i don't think you're over-estimating the rightward pull in the liberal party so much as you're underestimating the centrist pull behind mulcair's leadership.

the liberals actually nationalized oil in the 70s. that's pretty left-wing. as we know, they've been drifting right since and have recently crossed over and become what is really a moderate conservative party. the current liberals are rather literally what one might call a "progressive conservative" party. voters are beginning to realize this, and the level that it will decimate them in the short or medium term will be determined by how strongly they hold to it before they switch back to a more populist rhetoric. despite the rightward shift over many decades, the truth on the ground remains that liberals are liberals and they don't want to vote for conservatives.

further, mulcair is not david lewis. by any metric, he's considerably to the right of pierre trudeau. this idea that the ndp is still a paragon of leftist virtue is just not reality. the truth is that there's really not a lot preventing the kind of collaboration you're speaking of - not because the liberals don't lean right, but because the ndp doesn't really lean left anymore. there's differences. there will always be differences. but the differences between the liberals and the ndp are probably lesser than the differences within either of these parties.

if the electorate polarizes and the liberals get out of this election with a small, left-leaning rump caucus led by people like stephane dion, they could actually end up to the left of the current ndp. we could see another rat pack pop up. and, they might end up pushing the ndp to keep their promises. it's for *that* reason that i'd prefer to see the alignment stabilize in a way that allows for three, distinct parties. thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis.

it's just maybe the case that time has caught up to the liberals in a hurry, and a role reversal of thesis and synthesis is what is in order.

rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/djclimenhaga/2015/07/alberta-shows-why-there-will-be-no-ndp-liberal-entente-despite-n 

i can't see him being dumb enough to fall for this. canada will *always* punish these sorts of shenanigans. as he said: everybody knows there's an election on the 19th. besides...he's actually better off restricting the opposition to funds than he is swamping himself in them.

nice try, though.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-election-2015-stephen-harper-to-launch-campaign-as-early-as-sunday-1.3172602

but, if you turn a fan on, there's ventilation. and cooling. as i pointed out elsewhere, i've sat in cars for long periods with the fan on without breaking a sweat...

i'm not arguing with the premise. but it's like arguing for abstinence instead of contraception. it's ideal, but not realistic. you need to give pet owners responsible options to mitigate the effects of the heat in the situation that you have to leave your dog in the car for a few minutes.

i'd argue lengthy periods are problematic because it's confinement. if you're going to be gone a long time, drop your dog off at home first. or don't bring it in the first place. but that's not the same thing as stopping for groceries.

i'm assuming that the fan will mitigate the problem to a reasonable level. i don't have a car (or a dog) so i can't test this. but these videos should integrate two base conditions to provide for a more realistic simulation:

1) the a/c should be on for a while before you get in the car. because, if you're leaving your dog in the car, then you're driving somewhere. and, you have the a/c on.
2) leave the fan on.

i would have to think that that should at least extend the period of time you can safely leave your dog in there - if not indefinitely (and that's neglectful, anyways) then at least to a point where you can get in and out without worrying that you're killing your pet.

rap news 34

mostly spot on. the way this works is like this:

0) people like donald trump write trade treaties like nafta.
1) nafta allows a us factory to move from arizona to mexico, where it can pay workers a third of the price.
2) the workers at that factory lose their job.
3) the factory blows up the local economy in that region of mexico, forcing the locals into poverty.
4) that sets off a chain reaction of migration that pushes people out of mexico and into the united states, partially because
5) sub minimum wage pay in arizona is still more lucrative than work in mexico.
6) this benefits producers that create products for export but it reduces the pool of possible labour opportunities in arizona, creating structural unemployment levels.
7) what low education white arizonans are able to physically see and intuitively understand is that illegal mexican immigrants have jobs and they don't.
8) donald trump (carefully avoiding neatly shaved mustaches) stands up and blames it all on zee mexicans, in an attempt to generate a political base and distract from his own guilt and responsibility. mass unemployment creates social unrest that needs to be controlled.
9) the media agrees, in an attempt to construct a subscription viewer/reader base and further control the social unrest.
10) low education white arizonans vote for donald trump, but they do not expect him to reverse the policies that set off the chain of reactions.

it's a bit of a stretch to suggest it was planned from the start. but power has a tendency to perpetuate itself by profiting from it's own crises.