so, i have removed all of the dtk posts that i found hidden away, up until mid-2016, which added another 100 pages to the master document.
i will need to clear out the hidden posts from the vlog profile, next - and that should be another couple of hundred pages, too.
i am tentatively going to be able to pick up the audio tomorrow afternoon, which should hopefully allow me to file the human rights complaint by the end of the week. i have still yet to see any documents, so we'll have to see what happens. i'm skeptical, and fully willing to file if i have to.
for now, it's the end of the day, and time to sleep.
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
africans should be building and administering their own schools.
and, it would be gracious for canada to lend them some money at a low interest rate - including loans to buy our lumber, if requested.
and, it would be gracious for canada to lend them some money at a low interest rate - including loans to buy our lumber, if requested.
at
22:40
what sane person would say "please tax me and send my money to the other side of the world"?
that's nuts. it's bad enough that the managers are expropriating the labour, now the government wants to redirect money from my pension and my health care to people i'll never even meet?
"but, that's small minded and..."
yeah, it's easy to say that when you were born into a fortune. if you were born with nothing, and have to work 20 hours a day to pay your mortgage, you might be a little less happy about the premise. and, no, you're not going to win an argument about an accounting identity. and, no it doesn't matter that it's not very much. and, yes these are the people you have to convince to vote for you.
again: i just don't understand why i have to point it out. even if he's going to live in a bubble, and i suppose it's unavoidable, this is the kind of thing that you pay people to tell you.
and, do we not have enough evidence in the last five years that somebody should be telling him that?
don't misunderstand me: i'd like to ship trudeau to mars. or at least california. but, this guy running the conservatives is a fringe idiot, and there's consequently not another option, until the ndp can get it's act together, or the ndp pushes a caucus revolt.
there's a reason that recent liberal governments have quietly let the foreign aid budget fall - it's not worth the political liability.
that's nuts. it's bad enough that the managers are expropriating the labour, now the government wants to redirect money from my pension and my health care to people i'll never even meet?
"but, that's small minded and..."
yeah, it's easy to say that when you were born into a fortune. if you were born with nothing, and have to work 20 hours a day to pay your mortgage, you might be a little less happy about the premise. and, no, you're not going to win an argument about an accounting identity. and, no it doesn't matter that it's not very much. and, yes these are the people you have to convince to vote for you.
again: i just don't understand why i have to point it out. even if he's going to live in a bubble, and i suppose it's unavoidable, this is the kind of thing that you pay people to tell you.
and, do we not have enough evidence in the last five years that somebody should be telling him that?
don't misunderstand me: i'd like to ship trudeau to mars. or at least california. but, this guy running the conservatives is a fringe idiot, and there's consequently not another option, until the ndp can get it's act together, or the ndp pushes a caucus revolt.
there's a reason that recent liberal governments have quietly let the foreign aid budget fall - it's not worth the political liability.
at
22:25
people care about the communities they live in - what they see in front of them, the poverty they experience.
they don't care about people in distant countries that they'll never meet, interact with or have to walk by on the way to work.
and, i don't know why this is difficult to get your head around; it's common sense.
they don't care about people in distant countries that they'll never meet, interact with or have to walk by on the way to work.
and, i don't know why this is difficult to get your head around; it's common sense.
at
22:03
you think spending money will make you more popular?
you're probably right. sadly.
but, you need to spend it here, not on the other side of the world.
and, if you survive this election, it is going to be solely due to the ndp's utter incompetence.
and, that's still not entirely clear. i don't think singh is electable. but, if the ndp can find a way to throw his upper class ass out of the party and put somebody pushing a left-populist message in place - a canadian bernie sanders - trudeau is in serious trouble.
and, he knows that, too.
you're probably right. sadly.
but, you need to spend it here, not on the other side of the world.
and, if you survive this election, it is going to be solely due to the ndp's utter incompetence.
and, that's still not entirely clear. i don't think singh is electable. but, if the ndp can find a way to throw his upper class ass out of the party and put somebody pushing a left-populist message in place - a canadian bernie sanders - trudeau is in serious trouble.
and, he knows that, too.
at
21:59
it's not a secret, ok.
the reason the government is making a big deal about foreign aid is because it thinks it's a vote winner. they don't care about kids in africa. at all. if they did, they'd go after the mining companies. they're operating on this warped, tory concept of canada as this christian country that's all about foreign missionary work - and that has never been anything but absolute bullshit.
if they're doing something because they think it's popular, and then they find out they're wrong, why wouldn't they reverse themselves on it? isn't that the rational, self-interested thing to do?
it's the stubbornness that i can't get my head around.
the reason the government is making a big deal about foreign aid is because it thinks it's a vote winner. they don't care about kids in africa. at all. if they did, they'd go after the mining companies. they're operating on this warped, tory concept of canada as this christian country that's all about foreign missionary work - and that has never been anything but absolute bullshit.
if they're doing something because they think it's popular, and then they find out they're wrong, why wouldn't they reverse themselves on it? isn't that the rational, self-interested thing to do?
it's the stubbornness that i can't get my head around.
at
21:43
the old tory elite in this country needs to get it through their thick fucking heads.
this is not a christian country - this is a secular democracy.
canadians are not mulroney conservatives - they're pearsonian liberals.
and, these policies are unpopular.
and, what is the purpose of pretending otherwise? what is the use of tarring the policies of previous liberal governments as "populist", while pushing this fake plastic idiot in front of us, with a giant L on his forehead, and trying to trick us into thinking he's some kind of "progressive", when everybody with eyes and ears can see and hear that he represents the tory elite, and the upper class status quo?
every other country in the industrialized world has rejected these policies. by continuing to hold to them, we are simply asserting our own backwardsness.
we're the country that is holding to the past; we're the society that is refusing to change. it is trudeau that represents the forces of stagnation, here.
i think the liberals are going to get annihilated in the next election if they don't course correct. if trudeau wants to be mulroney 2.0, he's going to suffer the same fate.
and, the thing i can't figure out is what the point of it is, other than simple stubbornness.
this is not a christian country - this is a secular democracy.
canadians are not mulroney conservatives - they're pearsonian liberals.
and, these policies are unpopular.
and, what is the purpose of pretending otherwise? what is the use of tarring the policies of previous liberal governments as "populist", while pushing this fake plastic idiot in front of us, with a giant L on his forehead, and trying to trick us into thinking he's some kind of "progressive", when everybody with eyes and ears can see and hear that he represents the tory elite, and the upper class status quo?
every other country in the industrialized world has rejected these policies. by continuing to hold to them, we are simply asserting our own backwardsness.
we're the country that is holding to the past; we're the society that is refusing to change. it is trudeau that represents the forces of stagnation, here.
i think the liberals are going to get annihilated in the next election if they don't course correct. if trudeau wants to be mulroney 2.0, he's going to suffer the same fate.
and, the thing i can't figure out is what the point of it is, other than simple stubbornness.
at
21:35
and, i'll extend the scorn - trevor noah should be ashamed of himself for giving the kind of neo-liberal pinkwashing pushed by trudeau the time of day, and providing him a platform to push his phony messaging with.
he should have told the prime minister to fuck off.
he should have told the prime minister to fuck off.
at
21:23
i am a left-wing liberal, and i have a problem with paternalistic aid policies that piss away money into the black hole of african misery, while canadians and refugees starve and freeze together before our eyes on the streets.
this is not a coherent aid strategy - it is a cynical pr move. and, the prime minister should be called out for it.
from the left.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2018/12/04/conservatives-should-at-least-get-their-facts-right-when-they-attack-justin-trudeau.html
this is not a coherent aid strategy - it is a cynical pr move. and, the prime minister should be called out for it.
from the left.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2018/12/04/conservatives-should-at-least-get-their-facts-right-when-they-attack-justin-trudeau.html
at
21:18
the idea that cutting oil production in alberta will increase the price of canadian oil in american markets, specifically, is so economically backwards that it could have only come from a former harper government cabinet minister.
it's starting to look like rachel notley wants to run for prime minister. but, will the conservative party accept her nomination?
it's starting to look like rachel notley wants to run for prime minister. but, will the conservative party accept her nomination?
at
10:45
well, they're judge & jury, so why not make them executioner, too? if your name ends up on this list, they very well might be...
this is cruel & unusual punishment, at least until these people are convicted. you're supposed to be presumed innocent in this country.
they shouldn't be doing this, and should face legal action for doing so.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-police-force-begins-naming-shaming-accused-impaired-drivers-1.4203045
this is cruel & unusual punishment, at least until these people are convicted. you're supposed to be presumed innocent in this country.
they shouldn't be doing this, and should face legal action for doing so.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-police-force-begins-naming-shaming-accused-impaired-drivers-1.4203045
at
08:14
do canadians support foreign aid?
it's an empirical question, granted.
but, i think that the answer to the question relies on the premises underlying it. broadly speaking, i think the assumption underlying the idea of foreign aid is that canada is a wealthy country, and that it should share it's surplus of wealth with everybody else. whether canadians support foreign aid or not is going to largely depend on whether they think that this assumption is true or not.
see, this is also an empirical question, and what i see around me casts a lot of doubt on it. the reality is that our indigenous people are as impoverished as anybody else in the world. we have a very serious and rapidly growing homeless problem in our cities, both large and small. people are literally dying on the streets - from addiction, from exposure, from violence.
what i don't think canadians agree with is this kind of dogmatic, neo-liberal view that people born into oecd countries had their chance and if they fail then it's their own fault, so public funds should be extended to people that don't have the same opportunities. that is an elitist position that is not going to get much traction with many regular people, at all - primarily because we can mostly see through the premise. you'd have to be pretty sheltered to grow up in an advanced capitalist society, live through the coercive effects of market tyranny and class dominance and somehow conclude that the people that end up on the bottom somehow deserve it. you will no doubt find these kinds of people, but they're called nazis and are pretty rare outside of the upper echelons of power. capitalism produces a mass underclass; it's not some accident, it's by design. escaping that is a consequence of birthright and dumb luck.
what i think is relatively obvious is that any politician seeking to gain broader popular appeal by sending money out of the country is living in a kind of delusional bubble; it shouldn't be hard to understand why canadians are going to want to spend canadian tax dollars in canada, at least until we can solve the myriad of social problems in front of us.
it's an empirical question, granted.
but, i think that the answer to the question relies on the premises underlying it. broadly speaking, i think the assumption underlying the idea of foreign aid is that canada is a wealthy country, and that it should share it's surplus of wealth with everybody else. whether canadians support foreign aid or not is going to largely depend on whether they think that this assumption is true or not.
see, this is also an empirical question, and what i see around me casts a lot of doubt on it. the reality is that our indigenous people are as impoverished as anybody else in the world. we have a very serious and rapidly growing homeless problem in our cities, both large and small. people are literally dying on the streets - from addiction, from exposure, from violence.
what i don't think canadians agree with is this kind of dogmatic, neo-liberal view that people born into oecd countries had their chance and if they fail then it's their own fault, so public funds should be extended to people that don't have the same opportunities. that is an elitist position that is not going to get much traction with many regular people, at all - primarily because we can mostly see through the premise. you'd have to be pretty sheltered to grow up in an advanced capitalist society, live through the coercive effects of market tyranny and class dominance and somehow conclude that the people that end up on the bottom somehow deserve it. you will no doubt find these kinds of people, but they're called nazis and are pretty rare outside of the upper echelons of power. capitalism produces a mass underclass; it's not some accident, it's by design. escaping that is a consequence of birthright and dumb luck.
what i think is relatively obvious is that any politician seeking to gain broader popular appeal by sending money out of the country is living in a kind of delusional bubble; it shouldn't be hard to understand why canadians are going to want to spend canadian tax dollars in canada, at least until we can solve the myriad of social problems in front of us.
at
06:43
i don't want to suggest that i think it's some kind of choice, because i don''t.
but, canada's moral obligations when it comes to infrastructure development are not in africa but in our own reserves. canada has absolutely no moral obligation to contribute to african infrastructure development whatsoever, nor does it owe africa reparations - our reparations belong to our indigenous groups. in a certain sense, it's a kind of colonialism and resource extraction, as we are continuing to export the country's wealth to people that have no legitimate claim to it.
nor is it in our self-interest to build schools for arab girls in north africa - which, i might add, is actually a very wealthy part of the world.
in a perfect world, that money would be coming from arab governments. we would consequently be better off lobbying them to set up their own systems, or otherwise funding political movements that have the intention to work towards democratic self-sufficiency.
put another way: i'd rather build school boards than build schools.
but, canada's moral obligations when it comes to infrastructure development are not in africa but in our own reserves. canada has absolutely no moral obligation to contribute to african infrastructure development whatsoever, nor does it owe africa reparations - our reparations belong to our indigenous groups. in a certain sense, it's a kind of colonialism and resource extraction, as we are continuing to export the country's wealth to people that have no legitimate claim to it.
nor is it in our self-interest to build schools for arab girls in north africa - which, i might add, is actually a very wealthy part of the world.
in a perfect world, that money would be coming from arab governments. we would consequently be better off lobbying them to set up their own systems, or otherwise funding political movements that have the intention to work towards democratic self-sufficiency.
put another way: i'd rather build school boards than build schools.
at
01:47
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)