there's a few things canadian politicians don't do.
- they don't talk about baseball. ever. that's instant death. and, the same rule ought to apply to basketball.
- they don't refer to americans using terms like "us" or "we".
- they don't drink american beer.
- ...and they don't launch political initiatives using references to historical american policies.
Saturday, June 1, 2019
this is what i want to hear the ndp talk about, not some "green new deal".
https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/
and, you'll notice that it is very canadian in a lot of ways. that's important, because we're not trying to rebuild a rust belt that we don't have, we're trying to fundamentally change how we see the world around us.
https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/
and, you'll notice that it is very canadian in a lot of ways. that's important, because we're not trying to rebuild a rust belt that we don't have, we're trying to fundamentally change how we see the world around us.
if jagmeet singh wants to be taken seriously, he should start by forgetting about parroting the american propaganda (itself not very inspiring. are we going to elect the ndp so they can have a non-binding resolution of no substance defeated on the house floor? this is empty politicking, and smart leftists can see through it.) and instead giving this national treasure we have named naomi klein a call.
remember when she proposed something like this four years ago?
how did the ndp react?
so, why should anybody take this horribly vague "new green deal" farce seriously, an idea created in a foreign country, when they won't act on a detailed plan presented by their own very real party apparatchik?
no. the fact that they're walking down the american path rather than our own is evidence that they're lying through their teeth - as they always do.
remember when she proposed something like this four years ago?
how did the ndp react?
so, why should anybody take this horribly vague "new green deal" farce seriously, an idea created in a foreign country, when they won't act on a detailed plan presented by their own very real party apparatchik?
no. the fact that they're walking down the american path rather than our own is evidence that they're lying through their teeth - as they always do.
it's taken some time for it to come out as robust, but you really are looking at a distinct liberal--->green swing, here, with continued stagnation from both the ndp and the conservatives.
right now, the liberals are going to lose because they're bleeding support to the greens.
the ndp is a tainted vessel; there is no future for them, after the notley fiasco. i've been arguing for years that they're usually worse than the liberals when they actually win, but after oil queen notley, they have about as much credibility as the old parties, now - the jig is up, it's time to walk away. so, the goal for everybody on the left in this election needs to be to have the greens beat the ndp, outright - both in votes and in seats.
the liberals and conservatives are so similar at the federal level at this point, that it doesn't really matter which one wins. the focus needs to be more about the future of the left, and to have the greens repositioned as the actual protest party in the country.
right now, the liberals are going to lose because they're bleeding support to the greens.
the ndp is a tainted vessel; there is no future for them, after the notley fiasco. i've been arguing for years that they're usually worse than the liberals when they actually win, but after oil queen notley, they have about as much credibility as the old parties, now - the jig is up, it's time to walk away. so, the goal for everybody on the left in this election needs to be to have the greens beat the ndp, outright - both in votes and in seats.
the liberals and conservatives are so similar at the federal level at this point, that it doesn't really matter which one wins. the focus needs to be more about the future of the left, and to have the greens repositioned as the actual protest party in the country.
i wouldn't bother taking much of what he says seriously, frankly.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-climate-change-green-party-1.5157591
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-climate-change-green-party-1.5157591
this is the relevant precedent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits
canada's attempt to control the northwest passage as a purely "internal waterway" is inconsistent with international law and doomed to failure.
rather, the international law on the topic should lead to an agreement similar to the one that governs the bosporus, where the turks maintain some rights to inspection but ultimately are forced to allow for free passage.
a reasonable person would ask the following reasonable question: is there a way to travel between greenland and alaska (or russia) without transiting canadian waters? and, there is not actually a way to do this. it would not be reasonable to conclude that, because there is no way to do this, canada should benefit from the ownership of the straits; rather, a reasonable person would recognize that our monopoly over the area requires us to allow access to passing vessels, subject to very limited and measured expressions of sovereignty. and, we are expected to behave reasonably.
the issue of resource exploration is a different one, and we are on much firmer ground there, although we shouldn't actually exploit it.
rather, the international law on the topic should lead to an agreement similar to the one that governs the bosporus, where the turks maintain some rights to inspection but ultimately are forced to allow for free passage.
a reasonable person would ask the following reasonable question: is there a way to travel between greenland and alaska (or russia) without transiting canadian waters? and, there is not actually a way to do this. it would not be reasonable to conclude that, because there is no way to do this, canada should benefit from the ownership of the straits; rather, a reasonable person would recognize that our monopoly over the area requires us to allow access to passing vessels, subject to very limited and measured expressions of sovereignty. and, we are expected to behave reasonably.
the issue of resource exploration is a different one, and we are on much firmer ground there, although we shouldn't actually exploit it.
to put it another way...
the reason el club was successful was that it tapped into a lucrative market that opened up after the magic stick changed formats, from a rock/punk club into an urban club. the magic stick has had problems attracting people since then, and has quietly started booking rock shows again in the larger theatre downstairs.
with the demise of el club, a large and lucrative market for a rock bar in downtown detroit is again on the table.
this is a huge opportunity...
it just needs a more responsible operator.
the reason el club was successful was that it tapped into a lucrative market that opened up after the magic stick changed formats, from a rock/punk club into an urban club. the magic stick has had problems attracting people since then, and has quietly started booking rock shows again in the larger theatre downstairs.
with the demise of el club, a large and lucrative market for a rock bar in downtown detroit is again on the table.
this is a huge opportunity...
it just needs a more responsible operator.
there's actually a sort of a pattern, here.
these venues set up in detroit and, because they are capitalist enterprises that are ultimately trying to make money, they make marketing decisions to try and appeal to the people that have money to spend, which, in detroit, is going to mostly be people past a certain age - and these people are either going to be mostly white, or mostly asian. i mean, if you really want to make money in detroit, or most other places, then go full asian...
then, the community - which everybody knows is overwhelmingly black - starts complaining that the programming doesn't appeal to them, is racist, etc, when the truth is that they're just trying to make money and just trying to appeal to where the money is.
but, people mostly aren't racist anymore (i understand that this doesn't apply in this specific case.), it isn't accepted socially in any context anywhere, and nobody wants to be seen as racist, so they listen and adjust and try to make the programming more appealing to broader demographics in order to try and prevent the pr fallout that comes from everybody thinking you're a fucking racist, even while knowing that they made the choice they made in the first place for good financial reasons.
then, once they've made their programming adjustments to be more inclusive, the thing that actually happens is that the place empties out; the people that used to go there are no longer interested, and there's just not enough disposable income in the market they're trying to tap into, which is why they didn't go after it in the first place. so, they lose money, and they either close or have to find a way back to where they were.
if i was an asshole i'd say fine: white people out of detroit. they don't want us here, let's go. but, i know that this is what caused the city's problems in the first place, it's just been inverted. what we used to call white flight has been converted into black slight; what was once a bunch of white people fleeing the scary black areas has become those black areas erecting fences and saying "this is ours". and, it's not any better when the blacks are pushing the whites out than it was when the whites were trying to escape.
there will be another attempt to set up a rock venue in downtown detroit, and it will have a mostly white audience when it happens. i just want to stress the importance of being racially sensitive from the start, in understanding that the person or group that does this next is walking into a situation that is already damaged from so many decades of conflict, that you can't start from a point of mutual understanding and that you have to take special steps to reach out from the start.
but, we want this to work, in the end. we don't want segregated communities, and we don't want ghettos.
these venues set up in detroit and, because they are capitalist enterprises that are ultimately trying to make money, they make marketing decisions to try and appeal to the people that have money to spend, which, in detroit, is going to mostly be people past a certain age - and these people are either going to be mostly white, or mostly asian. i mean, if you really want to make money in detroit, or most other places, then go full asian...
then, the community - which everybody knows is overwhelmingly black - starts complaining that the programming doesn't appeal to them, is racist, etc, when the truth is that they're just trying to make money and just trying to appeal to where the money is.
but, people mostly aren't racist anymore (i understand that this doesn't apply in this specific case.), it isn't accepted socially in any context anywhere, and nobody wants to be seen as racist, so they listen and adjust and try to make the programming more appealing to broader demographics in order to try and prevent the pr fallout that comes from everybody thinking you're a fucking racist, even while knowing that they made the choice they made in the first place for good financial reasons.
then, once they've made their programming adjustments to be more inclusive, the thing that actually happens is that the place empties out; the people that used to go there are no longer interested, and there's just not enough disposable income in the market they're trying to tap into, which is why they didn't go after it in the first place. so, they lose money, and they either close or have to find a way back to where they were.
if i was an asshole i'd say fine: white people out of detroit. they don't want us here, let's go. but, i know that this is what caused the city's problems in the first place, it's just been inverted. what we used to call white flight has been converted into black slight; what was once a bunch of white people fleeing the scary black areas has become those black areas erecting fences and saying "this is ours". and, it's not any better when the blacks are pushing the whites out than it was when the whites were trying to escape.
there will be another attempt to set up a rock venue in downtown detroit, and it will have a mostly white audience when it happens. i just want to stress the importance of being racially sensitive from the start, in understanding that the person or group that does this next is walking into a situation that is already damaged from so many decades of conflict, that you can't start from a point of mutual understanding and that you have to take special steps to reach out from the start.
but, we want this to work, in the end. we don't want segregated communities, and we don't want ghettos.
it's an empirical question, people. and, if empiricism bothers you then walk away - it's all i have for you.
here's the link to the events at the club. go ahead and sort through it and see what sells out and what's mostly empty.
https://www.facebook.com/elclubdetroit/events/
the article suggested white 20-somethings, but the bar was actually geared more towards white 30 and 40 somethings. they were bringing in grunge bands & alternative rock acts - some of them influenced by the music of the 90s, and some of it literally the music from the 90s. the melvins show was famously so ridiculously packed that it got canceled as a fire risk; this was the 80s seattle band that kurt cobain cited as his biggest influence.
but, i'll draw attention to two specific shows. one is an east coast no wave band called a place to bury strangers, and the other is a popular young rapper called chief keef. the place to bury strangers show is at the end of july and is sold out; the chief keef show is in mid june and there are still tickets available.
does that mean that a place to bury strangers is more popular than chief keef? well, that would be an absurd proposal. chief keef is a mainstream act, that has cracked the billboard 200. a place to bury strangers is an underground rock band, and their last two records don't even have wikipedia pages.
the venue is all ages - and makes a point about it.
given that detroit is 80% black, and chief keef is a big star, why can't he sell out a 300 person bar in southwest detroit? and, why can this underground rock band from new york do so with ease?
and, you can point to the systemic racism - and i'll agree with you - but you're just exacerbating the point, because you're articulating a real problem, and then rejecting the only possible solution.
none of this excuses the alleged behaviour, and that's not what i'm trying to do - if the allegations are even 20% true, he should never be allowed to set foot in the bar ever again. but, there's this undercurrent that the community doesn't want a white bar with people coming in to spend money - it wants a black bar that reflects the tastes of the community. and, the problem is that it doesn't make any economic sense, at least not until you can get the people that live there more disposable income.
here's the link to the events at the club. go ahead and sort through it and see what sells out and what's mostly empty.
https://www.facebook.com/elclubdetroit/events/
the article suggested white 20-somethings, but the bar was actually geared more towards white 30 and 40 somethings. they were bringing in grunge bands & alternative rock acts - some of them influenced by the music of the 90s, and some of it literally the music from the 90s. the melvins show was famously so ridiculously packed that it got canceled as a fire risk; this was the 80s seattle band that kurt cobain cited as his biggest influence.
but, i'll draw attention to two specific shows. one is an east coast no wave band called a place to bury strangers, and the other is a popular young rapper called chief keef. the place to bury strangers show is at the end of july and is sold out; the chief keef show is in mid june and there are still tickets available.
does that mean that a place to bury strangers is more popular than chief keef? well, that would be an absurd proposal. chief keef is a mainstream act, that has cracked the billboard 200. a place to bury strangers is an underground rock band, and their last two records don't even have wikipedia pages.
the venue is all ages - and makes a point about it.
given that detroit is 80% black, and chief keef is a big star, why can't he sell out a 300 person bar in southwest detroit? and, why can this underground rock band from new york do so with ease?
and, you can point to the systemic racism - and i'll agree with you - but you're just exacerbating the point, because you're articulating a real problem, and then rejecting the only possible solution.
none of this excuses the alleged behaviour, and that's not what i'm trying to do - if the allegations are even 20% true, he should never be allowed to set foot in the bar ever again. but, there's this undercurrent that the community doesn't want a white bar with people coming in to spend money - it wants a black bar that reflects the tastes of the community. and, the problem is that it doesn't make any economic sense, at least not until you can get the people that live there more disposable income.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)