if the nazis end up back in power in germany due to proportional representation, can we stop arguing in favour of proportional representation?
i mean, we told you this was going to happen. and you said it can't. and it is about to happen. maybe, those opposed to pr were actually right?
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Thursday, November 23, 2017
actually, in my experience, i agree with him.
indigenous sovereignty has been a theme on the left for a while. but, few people seem to realize just how conservative traditional indigenous culture really is in regards to things like gender roles. see, they might have a few extra roles, but erecting this "trans" role and then enforcing it on people isn't really a lot better than erasing it. i'm more into how the greeks did this (with caveats).
i'm consequently led to believe that if we ever had an actualization of indigenous sovereignty, the people i would really have solidarity with would be the people transcending the norms that keep it in place, and trying to overturn it.
i grasp that there are groups that want more control over their lives. and, i don't want to take away their agency. but, i think we're all better off looking past this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/11/22/rob-clarke-sask-party-leadership-candidate-says-indigenous-people-dont-believe-in-abortion_a_23285943/
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
indigenous sovereignty has been a theme on the left for a while. but, few people seem to realize just how conservative traditional indigenous culture really is in regards to things like gender roles. see, they might have a few extra roles, but erecting this "trans" role and then enforcing it on people isn't really a lot better than erasing it. i'm more into how the greeks did this (with caveats).
i'm consequently led to believe that if we ever had an actualization of indigenous sovereignty, the people i would really have solidarity with would be the people transcending the norms that keep it in place, and trying to overturn it.
i grasp that there are groups that want more control over their lives. and, i don't want to take away their agency. but, i think we're all better off looking past this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/11/22/rob-clarke-sask-party-leadership-candidate-says-indigenous-people-dont-believe-in-abortion_a_23285943/
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
at
07:00
but, the reason we import all the oil is that we don't have the pipelines! if we had the pipelines, we wouldn't import the oil!
wrong.
to begin with, i'd rather import the oil from cleaner sources, anyways, so long as we need it. i don't want to use dirty tar sands oil. i don't want to use fracked oil, either. but, i don't want to use oil at all. and, i mostly don't. if we could get a better electric rail system in place for imports, or better greenhouse systems for local production, i'd have almost no carbon footprint; my biggest sin is buying fruit from california, and i'd actually simply rather not have to do that at all.
there is, in fact, a pipeline from western canada to eastern canada.
this pipeline is run by enbridge. it goes from the oil producing regions to lake superior, and then from there to sarnia, where it can be refined and distributed to toronto, and then from there across the country. it is actually the longest pipeline in the world.
you can read about this here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enbridge_Pipeline_System#Mainline_system
so, why doesn't the government use this system for "energy security"?
this is a quote from wikipedia:
"The Canadian government assumed that eastern Canada could always import enough oil to meet its needs, and that imported oil would always be cheaper than domestic oil."
i believe that this statement is absolutely true. but, how? if we have the infrastructure to ship oil to sarnia, and refine it there, why is it cheaper to import it? and, surely we could build refineries in edmonton, if we had to?
because it's so expensive to refine it. that's the easy answer. but, it's partly a question of having too many hands in between; there's a lot of inefficiencies in not having a centralized network, and parasites taking money off of the top.
so, in the 1970s, the elder trudeau set up a system to increase efficiency in distribution, partly by decreasing profits to western capital. a lot of western capitalists did suffer from this, but the question of whether this was a type of justice or not has been under-analyzed; i don't have a lot of sympathy for corrupt oil barons crying in their caviar, myself. what the system did was make the process of importing oil from the west to the east economical, for the first time, by shaving down the profits. and, the sound of westen whining notwithstanding, it did actually work fairly well - until the oil from the middle east became available, again.
all the saudis have to do is put a pipe in the ground and pump the oil into barrels. their costs are a fraction of ours. it's really not even close.
in 1985, the mulroney government - under the western accord - abolished the controls that trudeau had put in place, allowing the oil industry to set the prices it wanted and to export oil freely, as well. this had the effect of pricing the west out of the market in the east, as these controls were required to refine the oil at a competitive cost. as arab oil was now plentiful and cheap, the western producers just simply got beat in the market; they wouldn't sell it at a competitive price, and they got driven out by consumers looking for cheapest prices.
there's really nothing stopping western producers from taking advantage of the existing lines except for a lack of demand for expensive oil in a region that has easy access to cheap oil.
but, while there are lines to sarnia and to toronto, there are no lines to shipping ports. that's what the new lines are needed for. and, the oil companies don't seem to want to spin these lines off of existing networks, either - probably because it would be too easy for a future politician to stop exports.
it is true that canada exports almost all of it's oil to the united states. the reasoning underlying this is actually not economic, it was a poke in the eye to eastern canada. the choice that they had was to sell to america or sell to ontario, and alberta picked america. alberta does not get a very good price from the united states, either - although it is better than what ottawa legislated. and, most of the united states would be better off buying oil from the middle east, too. the entire industry is really built on a chain of absurdity - you take an uneconomical process, and then you play it up on grounds of nationalism and it works with enough people that there's an industry. if this was purely about economics, this oil would stay in the ground.
the industry will tell you stories to confuse you. it's usuallly quite easily debunked with a google search. just make sure you do those searches.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
wrong.
to begin with, i'd rather import the oil from cleaner sources, anyways, so long as we need it. i don't want to use dirty tar sands oil. i don't want to use fracked oil, either. but, i don't want to use oil at all. and, i mostly don't. if we could get a better electric rail system in place for imports, or better greenhouse systems for local production, i'd have almost no carbon footprint; my biggest sin is buying fruit from california, and i'd actually simply rather not have to do that at all.
there is, in fact, a pipeline from western canada to eastern canada.
this pipeline is run by enbridge. it goes from the oil producing regions to lake superior, and then from there to sarnia, where it can be refined and distributed to toronto, and then from there across the country. it is actually the longest pipeline in the world.
you can read about this here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enbridge_Pipeline_System#Mainline_system
so, why doesn't the government use this system for "energy security"?
this is a quote from wikipedia:
"The Canadian government assumed that eastern Canada could always import enough oil to meet its needs, and that imported oil would always be cheaper than domestic oil."
i believe that this statement is absolutely true. but, how? if we have the infrastructure to ship oil to sarnia, and refine it there, why is it cheaper to import it? and, surely we could build refineries in edmonton, if we had to?
because it's so expensive to refine it. that's the easy answer. but, it's partly a question of having too many hands in between; there's a lot of inefficiencies in not having a centralized network, and parasites taking money off of the top.
so, in the 1970s, the elder trudeau set up a system to increase efficiency in distribution, partly by decreasing profits to western capital. a lot of western capitalists did suffer from this, but the question of whether this was a type of justice or not has been under-analyzed; i don't have a lot of sympathy for corrupt oil barons crying in their caviar, myself. what the system did was make the process of importing oil from the west to the east economical, for the first time, by shaving down the profits. and, the sound of westen whining notwithstanding, it did actually work fairly well - until the oil from the middle east became available, again.
all the saudis have to do is put a pipe in the ground and pump the oil into barrels. their costs are a fraction of ours. it's really not even close.
in 1985, the mulroney government - under the western accord - abolished the controls that trudeau had put in place, allowing the oil industry to set the prices it wanted and to export oil freely, as well. this had the effect of pricing the west out of the market in the east, as these controls were required to refine the oil at a competitive cost. as arab oil was now plentiful and cheap, the western producers just simply got beat in the market; they wouldn't sell it at a competitive price, and they got driven out by consumers looking for cheapest prices.
there's really nothing stopping western producers from taking advantage of the existing lines except for a lack of demand for expensive oil in a region that has easy access to cheap oil.
but, while there are lines to sarnia and to toronto, there are no lines to shipping ports. that's what the new lines are needed for. and, the oil companies don't seem to want to spin these lines off of existing networks, either - probably because it would be too easy for a future politician to stop exports.
it is true that canada exports almost all of it's oil to the united states. the reasoning underlying this is actually not economic, it was a poke in the eye to eastern canada. the choice that they had was to sell to america or sell to ontario, and alberta picked america. alberta does not get a very good price from the united states, either - although it is better than what ottawa legislated. and, most of the united states would be better off buying oil from the middle east, too. the entire industry is really built on a chain of absurdity - you take an uneconomical process, and then you play it up on grounds of nationalism and it works with enough people that there's an industry. if this was purely about economics, this oil would stay in the ground.
the industry will tell you stories to confuse you. it's usuallly quite easily debunked with a google search. just make sure you do those searches.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
at
05:12
so, i actually fell asleep around 3:30 without making any calls.
i dunno; my eyes are really strained. it might be this big monitor. but, my diet's been a little off the last few days, too. and, the smoke from upstairs is noticeable, now that the weather has changed. whatever it is, it knocked me out. but, it wasn't a really short day, either - i was up about 18-19 hours, in total.
it means i need to call the city in the morning to check up on the worker, first, and then call the moving place to see what's going on with the estimate, second. it's almost 3:00. i need to eat. it'll be time to call before i know it.
what do i do if my worker didn't do what she told me she was going to do? well, i'm going to have to see if i can bypass her, first. my primary concern is access to these funds. and, i might have to file a complaint against her and/or ask for a new worker.
i may be misinterpreting a mild push back for an attempt at sabotage. we'll find out in a few hours...
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i dunno; my eyes are really strained. it might be this big monitor. but, my diet's been a little off the last few days, too. and, the smoke from upstairs is noticeable, now that the weather has changed. whatever it is, it knocked me out. but, it wasn't a really short day, either - i was up about 18-19 hours, in total.
it means i need to call the city in the morning to check up on the worker, first, and then call the moving place to see what's going on with the estimate, second. it's almost 3:00. i need to eat. it'll be time to call before i know it.
what do i do if my worker didn't do what she told me she was going to do? well, i'm going to have to see if i can bypass her, first. my primary concern is access to these funds. and, i might have to file a complaint against her and/or ask for a new worker.
i may be misinterpreting a mild push back for an attempt at sabotage. we'll find out in a few hours...
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
at
02:53
this is really necessary.
is it going to happen? well, this is the kind of thing that the conservatives will quash if they win in 2019 - or, at least, they have quashed this kind of thing in the past. but, are the liberals credible on this?
mmmmmmaybe.
federal housing initiatives were something his father spent a lot of time on, and actually had some success on. it wasn't just the initial trudeau, this went back to the post-war period, when the anglosphere took a sharp turn left under the ultimate guidance of roosevelt. but, the elder trudeau spent a lot of time on this.
it's kind of the same story everywhere about everything: the progress of the post-war period was largely unravelled in the 80s and the 90s, by conservatives and liberals almost equally, and at all levels of government.
the provincial government in ontario - which is quite a bit to the left of most liberal parties in canada - has recently made a few tenant-friendly legal changes, but they're not the right level of government to really deal with this - it's either the city or the feds that usually deals with this.
i'd be more likely to suggest the liberals have some credibility on this if trudeau hadn't taken so many u-turns. and, this is something that might harm them for decades to come. they have more credibility on a national housing strategy than they do on most other things. but, right now, they don't really have any credibility at all - and it may be difficult to get some.
again: this is necessary. but, rather than make shiny new promises and make it seem like they're trying to fool us twice, maybe they might want to focus on keeping some of the ones they've already made.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/11/22/liberals-national-housing-strategy-calls-for-billions-in-spending-new-benefit-for-low-income-tenants_a_23285817/
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
is it going to happen? well, this is the kind of thing that the conservatives will quash if they win in 2019 - or, at least, they have quashed this kind of thing in the past. but, are the liberals credible on this?
mmmmmmaybe.
federal housing initiatives were something his father spent a lot of time on, and actually had some success on. it wasn't just the initial trudeau, this went back to the post-war period, when the anglosphere took a sharp turn left under the ultimate guidance of roosevelt. but, the elder trudeau spent a lot of time on this.
it's kind of the same story everywhere about everything: the progress of the post-war period was largely unravelled in the 80s and the 90s, by conservatives and liberals almost equally, and at all levels of government.
the provincial government in ontario - which is quite a bit to the left of most liberal parties in canada - has recently made a few tenant-friendly legal changes, but they're not the right level of government to really deal with this - it's either the city or the feds that usually deals with this.
i'd be more likely to suggest the liberals have some credibility on this if trudeau hadn't taken so many u-turns. and, this is something that might harm them for decades to come. they have more credibility on a national housing strategy than they do on most other things. but, right now, they don't really have any credibility at all - and it may be difficult to get some.
again: this is necessary. but, rather than make shiny new promises and make it seem like they're trying to fool us twice, maybe they might want to focus on keeping some of the ones they've already made.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/11/22/liberals-national-housing-strategy-calls-for-billions-in-spending-new-benefit-for-low-income-tenants_a_23285817/
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
at
02:31
this story is beyond sketchy, and rather than reinforce the claims against him it's reinforcing the claims of a conspiracy to take him down - as well as the seriousness of the intent behind it.
this could be a rogue journalist at the huffington post looking to make some quick cash, but i think the more obvious reading is that whomever wants him gone is really not likely to take no for an answer, unfortunately. look at the lengths they're going to. they want him out. they're going to make things up until he's gone.
to begin with, it is a fundamental principle of justice that we be allowed to face our accusers. anonymous sources are perhaps useful to kickstart investigations, but they cannot be the investigations themselves. we cannot lower our legal standards to the point where we're willing to take anonymous accusations like this on face value.
but, what's most obvious about this story, to me, is the lengths that the reporter goes to try and make the story seem more credible. supposedly, this anonymous accuser told the very same reporter that this incident happened years ago, but nobody addressed it. suuuuuuuuure.
with all of the fake media stories around russiagate, it should be a red flag that this one follows the same formula.
but, al appears to have stepped on the wrong toes, here. and, at this point, it's becoming clear that he's just prolonging the inevitable.
the good guys usually lose, actually.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/al-franken-two-more-women-groping_us_5a15a455e4b09650540ec295
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
this could be a rogue journalist at the huffington post looking to make some quick cash, but i think the more obvious reading is that whomever wants him gone is really not likely to take no for an answer, unfortunately. look at the lengths they're going to. they want him out. they're going to make things up until he's gone.
to begin with, it is a fundamental principle of justice that we be allowed to face our accusers. anonymous sources are perhaps useful to kickstart investigations, but they cannot be the investigations themselves. we cannot lower our legal standards to the point where we're willing to take anonymous accusations like this on face value.
but, what's most obvious about this story, to me, is the lengths that the reporter goes to try and make the story seem more credible. supposedly, this anonymous accuser told the very same reporter that this incident happened years ago, but nobody addressed it. suuuuuuuuure.
with all of the fake media stories around russiagate, it should be a red flag that this one follows the same formula.
but, al appears to have stepped on the wrong toes, here. and, at this point, it's becoming clear that he's just prolonging the inevitable.
the good guys usually lose, actually.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/al-franken-two-more-women-groping_us_5a15a455e4b09650540ec295
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
at
02:07
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)