haphazard planning and political meddling. The AG report only says that those are its estimates of the Global Adjustments paid in the electrical system. Clearly, the Author has very little knowledge of how the electrical system works in Ontario and how to interpret the AG report. Global Adjustments are an important and necessary part of the electricity system and market in Ontario and they are not a waste of money for taxpayers or ratepayers. They do not come about because of mismanagement and politics. Now if the Author and the G&M want to debate whether Ontario's electric system should have a Global Adjustments system then that is a completely different topic and something that we can be debated. This is a completely misleading article and very poor interpretation of the AG report.
deathtokoalas
the global adjustment was actually initially meant as a rebate, but the suppliers figured out that was bad pr and spun the situation around. the "market price" is an essentially meaningless number, because it's kept artificially low to prevent those rebates from coming off as bad pr.
we can't get ahead on this unless we take control out of the hand of private producers and put it back in the hands of the people.
it creates this situation where people think if you "took the government out of the way" they'd be paying three cents per kwh, or whatever it's at. which is ridiculous. everybody would shut down. if you "took the government out of the way", the per hour price would simply rise to what you're already paying - and perhaps a little more, as the oeb does have some regulatory power.
absolutely nobody cares about the senate.
the one and only important thing here is that he's able to get enough bums in enough seats that his agenda doesn't get blocked.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/senate-reform-is-no-reform-at-all-and-could-have-unintended-consequence/article27587177/
the one and only important thing here is that he's able to get enough bums in enough seats that his agenda doesn't get blocked.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/senate-reform-is-no-reform-at-all-and-could-have-unintended-consequence/article27587177/
02-12-2015: turning the corner?
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriclaimed
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriclaimed
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
thoughts on the most recent defeater record
i missed this in august...attention drawn to it by tour dates....just wasn't paying attention...
i've only listened to the record all the way through once, and will have to give it a few more tries. you don't really "get" a defeater record on the first listen. but, i'm comfortable in stating that if i'm going to connect to this at all then it's going to be on a purely lyrical level. that's not impossible.
i wouldn't be surprised to find out that this disc was well received by people that are closer to the mainstream core of the modern "(scr)e(a)mo" sound. hey, there's a relatively big audience there. and, it's not a complete 180 - there's plenty of things that jumped out that seemed very characteristic of the band's previous work. but, the blunt and honest immediacy - the starkly nihilistic juxtapositions and just blatant punk rock, however much adapted - that made them refreshing seems to have been replaced by what are kind of contrived melodramaticisms. i mean, i don't want to sound ridiculous. it was always contrived. but, it was a different kind of contrived - a more thematic and less calculated one. if you're a fan of the centre of the genre that they're moving closer to, you probably won't understand this criticism because it's the perfect description of every band that you're used to listening to. but, if you lean more towards older school punk rock or perhaps even straight up art rock, don't really have any affinity with "emo" and were kind of being pulled into this by bands that hover closer to the core of what punk was, you'll understand what i'm getting at. if you're that person, as i am, you probably really didn't want to hear them walk down this path. but, you probably knew it was coming, too.
i could probably handle some standardization in the aesthetic if the writing compensated for it. musically, i didn't pick up on that the first time through - i got the opposite impression. i'll have to see if i pick up on it, thematically, as i listen to it a few more times.
i'll say this though: i was initially put off by the stronger testosterone level on letters home. but, as i got to understand the story line, i began to realize that it couldn't have been any other way. it had to be badass. i'll have to see if this connects in the same way.
i know this is an extremely tentative review. maybe i'll post another comment in a few weeks or months. but, that's how this band operates. you just don't understand it the first time you listen to it; if you think you do, you definitely don't. that's why elitist critics like me are drawn to them, even if they're consistently cycling around a genre we would generally consider to exist purely in the realm of bad taste.
i've only listened to the record all the way through once, and will have to give it a few more tries. you don't really "get" a defeater record on the first listen. but, i'm comfortable in stating that if i'm going to connect to this at all then it's going to be on a purely lyrical level. that's not impossible.
i wouldn't be surprised to find out that this disc was well received by people that are closer to the mainstream core of the modern "(scr)e(a)mo" sound. hey, there's a relatively big audience there. and, it's not a complete 180 - there's plenty of things that jumped out that seemed very characteristic of the band's previous work. but, the blunt and honest immediacy - the starkly nihilistic juxtapositions and just blatant punk rock, however much adapted - that made them refreshing seems to have been replaced by what are kind of contrived melodramaticisms. i mean, i don't want to sound ridiculous. it was always contrived. but, it was a different kind of contrived - a more thematic and less calculated one. if you're a fan of the centre of the genre that they're moving closer to, you probably won't understand this criticism because it's the perfect description of every band that you're used to listening to. but, if you lean more towards older school punk rock or perhaps even straight up art rock, don't really have any affinity with "emo" and were kind of being pulled into this by bands that hover closer to the core of what punk was, you'll understand what i'm getting at. if you're that person, as i am, you probably really didn't want to hear them walk down this path. but, you probably knew it was coming, too.
i could probably handle some standardization in the aesthetic if the writing compensated for it. musically, i didn't pick up on that the first time through - i got the opposite impression. i'll have to see if i pick up on it, thematically, as i listen to it a few more times.
i'll say this though: i was initially put off by the stronger testosterone level on letters home. but, as i got to understand the story line, i began to realize that it couldn't have been any other way. it had to be badass. i'll have to see if this connects in the same way.
i know this is an extremely tentative review. maybe i'll post another comment in a few weeks or months. but, that's how this band operates. you just don't understand it the first time you listen to it; if you think you do, you definitely don't. that's why elitist critics like me are drawn to them, even if they're consistently cycling around a genre we would generally consider to exist purely in the realm of bad taste.
i'm really disappointed that i haven't yet heard the term "nanny state".
i didn't initially draw the connection between this and the uccb, because there isn't one. it just struck me as typical kneejerk fiscal conservatism, the type we see everywhere that can't place anything in context. and, once it was pointed out to me, it took me a while to work through it, because it's so convoluted.
but, here's the right way to think about it...
so, the uccb is a tax cut. the nannies are a perk employed by his employer. the correct way to look at the situation is consequently not that he's using tax dollars, it's that his employer is covering his child care.
now, it's true that his employer pays him in tax dollars. but, that's not the same thing as using tax dollars. i think it's important to stop at this point, because i think it's difficult to grapple with from both perspectives. and, i'd actually like to thank whomever brought this up, because it was a good mental exercise.
see, i understand that this is a conceptual jump that a lot of people won't be able to make. tax dollars are tax dollars are tax dollars. right? but, these people need to understand that, on the other hand, conflating the two things is the part that people like me needed explained to them - because we would never think to do so, otherwise. the difference between getting a tax cut and having tax dollars pay for employment related costs are such different things, that it would never cross our minds to link them. see?
whether your approach is that it's hard to see how to put the pieces together into a contradiction, or conceptually hard to separate these two things from each other, the right analysis has to be that these are two different things - because they are.
he's not getting a tax break. it just happens to be that his employer pays him in tax funds. and, once you realize that, the contradiction resolves and we can get back to talking about the climate conference in paris.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rona-ambrose-rich-trudeau-nannies-1.3347148
Billy McGruff
Whoaaaaaaaaaaa lmao
jessica murray
it's actually a really interesting question in perception, and logical pathways.
i mean, i wouldn't expect this from every seemingly ridiculous right-wing criticism.
but, this so convoluted that they really fluked out on something really interesting with this.
Alma_Fudd
Maybe cut back on the herb a bit?
jessica murray
well, you have to wander a little when the issue is this half-baked.
it's been almost two weeks, actually. frankly, i'm too old to be baked all the time.
i didn't initially draw the connection between this and the uccb, because there isn't one. it just struck me as typical kneejerk fiscal conservatism, the type we see everywhere that can't place anything in context. and, once it was pointed out to me, it took me a while to work through it, because it's so convoluted.
but, here's the right way to think about it...
so, the uccb is a tax cut. the nannies are a perk employed by his employer. the correct way to look at the situation is consequently not that he's using tax dollars, it's that his employer is covering his child care.
now, it's true that his employer pays him in tax dollars. but, that's not the same thing as using tax dollars. i think it's important to stop at this point, because i think it's difficult to grapple with from both perspectives. and, i'd actually like to thank whomever brought this up, because it was a good mental exercise.
see, i understand that this is a conceptual jump that a lot of people won't be able to make. tax dollars are tax dollars are tax dollars. right? but, these people need to understand that, on the other hand, conflating the two things is the part that people like me needed explained to them - because we would never think to do so, otherwise. the difference between getting a tax cut and having tax dollars pay for employment related costs are such different things, that it would never cross our minds to link them. see?
whether your approach is that it's hard to see how to put the pieces together into a contradiction, or conceptually hard to separate these two things from each other, the right analysis has to be that these are two different things - because they are.
he's not getting a tax break. it just happens to be that his employer pays him in tax funds. and, once you realize that, the contradiction resolves and we can get back to talking about the climate conference in paris.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rona-ambrose-rich-trudeau-nannies-1.3347148
Billy McGruff
Whoaaaaaaaaaaa lmao
jessica murray
it's actually a really interesting question in perception, and logical pathways.
i mean, i wouldn't expect this from every seemingly ridiculous right-wing criticism.
but, this so convoluted that they really fluked out on something really interesting with this.
Alma_Fudd
Maybe cut back on the herb a bit?
jessica murray
well, you have to wander a little when the issue is this half-baked.
it's been almost two weeks, actually. frankly, i'm too old to be baked all the time.
i'd just buy it. it's a lot easier. and, i don't need to be baked all of the time.
there are very heavy marijuana users out there. they really do need some help. most people, though, use it similarly to the way they use alcohol - a couple of times a month, and mostly socially.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/recreational-pot-business-regulation-in-canada-1.3345230
there are very heavy marijuana users out there. they really do need some help. most people, though, use it similarly to the way they use alcohol - a couple of times a month, and mostly socially.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/recreational-pot-business-regulation-in-canada-1.3345230
the infrastructure already exists. it's really just a question of passing a few simple laws and stepping back. really.
but, from the business perspective - and i've pointed this out before - the biggest opportunity is less in the plan itself and more in the offshoot industries.
plastics, for example. we already grow billions of dollars of pot. we throw away 90% of the plant as a waste product. this could be used to make a far more environmentally friendly from of plastic. and, that is but one of a huge amount of examples.
the reality is that, if this is done intelligently, marijuana could very well become not just *an* important industry but the country's *most important* industry, pushing oil out of the way in terms of revenue, gdp and jobs.
i really hope that the government sees the biggest possible picture, here.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/recreational-pot-business-regulation-in-canada-1.3345230
but, from the business perspective - and i've pointed this out before - the biggest opportunity is less in the plan itself and more in the offshoot industries.
plastics, for example. we already grow billions of dollars of pot. we throw away 90% of the plant as a waste product. this could be used to make a far more environmentally friendly from of plastic. and, that is but one of a huge amount of examples.
the reality is that, if this is done intelligently, marijuana could very well become not just *an* important industry but the country's *most important* industry, pushing oil out of the way in terms of revenue, gdp and jobs.
i really hope that the government sees the biggest possible picture, here.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/recreational-pot-business-regulation-in-canada-1.3345230
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
this is an interesting and in some places eye-opening discussion, for those that can follow the language. i'll admit that they lost me once or twice, but i was able to follow almost all of it. i think that's mostly because the discussion exists in a broader meta-scientific context, rather than a very specific biological one. that is, the primary question discussed is the pros and cons of different experimental approaches to determining the use of specific drugs. "bio-markers", here, is a kind of buzz word; the discussion cycles around it, but it's not really about it.
but, the fact that we're using buzz words in the first place in what claims to be a scientific conference should create a little bit of pause.
in thinking about how to react to this video (and i've had a few days, as it's taken me some time to move through it), something that came up a few times were some comments made by stefan molyneux (somebody i would normally be hesitant to quote or draw attention to) about global warming. now, he didn't make his argument well. but, he said something along these lines (i'm paraphrasing out of laziness, but it's pretty close):
the government program referred to as "science" is not the same thing as the epistemological approach we call science
he then used that insight to argue that we should be skeptical about government-funded research on climate change. it was more agnostic than anything else. and, as i say, he didn't make his argument well - partly because this insight, while actually quite astute, doesn't really conform well to what we know about how governments approach climate science. taking his insight and applying it to better to the world around us, i might suggest that he should have said:
the industry marketing program referred to as "science" is not the same thing as the epistemological approach we call science.
these two statements are not mutually exclusive. in fact, he might even agree with me in pointing out that both statements are equally valid. or, perhaps he'd throw around some absurd market theory about consumers choosing good science. as though consumers are equipped to do that, right? but, while acknowledging that both statements are valid, i need to suggest that it is the second that is more relevant in the world we live in
i think this conference very clearly demonstrates where the world of "science" as industry marketing interferes and comes into conflict with the world of science as epistemology.
but, the fact that we're using buzz words in the first place in what claims to be a scientific conference should create a little bit of pause.
in thinking about how to react to this video (and i've had a few days, as it's taken me some time to move through it), something that came up a few times were some comments made by stefan molyneux (somebody i would normally be hesitant to quote or draw attention to) about global warming. now, he didn't make his argument well. but, he said something along these lines (i'm paraphrasing out of laziness, but it's pretty close):
the government program referred to as "science" is not the same thing as the epistemological approach we call science
he then used that insight to argue that we should be skeptical about government-funded research on climate change. it was more agnostic than anything else. and, as i say, he didn't make his argument well - partly because this insight, while actually quite astute, doesn't really conform well to what we know about how governments approach climate science. taking his insight and applying it to better to the world around us, i might suggest that he should have said:
the industry marketing program referred to as "science" is not the same thing as the epistemological approach we call science.
these two statements are not mutually exclusive. in fact, he might even agree with me in pointing out that both statements are equally valid. or, perhaps he'd throw around some absurd market theory about consumers choosing good science. as though consumers are equipped to do that, right? but, while acknowledging that both statements are valid, i need to suggest that it is the second that is more relevant in the world we live in
i think this conference very clearly demonstrates where the world of "science" as industry marketing interferes and comes into conflict with the world of science as epistemology.
so, here's the thing.
maybe i'm wrong. maybe the russians didn't bomb paris.
but, if the result is that marine le pen wins the election and pulls france out of nato?
then, they bloody well should have bombed paris.
that would be the biggest victory for the russians since stalingrad.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/01/marine-le-pen-front-national-political-gains-paris-attacks
france operates on a run-off. there seems to be three major candidates, right now - the so-called "socialist" party of hollande (which is anything but...), the "republican party" (sarkozy's party) and the front nationale.
if the run-off ends up between sarkozy and le pen, it can be reasonably expected that the "socialists" will probably line up behind sarkozy in sufficient enough numbers to prevent le pen from winning.
it's the possibility of a run-off between le pen and hollande, which forces the conservative republican voters to pick a side, that gives her a distinct possibility of winning.
if you see another attack leading up to the election...
maybe i'm wrong. maybe the russians didn't bomb paris.
but, if the result is that marine le pen wins the election and pulls france out of nato?
then, they bloody well should have bombed paris.
that would be the biggest victory for the russians since stalingrad.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/01/marine-le-pen-front-national-political-gains-paris-attacks
france operates on a run-off. there seems to be three major candidates, right now - the so-called "socialist" party of hollande (which is anything but...), the "republican party" (sarkozy's party) and the front nationale.
if the run-off ends up between sarkozy and le pen, it can be reasonably expected that the "socialists" will probably line up behind sarkozy in sufficient enough numbers to prevent le pen from winning.
it's the possibility of a run-off between le pen and hollande, which forces the conservative republican voters to pick a side, that gives her a distinct possibility of winning.
if you see another attack leading up to the election...
i got some blood test results back today.
the real reason for the blood test was to check my estrogen levels, which was actually done on my request. i've been thinking for a while now that i should get my dose boosted. but, i was running around from doctor to doctor and just didn't really get a chance to get an empirical test done to determine what the levels were and whether they should be boosted. as expected, they're a little low.
that's actually pretty normal. it's an expected part of transitioning to increase dosages after a while. i'm actually way past due on this. so, i've been boosted from 4 mg/day to 6 mg/day. but, i'm going to wait until i quit smoking first before i do it.
i've been stuck on this remix project for months because my machine just won't behave, and have been waiting until i'm done the project before i give myself a few weeks of filing to occupy myself with. for me, quitting smoking is primarily a problem at the mental level. basically, i find myself unable to focus on anything. it's a huge problem for me because i'm always focusing on something or other. the only way i'm going to get over the smoking is by giving myself something menial to do for, like, weeks. i just have to throw that time away. that's really hard for me - even if i get the long term benefits of it - because i interpret time as the only meaningful quantifiable in the entire universe. the filing is the perfect opportunity for this. but i can't get to it because i can't get the machine to co-operate.
i've been getting impatient, anyways. i only budgeted myself $60 for cigarettes this month. that needs to be a hard limit, now. smoking ends when that budget runs out, whether i'm done the project or not. the hormone switch is just an added incentive.
first, nicotine is an estrogen suppressant. second, smoking on estrogen can cause blood clots. i shouldn't be smoking at all, really - well, *at all*, but at all when i'm taking hormones. it's a risk for people on birth control, which is something like 100 mcg/day. i'm about to jump to 6 mg/day. i'm hesitant about the safety of this. i should really be hesitant about the safety of it at 4 mg/day.
but, he also told me that i'm the "healthiest person he's ever seen". he's "never seen lower blood cholesterol". it seemed obvious to him to ask me about my diet, but he seemed rather disappointed in my responses.
in the 96 hours before the blood test, i had consumed 5 rockstar vodkas, several pots of coffee, several packs of cigarettes and had even smoked a couple of bowls. ten hours previous to the blood test, i had a large meal that included a giant plate of pasta with a third of a brick of cheese, caesar dressing (not light.) as an alfredo sauce, eight slices of crumpled salami, tomatoes and green peppers. i also had a smoothie with a banana, five strawberries, two scoops of ice cream and about 500 ml of soy milk. i've actually had exactly that meal almost every day for the last two months - although i got a pizza one day, and have had some doritos in between as well.
i'll post the link to the culinary series in my vlog as a comment.
that doesn't come off as a particularly healthy diet. he liked the soy smoothies, and didn't like the salami and the cheese. he thought i must be eating some kind of miracle foods like quinoa or something.
while my diet is consciously designed to ensure i get sufficient nutrients (the soy smoothies are key to this, but i also would normally eat a lot of eggs to get my amino acids), it is really not designed to minimize so-called harmful foods - except in the sense that i do not eat a lot. i eat, at most, once a day - most days. once in a while, i won't eat at all.
the correct way to interpret the test results is as confirmation of my approach to food, which i've posted here a few times over the last few years. that is, the important thing to realize is that it isn't the content of the food that is important, but the quantity of it that you consume.
basically, your body stores everything almost exactly the same way. it may not be the most politically correct thing to say, but the actual hard reality of it is that if you're too fat or you have too much cholesterol then you simply eat too much. the way to minimize excess fat storage in the various ways that your body stores fat - which includes blood cholesterol - is to ensure that you're not giving your body too much fuel, because it will then store it as some kind of fat.
my blood cholesterol is not low because of what i eat. it's low because of how much i eat.
but, even that said, there is an even more dominant factor, and it's lifestyle. i walk everywhere. i walked about 40 minutes to the doctor's office today, in fact. i then walked to the grocery store to get some more very high fat caesar dressing for my high fat pasta diet. the reason i do this is that i don't have a car.
that is the actual takeaway: i am the healthiest person the doctor has ever seen because i do not have a car. and, if you want to be that healthy, too? then, stop using your car on a day-to-day basis. walk as much as you can.
i'm proof of it. most nutritionists would claim my diet is terrible (but they're wrong, because the quantity of what i consume is low). i smoke two things. i don't drink a lot of alcohol, but i had consumed some within a few days of the blood test. and, i drink at least a pot of coffee a day.
but, my heart is in pristine condition!
and, it's simply because i don't have a car.
the real reason for the blood test was to check my estrogen levels, which was actually done on my request. i've been thinking for a while now that i should get my dose boosted. but, i was running around from doctor to doctor and just didn't really get a chance to get an empirical test done to determine what the levels were and whether they should be boosted. as expected, they're a little low.
that's actually pretty normal. it's an expected part of transitioning to increase dosages after a while. i'm actually way past due on this. so, i've been boosted from 4 mg/day to 6 mg/day. but, i'm going to wait until i quit smoking first before i do it.
i've been stuck on this remix project for months because my machine just won't behave, and have been waiting until i'm done the project before i give myself a few weeks of filing to occupy myself with. for me, quitting smoking is primarily a problem at the mental level. basically, i find myself unable to focus on anything. it's a huge problem for me because i'm always focusing on something or other. the only way i'm going to get over the smoking is by giving myself something menial to do for, like, weeks. i just have to throw that time away. that's really hard for me - even if i get the long term benefits of it - because i interpret time as the only meaningful quantifiable in the entire universe. the filing is the perfect opportunity for this. but i can't get to it because i can't get the machine to co-operate.
i've been getting impatient, anyways. i only budgeted myself $60 for cigarettes this month. that needs to be a hard limit, now. smoking ends when that budget runs out, whether i'm done the project or not. the hormone switch is just an added incentive.
first, nicotine is an estrogen suppressant. second, smoking on estrogen can cause blood clots. i shouldn't be smoking at all, really - well, *at all*, but at all when i'm taking hormones. it's a risk for people on birth control, which is something like 100 mcg/day. i'm about to jump to 6 mg/day. i'm hesitant about the safety of this. i should really be hesitant about the safety of it at 4 mg/day.
but, he also told me that i'm the "healthiest person he's ever seen". he's "never seen lower blood cholesterol". it seemed obvious to him to ask me about my diet, but he seemed rather disappointed in my responses.
in the 96 hours before the blood test, i had consumed 5 rockstar vodkas, several pots of coffee, several packs of cigarettes and had even smoked a couple of bowls. ten hours previous to the blood test, i had a large meal that included a giant plate of pasta with a third of a brick of cheese, caesar dressing (not light.) as an alfredo sauce, eight slices of crumpled salami, tomatoes and green peppers. i also had a smoothie with a banana, five strawberries, two scoops of ice cream and about 500 ml of soy milk. i've actually had exactly that meal almost every day for the last two months - although i got a pizza one day, and have had some doritos in between as well.
i'll post the link to the culinary series in my vlog as a comment.
that doesn't come off as a particularly healthy diet. he liked the soy smoothies, and didn't like the salami and the cheese. he thought i must be eating some kind of miracle foods like quinoa or something.
while my diet is consciously designed to ensure i get sufficient nutrients (the soy smoothies are key to this, but i also would normally eat a lot of eggs to get my amino acids), it is really not designed to minimize so-called harmful foods - except in the sense that i do not eat a lot. i eat, at most, once a day - most days. once in a while, i won't eat at all.
the correct way to interpret the test results is as confirmation of my approach to food, which i've posted here a few times over the last few years. that is, the important thing to realize is that it isn't the content of the food that is important, but the quantity of it that you consume.
basically, your body stores everything almost exactly the same way. it may not be the most politically correct thing to say, but the actual hard reality of it is that if you're too fat or you have too much cholesterol then you simply eat too much. the way to minimize excess fat storage in the various ways that your body stores fat - which includes blood cholesterol - is to ensure that you're not giving your body too much fuel, because it will then store it as some kind of fat.
my blood cholesterol is not low because of what i eat. it's low because of how much i eat.
but, even that said, there is an even more dominant factor, and it's lifestyle. i walk everywhere. i walked about 40 minutes to the doctor's office today, in fact. i then walked to the grocery store to get some more very high fat caesar dressing for my high fat pasta diet. the reason i do this is that i don't have a car.
that is the actual takeaway: i am the healthiest person the doctor has ever seen because i do not have a car. and, if you want to be that healthy, too? then, stop using your car on a day-to-day basis. walk as much as you can.
i'm proof of it. most nutritionists would claim my diet is terrible (but they're wrong, because the quantity of what i consume is low). i smoke two things. i don't drink a lot of alcohol, but i had consumed some within a few days of the blood test. and, i drink at least a pot of coffee a day.
but, my heart is in pristine condition!
and, it's simply because i don't have a car.
well, the government would spend it on weapons.
i'd do the same thing if i were them. they're going to lose a huge amount of it, regardless. their choice is whether they get to spend it on something they agree with, or whether the government gets to spend it on blowing people up.
the ideal solution would be to have some kind of a taxation rule, where tax bills over a certain amount can be directed by the person being taxed into specific directions. if i were them, and i had a 20 billion dollar tax bill, i wouldn't have a problem paying it - so long as i could direct the money into a combination of subsidized housing, primary education and health care.
but, i'd be livid if it ended up in the pockets of raytheon.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/zuckerbergs-letter-newborn-1.3345986
i'd do the same thing if i were them. they're going to lose a huge amount of it, regardless. their choice is whether they get to spend it on something they agree with, or whether the government gets to spend it on blowing people up.
the ideal solution would be to have some kind of a taxation rule, where tax bills over a certain amount can be directed by the person being taxed into specific directions. if i were them, and i had a 20 billion dollar tax bill, i wouldn't have a problem paying it - so long as i could direct the money into a combination of subsidized housing, primary education and health care.
but, i'd be livid if it ended up in the pockets of raytheon.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/zuckerbergs-letter-newborn-1.3345986
has it crossed anybody's mind to just buy our own oil, while we're trying to get off of it?
last time we tried that, we got a hissy fit from the west. maybe they've grown up a little bit...
i mean, we're importing over half of our oil from the us, and most of the rest of it from europe, while we're cutting jobs in alberta.
it makes no sense.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/cmhc-low-oil-1.3345304
geologist
I assume that you mean that the government of Canada should buy the oil. Where would the money come from?
jessica murray
why would the government need to buy the oil?
eastern canada imports almost all of it's oil. western canada exports almost all of it's oil.
i mean, do i really need to explain this? why is it not obvious?
last time we tried that, we got a hissy fit from the west. maybe they've grown up a little bit...
i mean, we're importing over half of our oil from the us, and most of the rest of it from europe, while we're cutting jobs in alberta.
it makes no sense.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/cmhc-low-oil-1.3345304
geologist
I assume that you mean that the government of Canada should buy the oil. Where would the money come from?
jessica murray
why would the government need to buy the oil?
eastern canada imports almost all of it's oil. western canada exports almost all of it's oil.
i mean, do i really need to explain this? why is it not obvious?
it may be a little fishy to assume that what is essentially good luck will continue forward, for no reason.
but, i think that more than balances itself out with increased revenue from other sources.
but, this is a hypothetical on a hypothetical. pointless.
from a pr perspective, and what else is really valid here, the government should probably not be predicting budget surpluses or deficits five years in advance in the first place. that would shield it from hypothetical criticism on hypothetical outcomes.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pbo-fiscal-outlook-government-optimistic-1.3345113
but, i think that more than balances itself out with increased revenue from other sources.
but, this is a hypothetical on a hypothetical. pointless.
from a pr perspective, and what else is really valid here, the government should probably not be predicting budget surpluses or deficits five years in advance in the first place. that would shield it from hypothetical criticism on hypothetical outcomes.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pbo-fiscal-outlook-government-optimistic-1.3345113
IrishDuck
Well Gotta go to work, pay for Trudeau's nannies
jessica murray
all two thousandths of a cent?
it should be over with quickly, anyways. you can grit it out for a few seconds. i believe in you.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-nannies-taxpayers-1.3344533
Well Gotta go to work, pay for Trudeau's nannies
jessica murray
all two thousandths of a cent?
it should be over with quickly, anyways. you can grit it out for a few seconds. i believe in you.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-nannies-taxpayers-1.3344533
shouldda listened to danny.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/newfoundland-labrador-election-main-1.3343794
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/newfoundland-labrador-election-main-1.3343794
i haven't been here long (mid 2013), but it is actually quite pleasant. i grew up in ottawa; it's not as nice as ottawa, but few places are.
sometimes, canadians take our green spaces for granted. maybe we shouldn't.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/syrian-refugees-canada-ormiston-1.3344218
sometimes, canadians take our green spaces for granted. maybe we shouldn't.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/syrian-refugees-canada-ormiston-1.3344218
a real waste of taxpayer money is the cbc running frivolous stories like this to distort the conversation on public finances.
it's the kind of thing you expect in a murdoch tabloid, not in a serious publication - nor one funded by public money.
i hope the government realizes that it has some housecleaning to do at the cbc.
a lot of trash to take out...
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-nannies-taxpayers-1.3344533
Byron Linley
In love with yourself I see.
jessica murray
love does not exist. it's merely a delusional delve into fantasy, as created by hormones. sorry.
it's the kind of thing you expect in a murdoch tabloid, not in a serious publication - nor one funded by public money.
i hope the government realizes that it has some housecleaning to do at the cbc.
a lot of trash to take out...
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-nannies-taxpayers-1.3344533
Byron Linley
In love with yourself I see.
jessica murray
love does not exist. it's merely a delusional delve into fantasy, as created by hormones. sorry.
see, this is the media narrative that we've been burdened with for the last several decades and that i'd really like to see just go away.
two $40,000/yr jobs (if that) isn't even statistical error in the budget.
and, i don't say this in any particular defense of trudeau. i state it in defense of rational thinking on the fiscal front - as it applies to a wide variety of things.
if you're angry about this, it's just flat out irrational.
i'd rather flip the situation around.
are these workers getting enough hours to earn a living wage? do they have sufficient benefits - dental, for example?
what's more important, here - that these workers have rights or the couple of thousandths of a cent it would cost you to ensure they do?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-nannies-taxpayers-1.3344533
hylobates
Yeah, but logic and rational thought never were Con strong points.
jessica murray
well, the reality is that it isn't even that they're bad at logic, it's more that they go out of their way to subvert it.
two $40,000/yr jobs (if that) isn't even statistical error in the budget.
and, i don't say this in any particular defense of trudeau. i state it in defense of rational thinking on the fiscal front - as it applies to a wide variety of things.
if you're angry about this, it's just flat out irrational.
i'd rather flip the situation around.
are these workers getting enough hours to earn a living wage? do they have sufficient benefits - dental, for example?
what's more important, here - that these workers have rights or the couple of thousandths of a cent it would cost you to ensure they do?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-nannies-taxpayers-1.3344533
hylobates
Yeah, but logic and rational thought never were Con strong points.
jessica murray
well, the reality is that it isn't even that they're bad at logic, it's more that they go out of their way to subvert it.
i still don't know what "legally binding" means, but this is a nice change in language from the messaging over the last little while. good. now, let's hope it gets done. and, let's hope the american people develop some sense in kicking the republicans out if they block it, too.
it may be the case that the rest of the world will have to move ahead without the united states, if that happens. but, i mean, what else are we going to do? we can't just keep waiting.
and, if it gets blocked by some other country, it's fair game to blame that other country for that, too.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/obama-pushes-for-climate-pact-with-some-legally-binding-aspects/article27555366/
it may be the case that the rest of the world will have to move ahead without the united states, if that happens. but, i mean, what else are we going to do? we can't just keep waiting.
and, if it gets blocked by some other country, it's fair game to blame that other country for that, too.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/obama-pushes-for-climate-pact-with-some-legally-binding-aspects/article27555366/
this makes sense: there's a fight between the warm air moving up and the cold air moving down and the forecast is that the warm air will mostly win that fight. i concur. but, i just want to add that you have to work in a concept of uncertainty. this el nino has also been unpredictable. this time last year, it wasn't even clear that we were going to have an el nino at all. if various factors lead to a faster collapse. or a longer lingering, this will effect how much warm air is able to move it's way up. there's also uncertainty related to how powerful that north wind may end up. canadians know to never underestimate that north wind.
while i think the idea is correct, i would suggest that you should not be surprised if we get a nasty cold snap or two before february. i would also not be surprised if the el nino stays longer than expected (as this has been the pattern with this el nino up to now - it has consistently exceeded forecasts). the cold snaps may be short, and may ultimately be overpowered by the warm air. but, there's reasons to expect them that go beyond the obvious "well, it's winter".
it's actually a situation, i think, where "a few degrees above normal" is misleading. fifteen days of temperatures that are 6 degrees above normal followed by five days of temperatures that are 10 degrees below normal (maybe dipping over the first day and rising over the last) balances out to "a few degrees above normal". but, it doesn't feel that way. and you won't remember it that way.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/winter-hasnt-been-cancelled-but-will-be-milder-for-most/60506?intcmp=twn_promo_news1
while i think the idea is correct, i would suggest that you should not be surprised if we get a nasty cold snap or two before february. i would also not be surprised if the el nino stays longer than expected (as this has been the pattern with this el nino up to now - it has consistently exceeded forecasts). the cold snaps may be short, and may ultimately be overpowered by the warm air. but, there's reasons to expect them that go beyond the obvious "well, it's winter".
it's actually a situation, i think, where "a few degrees above normal" is misleading. fifteen days of temperatures that are 6 degrees above normal followed by five days of temperatures that are 10 degrees below normal (maybe dipping over the first day and rising over the last) balances out to "a few degrees above normal". but, it doesn't feel that way. and you won't remember it that way.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/winter-hasnt-been-cancelled-but-will-be-milder-for-most/60506?intcmp=twn_promo_news1
Monday, November 30, 2015
india: 6% of the emissions, with 17% of the population.
china: 30% of emissions, with 19% of the population.
canada: 1.5% of the emissions with .5% of the population.
usa: 15% of the emissions, with 4% of the population.
i guess barack has decided to share the blame a little. "blame canada" was maybe getting a little old.
reality?
the democrats have a decent blame-shifting marketing campaign going on, but they've done absolutely nothing substantive.
blame america.
together, china & america make nearly half of the emissions. india is fourth, after the eu, but there's a huge drop from 2nd to 4th.
and, yes, china *must* get their emissions down. but, they also have a fifth of the population, and one would expect they'd produce a fifth of the emissions. somewhere around 20% is a reasonable target.
it's the united states that remains the most egregious polluter and has to take the biggest steps. any suggestions otherwise are just a pr strategy to shift the blame.
one would expect china and india to be the world's biggest polluters, because they have nearly 40% of the world's population. a real solution to this will necessitate that india become the world's second largest polluter due to reductions elsewhere.
it is the day that this becomes true that we will know we've made some progress in reducing emissions in the developed world.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-climate-change-conference-1.3343125
you know what?
screw obama.
let's push for legally binding targets, and make him make the choice to sign it or not. letting him squirm out of this is too easy. you're letting him blame it on the republicans. and, it's a lot of bs.
make it tough. make him sign it. and, make him take the heat when he doesn't.
china: 30% of emissions, with 19% of the population.
canada: 1.5% of the emissions with .5% of the population.
usa: 15% of the emissions, with 4% of the population.
i guess barack has decided to share the blame a little. "blame canada" was maybe getting a little old.
reality?
the democrats have a decent blame-shifting marketing campaign going on, but they've done absolutely nothing substantive.
blame america.
together, china & america make nearly half of the emissions. india is fourth, after the eu, but there's a huge drop from 2nd to 4th.
and, yes, china *must* get their emissions down. but, they also have a fifth of the population, and one would expect they'd produce a fifth of the emissions. somewhere around 20% is a reasonable target.
it's the united states that remains the most egregious polluter and has to take the biggest steps. any suggestions otherwise are just a pr strategy to shift the blame.
one would expect china and india to be the world's biggest polluters, because they have nearly 40% of the world's population. a real solution to this will necessitate that india become the world's second largest polluter due to reductions elsewhere.
it is the day that this becomes true that we will know we've made some progress in reducing emissions in the developed world.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-climate-change-conference-1.3343125
you know what?
screw obama.
let's push for legally binding targets, and make him make the choice to sign it or not. letting him squirm out of this is too easy. you're letting him blame it on the republicans. and, it's a lot of bs.
make it tough. make him sign it. and, make him take the heat when he doesn't.
jessica murray
my fall forecast was similar, but i'm not using any fancy models. it's not exactly divination, either. but, there's two things happening: you've got el nino pulling warm air up and you've got that blob exaggerating the pull of cold air down (the solar minimum has now passed). these are acting against each other. but, the difference is that el nino is a primary driver whereas the blob is a secondary one (that is, it exaggerates other things). the conclusion was to expect a mostly mild fall with shots of cold air. this is actually what the professionals here suggested, albeit with more complex formulas. they weren't wrong so much as they were off by a factor - el nino won the tug of war.
my winter forecast is actually that the conditions mostly hold. the graph needs to come down a few degrees, to account for less sunlight (and a colder ground). but, the basic idea of there being a tug of war between el nino and the polar vortex doesn't strike me as changing over the next few months. expect mostly warmer than average temperatures, with periodic blasts of arctic air.
also, i apologize - i should not have said that the solar minimum has passed. it is the opposite - the weak solar max has now passed. i was thinking of how weak the solar max was and jumbled the language. this is why editing posts is useful. we're actually now heading towards solar minimum, which should actually exaggerate the jet stream (on top of the blob, which may also be disappearing). it will be interesting to see what el nino looks like when we get to a more normal solar maximum and the factors begin to compound rather than cancel each other out. but, it's still a basic conflict in air masses and what we get will be determined by which air mass over powers the other.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/winter-is-coming-heres-how-we-develop-our-winter-forecast/60278/
my fall forecast was similar, but i'm not using any fancy models. it's not exactly divination, either. but, there's two things happening: you've got el nino pulling warm air up and you've got that blob exaggerating the pull of cold air down (the solar minimum has now passed). these are acting against each other. but, the difference is that el nino is a primary driver whereas the blob is a secondary one (that is, it exaggerates other things). the conclusion was to expect a mostly mild fall with shots of cold air. this is actually what the professionals here suggested, albeit with more complex formulas. they weren't wrong so much as they were off by a factor - el nino won the tug of war.
my winter forecast is actually that the conditions mostly hold. the graph needs to come down a few degrees, to account for less sunlight (and a colder ground). but, the basic idea of there being a tug of war between el nino and the polar vortex doesn't strike me as changing over the next few months. expect mostly warmer than average temperatures, with periodic blasts of arctic air.
also, i apologize - i should not have said that the solar minimum has passed. it is the opposite - the weak solar max has now passed. i was thinking of how weak the solar max was and jumbled the language. this is why editing posts is useful. we're actually now heading towards solar minimum, which should actually exaggerate the jet stream (on top of the blob, which may also be disappearing). it will be interesting to see what el nino looks like when we get to a more normal solar maximum and the factors begin to compound rather than cancel each other out. but, it's still a basic conflict in air masses and what we get will be determined by which air mass over powers the other.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/winter-is-coming-heres-how-we-develop-our-winter-forecast/60278/
he keeps saying that, and harper is going to have to announce a press conference consisting of three words muttered in an austrian accent.
i understand the issue with the american house. but, part of me would like to see "legally binding" targets anyways. i'm just not clear on what that actually means, though.
i mean, call me an anarchist - i'm guilty - but i'd argue that a law is only as valuable as it's means of enforcement. let's say you pass these legally binding targets. what happens if you break that law?
there are examples of enforceable international law. well, sort of. so long as you're not american, anyways. so, we have an international war crimes tribunal in the hague. will there be an international climate crimes tribunal? and, who gets tried?
it just strikes me as an absolute red herring.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-address-climate-change-paris-1.3343394
i understand the issue with the american house. but, part of me would like to see "legally binding" targets anyways. i'm just not clear on what that actually means, though.
i mean, call me an anarchist - i'm guilty - but i'd argue that a law is only as valuable as it's means of enforcement. let's say you pass these legally binding targets. what happens if you break that law?
there are examples of enforceable international law. well, sort of. so long as you're not american, anyways. so, we have an international war crimes tribunal in the hague. will there be an international climate crimes tribunal? and, who gets tried?
it just strikes me as an absolute red herring.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-address-climate-change-paris-1.3343394
Sunday, November 29, 2015
let's just get this done with quickly, please, and move on to something substantive.
the government will get little sympathy from anybody at all - not the media, not voters, nobody - if it ties it's own hands.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-era-parliamentary-reform-1.3342440
--
(deleted post about 'sunni ways')
deathtokoalas
just about anything would be a nice change over the shiite ways of the last ten years.
the government will get little sympathy from anybody at all - not the media, not voters, nobody - if it ties it's own hands.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-era-parliamentary-reform-1.3342440
--
(deleted post about 'sunni ways')
deathtokoalas
just about anything would be a nice change over the shiite ways of the last ten years.
india is making massive investments in solar and has promised to cut emissions by over a third. further, modi has a history of strong green initiatives. expect india to be a leader, here.
it is very typical of the western media to blame the problem on developing countries in order to distract from our own inaction.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-climate-change-deal-1.3341716
Randi7
India hasn't promised to even LOOK at their emissions until 2020.
Never mind actually DO anything.
jessica murray
completely false.
what india is doing is exactly what we should be doing - they are investing billions (in fact, i saw the number 2.5 trillion) on building clean electricity generation, primarily through solar. they expect to get over 100 gw on line of pure solar within the next couple of years, which would make them the world leader in renewables - ahead of germany.
as it is, their emissions per capita are already very low. one could not reasonably expect them to have a lower emissions per capita. it's just that there's a lot of people there, so even an emissions per capita that is lower than most developing countries (let alone most developed countries...) adds up.
but, the only way to get around the issue is to build clean generation capacity. that is what they are doing. it is what we should be doing, too.
india will feel the worst effects of climate change, of anywhere in the world. you will consequently find few world leaders that are as committed to the issue as modi is, as he has a strong grasp on the potential consequence for india. this is admittedly a change from previous governments. but it is something that has happened.
we need to stop demonizing others and take responsibility for our own actions.
put another way.
india is the second most populous country in the world, and has 17.6% of the population. canada is the 37th and has 0.49% of the population.
yet, india produces the 4th greatest amount of emissions (the eu is third) - and only 5.8% of total emissions. it has an emission-per-capita ratio of 1.7, which is lower than any other major country. the closest i could find was brazil at 2.4. this is an emissions-per-capita ratio that is similar to or in fact lower than most countries in sub-saharan africa.
conversely, canada has an emission-per-capita ratio of 15.7. that is over 9 times as many emissions, per person. we are 0.49% of the world population, but produce 1.6% of the emissions. in order to do our part, we should cut our emissions by seventy percent.
yet, it is india that is leading the way in solar development, and not us.
now, i don't pretend that canada is the major culprit, here. the major culprit remains the united states, which produces 15% of the global emissions with 4.4% of the population. they also need to cut their emissions by 70% in order to their part. they have done absolutely nothing substantive whatsoever. china is also polluting beyond it's population - 18.9% of the population and 29.2% of emissions means they should be looking to reduce emissions by 35%. they have been taking some steps recently, as well.
but, to blame it on india? this is wrong. it's western propaganda. whitewashing, basically.
frankly, the truth is that it's more than a little bit racist - by design.
it is very typical of the western media to blame the problem on developing countries in order to distract from our own inaction.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-climate-change-deal-1.3341716
Randi7
India hasn't promised to even LOOK at their emissions until 2020.
Never mind actually DO anything.
jessica murray
completely false.
what india is doing is exactly what we should be doing - they are investing billions (in fact, i saw the number 2.5 trillion) on building clean electricity generation, primarily through solar. they expect to get over 100 gw on line of pure solar within the next couple of years, which would make them the world leader in renewables - ahead of germany.
as it is, their emissions per capita are already very low. one could not reasonably expect them to have a lower emissions per capita. it's just that there's a lot of people there, so even an emissions per capita that is lower than most developing countries (let alone most developed countries...) adds up.
but, the only way to get around the issue is to build clean generation capacity. that is what they are doing. it is what we should be doing, too.
india will feel the worst effects of climate change, of anywhere in the world. you will consequently find few world leaders that are as committed to the issue as modi is, as he has a strong grasp on the potential consequence for india. this is admittedly a change from previous governments. but it is something that has happened.
we need to stop demonizing others and take responsibility for our own actions.
put another way.
india is the second most populous country in the world, and has 17.6% of the population. canada is the 37th and has 0.49% of the population.
yet, india produces the 4th greatest amount of emissions (the eu is third) - and only 5.8% of total emissions. it has an emission-per-capita ratio of 1.7, which is lower than any other major country. the closest i could find was brazil at 2.4. this is an emissions-per-capita ratio that is similar to or in fact lower than most countries in sub-saharan africa.
conversely, canada has an emission-per-capita ratio of 15.7. that is over 9 times as many emissions, per person. we are 0.49% of the world population, but produce 1.6% of the emissions. in order to do our part, we should cut our emissions by seventy percent.
yet, it is india that is leading the way in solar development, and not us.
now, i don't pretend that canada is the major culprit, here. the major culprit remains the united states, which produces 15% of the global emissions with 4.4% of the population. they also need to cut their emissions by 70% in order to their part. they have done absolutely nothing substantive whatsoever. china is also polluting beyond it's population - 18.9% of the population and 29.2% of emissions means they should be looking to reduce emissions by 35%. they have been taking some steps recently, as well.
but, to blame it on india? this is wrong. it's western propaganda. whitewashing, basically.
frankly, the truth is that it's more than a little bit racist - by design.
are americans really so sheltered and juvenile that this is a big deal?
what the fuck did you expect him to say?
or, let me guess.
the movement to ban rodgers for the year is being driven by parents concerned for a safer minneapolis.
Kolza
It's just something that doesn't happen often on television.
jessica
+Kolza no, i think i get it. it's just liberation, right? you can taste some abstraction of freedom in this, under the heavy burdens of day-to-day social censorship, and you're exhilarated by it.
but, don't suppress it further. be inspired. throw caution to the wind. live. be real.
it will be monday morning in but 24 hours. march right in there and tell your boss to fuck off. and throw your hands to the sky when you do - feel that surge of freedom.
what the fuck did you expect him to say?
or, let me guess.
the movement to ban rodgers for the year is being driven by parents concerned for a safer minneapolis.
Kolza
It's just something that doesn't happen often on television.
jessica
+Kolza no, i think i get it. it's just liberation, right? you can taste some abstraction of freedom in this, under the heavy burdens of day-to-day social censorship, and you're exhilarated by it.
but, don't suppress it further. be inspired. throw caution to the wind. live. be real.
it will be monday morning in but 24 hours. march right in there and tell your boss to fuck off. and throw your hands to the sky when you do - feel that surge of freedom.
Saturday, November 28, 2015
finalizing if god somehow does exist, it is sadistic and should be destroyed
this track is also finalized.
there's actually three versions of this done, but only two up. i'm considering splitting it off to a single with a couple of extra mixes, as well. this is the instrumental electronic mix.
regarding the singles, my thoughts have evolved on this. at first, i was skeptical about it because of the need to add numbers - now, i think i'll need to add in an extra series between integers, somehow. then, i wanted to work it down to just a couple. now, i'm thinking that if i do any, i should do all of them.
as before, my focus right now is to finish all of the versions of all of the songs. afterwards, i'll check each possible single for listenability value.
and, i still haven't completely ruled out renumbering. i've only mailed three discs. it will just make them that much more valuable, right?
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/dohgye
full remix:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/if-god-somehow-does-exist-it-is-sadistic-and-should-be-destroyed
there's actually three versions of this done, but only two up. i'm considering splitting it off to a single with a couple of extra mixes, as well. this is the instrumental electronic mix.
regarding the singles, my thoughts have evolved on this. at first, i was skeptical about it because of the need to add numbers - now, i think i'll need to add in an extra series between integers, somehow. then, i wanted to work it down to just a couple. now, i'm thinking that if i do any, i should do all of them.
as before, my focus right now is to finish all of the versions of all of the songs. afterwards, i'll check each possible single for listenability value.
and, i still haven't completely ruled out renumbering. i've only mailed three discs. it will just make them that much more valuable, right?
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/dohgye
full remix:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/if-god-somehow-does-exist-it-is-sadistic-and-should-be-destroyed
a scattered ancient memory
jessica
hi.
i don't have your mother's email address.
i just have a scattered memory of there being photos of me at a christmas party at the prime minister's office. it was brian mulroney that was prime minister, so it would have been the late 80s or early 90s. it had something to do with your mother's work.
i was just a kid; the memory is very fuzzy.
...but i think it would be interesting to track that picture down, if it still exists.
the oldest aunt
why don't you try the surviving uncle?
jessica
i really wouldn't expect he'd have those photos....
it'd be kind of weird if he did, i think.
the oldest aunt
Your right it would be weird but possible , apparently in 1996 or 97 when my mother moved to Victoria she gave all her children their own photos baby photos and all. so that would mean your dad was given his. so when he passed away ,I recall being given some photos of your dad from your stepmother and I was given photos to give to the surviving uncle
jessica
well, i'll give it a shot...
hi.
i don't have your mother's email address.
i just have a scattered memory of there being photos of me at a christmas party at the prime minister's office. it was brian mulroney that was prime minister, so it would have been the late 80s or early 90s. it had something to do with your mother's work.
i was just a kid; the memory is very fuzzy.
...but i think it would be interesting to track that picture down, if it still exists.
the oldest aunt
why don't you try the surviving uncle?
jessica
i really wouldn't expect he'd have those photos....
it'd be kind of weird if he did, i think.
the oldest aunt
Your right it would be weird but possible , apparently in 1996 or 97 when my mother moved to Victoria she gave all her children their own photos baby photos and all. so that would mean your dad was given his. so when he passed away ,I recall being given some photos of your dad from your stepmother and I was given photos to give to the surviving uncle
jessica
well, i'll give it a shot...
looks simple enough. what could possibly go wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvU6qsLfAuE
(deleted)
gender dysphoria is the medical term given to people suffering the exclusionary effects that society places on trans people. this is a recognized condition; it is essentially a type of trauma. however, there is currently no dsm category for gendered behaviour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvU6qsLfAuE
(deleted)
gender dysphoria is the medical term given to people suffering the exclusionary effects that society places on trans people. this is a recognized condition; it is essentially a type of trauma. however, there is currently no dsm category for gendered behaviour.
mr. okafor, you're a millionaire.
you need $3 pbrs? then, why are you hanging out in this place with the people that do? he was wrong: money means you can't be real anymore, you gotta chill with the fucking banksters. 'cause these lame motherfuckers are everywhere. they wanna fight you because you're rich, because you're successful.
you're not one of them anymore. stop pretending you are.
you need $3 pbrs? then, why are you hanging out in this place with the people that do? he was wrong: money means you can't be real anymore, you gotta chill with the fucking banksters. 'cause these lame motherfuckers are everywhere. they wanna fight you because you're rich, because you're successful.
you're not one of them anymore. stop pretending you are.
she said "oppressive", not "aggressive". i agree that it looks like a skit.
but, i'm posting here because this comes up every year and i can't stand the narrative. if this is a skit, it just demonstrates the point, further.
look at all the stupid poor people fighting over shit. they're funny.
listen...
it may be kind of nice to have some cash and shit. maybe you even earned it. good for you. but, these yearly delves into black friday insanity should be interpreted through the filter of how fucked up the wealth distribution is in our society, and it's not something that should make you feel good about yourself at the expense of others.
the question of picking something up on sale like this may seem trivial to you, but you have to understand that for the bulk of the people standing in line it's the difference between having a christmas and not having a christmas. and, what that means is explaining to your kids why you don't have a christmas. what it means is finding a way to uphold societal expectations about getting your in-laws, that you hate, something - because you have to. because they'll judge you, if you don't.
it may be great for our collective sanity if more people just stopped celebrating christmas. fuck, i haven't celebrated christmas in years. then again, i don't talk to my family, either. nor would it really have an effect on our economy anymore; stores hire temporary over the holidays, and 95% of the crap people buy is made in another country. it would be great if people just stopped. but, it's just not that easy.
showing up empty-handed at your in-laws, or telling your kids it doesn't happen this year, is just a measure of self-worth. of basic pride.
that so many people need to go through this ritual to maintain that basic level of self-respect should generate reflection, not ridicule. the insanity, here, is the level of inequality underlying this.
but, i'm posting here because this comes up every year and i can't stand the narrative. if this is a skit, it just demonstrates the point, further.
look at all the stupid poor people fighting over shit. they're funny.
listen...
it may be kind of nice to have some cash and shit. maybe you even earned it. good for you. but, these yearly delves into black friday insanity should be interpreted through the filter of how fucked up the wealth distribution is in our society, and it's not something that should make you feel good about yourself at the expense of others.
the question of picking something up on sale like this may seem trivial to you, but you have to understand that for the bulk of the people standing in line it's the difference between having a christmas and not having a christmas. and, what that means is explaining to your kids why you don't have a christmas. what it means is finding a way to uphold societal expectations about getting your in-laws, that you hate, something - because you have to. because they'll judge you, if you don't.
it may be great for our collective sanity if more people just stopped celebrating christmas. fuck, i haven't celebrated christmas in years. then again, i don't talk to my family, either. nor would it really have an effect on our economy anymore; stores hire temporary over the holidays, and 95% of the crap people buy is made in another country. it would be great if people just stopped. but, it's just not that easy.
showing up empty-handed at your in-laws, or telling your kids it doesn't happen this year, is just a measure of self-worth. of basic pride.
that so many people need to go through this ritual to maintain that basic level of self-respect should generate reflection, not ridicule. the insanity, here, is the level of inequality underlying this.
this may be rhetorical flourish and everything, and i'll acknowledge that few canadians really know the historical narrative well, but it is simply.....weird....to have a liberal prime minister fall all over himself for the queen.
the liberals are supposed to be about canadian sovereignty, and the separation of links to the monarchy. this is out of the whig tradition of parliamentary government, as applied to a far flung colony on another continent. there's even a strong historical strain of support for republican government in the liberal party (it's most recent prominent exponent was john manley). it is the desire for separation that drove patriation, which was the end of a very long historical and political process. it is the tories that have historically played up ties to the monarchy and canada's place in the commonwealth, out of the tory tradition of promoting "class harmony" in hierarchical fealty to king & country.
again: i know i'm speaking greek to most people. but, historians are going to look back at this and interpret it as flat out bizarre.
liberal supporters largely expect the prime minister to do the bare minimum in this circumstance, keep the language to the expected formalities, avoid any sort of direct praise (however faint) and get out of the hive's nest as soon as possible.
"the whigs are praising the queen now, are they?"
"indeed. has the whole world gone mad?"
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/full-text-trudeau-toast-queen-1.3340584
jplondon
no. actually, there are liberals (of the large and small-l variety) who see the role of the crown in a constitutinal monarchy.
in fact, i would argue - as a small-l liberal at all times and a large-l liberal on occasion - that personal liberties are best safeguarded in a constitutional monarchy.
i appreciate your historical take on the subject, but, just as democrats and republicans are the reverse of their historical antecedents, liberals are not the direct descendants of their whig progenitors.
any more than today's canadian conservatives bear the slightest resemblance to their 'tory' roots, even going back as recently as two decades.
and, given that, it is possible to share common values - particularly since the definition of the two modern parties is no longer rooted in their differing expectations of parliamentry government.
again, with the exception of the current interation of the conservative party, which sees parliament as an obstacle.
jessica murray
i don't think the differences between the modern parties and their historical roots are, in practice, are as large as you're suggesting.
consider, for example, what we call "free trade". standing in 1988, it seemed strange to see the liberals oppose it (that is, after all, what the term "liberal" actually *means*) and the conservatives (with their history of tory protectionism) support it.
but, if you look at the agreement, it is actually very much closer to the idea of tory protectionism than it is to the idea of free trade. there wasn't really a change in substantive position, so much as the term "free trade" went through a standard orwellian newspeak process to be converted into it's antithesis.
he last election was, at it's core, a choice between increasing authoritarian government under harper or a return to parliamentarian democracy under the liberal party. i don't think this was a corollary. i think it was the direct ballot question.
i also don't understand how you could argue that a constitutional monarchy (where the queen has no power at all) has any effect on the enforcement of rights. not that it's good or bad, but that it's at all remotely relevant...
i mean...
i don't think there's a really strong *anti*-monarchy streak amongst liberal supporters any more, so much as i think that liberal supporters mostly consider the issue dealt with after patriation.
if put it up to a direct plebiscite amongst liberal voters, i'm sure you'd find a hefty majority would support severing all ties. but, it's not a vote driver, either because it's been swept aside as an issue of little substance. a crisis of any sort would no doubt bring it back up, but for now the monarchy is just largely seen as an irrelevance - perhaps a mildly annoying one, but an irrelevance nonetheless. so, it's like - abolition of the monarchy as the head of state if necessary, but not necessarily abolition of the monarchy as the head of state.
so, i don't think a toast in malta is going to really swing anybody's vote or upset anybody.
but, i *do* think that the government ought to be more concerned about distancing itself from the monarchy than cozying up to it. it's that kind of lingering thing that is currently under control, but has the potential to become a tinder box.
under the proper circumstances, i'm certain the ndp could win an election on the issue. it's more a question of avoiding those circumstances.
Patrick Wilson
The patriation you seem to think dealt with the matter only really gave us the power to amend. In Trudeau's '82 Charter, to change the head of state requires the unanimous agreement of both the House of Commons and Senate—all members, as well as unanimous consent of all the provinces’ legislative MLA's. To change that rule requires the same. Good luck with that.
jessica murray
section 41 does not refer to unanimous consent within each body, it only refers to the unanimous consent of all bodies. there is nowhere in canada where support for the monarchy is a populist position. excluding the senate, the various bodies would need to reject an amendment of this sort at their own peril. while it may not be the easiest task, i think it would be a lot easier than repealing the senate. if a crisis were to be set off, i think it would actually be very difficult to fight against abolition - and any party that does so would likely walk out of the situation utterly ruined, even if it succeeds in the short run.
but, the point is that it's the power to write our own laws that is really at the heart of the issue. we today have absolute sovereignty in any functionally meaningful sense. so, it's hard to really come up with any reason why we should be putting any resources into fighting to eject the queen as a nominal head of state when she has no ability to interfere, anyways.
but, that doesn't mean that liberal supporters are gung-ho about the monarchy, or that we're going to interpret cozying up to the monarchy as something that is "ok". it just means there's more important things to concern ourselves with - so long as that actually remains true.
jplondon
well, if we are going to wander off into 'free trade', let me simply say this:
any 'free trade agreement' that requires more than 4,000 pages to codify is anything but 'free'. it is an industry unto itself.
to your original point, though.
i am guilty of not making myself as clear as i might have. my original point should have been this: given its diminishing influence over parliament - beginning at least since the bill of rights,1689, and accelerating since, the monarchy has become less and less of a point of difference between 'tories' and 'whigs' and especially their successor parties in canada.
the differences between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' in their modern, canadian iterations has devoved largely into symbolism. the romantic attachment of either party to the crown (if any) doesn't interest me except as an historical artifact. my concerns there are more a matter of constitutional form.
in short, i don't think the crown matters enough to either party to get worked up over.
with respect to the crown as a bulwark against incursions onto civil liberties by the state, i think my concern there is more a matter of seeing how matters such as lgbt rights and same-sex marriage, for example, have become political footballs by an elected, american head of state.
i don't like social or moral issues subject to the vicissitudes of electoral politics. if we are to have a head of state, let's have one with as little political influence as possible.
and, having none, or next to none i think our model for a head of state is spot on.
jessica murray
i think it's a very complicated question as to whether the president has more or less power than the prime minister. but, i don't think many people that are advocating for the abolition of the monarchy are also advocating for the creation of a presidency; those are rather different positions. i would certainly be opposed to the creation of a canadian presidency, even as i advocate for the abolition of the monarchy.
regarding same sex marriage, that was something that happened here as a consequence of our court system, which is more powerful than the american court system. that's a consequence of a couple of parts of the constitution, including the division of powers. it's certainly a difference in framework. but, i can't see how it's reducible to the existence of a constitutional monarchy.
while i take your point that your position is to prefer a system where power is divested, i just don't see how abolishing the monarchy has much to do with that at all. while i oppose the idea of a canadian presidency, i realize that he's much less powerful than the prime minister in a lot of ways.
now, what i was getting at is that if you look at the narrative of the liberal party since mazkenzie and papineau and through to laurier and mackenzie-king and all the way up to trudeau and chretien, the idea of severing ties to the british monarchy is inherently intertwined with the history of the party, and the country, itself. i don't know how you can claim there's no difference. it was one of the primary differences! there's many complicating factors, such as the liberal party's historical connection to french and irish canadians. but, it's smack dab in the middle of the narrative of the country: a conflict between liberals and tories over the question of british association. and, that itself is precisely the historical narrative of tory-whig differences from the very start of the parliamentary process, as it applied to a distant colony on another continent.
i do not believe that the liberals have retreated from this position, even if i think trudeau's personal history may be somewhat intertwined with a traditionally tory perspective, due to his background as a canadian aristocrat. but, i don't think he changes the party on this. rather, i think the party changes him. in the end, it must. and, don't be surprised if it happens near the end of his mandate - in ten, fifteen years time - that the younger trudeau finishes the job and severs ties entirely. that would be a proper historical narrative.
i'll again point out that it was _exactly_ the narrative of the last election, as well. in some sense, it's remarkable. i don't even think that the narrative still exists in britain, if we can even speak of liberal democrats as "whigs" at all. but, harper presented himself from the start as the quintessential old tory: a "strong leader" to "guide the economy". this is absolute toryism, to the letter. and, trudeau did nothing less than present himself as the absolute foil to this, by promising free votes in parliament and a decentralization of power out of the pmo.
again: that wasn't a sideshow. it was the direct ballot question. and, it was nothing more or less than the classic whig-tory division over the nature of authoritarian government.
Patrick Wilson
Why, then, was the Meech Lake accord defeated by one member of the MB legislature voting no if unanimity was of all members was not required ? You guys are the experts; I just want to understand.
jessica murray
it was about timing. manitoba had to meet a deadline. in order to meet a deadline, it had to skip public consultation. in order to skip public consultation, it had to pass a unanimous vote. elijah harper didn't kill the meech lake accord, so much as he voted to force public consultations on it - because he thought pushing it through without consultations was undemocratic. this prevented manitoba from meeting the deadline, which would have forced other legislatures to also hold public consultations, as their own mechanisms had timelines attached to them, as well.
it was clyde wells that really killed the accord by refusing to allow a vote on it at all
Red_Deer_CatMom
No, historians are going to look back at this and interpret it as a young Prime Minister being friendly and respectful toward an elderly Queen who he met decades before as a child, and even then she'd been Queen for over 20 years.
Is that too "greek" to understand?
jessica murray
no. but it's maybe a little bit barbaric.
i will, however, concede that it may be true - but only if the man turns out to be the dunce his opponents claimed he was.
otherwise, one would think he has defined perspectives about the institution that transcend his experience as a child.
or, at least one would hope for as much.
i mean, there's a picture of me somewhere sitting on brian mulroney's lap at a christmas party. i was about 8 or so. i had no idea who he was. i didn't care, either.
it doesn't affect my opinion of him, today.
the liberals are supposed to be about canadian sovereignty, and the separation of links to the monarchy. this is out of the whig tradition of parliamentary government, as applied to a far flung colony on another continent. there's even a strong historical strain of support for republican government in the liberal party (it's most recent prominent exponent was john manley). it is the desire for separation that drove patriation, which was the end of a very long historical and political process. it is the tories that have historically played up ties to the monarchy and canada's place in the commonwealth, out of the tory tradition of promoting "class harmony" in hierarchical fealty to king & country.
again: i know i'm speaking greek to most people. but, historians are going to look back at this and interpret it as flat out bizarre.
liberal supporters largely expect the prime minister to do the bare minimum in this circumstance, keep the language to the expected formalities, avoid any sort of direct praise (however faint) and get out of the hive's nest as soon as possible.
"the whigs are praising the queen now, are they?"
"indeed. has the whole world gone mad?"
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/full-text-trudeau-toast-queen-1.3340584
jplondon
no. actually, there are liberals (of the large and small-l variety) who see the role of the crown in a constitutinal monarchy.
in fact, i would argue - as a small-l liberal at all times and a large-l liberal on occasion - that personal liberties are best safeguarded in a constitutional monarchy.
i appreciate your historical take on the subject, but, just as democrats and republicans are the reverse of their historical antecedents, liberals are not the direct descendants of their whig progenitors.
any more than today's canadian conservatives bear the slightest resemblance to their 'tory' roots, even going back as recently as two decades.
and, given that, it is possible to share common values - particularly since the definition of the two modern parties is no longer rooted in their differing expectations of parliamentry government.
again, with the exception of the current interation of the conservative party, which sees parliament as an obstacle.
jessica murray
i don't think the differences between the modern parties and their historical roots are, in practice, are as large as you're suggesting.
consider, for example, what we call "free trade". standing in 1988, it seemed strange to see the liberals oppose it (that is, after all, what the term "liberal" actually *means*) and the conservatives (with their history of tory protectionism) support it.
but, if you look at the agreement, it is actually very much closer to the idea of tory protectionism than it is to the idea of free trade. there wasn't really a change in substantive position, so much as the term "free trade" went through a standard orwellian newspeak process to be converted into it's antithesis.
he last election was, at it's core, a choice between increasing authoritarian government under harper or a return to parliamentarian democracy under the liberal party. i don't think this was a corollary. i think it was the direct ballot question.
i also don't understand how you could argue that a constitutional monarchy (where the queen has no power at all) has any effect on the enforcement of rights. not that it's good or bad, but that it's at all remotely relevant...
i mean...
i don't think there's a really strong *anti*-monarchy streak amongst liberal supporters any more, so much as i think that liberal supporters mostly consider the issue dealt with after patriation.
if put it up to a direct plebiscite amongst liberal voters, i'm sure you'd find a hefty majority would support severing all ties. but, it's not a vote driver, either because it's been swept aside as an issue of little substance. a crisis of any sort would no doubt bring it back up, but for now the monarchy is just largely seen as an irrelevance - perhaps a mildly annoying one, but an irrelevance nonetheless. so, it's like - abolition of the monarchy as the head of state if necessary, but not necessarily abolition of the monarchy as the head of state.
so, i don't think a toast in malta is going to really swing anybody's vote or upset anybody.
but, i *do* think that the government ought to be more concerned about distancing itself from the monarchy than cozying up to it. it's that kind of lingering thing that is currently under control, but has the potential to become a tinder box.
under the proper circumstances, i'm certain the ndp could win an election on the issue. it's more a question of avoiding those circumstances.
Patrick Wilson
The patriation you seem to think dealt with the matter only really gave us the power to amend. In Trudeau's '82 Charter, to change the head of state requires the unanimous agreement of both the House of Commons and Senate—all members, as well as unanimous consent of all the provinces’ legislative MLA's. To change that rule requires the same. Good luck with that.
jessica murray
section 41 does not refer to unanimous consent within each body, it only refers to the unanimous consent of all bodies. there is nowhere in canada where support for the monarchy is a populist position. excluding the senate, the various bodies would need to reject an amendment of this sort at their own peril. while it may not be the easiest task, i think it would be a lot easier than repealing the senate. if a crisis were to be set off, i think it would actually be very difficult to fight against abolition - and any party that does so would likely walk out of the situation utterly ruined, even if it succeeds in the short run.
but, the point is that it's the power to write our own laws that is really at the heart of the issue. we today have absolute sovereignty in any functionally meaningful sense. so, it's hard to really come up with any reason why we should be putting any resources into fighting to eject the queen as a nominal head of state when she has no ability to interfere, anyways.
but, that doesn't mean that liberal supporters are gung-ho about the monarchy, or that we're going to interpret cozying up to the monarchy as something that is "ok". it just means there's more important things to concern ourselves with - so long as that actually remains true.
jplondon
well, if we are going to wander off into 'free trade', let me simply say this:
any 'free trade agreement' that requires more than 4,000 pages to codify is anything but 'free'. it is an industry unto itself.
to your original point, though.
i am guilty of not making myself as clear as i might have. my original point should have been this: given its diminishing influence over parliament - beginning at least since the bill of rights,1689, and accelerating since, the monarchy has become less and less of a point of difference between 'tories' and 'whigs' and especially their successor parties in canada.
the differences between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' in their modern, canadian iterations has devoved largely into symbolism. the romantic attachment of either party to the crown (if any) doesn't interest me except as an historical artifact. my concerns there are more a matter of constitutional form.
in short, i don't think the crown matters enough to either party to get worked up over.
with respect to the crown as a bulwark against incursions onto civil liberties by the state, i think my concern there is more a matter of seeing how matters such as lgbt rights and same-sex marriage, for example, have become political footballs by an elected, american head of state.
i don't like social or moral issues subject to the vicissitudes of electoral politics. if we are to have a head of state, let's have one with as little political influence as possible.
and, having none, or next to none i think our model for a head of state is spot on.
jessica murray
i think it's a very complicated question as to whether the president has more or less power than the prime minister. but, i don't think many people that are advocating for the abolition of the monarchy are also advocating for the creation of a presidency; those are rather different positions. i would certainly be opposed to the creation of a canadian presidency, even as i advocate for the abolition of the monarchy.
regarding same sex marriage, that was something that happened here as a consequence of our court system, which is more powerful than the american court system. that's a consequence of a couple of parts of the constitution, including the division of powers. it's certainly a difference in framework. but, i can't see how it's reducible to the existence of a constitutional monarchy.
while i take your point that your position is to prefer a system where power is divested, i just don't see how abolishing the monarchy has much to do with that at all. while i oppose the idea of a canadian presidency, i realize that he's much less powerful than the prime minister in a lot of ways.
now, what i was getting at is that if you look at the narrative of the liberal party since mazkenzie and papineau and through to laurier and mackenzie-king and all the way up to trudeau and chretien, the idea of severing ties to the british monarchy is inherently intertwined with the history of the party, and the country, itself. i don't know how you can claim there's no difference. it was one of the primary differences! there's many complicating factors, such as the liberal party's historical connection to french and irish canadians. but, it's smack dab in the middle of the narrative of the country: a conflict between liberals and tories over the question of british association. and, that itself is precisely the historical narrative of tory-whig differences from the very start of the parliamentary process, as it applied to a distant colony on another continent.
i do not believe that the liberals have retreated from this position, even if i think trudeau's personal history may be somewhat intertwined with a traditionally tory perspective, due to his background as a canadian aristocrat. but, i don't think he changes the party on this. rather, i think the party changes him. in the end, it must. and, don't be surprised if it happens near the end of his mandate - in ten, fifteen years time - that the younger trudeau finishes the job and severs ties entirely. that would be a proper historical narrative.
i'll again point out that it was _exactly_ the narrative of the last election, as well. in some sense, it's remarkable. i don't even think that the narrative still exists in britain, if we can even speak of liberal democrats as "whigs" at all. but, harper presented himself from the start as the quintessential old tory: a "strong leader" to "guide the economy". this is absolute toryism, to the letter. and, trudeau did nothing less than present himself as the absolute foil to this, by promising free votes in parliament and a decentralization of power out of the pmo.
again: that wasn't a sideshow. it was the direct ballot question. and, it was nothing more or less than the classic whig-tory division over the nature of authoritarian government.
Patrick Wilson
Why, then, was the Meech Lake accord defeated by one member of the MB legislature voting no if unanimity was of all members was not required ? You guys are the experts; I just want to understand.
jessica murray
it was about timing. manitoba had to meet a deadline. in order to meet a deadline, it had to skip public consultation. in order to skip public consultation, it had to pass a unanimous vote. elijah harper didn't kill the meech lake accord, so much as he voted to force public consultations on it - because he thought pushing it through without consultations was undemocratic. this prevented manitoba from meeting the deadline, which would have forced other legislatures to also hold public consultations, as their own mechanisms had timelines attached to them, as well.
it was clyde wells that really killed the accord by refusing to allow a vote on it at all
Red_Deer_CatMom
No, historians are going to look back at this and interpret it as a young Prime Minister being friendly and respectful toward an elderly Queen who he met decades before as a child, and even then she'd been Queen for over 20 years.
Is that too "greek" to understand?
jessica murray
no. but it's maybe a little bit barbaric.
i will, however, concede that it may be true - but only if the man turns out to be the dunce his opponents claimed he was.
otherwise, one would think he has defined perspectives about the institution that transcend his experience as a child.
or, at least one would hope for as much.
i mean, there's a picture of me somewhere sitting on brian mulroney's lap at a christmas party. i was about 8 or so. i had no idea who he was. i didn't care, either.
it doesn't affect my opinion of him, today.
i actually admit that i’d like to hear the adoption of justin gregoire-trudeau, or trudeau-gregoire. he could unveil it at a lunch with jay-z and jack white.
but, not really.
what might be more progressive is sticking with what you’ve got and letting the kids pick the surname they want. and first names, for that matter.
www.macleans.ca/society/life/sophie-gregoire-what-it-may-be-2015-but-not-for-political-wives/
but, not really.
what might be more progressive is sticking with what you’ve got and letting the kids pick the surname they want. and first names, for that matter.
www.macleans.ca/society/life/sophie-gregoire-what-it-may-be-2015-but-not-for-political-wives/
Friday, November 27, 2015
Thursday, November 26, 2015
26-11-2015: aliens are more likely than god
tracks worked on in this vlog:
1) https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/aliens-are-more-likely-than-god
1) https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/aliens-are-more-likely-than-god
finalizing aliens are more likely than god
i've got a final mix of this up. it really sounds a lot better, and i'm very much relieved about it.
i wanted to get more done today, but at least i got that done. i've been playing with it the last few days. i need to do beginning/end of the month stuff tomorrow, but things should accelerate over the weekend.
initially written in 1996. recreated in march, 1998. reclaimed june 29, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on nov 26, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/aliens-are-more-likely-than-god
i wanted to get more done today, but at least i got that done. i've been playing with it the last few days. i need to do beginning/end of the month stuff tomorrow, but things should accelerate over the weekend.
initially written in 1996. recreated in march, 1998. reclaimed june 29, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on nov 26, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/aliens-are-more-likely-than-god
hard to say whether this is ignorance or politics. she did indicate that she realizes that the russians were bombing turkish assets, so i'm left to conclude it's politics.
you could imagine how such a communication would carry out.
"greetings, unwashed turkish hordes. we're sending some planes to blow up your allies at 11:00 gmt. so, try to suppress your barbarian instincts for a few hours and let us eliminate your investments."
"no problem, russky. btw, we're sending a convoy over the pass at 12:00 gmt, to refuel the positions you're bombing. but we know you're too backwards and incompetent to be able to hit the target, anyways, so we're going to move our positions forward. try and get out of our way before we get to the village, so we don't have to kill anybody. and, send assad our regards. i'm sure we could have been great friends under different circumstances."
it would be one thing if they were just upholding a narrative. and, maybe i'm demonstrating the fact that i haven't had a tv in 15 years - maybe i don't even know what the propaganda even is anymore. but, who doesn't understand that they're bombing turkish assets?
this has driven me mad for years. a noble lie is one thing - i'll argue against this in most cases, but i'll at least recognize the motives. but, it has to be convincing, first. it can't be deconstructed by easily googled facts. then, it's not a noble lie. it's just an obvious one...
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/25/canada-nato-envoy-says-russia-not-communicating-prior-to-jet-downing_n_8649224.html
you could imagine how such a communication would carry out.
"greetings, unwashed turkish hordes. we're sending some planes to blow up your allies at 11:00 gmt. so, try to suppress your barbarian instincts for a few hours and let us eliminate your investments."
"no problem, russky. btw, we're sending a convoy over the pass at 12:00 gmt, to refuel the positions you're bombing. but we know you're too backwards and incompetent to be able to hit the target, anyways, so we're going to move our positions forward. try and get out of our way before we get to the village, so we don't have to kill anybody. and, send assad our regards. i'm sure we could have been great friends under different circumstances."
it would be one thing if they were just upholding a narrative. and, maybe i'm demonstrating the fact that i haven't had a tv in 15 years - maybe i don't even know what the propaganda even is anymore. but, who doesn't understand that they're bombing turkish assets?
this has driven me mad for years. a noble lie is one thing - i'll argue against this in most cases, but i'll at least recognize the motives. but, it has to be convincing, first. it can't be deconstructed by easily googled facts. then, it's not a noble lie. it's just an obvious one...
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/25/canada-nato-envoy-says-russia-not-communicating-prior-to-jet-downing_n_8649224.html
russia vs. turkey. hrmmn. this may be silly, but forgive my indulgence.
if you look at a map, russia looks big and scary. but, the truth is that it's mostly trees. the core of russia is really not that much bigger than turkey. but, keeping with this logic, you have to realize that the eastern half of turkey has little allegiance to the western half. this, however, does not balance out. russia's much larger size is not a serious advantage.
a serious conflict is not going to come down to brute strength, but to technology and tactics. the russians are always two steps behind the americans, but they're several steps ahead of the turks.
the way this would work is that the russians would dismantle their military from a distance, using a variety of missile-based tactics. if you've seen them hitting targets in syria from ships in the caspian, that's the kind of thing i'm talking about. they'd probably rely mostly on kurdish foot soldiers. and, if they're lucky, greek foot soldiers. with the proper air and naval support, they could likely collapse the state without setting foot on the ground. they'd then parachute in, afterwards.
but, to do this effectively, it has to be done quickly in order to overwhelm them before they can bring in more advanced defense systems from the americans. further, it should not be forgotten that the united states keeps nuclear warheads on turkish soil and that this could be a strong enough deterrent to prevent what i just said from actually happening.
so, what we have here is kind of the wrong comparison. if it comes down to this, the russians are going to use their technological superiority, rather than rely on overpowering them through ground combat. but, it's very hard to see how the americans let that happen. and, they don't have to do a lot to stop it from happening, either - they just have to remind putin where those warheads are pointing.
.....and that is, after all, why turkey joined nato, and why nato put those warheads where they are.
it's exceedingly unlikely. granted.
but, i have to say that it would be interesting to wake up one day and look at a map and see the name constantinople on it, at the center of a neo-byzantine state.
if you have a soft spot for narratives about historical purposes, however unscientific it may be, russia could then cease to exist. it will have accomplished it's purpose.
if you look at a map, russia looks big and scary. but, the truth is that it's mostly trees. the core of russia is really not that much bigger than turkey. but, keeping with this logic, you have to realize that the eastern half of turkey has little allegiance to the western half. this, however, does not balance out. russia's much larger size is not a serious advantage.
a serious conflict is not going to come down to brute strength, but to technology and tactics. the russians are always two steps behind the americans, but they're several steps ahead of the turks.
the way this would work is that the russians would dismantle their military from a distance, using a variety of missile-based tactics. if you've seen them hitting targets in syria from ships in the caspian, that's the kind of thing i'm talking about. they'd probably rely mostly on kurdish foot soldiers. and, if they're lucky, greek foot soldiers. with the proper air and naval support, they could likely collapse the state without setting foot on the ground. they'd then parachute in, afterwards.
but, to do this effectively, it has to be done quickly in order to overwhelm them before they can bring in more advanced defense systems from the americans. further, it should not be forgotten that the united states keeps nuclear warheads on turkish soil and that this could be a strong enough deterrent to prevent what i just said from actually happening.
so, what we have here is kind of the wrong comparison. if it comes down to this, the russians are going to use their technological superiority, rather than rely on overpowering them through ground combat. but, it's very hard to see how the americans let that happen. and, they don't have to do a lot to stop it from happening, either - they just have to remind putin where those warheads are pointing.
.....and that is, after all, why turkey joined nato, and why nato put those warheads where they are.
it's exceedingly unlikely. granted.
but, i have to say that it would be interesting to wake up one day and look at a map and see the name constantinople on it, at the center of a neo-byzantine state.
if you have a soft spot for narratives about historical purposes, however unscientific it may be, russia could then cease to exist. it will have accomplished it's purpose.
ok, so it's been obvious from the start that this is scripted, but is anybody aware of whether these are actually actors, or if he's just got his parents to do this for him? i mean, the acting is pretty low grade.
i'm just wondering because if that is actually his mom then she's not going to be written out. but, if it's an actress than she very well might be.
i'm just wondering because if that is actually his mom then she's not going to be written out. but, if it's an actress than she very well might be.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)