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.

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.

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

“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/

04-12-2015: arriving at the certainty of interference as the cause of distortion

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriclaimed