you can truly never know whether or not you have something on your shirt. the events are entirely independent.

you must check every single time.

how do you even ban muslims?

the russians couldn't ban christianity. the chinese couldn't ban confucianism. how's he gonna pull this off?

send them to mars? right. one illudium q-36 explosive space modulator, coming up. wait for it. we'll have to invade with rabbits. or unblock the view of the crescent moon, somehow.

it's not even offensive, really. the actual reality is that it's actually too stupid to be offensive. it doesn't disqualify him on the basis of intolerance, it disqualifies him on the basis of intelligence. but, we already knew that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSnOwUE5Fro

fun fact: canada has yet to elect a baby boomer prime minister. and, it seems unlikely to happen, now.

rather, we had a string of "silent generation" prime ministers from 1967-2006, and gen x took over directly from there.

the conservatives transitioned to a boomer prime minister in 1993, but she got destroyed in the subsequent election. she was only prime minister for a few months and left no meaningful legacy. she's basically forgotten to history, in every context except being our only female prime minister.

the right then completely collapsed, and when it came back it consciously decided to pick a younger leader. stephen harper is arguably a very late boomer, in that cusp area, but he was really totally gen x in just about every way.

the liberals had a few boomer leaders, but they spent the whole time in opposition. trudeau the younger was born in 1971.

the conservatives will have a leadership convention in 2017. there are no prominent boomer candidates at this point.

the leader of the third party - thomas mulcair - is a more recognizable boomer. but, his chances of winning the next election are rather low. and, if he gets replaced, it's almost certain to be by an xer.

it's just another example of how canada is different. the narrative in the english speaking world for decades has been how the boomers control everything, and gen x is going to get skipped over.

but, in canada, the oldest generation never ceded power to the boomers and instead skipped them in favour of the xers.

it's tempting to draw conclusions about how canada was able to avoid the boomer generation obsession with tax cuts at the expense of social services.

canada: gen x nation. i admit i like the idea. that's a different set of values. what does it mean? well, we already have superior music, and arguably culture in general. legal pot is on the way. a bit of an existentialist slant in the law? shit, how about a guaranteed annual income.

this is not a crazy perception of things.

... because it really does seem relevant to point out how important the silent generation was to our politics here, and how comparably unimportant the boomers were.

maybe that's the answer. maybe the difference between canada and the united states is that we're staggered a generation. the americans jumped from the gis to the boomers, skipping the silent generation, and seem poised to skip over gen x and jump to the millenials. look at the democratic primaries. they're both past retirement age. suppose you get eight years out of clinton, even. you could start getting some young millenials running.

it looks like canada jumped from the silent generation to gen x and may very well skip the millenials.

i know that these kinds of analysis are overly broad. vague. statistical, if anything; mostly, just meaningless. but, maybe there's some truth underlying it.

hey, hey (my, my): we all know grunge was really about trying to be canadian. lumberjack shirts. neil young solos. we should get royalties from that shit.

"and, in other news, canada has finally won it's copyright infringement legal battle to pay down it's debt with royalties from the 1991 classic 'nevermind'."

but, for real. look at these birth dates. we skip generations.
i've removed appointments.
they all won an election.
and this is the complete list.

macdonald - 1815
mackenzie - 1822

laurier - 1841
borden - 1854

bennett - 1870
mackenzie-king - 1874
st laurent - 1882

diefenbaker - 1895
pearson - 1897

trudeau - 1919
chretien - 1934
martin - 1938
clark - 1939
mulroney - 1939

harper - 1959
trudeau - 1971

zero between 1939 and 1959.

skipped....

india is still very much a developing country and, despite actually being fairly ambitious on switching to renewables, should be given a little more space. their per capita is amongst the lowest on the planet.

but, china is arguably now a developed country and should be pressed to commit to comparable levels of responsibility if it wants comparable levels of influence. their emissions exceed their population percentage; they're already emitting beyond their share. i think that's the right argument - if it wants the seat at the big kids table, it needs to act like a big kid.

www.cbc.ca/news/world/cop21-climate-change-talks-saturday-announced-1.3362354

Dee1965
The average Chinese citizen uses 1/5 the energy that the average North American uses. Where do you suggest they cut back?

The pollution from China is coming from its massive production of goods that are sent HERE.

So, how about we cut back to help them cut back?

jessica murray
westerners should cut emissions by around 70%. china should cut emissions by about 30%. we need to cut more than them, but they need to cut deeply, too.

the idea that we could fix this by boycotting goods from china or something would be a nice plan in a market utopia. but, that's not how things work in the real world. so long as their government allows us to export our pollution to them, we will continue to do so. they have to put those standards in place. it may lead to a decrease in exports, but even china is realizing it needs to focus it's economy more on domestic consumption.

it's only a half-truth, anyways. they're building massive cities. and, they're using coal for electricity generation.

Blackbird
Both China and India have the money to do something about their outputs. Why should they be cut any slack.

If you really want to do something for the world, cut down on pollution of all types and spend all this money on research to find an energy source that pollutes less but will provide enough power to meet our constantly growing demand

jessica murray
because india's per capita emissions level is actually lower than most countries in sub-saharan africa. the gross numbers in india seem impressive, but the population is well over a billion and when you split it all up - which does not account for the vast disparities in wealth that exist there - it does not add up to much for the average person. the average indian is still very, very poor and simply does not produce many emissions as a consequence of this poverty.

the indian government has made it clear that it intends to focus as much on renewables as it can, and that is good news. i mean, it simply makes more economic sense to put the infrastructure in place as renewables than it does to swap it out in ten years. and, understand that that is the reality in much of india - they are not converting from carbon, but making the choice as to what kind of energy source they will be implementing for the first time. but there are few places in the world where the argument for lenience is as powerful as it is in india, due to the persistent levels of quite staggering poverty.

we're too dependent on foreign growers, and despite the claim in the article, the truth is that we don't need to be. i don't want to spend my life growing produce. but, there's a great business opportunity here for indoor growers.

www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/here-are-7-foods-that-you-will-pay-more-for-in-the-new-year/60975/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/paris-climate-talks-were-about-business-not-politics/article27722810/

11-12-2015: starting to lose it a little

tracks worked on in this vlog:
1) https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/aliens-are-more-likely-than-god