they couldn't find him a big kid's chair, or what?
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
actually, i have far more fun with the paid stooges after their party is in power, when they're trying to build the cult of personality. that's when they get really comical. it's then the election afterwards, when they try to apply all of the nonsense, that we can really have some fun.
see, in tearing down the cult of personality, i get to be an anarchist and demonstrate that conservatives are basically stalinists in disguise: the cult of personality is a statist phenomenon. conservatives do it. liberals do it. but, whereas conservatives kind of yearn for it deep down, it's the liberals (wherever they are on the spectrum) that can't stand it.
so, i'm actually being trans-partisan. not post. i'd like to keep parties, actually. and even have more of them. and not bi. as though we're in kahoots, right? no. trans-partisan. and, the language is entirely coincidental.
this is when i'm most entertaining. and, attempts to semi-deify trump are an easy target - because he is himself an easy target. so, keep an eye out for it.
see, in tearing down the cult of personality, i get to be an anarchist and demonstrate that conservatives are basically stalinists in disguise: the cult of personality is a statist phenomenon. conservatives do it. liberals do it. but, whereas conservatives kind of yearn for it deep down, it's the liberals (wherever they are on the spectrum) that can't stand it.
so, i'm actually being trans-partisan. not post. i'd like to keep parties, actually. and even have more of them. and not bi. as though we're in kahoots, right? no. trans-partisan. and, the language is entirely coincidental.
this is when i'm most entertaining. and, attempts to semi-deify trump are an easy target - because he is himself an easy target. so, keep an eye out for it.
also, if you're curious - the alter-reality has not stopped, it's just been paused. i will catch up when i am finished inri021. i've done this before. it's not ideal, but it's where my head needs to be. it also seems like i'll need to stop to read the grapes of wrath pretty much all of the way through. barring further delays, that should be the first week of december.
i'm going to do a recitation for the first time in two weeks and plan to time them, in the future, when my sd card fills up.
that's going to be about twice a month. roughly.
i'm going to do a recitation for the first time in two weeks and plan to time them, in the future, when my sd card fills up.
that's going to be about twice a month. roughly.
“There will be a multiyear transition into the replacement,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.). “This is a failed piece of legislation and it is coming apart at the seams, but it is going to take us awhile to make that transition from the repeal to actually replacing it.”
mmhmm.
when he said on day one, he meant in terms of a biblical analogy. because the lord is working through him, and he is carrying out god's plans. so, day one really means his first term.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/30/getting-rid-of-obamacare-may-take-longer-than-trump-plans/?tid=ss_twm&utm_term=.de660945dc22
mmhmm.
when he said on day one, he meant in terms of a biblical analogy. because the lord is working through him, and he is carrying out god's plans. so, day one really means his first term.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/30/getting-rid-of-obamacare-may-take-longer-than-trump-plans/?tid=ss_twm&utm_term=.de660945dc22
you don't have to care about my stupid music.
...but realize that i don't care about your stupid economy, either.
reciprocity? well, your stupid economy puts me at a disadvantage. the ideal is if we put property in common. then i'm not forced into slavery.
but, i don't ask for you to change your goals, i ask for you to back off and let me accomplish mine. i am lucky. i have this option. and, i may be best off to just be quiet and enjoy it, as i know that workers are brainwashed by religion to be subservient and reject "laziness". i'm targeting myself. but, i feel everybody should have this option - and that the world around me would be more vibrant if everybody did.
i feel that giving people more time to spend making art by freeing them from the constraints of labour is in my self-interest.
but, this isn't even slacktivism. this is an online journal. it's just an idea, man. like, my opinion, and stuff. and, yes - i know i have hundreds of daily readers. but i have not cultivated them. and i don't know who they are or what they want.
...but realize that i don't care about your stupid economy, either.
reciprocity? well, your stupid economy puts me at a disadvantage. the ideal is if we put property in common. then i'm not forced into slavery.
but, i don't ask for you to change your goals, i ask for you to back off and let me accomplish mine. i am lucky. i have this option. and, i may be best off to just be quiet and enjoy it, as i know that workers are brainwashed by religion to be subservient and reject "laziness". i'm targeting myself. but, i feel everybody should have this option - and that the world around me would be more vibrant if everybody did.
i feel that giving people more time to spend making art by freeing them from the constraints of labour is in my self-interest.
but, this isn't even slacktivism. this is an online journal. it's just an idea, man. like, my opinion, and stuff. and, yes - i know i have hundreds of daily readers. but i have not cultivated them. and i don't know who they are or what they want.
walkom is one of the few writers in canada that isn't an old tory.
he's right about pierre. and, he's right about canadians. canada's admiration for castro is less about who castro was or what he did and more about the symbolism of being a pain in the side of the empire. and, our solidarity with the trudeaus is symbolic on that level. it's some good old-fashioned anti-americanism.
you could say something about justin living in a different era, about him not sharing these anti-american instincts. or, at least not yet. i mean, a great society must be a just one, right? lbj may have famously roughed up pearson a little. but, it took a nixon for pierre to really look the other way.
but, insofar as the different era is concerned, i think we're all missing the obvious: justin trudeau had no relationship with fidel castro. and, he snubbed him on the only chance he had to meet him.
i'm not sure correlation implies causality, here, regarding the media smackdown. why would he have gone in the first place?
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/11/30/justin-trudeau-loses-his-nerve-skips-fidel-castros-funeral-walkom.html
"i've been called worse things by better people." - pierre trudeau reacting to reports that richard nixon called him an asshole.
i'm not sure that nixon was ever seen as diplomatic. but, this is likely a fairly quaint precursor to trump, who is certainly not.
nixon and pet were pretty far apart on the spectrum. trump and justin are pretty much the same dynamic, but with the elastic pulled right out of shape...
it was exasperation with nixon that had trudeau flirting with the non-aligned movement.
he's right about pierre. and, he's right about canadians. canada's admiration for castro is less about who castro was or what he did and more about the symbolism of being a pain in the side of the empire. and, our solidarity with the trudeaus is symbolic on that level. it's some good old-fashioned anti-americanism.
you could say something about justin living in a different era, about him not sharing these anti-american instincts. or, at least not yet. i mean, a great society must be a just one, right? lbj may have famously roughed up pearson a little. but, it took a nixon for pierre to really look the other way.
but, insofar as the different era is concerned, i think we're all missing the obvious: justin trudeau had no relationship with fidel castro. and, he snubbed him on the only chance he had to meet him.
i'm not sure correlation implies causality, here, regarding the media smackdown. why would he have gone in the first place?
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/11/30/justin-trudeau-loses-his-nerve-skips-fidel-castros-funeral-walkom.html
"i've been called worse things by better people." - pierre trudeau reacting to reports that richard nixon called him an asshole.
i'm not sure that nixon was ever seen as diplomatic. but, this is likely a fairly quaint precursor to trump, who is certainly not.
nixon and pet were pretty far apart on the spectrum. trump and justin are pretty much the same dynamic, but with the elastic pulled right out of shape...
it was exasperation with nixon that had trudeau flirting with the non-aligned movement.
why isn't there an html5-blocker for firefox?
it's the autoplay. whatever you want it to do, it doesn't work. it's just annoying.
i mean, do you want a slew of two second "watches" distorting your stats? no? then, ditch autoplay.
this gets flashblock working again:
media.audio_data.enabled;false
media.autoplay.enabled;false
media.ogg.enabled;false
media.webaudio.enabled;false
media.webm.enabled;false
it's the autoplay. whatever you want it to do, it doesn't work. it's just annoying.
i mean, do you want a slew of two second "watches" distorting your stats? no? then, ditch autoplay.
this gets flashblock working again:
media.audio_data.enabled;false
media.autoplay.enabled;false
media.ogg.enabled;false
media.webaudio.enabled;false
media.webm.enabled;false
in the midst of continuing stories about foreign hacking and computer faud, i just want to clarify what i'm thinking regarding how this whole election fraud thing works. no, i can't prove it. nobody else will ever prove it, either. but, how do they do that? there's lots of ways, of course. but, let's tell a little story that i think gets the main idea across...
this is jonah. jonah willis. he had his picture taken for a uk site, but he lives in north carolina, and he's going to vote for clinton.
"i'mma vote for clinton."
but, then bae comes in.
bae: but, cornel says she's a racist.
jonah: i know she's a racist, but they're both racists, and i think that other guy's a jackass, so i'mma vote for clinton. you coming?
bae: naw. i think they're all the same.
jonah: fine. i'm leaving. i'mma vote for clinton.
now, jonah knows he's black, so he knows he has to take special precautions if he wants his vote to count. that's why he has a suitcase of identification over there, which he always brings whenever he needs to vote:
the suitcase has 23 different types of identification, so there's no way they're not letting him vote.
when he shows up to the voting place, he's moved into the "black line". nobody calls it the black line. but everybody knows it's the black line. it features extra delays & extra checking and pretty much everybody ends up with a "provisional ballot" in the end.
after going through the suitcase item by item, the lady at the booth eventually rejects all of them as "insufficient" and gives jonah a "provisional ballot". she ensures jonah that all of the photocopies will be checked, and so long as at least one of them checks out then his vote will count.
jonah did actually vote for clinton. what else can he do but go home?
but, the lady at the booth put an asterisk beside jonah's name when he was in the booth. this was something she was instructed to do by the party.
at the end of the day, when everybody is gone, and while the ballots are being counted, a second operation is underway - the list that had jonah's name on it is being replaced by a list without his name on it. the new list does not have the name of any black people on it. the number of scrubbed black voters is then added up, and that number is removed from the pile of provisional ballots. these ballots are then destroyed.
in the end, there is no evidence that jonah ever showed up to vote at all.
if questioned on this procedure, the lady at the booth would no doubt be matter-of-fact:
it's tradition. we've been doing this here for generations. we let them come in and vote, but we don't actually count them. we never have. otherwise, they'd take over.
the only evidence that exists is the following strange truth: despite opinion polls implying the contrary, trump almost held his base. but, clinton was millions of votes short of all projections, specifically in the black and latino communities.
it seems like votes disappeared. and, if they did they will never be found...
this is jonah. jonah willis. he had his picture taken for a uk site, but he lives in north carolina, and he's going to vote for clinton.
"i'mma vote for clinton."
but, then bae comes in.
bae: but, cornel says she's a racist.
jonah: i know she's a racist, but they're both racists, and i think that other guy's a jackass, so i'mma vote for clinton. you coming?
bae: naw. i think they're all the same.
jonah: fine. i'm leaving. i'mma vote for clinton.
now, jonah knows he's black, so he knows he has to take special precautions if he wants his vote to count. that's why he has a suitcase of identification over there, which he always brings whenever he needs to vote:
the suitcase has 23 different types of identification, so there's no way they're not letting him vote.
when he shows up to the voting place, he's moved into the "black line". nobody calls it the black line. but everybody knows it's the black line. it features extra delays & extra checking and pretty much everybody ends up with a "provisional ballot" in the end.
after going through the suitcase item by item, the lady at the booth eventually rejects all of them as "insufficient" and gives jonah a "provisional ballot". she ensures jonah that all of the photocopies will be checked, and so long as at least one of them checks out then his vote will count.
jonah did actually vote for clinton. what else can he do but go home?
but, the lady at the booth put an asterisk beside jonah's name when he was in the booth. this was something she was instructed to do by the party.
at the end of the day, when everybody is gone, and while the ballots are being counted, a second operation is underway - the list that had jonah's name on it is being replaced by a list without his name on it. the new list does not have the name of any black people on it. the number of scrubbed black voters is then added up, and that number is removed from the pile of provisional ballots. these ballots are then destroyed.
in the end, there is no evidence that jonah ever showed up to vote at all.
if questioned on this procedure, the lady at the booth would no doubt be matter-of-fact:
it's tradition. we've been doing this here for generations. we let them come in and vote, but we don't actually count them. we never have. otherwise, they'd take over.
the only evidence that exists is the following strange truth: despite opinion polls implying the contrary, trump almost held his base. but, clinton was millions of votes short of all projections, specifically in the black and latino communities.
it seems like votes disappeared. and, if they did they will never be found...
and, for you people that think the democrats need to "get rid of identity politics"...
...that means what, exactly? running a candidate that says black children are super-predators, wants to deport latino children to south america and refuses to back gay equality until the last minute?
i mean, you lose because minority support is less than expected, and you want less minority voters? what?
i think what that actually means is that the democrats need to attract more white voters, and it's a kind of coded way to suggest that they should be more racist. but, i guess you weren't paying attention. because, hillary blew that dog whistle fairly often. and, unlike trump, she has a policy record to back it up.
i think there's a valid idea hidden in there, though, and that idea begins with the understanding that what the republicans have been doing with white voters is, in fact, just identity politics. the democrats have spent a lot of resources creating these minority-based identity politics. the republicans went for the mother of all demographics, and created an identity politics of the white christian. voter suppression or not, it clearly worked.
now, we're left face to face with the problem that the left has known all along: we have to change the nature of "white identity" in america. that's basically the mission of the left anyways.
it's not impossible, either. we've largely won this fight in canada. and, back in the 90s, it sure looked like the white liberal was winning the culture war in america, too.
and, that may the ultimate conclusion, here: the culture war that so many of us thought was over actually isn't. in the end, it may be a last gasp of a dying generation. but, it's not wise to make that assumption. rather, it seems like there's still a lot of battles to be fought and won.
-
it's just, like...
i'm white. yeah. i know it. i know it affects cultural decisions. who i spend time with. etc.
but, i'm secular. that probably has a lot do with the rest of my views.
i'm not economically well-off, either - although i have no interest in competing and am happy to live in poverty in exchange for freedom from labour.
so, i'm a lower class white voter. i'm an atheist. and i'm educated. but, i'm still white and lower class.
and i simply don't have a desire to live in a culture full of other people like me. that strikes me as very boring. this insularism is foreign to me. it can't be inherent.
i don't feel attracted to other white people. it could partly be because i know that so many other white people are conservative and christian and capitalist. sure. but, that solidarity is not there.
rather, i feel that solidarity over class. i feel it over ideology. i feel it over musical taste, as silly as that may be. and, those are categories that transcend skin colour.
i don't think i'm an anomaly. i just think i'm a product of a different culture. and, i can only look to america and say "this cannot be inherent. this cannot be permanent. this cannot be static. because the rest of the world is not like this."
...that means what, exactly? running a candidate that says black children are super-predators, wants to deport latino children to south america and refuses to back gay equality until the last minute?
i mean, you lose because minority support is less than expected, and you want less minority voters? what?
i think what that actually means is that the democrats need to attract more white voters, and it's a kind of coded way to suggest that they should be more racist. but, i guess you weren't paying attention. because, hillary blew that dog whistle fairly often. and, unlike trump, she has a policy record to back it up.
i think there's a valid idea hidden in there, though, and that idea begins with the understanding that what the republicans have been doing with white voters is, in fact, just identity politics. the democrats have spent a lot of resources creating these minority-based identity politics. the republicans went for the mother of all demographics, and created an identity politics of the white christian. voter suppression or not, it clearly worked.
now, we're left face to face with the problem that the left has known all along: we have to change the nature of "white identity" in america. that's basically the mission of the left anyways.
it's not impossible, either. we've largely won this fight in canada. and, back in the 90s, it sure looked like the white liberal was winning the culture war in america, too.
and, that may the ultimate conclusion, here: the culture war that so many of us thought was over actually isn't. in the end, it may be a last gasp of a dying generation. but, it's not wise to make that assumption. rather, it seems like there's still a lot of battles to be fought and won.
-
it's just, like...
i'm white. yeah. i know it. i know it affects cultural decisions. who i spend time with. etc.
but, i'm secular. that probably has a lot do with the rest of my views.
i'm not economically well-off, either - although i have no interest in competing and am happy to live in poverty in exchange for freedom from labour.
so, i'm a lower class white voter. i'm an atheist. and i'm educated. but, i'm still white and lower class.
and i simply don't have a desire to live in a culture full of other people like me. that strikes me as very boring. this insularism is foreign to me. it can't be inherent.
i don't feel attracted to other white people. it could partly be because i know that so many other white people are conservative and christian and capitalist. sure. but, that solidarity is not there.
rather, i feel that solidarity over class. i feel it over ideology. i feel it over musical taste, as silly as that may be. and, those are categories that transcend skin colour.
i don't think i'm an anomaly. i just think i'm a product of a different culture. and, i can only look to america and say "this cannot be inherent. this cannot be permanent. this cannot be static. because the rest of the world is not like this."
because cutting corporate taxes create jobs. right.
they don't believe that. don't think they do. they just think you're stupid enough to believe it. and, if the you is universal, they're right.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-treasury-secretary-our-first-priority-is-tax-cuts-2016-11
obviously, that they would invest more if they only had more money on hand? can't you see that?
http://www.businessinsider.com/record-us-corporate-cash-holdings-182-trillion-2015-6
they don't believe that. don't think they do. they just think you're stupid enough to believe it. and, if the you is universal, they're right.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-treasury-secretary-our-first-priority-is-tax-cuts-2016-11
obviously, that they would invest more if they only had more money on hand? can't you see that?
http://www.businessinsider.com/record-us-corporate-cash-holdings-182-trillion-2015-6
hey donald.
hows 'bout you pass a law limiting the number of times somebody can declare bankruptcy?
if i was him, i'd like to leave my business interests behind, too. will his creditors agree, though?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-leaving-business-interests
i guarantee you he declares bankruptcy.
^ a rhetorical device. obviously, i can't guarantee anything.
hows 'bout you pass a law limiting the number of times somebody can declare bankruptcy?
if i was him, i'd like to leave my business interests behind, too. will his creditors agree, though?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-leaving-business-interests
i guarantee you he declares bankruptcy.
^ a rhetorical device. obviously, i can't guarantee anything.
so, will this wave of kneejerk "anti-liberalism" in favour of magical thinking that conservatives will act like liberals if we all think hard enough that they will take justin trudeau down?
the truth is that it already did. and, he reacted. and he won a landslide on top of it.
rewind to a year, or even a few months, before the election. trudeau was ahead in the polls. then, he started talking about balanced budgets. he screwed up badly on c-51. and, canadians turned to our systemic bernie sanders - the ndp. history may forget to record that they nearly won. and they really nearly did.
then, harper started playing the anti-islam card. you can say what you will about this, but what it comes down to is that trudeau had the brand recognition necessary to fight back against it. kellie leitch? no, we just had that election, and that tactic lost.
trudeau had the political smarts that clinton didn't have. he saw it coming and he reacted. he beat the ndp at their own game, and they're still figuring out what to do.
it was paul krugman that pointed out that canada is always ahead of the curve, that we should look to canada for a taste of the future. yet, we're constantly told to expect the effects of american elections to be felt, here. i think that certain voices in the canadian commentariat may want to adjust their analysis.
it already happened, here. and, he co-opted it. we may even get a renegotiation of nafta out of it. hey - a girl can dream.
trudeau is the anti-elite backlash.
-
but, really. you gotta wonder if you should be dusting off the pavlov in your post-mortem, here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmarginal_inhibition
the truth is that it already did. and, he reacted. and he won a landslide on top of it.
rewind to a year, or even a few months, before the election. trudeau was ahead in the polls. then, he started talking about balanced budgets. he screwed up badly on c-51. and, canadians turned to our systemic bernie sanders - the ndp. history may forget to record that they nearly won. and they really nearly did.
then, harper started playing the anti-islam card. you can say what you will about this, but what it comes down to is that trudeau had the brand recognition necessary to fight back against it. kellie leitch? no, we just had that election, and that tactic lost.
trudeau had the political smarts that clinton didn't have. he saw it coming and he reacted. he beat the ndp at their own game, and they're still figuring out what to do.
it was paul krugman that pointed out that canada is always ahead of the curve, that we should look to canada for a taste of the future. yet, we're constantly told to expect the effects of american elections to be felt, here. i think that certain voices in the canadian commentariat may want to adjust their analysis.
it already happened, here. and, he co-opted it. we may even get a renegotiation of nafta out of it. hey - a girl can dream.
trudeau is the anti-elite backlash.
-
but, really. you gotta wonder if you should be dusting off the pavlov in your post-mortem, here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmarginal_inhibition
thomas mulcair is attacking justin trudeau for his willingness to open up nafta.
“How can the Prime Minister put an entire trade deal on the table before he says anything to Canadians about what he is looking for?”
really. really...
it's a sad day in canada when the leader of the ndp champions nafta. a sad day, indeed.
after refusing to step down after voters clearly rejected his rightward shifting of the party's positions, which were in clear contempt of the party's platform, mr. mulcair was unceremoniously dumped by his own party. we are now months past his own party's rejection of his political positions, and he refuses to stand down.
mr. mulcair, the voters have spoken. the party members have spoken. your mps have spoken. it is time for you to sit down and be quiet. it is time for you to go away. it is time for you to let go of the position that you would not let go of, that has been stripped from you and that nobody has faith in you to hold.
trudeau's comments will not hurt him, politically. but, mulcair is continuing to remind us why he lost his own base.
the party of douglas has become the party of mindless obstructionism. and, if this is what it has to offer, then it is time that it merge not with the liberals but with the tories.
my sadness is only eclipsed by my disgust.
-
yeah. they took it down.
they took their platform down.
and, then they wonder why they lost their base?
this is what the ndp's donors and voters and grassroots had in their platform, before mulcair took it down.
“Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to protect Canadian sovereignty, especially in investment and energy security.”
and, mulcair has been taken down, himself. he's just stuck in cache; he just refuses to go away.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/ndp-policy-manual-removed-from-partys-website-because-it-is-not-the-platform-ndp-advisor
F5. F5. F5. fuck. work...
“How can the Prime Minister put an entire trade deal on the table before he says anything to Canadians about what he is looking for?”
really. really...
it's a sad day in canada when the leader of the ndp champions nafta. a sad day, indeed.
after refusing to step down after voters clearly rejected his rightward shifting of the party's positions, which were in clear contempt of the party's platform, mr. mulcair was unceremoniously dumped by his own party. we are now months past his own party's rejection of his political positions, and he refuses to stand down.
mr. mulcair, the voters have spoken. the party members have spoken. your mps have spoken. it is time for you to sit down and be quiet. it is time for you to go away. it is time for you to let go of the position that you would not let go of, that has been stripped from you and that nobody has faith in you to hold.
trudeau's comments will not hurt him, politically. but, mulcair is continuing to remind us why he lost his own base.
the party of douglas has become the party of mindless obstructionism. and, if this is what it has to offer, then it is time that it merge not with the liberals but with the tories.
my sadness is only eclipsed by my disgust.
-
yeah. they took it down.
they took their platform down.
and, then they wonder why they lost their base?
this is what the ndp's donors and voters and grassroots had in their platform, before mulcair took it down.
“Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to protect Canadian sovereignty, especially in investment and energy security.”
and, mulcair has been taken down, himself. he's just stuck in cache; he just refuses to go away.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/ndp-policy-manual-removed-from-partys-website-because-it-is-not-the-platform-ndp-advisor
F5. F5. F5. fuck. work...
j reacts to the pipeline approvals in canada
this is no surprise. i fully expected that this battle would need to be fought on the ground. let's just not lose focus on the importance of fighting for positive steps towards transition, as we continue to fight this regressive feet-dragging.
putting all your focus on stopping the pipelines, and winning, doesn't leave us with much at the end of the day if the grid is in the same shape as it is now. we have to focus on transition and adaptation, too. with the election of the denier-in-chief, that's just all the more apparent. so, this is going to require a lot of hard work to stop. but, the liberals are still the lesser evil and it was still the right choice to put them in power.
we just have to make sure those infrastructure funds get released and put to use in transitioning, even as we fight the pipelines.
the ndp supported the pipelines, too. but, they had no plan for transition. indeed, their plan was to rely on taxing dirty oil to pay for social services.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/29/liberals-approve-trans-mountain-line-3-pipeline-projects.html
putting all your focus on stopping the pipelines, and winning, doesn't leave us with much at the end of the day if the grid is in the same shape as it is now. we have to focus on transition and adaptation, too. with the election of the denier-in-chief, that's just all the more apparent. so, this is going to require a lot of hard work to stop. but, the liberals are still the lesser evil and it was still the right choice to put them in power.
we just have to make sure those infrastructure funds get released and put to use in transitioning, even as we fight the pipelines.
the ndp supported the pipelines, too. but, they had no plan for transition. indeed, their plan was to rely on taxing dirty oil to pay for social services.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/29/liberals-approve-trans-mountain-line-3-pipeline-projects.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)