https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriclaimed
Thursday, December 10, 2015
this sounds like a poison pill. remember: the government has ultimate discretion here, not poloz. and, i would hope that the liberals sack him if he decides to seriously do this. this sounds like harper pulling strings in the background, trying to create a disaster.
a big part of the liberals' tax policy, as it is, is meant to find a balance that increases revenue and prevents capital flight. combined with the dollar continuing to crash, this announcement seems designed for the sole purpose of scaring investors.
a corporate tax hike, followed by direct spending, would be more effective because it would actually spend the cash. this is just going to send money flying out of the country...
i'm serious.
i think this is a partisan move, designed to sabotage the government. and, the government should react very swiftly.
but, i mean...
listen. i'm a leftist. i'm into high corporate tax rates. and, a large amount of the canadian economy is tied to natural resources, meaning the argument around flight falls apart. but, if we want to diversify, we need to look at building economies that are more mobile and finding ways to keep them there. and, the arguments around minimizing corporate taxation are meaningful.
it's probably going to be more effective to do this using the "backroom deals" model than trying to force people to spend. that is, by using the tools of rhetorical persuasion. by sitting down and talking with people and convincing them to invest in this or that.
these heavy-handed, top down, punitive approaches don't work. that understanding is supposed to be something that this government is rooting itself around.
this is a policy perspective rooted in the previous government's ideology. and, i think the government consequently has a valid prerogative in asking poloz to resign.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/what-are-negative-interest-rates-and-how-do-they-work/article27669897/
K Fitzwilliam
Really, still beating on Harper????
deathtokoalas
he appointed this guy. and, if we end up with a conflict between the minister and the governor, it reduces to a process of completing the transition.
canadians tend to interpret the relationship between the minister and the governor through the prism of the federal reserve. but, this is false. the minister can override the governor, and in this case should.
that said, i'm not aware of morneau's position on this. but, it strikes me as inconsistent with the government's position on holding the corporate tax rate steady. i'm deducing. a little clarification would help.
--
Hallbfb
And seniors just keep taking it on the chin.....
deathtokoalas
boomers spent their entire lives trying to dismantle the welfare state, and now take a look around and wonder where it went. it would be easier to have empathy if they didn't play such a central role in the creation of the problems we have today.
--
Robf2
Ok, so we have an "economic crisis" and the BOC is charging commercial banks for their reserves. Are these commercial banks going to increase lending during a crisis? No. They are going to discourage deposits with fees. And the depositors who have been shunned, what should they do? One clever idea (courtesy BOC research papers) is to prepay your taxes :)
Superscape
It's actually the opposite- by charging banks for holding reserves with the BoC, it means that banks will be discouraged from sitting on their cash, and therefore lend it out.
deathtokoalas
no. they'll just pass on the cost to creditors, who will in turn be discouraged from leaving their money in the bank. that doesn't necessarily mean spending, and in most cases won't - in most cases it will mean flight.
a big part of the liberals' tax policy, as it is, is meant to find a balance that increases revenue and prevents capital flight. combined with the dollar continuing to crash, this announcement seems designed for the sole purpose of scaring investors.
a corporate tax hike, followed by direct spending, would be more effective because it would actually spend the cash. this is just going to send money flying out of the country...
i'm serious.
i think this is a partisan move, designed to sabotage the government. and, the government should react very swiftly.
but, i mean...
listen. i'm a leftist. i'm into high corporate tax rates. and, a large amount of the canadian economy is tied to natural resources, meaning the argument around flight falls apart. but, if we want to diversify, we need to look at building economies that are more mobile and finding ways to keep them there. and, the arguments around minimizing corporate taxation are meaningful.
it's probably going to be more effective to do this using the "backroom deals" model than trying to force people to spend. that is, by using the tools of rhetorical persuasion. by sitting down and talking with people and convincing them to invest in this or that.
these heavy-handed, top down, punitive approaches don't work. that understanding is supposed to be something that this government is rooting itself around.
this is a policy perspective rooted in the previous government's ideology. and, i think the government consequently has a valid prerogative in asking poloz to resign.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/what-are-negative-interest-rates-and-how-do-they-work/article27669897/
K Fitzwilliam
Really, still beating on Harper????
deathtokoalas
he appointed this guy. and, if we end up with a conflict between the minister and the governor, it reduces to a process of completing the transition.
canadians tend to interpret the relationship between the minister and the governor through the prism of the federal reserve. but, this is false. the minister can override the governor, and in this case should.
that said, i'm not aware of morneau's position on this. but, it strikes me as inconsistent with the government's position on holding the corporate tax rate steady. i'm deducing. a little clarification would help.
--
Hallbfb
And seniors just keep taking it on the chin.....
deathtokoalas
boomers spent their entire lives trying to dismantle the welfare state, and now take a look around and wonder where it went. it would be easier to have empathy if they didn't play such a central role in the creation of the problems we have today.
--
Robf2
Ok, so we have an "economic crisis" and the BOC is charging commercial banks for their reserves. Are these commercial banks going to increase lending during a crisis? No. They are going to discourage deposits with fees. And the depositors who have been shunned, what should they do? One clever idea (courtesy BOC research papers) is to prepay your taxes :)
Superscape
It's actually the opposite- by charging banks for holding reserves with the BoC, it means that banks will be discouraged from sitting on their cash, and therefore lend it out.
deathtokoalas
no. they'll just pass on the cost to creditors, who will in turn be discouraged from leaving their money in the bank. that doesn't necessarily mean spending, and in most cases won't - in most cases it will mean flight.
at
04:02
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
ethan maly
Orangutans are apes, nor monkeys. That's like saying that a ring tailed lemur or a slow loris are monkeys
jessica
+ethan maly
meh. humans are monkeys, too.
ethan maly
+jessica no we're technically great apes
Damon Teichroeb
Whoever was stupid enough to think that we humans came from monkeys should have never been a scientist. Prove me wrong once you have OBSERVABLE evidence of a monkey or ape or great ape transform into a human. It is very simple. Monkeys, apes, and great apes are animals and always have been.
jessica
+ethan maly
but, i have no problem in using the terms "primate" and "monkey" interchangeably. it's a perfectly acceptable colloquialism. tarsiers are a bit of a problem, granted. but not enough to deny the usage.
the offense comes out merely in a hierarchical perception. an ape is not merely a monkey. but, there's not a lion in the world that sees a human differently than any other monkey. it's a shallow anthropomorphic absurdity, really.
i mean, a lion might very well think it important to point out the difference between a leopard and a cougar. a leopard can roar. it is not merely a cat. a wolf may take great offense to being called a dog. but, we see them all as essentially the same thing.
Joshua Quint Norton
+jessica
You may. People with the slightest ability of differentiation wahtsoever - do not.
jessica
+Joshua Quint Norton
hrmmn. and, what are these criteria that you believe are so obvious?
surely, you don't claim that it's dna.
Joshua Quint Norton
It's so clear what I said. So very clear.
So my response is go stick a porcupine in your eurethra and call it a puppy , you disengenious sophistic twat.
jessica
+Joshua Quint Norton
it does not matter how angry you are. you have yet to put down meaningful separation criteria, let alone defend it from scrutiny.
Joshua Quint Norton
Well when I'm responding to such utter shite as 'We see dogs and wolves as essentially the same' (imagines a Pug and Wolf and giggles) I know I'm dealing with a sophistic diehard who will defend the most insane statements with the zeal of a true fuckwit.
So no. You don't deserve a response if you do not realise all labels are labels of convienience.
jessica
+Joshua Quint Norton
but, dogs and wolves are scientifically classified as the same species.
Joshua Quint Norton
Again. go fuck yourself. I can read you like a comic book, only a lot quicker.
jessica
+Joshua Quint Norton
i suspect that it would take you an unusually long amount of time to make your way through a comic book.
Joshua Quint Norton
Keep your narcissm to thyself.
I can tell you're an expert on it.
Fare thee badly. I'm out.
jessica
+Joshua Quint Norton
many baseless insults, zero reasoned arguments.
i'll help you out on the disengage.
*plonk*
Fedor Steeman
+jessica There is in fact a host of synapomorphies (shared derived traits) that distinguish the superfamily of apes (Hominoidea) from other simians. Here's a few:
1. tubular tympanic bone
2. dental formula 2.1.2.3
3. broad incisors
4. primitive molars with rounded cusps
5. broad palates
6. broad nasal regions
7. large brain
8. no tail
9. reduced lumbar region
10. long upper limbs
11. wrist lacks an articulation between the ulna and carpel bones; have a fibrous meniscus
12. hind limbs: broad ilium, broad femoral condyles, large hallux
There are also many synapomorphies to be found on the molecular level like DNA, MtRNA and protein sequences that you can go look up yourself.
jessica
+Fedor Steeman
while those characteristics may be used to suggest that apes are a specific type of monkey, i don't see anything in that list that would suggest that an ape is a different thing than a monkey. i mean, you could make these kinds of arguments in comparing great danes to chihuahuas, too.
a valid characteristic, here, would have to necessarily define a monkey and be sufficiently different in apes.
Fedor Steeman
+jessica I really don't think you're qualified to asses the validity of morphological data. Especially when you think that these differences also can be seen within a species and that a single characteristic would be sufficient to define a group. That is ridiculous nonsense and by that you have just proven your complete incompetence. Why don't you go study zoological systematics with emphasis on cladistics AND mammalian morphology and come back then?
These are the anatomical details that actual scientists use to distinguish groups. The Hominoid clade is well-defined cladistically. It is true that the "monkeys" form a so-called paraphyletic grade group that especially strict cladists frown upon, but I have not heard of any of them propose to redefine this vernacular group name to include apes. Not so strict taxonomists have suits of characters for defining both delimiters of the "monkey" grade.
Zoologists, you know, people who actually know what they're talking about, call the monophyletic group that includes monkeys and apes "Haplorrhini", not "monkeys".
In vernacular, zoologists generally talk of "monkeys" as something distinct from "apes" and are fine with it. Now you may go maverick and throw around your own personal definitions, but no one has to accept those, because you're just some nobody on the internet.
jessica
+Fedor Steeman
again, there's a lot of anger here, but not a lot of reasoned thought.
the best characteristic you provided was the lack of a tail. but, then the deduction is that apes are just tailless monkeys. and, as it turns out, there are species of monkeys without tails (the macaque is one), anyways.
i'm used to people yelling at me when i frustrate them with the tyranny of logic. but, it is now as it always is - you simply have no argument.
again: you are providing a list of reasonable characteristics to define apes as a subset of monkeys. but, you have not provided any argument at all to suggest that an ape is not a monkey.
perhaps we should take a step back for a second to clarify a distinction, as i think it might be at the root (pardon the pun) of the difficulty, here.
a cladistic relationship is not a set-theoretical relationship. it defines a broad genealogical relationship between species. but, we don't claim that mammals are fish. and, likewise, we don't need a recent common ancestor to point out that dolphins and sharks are both aquatic predators.
the question of whether apes are monkeys or not is not a cladistic question, it is a categorical one.
what you need to do to provide a good argument here is what i said:
1) find some characteristics that uniquely define monkeys. what makes a monkey a monkey?
2) demonstrate that those characteristics fail to describe apes. how is it that what makes a monkey a monkey makes an ape not a monkey?
and, good luck to you.
i wouldn't have suggested that apes are monkeys if such a distinction were truly readily apparent.
Orangutans are apes, nor monkeys. That's like saying that a ring tailed lemur or a slow loris are monkeys
jessica
+ethan maly
meh. humans are monkeys, too.
ethan maly
+jessica no we're technically great apes
Damon Teichroeb
Whoever was stupid enough to think that we humans came from monkeys should have never been a scientist. Prove me wrong once you have OBSERVABLE evidence of a monkey or ape or great ape transform into a human. It is very simple. Monkeys, apes, and great apes are animals and always have been.
jessica
+ethan maly
but, i have no problem in using the terms "primate" and "monkey" interchangeably. it's a perfectly acceptable colloquialism. tarsiers are a bit of a problem, granted. but not enough to deny the usage.
the offense comes out merely in a hierarchical perception. an ape is not merely a monkey. but, there's not a lion in the world that sees a human differently than any other monkey. it's a shallow anthropomorphic absurdity, really.
i mean, a lion might very well think it important to point out the difference between a leopard and a cougar. a leopard can roar. it is not merely a cat. a wolf may take great offense to being called a dog. but, we see them all as essentially the same thing.
Joshua Quint Norton
+jessica
You may. People with the slightest ability of differentiation wahtsoever - do not.
jessica
+Joshua Quint Norton
hrmmn. and, what are these criteria that you believe are so obvious?
surely, you don't claim that it's dna.
Joshua Quint Norton
It's so clear what I said. So very clear.
So my response is go stick a porcupine in your eurethra and call it a puppy , you disengenious sophistic twat.
jessica
+Joshua Quint Norton
it does not matter how angry you are. you have yet to put down meaningful separation criteria, let alone defend it from scrutiny.
Joshua Quint Norton
Well when I'm responding to such utter shite as 'We see dogs and wolves as essentially the same' (imagines a Pug and Wolf and giggles) I know I'm dealing with a sophistic diehard who will defend the most insane statements with the zeal of a true fuckwit.
So no. You don't deserve a response if you do not realise all labels are labels of convienience.
jessica
+Joshua Quint Norton
but, dogs and wolves are scientifically classified as the same species.
Joshua Quint Norton
Again. go fuck yourself. I can read you like a comic book, only a lot quicker.
jessica
+Joshua Quint Norton
i suspect that it would take you an unusually long amount of time to make your way through a comic book.
Joshua Quint Norton
Keep your narcissm to thyself.
I can tell you're an expert on it.
Fare thee badly. I'm out.
jessica
+Joshua Quint Norton
many baseless insults, zero reasoned arguments.
i'll help you out on the disengage.
*plonk*
Fedor Steeman
+jessica There is in fact a host of synapomorphies (shared derived traits) that distinguish the superfamily of apes (Hominoidea) from other simians. Here's a few:
1. tubular tympanic bone
2. dental formula 2.1.2.3
3. broad incisors
4. primitive molars with rounded cusps
5. broad palates
6. broad nasal regions
7. large brain
8. no tail
9. reduced lumbar region
10. long upper limbs
11. wrist lacks an articulation between the ulna and carpel bones; have a fibrous meniscus
12. hind limbs: broad ilium, broad femoral condyles, large hallux
There are also many synapomorphies to be found on the molecular level like DNA, MtRNA and protein sequences that you can go look up yourself.
jessica
+Fedor Steeman
while those characteristics may be used to suggest that apes are a specific type of monkey, i don't see anything in that list that would suggest that an ape is a different thing than a monkey. i mean, you could make these kinds of arguments in comparing great danes to chihuahuas, too.
a valid characteristic, here, would have to necessarily define a monkey and be sufficiently different in apes.
Fedor Steeman
+jessica I really don't think you're qualified to asses the validity of morphological data. Especially when you think that these differences also can be seen within a species and that a single characteristic would be sufficient to define a group. That is ridiculous nonsense and by that you have just proven your complete incompetence. Why don't you go study zoological systematics with emphasis on cladistics AND mammalian morphology and come back then?
These are the anatomical details that actual scientists use to distinguish groups. The Hominoid clade is well-defined cladistically. It is true that the "monkeys" form a so-called paraphyletic grade group that especially strict cladists frown upon, but I have not heard of any of them propose to redefine this vernacular group name to include apes. Not so strict taxonomists have suits of characters for defining both delimiters of the "monkey" grade.
Zoologists, you know, people who actually know what they're talking about, call the monophyletic group that includes monkeys and apes "Haplorrhini", not "monkeys".
In vernacular, zoologists generally talk of "monkeys" as something distinct from "apes" and are fine with it. Now you may go maverick and throw around your own personal definitions, but no one has to accept those, because you're just some nobody on the internet.
jessica
+Fedor Steeman
again, there's a lot of anger here, but not a lot of reasoned thought.
the best characteristic you provided was the lack of a tail. but, then the deduction is that apes are just tailless monkeys. and, as it turns out, there are species of monkeys without tails (the macaque is one), anyways.
i'm used to people yelling at me when i frustrate them with the tyranny of logic. but, it is now as it always is - you simply have no argument.
again: you are providing a list of reasonable characteristics to define apes as a subset of monkeys. but, you have not provided any argument at all to suggest that an ape is not a monkey.
perhaps we should take a step back for a second to clarify a distinction, as i think it might be at the root (pardon the pun) of the difficulty, here.
a cladistic relationship is not a set-theoretical relationship. it defines a broad genealogical relationship between species. but, we don't claim that mammals are fish. and, likewise, we don't need a recent common ancestor to point out that dolphins and sharks are both aquatic predators.
the question of whether apes are monkeys or not is not a cladistic question, it is a categorical one.
what you need to do to provide a good argument here is what i said:
1) find some characteristics that uniquely define monkeys. what makes a monkey a monkey?
2) demonstrate that those characteristics fail to describe apes. how is it that what makes a monkey a monkey makes an ape not a monkey?
and, good luck to you.
i wouldn't have suggested that apes are monkeys if such a distinction were truly readily apparent.
at
03:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
it's not the content of the piece that is important here, that's really not even being considered, it's the process of going through the photoshoot. if there was a glossy photoshoot in the new york times, the same reaction would take hold; if the vogue piece was just writing, or even an interview, nobody would get upset, either.
and, the critics (i'm not really one of them....i'm in the "this is entirely irrelevant" category) have somewhat of a point. here's the thing: you do this once, you ruffle a few feathers but get away with it. you do it repeatedly, and it becomes a liability because it makes you look like a celebrity.
it's a good way to demonstrate the differences between how canadians see their politicians, in comparison to americans and brits. trudeau's name didn't help him in the general (although it was everything at the convention). in fact, it almost destroyed him. we react very badly to the idea of a kennedy family, or an upper class "ruling" us. we'd prefer to see our prime minister in donated clothes than in expensive ones.
it's a reflection of our past. canada has never seen itself as a rich country. and, in the broader sense of things, the truth is that it never really has been. we're a country of lumberjacks and refugees. this is alienating because it reflects a foreign culture that we don't understand and, frankly, don't like very much. even those that transcend this view of ourselves still broadly *like* it, because it's quaint.
if this goes away soon, it will be forgotten. but, as i pointed out with the brooch issue, this is something that they want to avoid, not something they want to perpetuate.
it's nothing of any importance. no intelligent person will have their upcoming votes affected by it. but, it is a massive pr error, in canada.
and, frankly, a smart pr team would have seen it as an obvious pr error before it happened.
the liberals had the best platform. that's why they won. let's write that out on the board 500 times, please, so we all understand it.
if you look at the archetypal "canadian icon" it's something like neil young. left-leaning, for sure. but, earthy. "real".
i've said this before: the right idea here is not the aristocratic pomp of a jfk. it's the populism of an rfk.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/12/10/justin-trudeau-sophie-gregoire-vogue-critics_n_8771490.html
Hannah Hanrahan
This is a well reasoned viewpoint, obviously not coming from partisanship. It's true for me. I was over the roof when Trudeau won the election and this has put an end to my elation. Vogue is fine. It's the analysis of this particular image that produces the problems. It's not an image I feel connected to as a Canadain. It's an image of a colonialized Canadian whose been convinced to allow themselves to be appropriated by a culture that is actually quite oppressive and that we don't really like . It promotes values we don't identify with, and in fact a lot of canadians have made their way as comdic cirtics of those values. We're comedians of all this pompous American riche, expensive fashion, sexualized celebrity elitism, not minions of it. LOL
jessica amber murray
i agree, but it's not entirely what i'm getting at. that's something else i was thinking about. canada was run by the silent generation all the way until 2006. if harper was a boomer (he was born in 1959, and doesn't strike me as a boomer...), he's probably the only boomer pm we'll ever have. rather, we seem to have skipped from the silent generation to gen x - while the americans skipped from the gis to the boomers and will probably skip gen x. and, canada may very well skip the millenials. we skipped the boomers, the gis and the lost. it would fit the pattern...
we may end up with gen x in charge for the next 40 years, just like we had the silent generation in charge for 40 years. this is all very crude and everything, but i think it's reflective of broad values. look at the liberals after 1965 and look at the stereotypes of the silent generation and tell me that it doesn't make sense. meanwhile, the americans completely skipped over them.
if this kind of commercialism is a defining boomer characteristic, it makes sense that gen x has tended to rail against it. and, as a country, our collective decisions over the next few decades may end up clustered around these generational stereotypes - as they ended up clustered around the silent generation stereotypes over the last several decades, generally pushing back against the boomer status quo of tax cuts and hyperindividualism. we could be on track to really double down on this, while the millenials carry on as boomer v 2.0 - boomers, but worse. we'd likely be wise to avoid them, as we were wise to avoid the boomers.
that may be the difference in the countries. we're staggered a half a generation. canada is silent--->x---->z; america is gi--->boomers--->millenials.
crude. sure. perhaps useful, though.
what i was getting at was more of a distance thing.
those pictures of steve-o in his cowboy garb are likely to elicit laughter for many years. but, there's a correctness of strategy in this in that it makes him look human. i'm still not sure about whether he really was, but he convinced enough people.
why was chretien invincible, and why did martin's ship run out of steam so fast? because chretien was a man of the people, and martin was seen as an upper class business person. the elder trudeau was moderately wealthy, but he made a strong attempt to seem down to earth. it didn't always work.
standing up on your first day of office and doing a photoshoot like this? it suggests some broad cluelessness.
but, as i stated previously, i could hardly actually care.
i will judge him solely on his legislation.
also, he wants to avoid jerry maguire memes.
"show me the bills!"
and, the critics (i'm not really one of them....i'm in the "this is entirely irrelevant" category) have somewhat of a point. here's the thing: you do this once, you ruffle a few feathers but get away with it. you do it repeatedly, and it becomes a liability because it makes you look like a celebrity.
it's a good way to demonstrate the differences between how canadians see their politicians, in comparison to americans and brits. trudeau's name didn't help him in the general (although it was everything at the convention). in fact, it almost destroyed him. we react very badly to the idea of a kennedy family, or an upper class "ruling" us. we'd prefer to see our prime minister in donated clothes than in expensive ones.
it's a reflection of our past. canada has never seen itself as a rich country. and, in the broader sense of things, the truth is that it never really has been. we're a country of lumberjacks and refugees. this is alienating because it reflects a foreign culture that we don't understand and, frankly, don't like very much. even those that transcend this view of ourselves still broadly *like* it, because it's quaint.
if this goes away soon, it will be forgotten. but, as i pointed out with the brooch issue, this is something that they want to avoid, not something they want to perpetuate.
it's nothing of any importance. no intelligent person will have their upcoming votes affected by it. but, it is a massive pr error, in canada.
and, frankly, a smart pr team would have seen it as an obvious pr error before it happened.
the liberals had the best platform. that's why they won. let's write that out on the board 500 times, please, so we all understand it.
if you look at the archetypal "canadian icon" it's something like neil young. left-leaning, for sure. but, earthy. "real".
i've said this before: the right idea here is not the aristocratic pomp of a jfk. it's the populism of an rfk.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/12/10/justin-trudeau-sophie-gregoire-vogue-critics_n_8771490.html
Hannah Hanrahan
This is a well reasoned viewpoint, obviously not coming from partisanship. It's true for me. I was over the roof when Trudeau won the election and this has put an end to my elation. Vogue is fine. It's the analysis of this particular image that produces the problems. It's not an image I feel connected to as a Canadain. It's an image of a colonialized Canadian whose been convinced to allow themselves to be appropriated by a culture that is actually quite oppressive and that we don't really like . It promotes values we don't identify with, and in fact a lot of canadians have made their way as comdic cirtics of those values. We're comedians of all this pompous American riche, expensive fashion, sexualized celebrity elitism, not minions of it. LOL
jessica amber murray
i agree, but it's not entirely what i'm getting at. that's something else i was thinking about. canada was run by the silent generation all the way until 2006. if harper was a boomer (he was born in 1959, and doesn't strike me as a boomer...), he's probably the only boomer pm we'll ever have. rather, we seem to have skipped from the silent generation to gen x - while the americans skipped from the gis to the boomers and will probably skip gen x. and, canada may very well skip the millenials. we skipped the boomers, the gis and the lost. it would fit the pattern...
we may end up with gen x in charge for the next 40 years, just like we had the silent generation in charge for 40 years. this is all very crude and everything, but i think it's reflective of broad values. look at the liberals after 1965 and look at the stereotypes of the silent generation and tell me that it doesn't make sense. meanwhile, the americans completely skipped over them.
if this kind of commercialism is a defining boomer characteristic, it makes sense that gen x has tended to rail against it. and, as a country, our collective decisions over the next few decades may end up clustered around these generational stereotypes - as they ended up clustered around the silent generation stereotypes over the last several decades, generally pushing back against the boomer status quo of tax cuts and hyperindividualism. we could be on track to really double down on this, while the millenials carry on as boomer v 2.0 - boomers, but worse. we'd likely be wise to avoid them, as we were wise to avoid the boomers.
that may be the difference in the countries. we're staggered a half a generation. canada is silent--->x---->z; america is gi--->boomers--->millenials.
crude. sure. perhaps useful, though.
what i was getting at was more of a distance thing.
those pictures of steve-o in his cowboy garb are likely to elicit laughter for many years. but, there's a correctness of strategy in this in that it makes him look human. i'm still not sure about whether he really was, but he convinced enough people.
why was chretien invincible, and why did martin's ship run out of steam so fast? because chretien was a man of the people, and martin was seen as an upper class business person. the elder trudeau was moderately wealthy, but he made a strong attempt to seem down to earth. it didn't always work.
standing up on your first day of office and doing a photoshoot like this? it suggests some broad cluelessness.
but, as i stated previously, i could hardly actually care.
i will judge him solely on his legislation.
also, he wants to avoid jerry maguire memes.
"show me the bills!"
at
02:06
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
it's admittedly surreal, but relax - it'll be over soon. you need a reality tv show to sustain this kind of media.
if we're lucky, though, some actual liberal party politics will rub themselves off on the democratic primary. don't hold your breath. but at least cross your fingers.
www.cbc.ca/news/trending/vogue-justin-trudeau-sophie-grégoire-trudeau-photo-1.3357616
if we're lucky, though, some actual liberal party politics will rub themselves off on the democratic primary. don't hold your breath. but at least cross your fingers.
www.cbc.ca/news/trending/vogue-justin-trudeau-sophie-grégoire-trudeau-photo-1.3357616
at
01:29
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
feeling kind of numb myself, right now.
out of grapes, though.
out of grapes, though.
at
01:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
if you look carefully, you can see that the monkey catches him dropping the cherry or the fig or whatever it is. i think he's laughing at the guy for thinking he was going to fall for it.
at
00:39
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)