there's no causal connection between the size of a deficit and the ability to spend. past deficits and existing debt to not imply the need for austerity. the government is not a household, it's a money creator. the deficit is not a debt that needs to be repaid, it's a measure of wealth in the economy. eliminating the debt would mean collecting and destroying all money in the economy and going back to a barter system of exchange.

the terms "deficit" and "debt" should not be used, in context. rather, we should speak of "money created" and "total existing dollars".

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-economy-features-aug12-1.3188476

longtime_in
The debt can be a significant problem depending where we are in the economic cycle. We have been in a long term period of no growth to slow growth. If and when interest rates start to move deficits and the resulting accumulate debt matter.

But to support your point debt financing last year was actually $3 billion less than it was 10 years ago even after we borrowed over $150 billion.

Jessica Murray
to whom? it only matters to people that want to increase the value of the currency. there's no such thing as "debt financing" in the context of a sovereign government. rather, there's "money destruction". the only value that destroying money has is to increase the value of the currency. this is the reason you see conservatives pushing these programs - they're financed by people that want to see the value of the dollar increase, which happens to be bad for exports which is bad for jobs. but, that's not your concern when you're an investor playing the money markets.

regular, working, voting canadians ought to have no interest in debt reduction; in fact, it's in their interest to keep the value of the dollar relatively low.

iamjustme
Sounds like you went to the same stupid school of economics that Harper did!

Jessica Murray
that's probably the most ignorant statement that i've yet to see this election cycle. in fact, it's a position that can be tied rather strongly to the era of pierre trudeau. it's a liberal party position. or, at least it's the position of the only liberal party i'd ever vote for.

liberals don't care about deficits. they never have.

i'm not interested in re-electing joe clark.

fwiw, nobody should expect a tax cut for small businesses to create jobs, either. that does not increase demand for businesses. all empirical evidence suggests that giving businesses more money has no effect on job creation.

however, combined with an increase in corporate tax rates, it should be a fair shift in taxation and should at least be revenue neutral - if it's costed correctly.

so, why do this? because small businesses are good places to put campaign signs, and good people to have on your side in an election.

as economic policy, it's essentially meaningless - but he's covered it by promising to return corporate tax rates to where they should be. but, it's smart politics. and, mulcair is a smart politician.

the way i'm reading the results right now is that if that if the conservatives can get to 32 in this current regional break down, and the liberals can stay above 28, then that will force the ndp to around 30 and we'll likely see results that look something like this:

conservative: 170
ndp: 150
liberals: 20

...based on the conservatives sweeping the prairies and ontario, and the ndp sweeping bc and quebec.

i may be exaggerating. but only by a tad.

i would hope that, with results like that, even the conservatives would agree that we need electoral reform.

yes.

32%--->170 seats. you don't need much for a plurality in a three-way tossup.
30%--->150 seats.
28%---> 20 seats.

of course, if the ndp can get that boost, and i still think they can, then it's over - for the same reasons. they stabilize over 35%, and we start wondering if they get 200 or 300, as they sweep the country outside the prairies.

if the ndp get a mild, across the board boost from the liberals then they can sweep ontario while losing the popular vote for the same reason that the conservatives can sweep it without breaking 33%.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-poll-tracker-debate-1.3188431

hobabby
Too bad the FBI didn't grab her server on day 1. It was just reported that her server that the FBI picked up 2 days ago was SCRUBBED CLEAN. Clintons thumbing their noses at the law and the taxpayers again. You would think that after all these years, they'd get tired of the lying and cover-ups and for once in their life, be honest. 

After 30-some years, you would think SOMEONE in law enforcement would be on top of their tactics. Oh, that's right...most of those who had inside info have died in an accident, suicide, and/or even murdered. 

There has to be SOMEBODY who cares enough about this country who could finally have her arrested and convicted besides Trey Gowdy and the rest of the members of these committees. He can't do it alone although he's trying his best to do so.

Beryl Gray
Hmmmmm. I have had some peripheral contact with computer security issues. If something was written on a hard drive, there are people working in the intelligence community that can recover it. (Unless it was erased with a hammer or .45-caliber round.)

deathtokoalas
that was true up to a few years ago, under the assumption that the person formatting the drive didn't know what they were doing. nowadays, you can zero out a drive with software as simple as a commercial windows dvd, if you know the right switch. funny ideas regarding things like recovering traces of magnetic interference are entirely theoretical, and would be essentially impossible to actually carry out. setting everything to zero gets rid of it.

again: the establishment hates clinton. she is not anti-establishment. she desperately wants in. they don't want her. she's "too liberal".

they *will* run somebody to beat her. and she will lose to that person.

it's consequently very hard to figure this out. if there's one person in the american spectrum that you can be pretty sure is not for sale, it's ralph nader. but sanders is pretty close. given that it is certain that wall street will run a candidate against hillary, the question needs to be asked: is that candidate bernie sanders?

i've seen a lot of signs. strange youtube channels that seem to be run by professional propagandists. apparent jumps in fundraising. it's all quite ominous.

...but it's bernie sanders. he couldn't be...?

he needs to be vetted. this requires investigation. where's he getting the money from?

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/12/new-poll-bernie-sanders-ahead-hillary-clinton-new-hampshire#comments

the chinese are kind of defensive about that river. strikes me more as military infrastructure.

the purpose of the united nations shelter is that it is a place of refuge, of sanctity. for that reason, it cannot be made a target under any circumstance and the united states must uphold this under the strongest threat of consequence, including threatening to withdraw funding.

for israel to attack the shelters under the argument that there are rockets in them is to take a racist position that the lives of their civilians are more valuable. there is not another way to interpret this; it is the slaughter of palestinian civilians under the logic that they are less valuable than israeli citizens. and, this logic cannot be accepted, rationalized or tolerated. the state department should be ashamed of itself for parroting it.

for these reasons, hamas must also respect the neutrality. and, should they refuse to do so, it is the responsibility of the united nations to take action. for example, they could bring in an armed "peacekeeping" force to patrol the facilities and expel militants.

it is not israel's responsibility to police these facilities. however, it is their obligation to respect the sanctity of their shelter.

the thing about unorganized collective action like this is that it doesn't control for what people's perspectives actually are, and it consequently doesn't really present a coherent argument. everybody is there for a different reason, has a different end, etc. this has sometimes been presented as an asset, in terms of getting people together. and that's a debate if you're looking to start a revolution, but a little less of one if you're protesting a war.

norman finkelstein knows what he's talking about; we all know that. but, the statements coming from the other activists merely demonstrate ignorance. the palestinian side may be morally more correct, but it's essentially by accident if you're not actually aware of the facts on the ground.

the idea that israel would stop the bombing if hamas would stop the rockets is just absurd israeli propaganda, and quickly disassembled; i won't bother. but, it's really no less ignorant to argue that hamas is a democratic party. they're a brutal, authoritarian regime. you ask around gaza, and they'll tell you they fear hamas as much as they fear israel. they routinely carry out public executions in the streets.

so, how do you expect the career bureaucrats in the civil service to react, when all they hear from the streets is various different types of ignorance? you expect them to just say "they don't know what they're talking about".

individual martyrdom is clearly pointless. but collective action isn't much more than that if there's nothing tying it together; in that case, it's not really collective action - it's a lot of individual martyrs sacrificing themselves together.

they do this all of the time: they start clutching their pearls the moment somebody makes any kind of common sense statement or basic fact that intrudes into their warped concept of non-reality, then they pretend they're expressing some kind of majority opinion that is beyond any kind of debate in order to distract from the fact that the opinion they're expressing is insane. the media eats it up because it's often aligned. but, the truth is that most people see it for what it is.

i mean, imagine the exchange if the topic were evolution. it's no less likely - depending on the circumstance. but it clarifies the absurdity of it.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/spin-cycle-will-all-of-the-oilsands-be-developed-1.3185553

i'd obviously like to see more details, but the liberals are right on this one - if we abolish the senate, we set up an elected dictatorship. we should be trying to create more checks and balances, not less.

i'd just add a caveat: if we're going to give an unelected body of academics and policy wonks the teeth to overturn an elected body, it should automatically invoke a referendum on the legislation. the idea is a chamber of sober second thought. that means we ought get a chance to think it over after listening to what the experts have to say, rather than just having them kibbosh it outright.

i also agree that we need to really take a step back and find ways to reassert the autonomy of individual mps.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-trudeau-senate-duffy-1.3186954 

Caliburn
Upper House defenders who claim that “sober second thought” is valid only perpetuate a myth. Sober second thinking – in effect a check on the democratic impulses of the Commons – is only theory, it’s not the practice, never has been and instances of failing to provide such thought are legion.

The regional representation idea failed right from the start because seats have NEVER been appointed by "region", ie "the Maritimes" or "The Atlantic Provinces" or "Central Canada". The seats are allocated according to provincial boundaries.

Think about Duffy - whatever he said about representing PEI was pure rhetoric - the reality is he represented the Conservative Party. What region did Brazeau represent? None - he looked out for Aboriginal peoples and, of course, the Conservative party. And Wallin - well she waded in on trade, military matters, women's rights and the Conservative Party - can you think of a single Saskatchewan initiative?

Provincial premiers speak for the regions, as do lobby groups and face it - the House of Commons effectively expresses regional differences through MPs who are more in direct contact with the places and people across Canada!

So;
• “sober second thought” – nice idea, but that’s all it is, and
• “regional representation” – there’s no such role to play!

Therefore let's scrap this pointless, unelected, Upper House and make Canada a true democracy.

Jessica Murray
i really don't think that harper's appointments are very useful in determining the value of the senate. rather, they are useful in determining the value of the prime minister, which we all know is very low. and, see, that's the point - there needs to be some kind of a check, there.

i don't think it should be based on regional representation, either. i think it's value is that it is an unelected body, and that that is an aspect that should be retained. i'm not really that keen on majority-rules democracy. we've largely avoided that in canada through our reliance on minority governments, which has often given the ndp the balance of power, and we're really better off for it.

in terms of a checks and balances approach, i'm looking more at the united states senate/house system as something to draw on. in theory, it's a good idea to have these duelling houses. but, in practice it's created a lot of gridlock. so, how can we take that good idea and modify it so it slows the process down a little but doesn't grind it to a halt?

so, we don't want this elected system - it's going to slow things down too much. and, we don't to get rid of it - it would give the prime minister unlimited power in both practice and theory. we need to find a middle point that allows the body to function as it was meant to.

and, i do think a merit-based appointment process is the right approach. it's just a question of finding the right procedures. perhaps it's something the civil service could take a lead in. and, it's also a question of finding the right balance between a body that can provide suggestions and oversight from a position of knowledge and a body that is going to suppress democracy.

the liberals aren't who they used to be, but they have a pretty good track record at this. working it out may be a slow and difficult process, but it strikes me as the best option, nonetheless.

to put it another way: we've seen the results of a system that allows any idiot that can get a mandate to run the country into the ground. and, we need to adjust to prevent that from happening again.

i don't really deny that the senate has never been the body it was intended to be. but, that's a reason to reform it to fulfil it's function, not a reason to jettison it.

right. but when you get this kind of response to widespread mass hopelessness, it's time to get a serious move on the economic situation.

it's one thing to go "woah" when you hear the kind of xenophobia coming from certain segments of white america.

it's another to realize that there really are drastic economic circumstances underlying it.

would hitler call himself an extremist? or just a nationalist?

extremism is never self-designated.

would the british be willing to offer aid to the syrians to help them update their military technology to allow for more targeted strikes?

the americans do not need the syrians to send them information, and then waver over it's truth. they can gather it on their own and know for sure.

here's the thing about this guy...

he doesn't want this. any of it. he wants to be running a medical practice. he's an eye doctor.

somebody killed his brother, and he got stuck with something he didn't want. he's been trying to organize an orderly transition since the day he was appointed. a democratic transition is what he was trying to put together. willingly. with no prodding.

but, you can't do that under these conditions. and, guess who hates democracy? starts with an s, ends with "abia".

the saudis launched a war in syria to prevent a democratic transition.

the official narrative is so wrong as to channel orwell.

but, now he must step down as a condition to end the fighting in the area - and his generals must step down with him. after years of destruction and chaos, he cannot be trusted to let this go. should he be left to gather strength in the region, he will return the favour. and, as much as i'd like to see the saudis firebombed to hell, it can't happen like that. the stronger assad becomes the more necessary it is that he be removed.

he was not his father when he got the job. but, he will become more and more like him with each passing year spent fighting an existential war.

war against women, huh?

hrmmn.

we're all doomed.

i've never understood why he didn't just admit it. he should have reacted in libertarian terms and made a point about privacy and personal freedom.

the only person in the world that has a right to judge him on this is hillary.

"how will you answer the charge from hillary clinton..."

ask her to marry him?

trump wouldn't deny it, though.

"yeah. i had sexual relations with that woman. so what?"

and a lot of people - myself included - think that's exactly what clinton should have done.

"the war against women", as i understand it, is a term that comes out of the left, and is meant to describe the republican party's attacks on abortion in certain states, mostly in the deep south. google tells me that the republican party recently pressured trump to change his stance on abortion.

i think a part of the misunderstanding is this idea that warren is a populist, quasi-socialist type. rather, she's a relatively conservative new deal capitalist that wants to recreate a regulatory system that will prevent capitalism from cannibalizing itself. in a more enlightened period, she would have been a centrist, liberal democrat - not the type that gets a lot of union support and runs on fiery anti-establishment rhetoric, but the type that wants to make relatively minor changes to allow for more accountability and ultimately gets most of her support from what is a different sector of wall street. elizabeth warren is very much a wall street democrat. she's just a different type of wall street democrat. but the current spectrum has reached the point where this once dominant ruling clique now barely exists, and voters are only vaguely aware that it even ever existed.

the truth is that clinton is within this same clique, and their differences are much smaller than their agreements.

the truth is also that the anti-regulatory, reaganomics clique on wall street actually despises clinton with every inch of their being. this is the clique that poured billions into obama's campaign to beat her.

so, why did she say this?

there's not a conniving, calculated reason. it's just an honest assessment. and, i agree with her. but that's so unusual in american politics that it didn't even cross your mind.

so, what's he going to do if you decide to go anyways?

behead you?

there's certain things that governments can pass laws on and certain things they can't. anybody who wants to get there will get there...

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-proposes-travel-restrictions-1.3184703

trump will get more votes as an independent than he will as a republican because it will smash the partisan gridlock that sees 90% of the country vote based on letter rather than policy. that said, he's still unlikely to win - it's just the difference between getting 20% as a republican and 30% as an independent. the republicans do not have a monopoly on stupidity.

the biggest problem in the united states is the two-party system and the consensus-leading-to-gridlock that results. trump might be a frightening, lunatic fringe dipshit, but if he can break that system up then he's doing the world an invaluable service

if he can pull that base out of the spectrum, and leave a more moderate republican party behind, it should also help to pull the democrats a little to the left.

i mean, what you want is a four party system that has three serious parties that meet in the center and one to mop up the fringe and keep them out of the system. you need to get to three before you can get to four. but, it's clear where a trump-led "tea party" type party would sit.

while we're at it, why not convince bernie sanders to run as an independent? if trump opens up the spectrum, sanders very quickly becomes more competitive.

www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-dumped-from-republican-event-after-attack-on-fox-moderator-megyn-kelly-1.3184230

i'm a politically engaged left-of-center voter and the debate more or less ruled out a vote for the liberals this election cycle, and perhaps ever again. i haven't seen a single attack ad. i don't even own a tv. and i'm somewhat of a fan of his father. but justin trudeau demonstrated very clearly - crystal clearly - that he's somewhat of an airhead. this media narrative that trudeau held his own is exposing a lot of the media bias; it's a preposterous analysis. his responses were consistently ridiculous, and bordering on a parody of the legacy of the canadian liberal party. he didn't just look weak. he bluntly looked unelectable.

you're probably right that not many people watched this - on thursday. however, something that has changed in the internet era is that voters can go back and watch the debate whenever they want. they just have to look it up on youtube. by the end of the cycle, i would expect this to result in record penetration. the internet era is not the tv era, and voters will be more informed from this moment forwards than they have been since the 50s, when the tv stole their brains.

and, i'm rather convinced that it *was* decisive and will have a dramatic influence. not because anybody really pulled ahead. the other three parties held their ground, and really only appealed to their base (although the ndp base is expanding). but, because a lot of people on the educated left are going to react by striking trudeau off the list for good - and that quite plausibly may include the entire liberal party, as well.

simply put, he came off as an idiot. whatever criticisms you may want to level at past liberal candidates, this is the first time in my life that i've seen the liberal party run by a man that is clearly a fool. traditional liberal voters will see this. and, that will be decisive.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/07/it-was-a-very-good-debate-and-it-likely-didnt-change-a-thing/

Patrick
Were we watching the same debate? Polls peg Trudeau as the clear winner. Mulcair seemed seemed sedated and had trouble defending his party's misleading $15/hr minimum wage hike. He also had trouble defending his pipeline stance against Elizabeth May, and he seemed to be more concerned with the leader of the third party than attacking the Prime Minister's record.

Trudeau, while he stuttered a little bit (they all did, except for May), made his points and had the closest thing to a knockout punch of the night. "9. My number is nine." A respectable answer, and a clear one, if you pay any attention to the role of the courts in our country.

deathtokoalas
that number nine response made me burst out laughing. it was a ridiculous response that glossed over a complex issue in absurd language. i don't really want to get into it, but it just made him sound like he didn't really understand the ruling.

i really don't find anything misleading about the ads, it's pretty clear to me what a "federal minimum wage" is. but, it's 2015. people walk around with internet access in their pockets. it's a five second google job to clarify it. you can't fool people like that anymore, even if you're trying to.

his response to the pipeline stance is what i mean when i say that mulcair is appealing directly to liberals in a way that trudeau isn't. canadian liberals *love* that non-commited, middle point that balances extremes. we want centrism. moderation. the way he presented himself in the middle of the spectrum suggested he was the logical alternative - as opposed to the conservatives that want all the pipelines and the greens that want none. and, you'll notice he did that line several times and whenever he did he ignored the liberals. it was strong framing; masterful, even. if i was mulcair, i'd be pushing for may in the debates just so he can do that as much as he can. that's the message that the liberal party used to succeed in getting out, and that mulcair is blatantly winning the battle on.

i mean, it takes him a little outside the base. mulcair is definitely going to bleed on the left; he's not a leftist. the greens will benefit from that. rather, he's aiming dead center, at the liberal base. and, i see every reason to expect him to steal a large amount of it.

looking back at the beach boys, they strike me largely as pro-american propaganda. and, i think that is the central point in their vast overratedness. this is in some ways a silly, simple song. but it is in some ways a fairly profound social commentary, deep satire, and rather interesting in a time capsule sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMl0v5fmSmk

brian wilson was servin’ usa.
paul mccartney was backin’ the ussr.

did i hear a little lennon drop from the ukrainian fm? all we are sayyyying...is...

guess they don't want to end up back in the ussr.

truth is this guy even looks like he's in the mafia.

there's two sides to this. wherever you have class, you have socialism. but what is perhaps more significant is that the american elite has a long history of what could be called vulgar marxism.

"The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State."

america has been willing to read socialist ideas and learn from them, but more often than not it has been to find ways to uphold the dominance of what is really still the landholding class.

what hillary is saying is that she's not qualified to answer the question and she'll follow the recommendation of the review that she put in place. in a technical sense, it's a correct position. sanders is really not qualified to take a position before the review completes, either. it's fact-based reasoning.

i mean, suppose she says she opposes it and then the review she put in place confirms it, or vice versa. then, why did she put the review in place if she was going to ignore it?

the purpose of the review is to establish the facts.

now, that said, there's certainly some politics in this. did we need a review to determine the facts? and is the review process fair and unbiased?

but, she could hardly take a position on a fact-finding review process that she set up before it finishes.

but, what if trump runs as an independent?

jeff4justice3
+deathtokoalas Exactly. Not to mention what about all the 2 party system goons in the local statewide races. This seems unprincipled of Sanders.

deathtokoalas
+jeff4justice to me, the issue is how unelectable clinton is.

he doesn't want to pull a ralph nader - and let's realize that trump will be worse than bush. world war three probably already started. but, he's going to blow the whole thing to pieces. that part of it sits well with me. it would be irresponsible to get trump elected by running as a third party candidate; i agree.

the part that doesn't sit well with me is comparing hillary to gore. gore was actually relatively progressive. look at what clinton did in libya. she seems obsessed with imperial concepts of militarism; she's not really running for president, she's more running for empress. and, on that level clinton & trump are two sides of the same coin.

the democratic nominee has to be really, really, really bad for this kind of logic to work out, for us to fully conclude that it really doesn't matter. it's never been this bad. but, clinton really is this bad.

and, i supported her in 2008 based on what she did as first lady.

it's not the same person.

jeff4justice
+deathtokoalas Pull a Nader? So if you moved to my hometown where Republicans win by around 80% just so you could vote for the winner? If gay marriage was still un-ruled by SCOTUS and you lived in Alabama where it was likely to lose as the ballot would you vote for the antigay side just to be on the winning team?

Also, Nader (or Perot as the Republicans like to cite) were not around in the internet age.

It's time for people to stop staying in the abuser/victim game and move on past the failed 2 party system. otherwise unprincipled voters will keep electing unprincipled elected officials.

The right to vote for women, an end to legal racial segregation, gay marriage, a black President, marijuana becoming legal were all previously seemingly impossible.

The 2 party system will crumble as soon as people get the courage to stop indulging in self-defeating thinking.

deathtokoalas
+jeff4justice well, it's a bad example. i actually don't really support gay marriage; what i support is the abolition of marriage.

this is all culture war nonsense. i'm more concerned about serious issues: environment, foreign policy, health care, trade. and, when you lined the candidates up previously, there was an actual difference on the serious stuff. clinton actually reduced military spending to ensure more money was available for social security, for example. no republican would have done that. that's a concrete, real difference.

the problem, today, is that none of the mainstream democrats would do that, either - every single one of them, including the current president, would happily cut social security to increase military spending. and, so i do agree with you....now. i wouldn't have agreed with you twenty years ago, when the choice was bush v. gore. there was a clearly defined lesser evil there.

clinton v. trump isn't even a question of a lesser evil, it's a question of a lesser crazy - and there isn't one.

what the united states really needs is a three-party system to ensure that the democrats have some pressure from the left.

but, that doesn't make sanders' choice any easier. if he runs then the republicans will probably win. and he knows that. i'm convinced clinton is actually that bad. sanders may be a bit more optimistic about a clinton presidency.

but, if you end up with a potential four-way race, that whole calculus is out the window.

jeff4justice
+deathtokoalas Then don't get married but no need to force that on gays who decide they want to or should. Anyway, I won't be joining you on any votes for the failed 2 party system. Good luck.

deathtokoalas
+jeff4justice well, i wouldn't vote against it. but, i'm not going to go out of my way to vote for it, either. it's just not an actual issue of substance.

marriage is an inherently oppressive patriarchal system of enforced male dominance, and only truly makes sense in an implied system of religious fundamentalism. this is archaic and should be abolished in favour of more specific contracts about property. if two people want to buy a house together, that should not affect whether or not they want to buy a car together. nor anything about their kids - although those arrangements should be put down in writing beforehand.

i don't know why gay people want to get married. i don't know why they want to join the army, either.

i would, however, actively vote for the idea of abolishing all of the legal aspects of marriage, reducing it to a legally meaningless ceremony that religious people have total control over (and consequently abolishing all insurance benefits). but, that only makes sense in the context of a universal health care system - so you wouldn't need to get married to get your partner covered.

up here in canada, the issue was actually dealt with by a supreme court ruling. with the stroke of a pen, gay people could get married anywhere in the country. nobody really cared one way or another. it has not been a political issue here since 2004, if it ever was at all.

jeff4justice
+deathtokoalas "not an actual issue of substance" if you're loved was was in the hospital and you could not access them... or if you were unable to have social security benefits... or if your country tried to give you different tax assessment laws... or if you were unable to sponsor a partner from another country. Nonsense.

Statism altogether is an inherently oppressive patriarchal system of enforced male dominance. Nonetheless, while things are the way they are people should be treated with equal rights. We should not need government permission in these matters - but for now, government does impose itself on these matters.

Yeah, the military industrial complex sucks and is part of the evil empire. But that does not mean any self-preserving gay person would not want to see an end to DADT.

Also, marriage equality has been ruled to be legal by the Supreme Court here too since last year.

The anti-gays always care and always try ways to undermine court rulings pertaining to equality.

People cared enough to write things like "What Stephen Harper won’t tell you about same-sex marriage" as recent as 2015.

Anyway, gays can marry now so I don't have any further need to convince you to care about the issue now.

And you're mind seems made up about the 2 party system.

We've both made our points.

Peace be with you.

deathtokoalas
+jeff4justice well, no. my argument was not in favour of two-party systems, but in favour of three-party systems. i was, after all, asking him if he would run if the race opened up. i expanded on the point by explaining his argument, while disagreeing with him - the truth is that hillary clinton really ought to be running for the republicans.

i think you seem to be looking at voting as some kind of moral act, rather than a pragmatic means of achieving a goal - or, as it may be in the modern era, of minimizing damage. an intelligent person can not vote purely based on "principles". there needs to be a lot of compromise, or it's just a self-defeating waste of time.

so, if hillary does win and sanders does not run (and i was an american) i would have to support a third party, or perhaps not bother at all. which is what i was getting across in posing the question.

but, i think you're on to something about the gay marriage: if all the people that support gay marriage supported universal health care instead, you wouldn't even need to talk about gay marriage. and, conversely, reducing the issues to things like whether gay people can get married neutralizes large swaths of issues that threaten certain financial interests.

the russians are far too far behind to call this an "arms race".

but, good job, guys. that's just what the earth needed

fwiw, i bet russia would be keen to fall in line on the inf if you'd exchange it for your own obligation to the abm.

what's that? nevermind? well, you have no argument, then.

the way it works in canada is that the local companies have a monopoly on the line, and they rent the services - as thom suggests. i pay $30/month for 150 gb a month over 6 mbps through a third party. that's about 50% less than i'd pay if i went directly through the monopoly, partially because they would force me to upgrade both. what that reflects is the underlying monopoly.

international observers have concluded that canada gets less for more money than virtually any other "advanced" country.

in truth, i really only need about 20 gb/month and the reality is that essentially nobody on the actual internet (services like netflix notwithstanding) is going to let you download even at 6 mbps. i'd be happy with 4.5, really. this is one the biggest scams out there: download rates are set by the server, not by the user. the big companies sell plans at 300 mbps. that's a ridiculous number that doesn't come to close to existing in any sort of reality - and won't for decades. netflix' suggestion for "ultra-hd" is 25 mbps. you'd have to be watching netflix simultaneously on 12 screens...

canadian observers are focusing on "competition" as a solution to the problem. yet, they won't look at the root of the problem: which is the private monopoly on the lines. so long as the lines remain controlled by private interests, there will be regulations on them that will work against consumers.

in order to get a really competitive system, we need to look at communications lines the same way we look at roads. this isn't some far leftist diatribe, it's basic liberal economics. it's infrastructure. we want to hold this in common. any serious discussion of this topic needs to begin from that point - despite it currently being outside the spectrum.

how we go from there is open to a little more discussion. there's a few different models:

1) if you don't care about competition, and i really don't, you could have a single-payer type system, where we basically get "free" internet access that's run by tax revenue. the guy on the phone talked about customer service. who needs customer service from their isp? if the system is stable, you don't call them at all. further, the costs involved in running a cable network are really pretty negligible; you're not talking about a hike in taxes. if you take the profit out of it, the whole country would end up paying $5/year or something in taxes - which is a dramatic cut for absolutely everybody. even with a mild revenue stream, costs are down dramatically across the board.

2) we could be literal about the smith analogy and set up a usage-based toll system. this could work in two ways:

a) let the government collect it. i'm paying $0.20/gb per month. that could only possibly come down under public ownership.
b) rent the lines out and then let third parties collect it.

it's only the third option that can provide for real competition, if that's really what you want. it's the only way to create a truly level playing field. i can't see any reason why that's a good idea, it's just creating an unnecessary bourgeois level of bureaucracy, but it's the only way to actually do it. otherwise, you've always got somebody owning the lines, and you've always got unfair restrictions to access.

i should take a mild step backwards.

the necessary condition to allow for competition (and, again, i see no value in this) is not necessarily state ownership of the lines, but merely a neutral party to operate the lines. if we refuse to accept the arguments of foundational capitalist philosophers and insist on reaganite nonsense, we can get around that by passing a glass-steagall type act (or a trust-buster, if you'd prefer) that separates isps and line companies. a firewall that separates running lines from running isps would allow for the same kind of level playing field.

i think it would be inefficient and wasteful, but it would at least get to the point where a competitive market is possible.

the current conditions make that outcome impossible, and there's no use in pretending otherwise.

as usual, calandra gets thrown to the wolves.

it may be hard to figure out where this is coming from. but, the increasing ubiquity of netflix is a legitimate bandwidth issue that is driving up rates for third party isps and forcing low bandwidth users to subsidize high bandwidth users.

i'm on the internet all the time, but i'm a low bandwidth user. on average, i use around 5 gb/month - mostly 240p youtube streaming of lectures and alternative news sources while i'm eating. yet, i'm forced to pay for 150 gb/month - as the lowest, most introductory package. my isp recently raised prices, and compensated for it by doubling my bandwidth from 75 gb to 150 gb. but, this is useless to me - i'd actually rather pay less for less bandwidth. what i'm doing is subsidizing heavy users to deal with the way that the third parties have to interact with the local monopolies, and that functionally works out to a redistributive tax.

i figure i'm paying about $0.20/gb. if i was actually charged for what i'm using, i could take my internet bill down from $30/month to around $1/month.

do the conservatives have any ideas to break up the cable line monopolies, stop the subsidies to netflix users and allow for usage-based billing - to force netflix users to pay for the strain they're causing on the system?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCIxFnkI7SQ

it's the kind of thing where the limits of competitive market theory are exposed. it's hard to know what an adam smith might have said about cable lines, but i think we can take a few guesses.

i think there's an argument that cable lines are kind of like roads. you can't lay two roads beside each other and then let the owners compete - it's absurd. so, it makes sense for them to be built and operated by the state, and for everybody to have equal access to them.

the conservative party wouldn't have an opinion on that, would it?

get real.

trudeau made it crystal clear that he has no business running for this job. he came off as a wind-up doll repeating pre-programmed catch phrases. the traditional target audience for the liberal party has never reacted to that kind of candidate with anything less than utter contempt. there's a small base on the left that will fall for this (layton tapped into it) and a slightly larger base on the right (harper has tapped into it), but in order to win like that you have to set the entire concept of the "liberal brand" on fire.

that debate made it clear that liberals will vote for mulcair in large numbers. mulcair had the subtle, centrist policy nuances that liberals have traditionally fallen all over themselves over - he transcended the slogans and catchphrases. wherever trudeau is able to draw support from, it will not be from traditional liberals.

his answer to the question "can canada act militarily outside of the un?", or whatever it was, likewise set fire to the liberal party's traditions. the answer a liberal is supposed to give to that is "no".

i literally laughed out loud when he said "my number is nine!". i thought he was going to say something about gordie howe, or maybe go into a loop while strange static noises and burbles rose up around him.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-debate-takeaways-aug7-1.3182332

we're in the midst of finalizing a long political realignment in canada.

traditionally, canada has supported four parliamentary parties: a quasi-fascist party, a moderate right wing party, a left-leaning centrist party and a social democratic party. these are closer to european definitions than american ones, and our political system has traditionally been more comparable to the united kingdom (or perhaps a country like sweden) than to the united states.

in the 60s and 70s, the spectrum was (from right to left) composed of social credit, progressive conservatives, liberals and new democrats. this was a stable configuration, stretching back to the days of the labour movement. the socreds were generally ignored, leaving a functional three-party system. this resulted in a real-life, functioning hegelian dialectic - with the liberal party acting as a synthesis. this dialectic is the reason that the canadian government was such a strangely enlightened institution over those years: it had a functioning means of balancing the right with the left. the liberals often governed with ndp support, which meant they had to work left-wing ideas into their centrist approach. but, they could not move too far to the left or they would lose power to the conservatives. when new ideas were developed, they were consistently compared to their anti-thesis and synthesized into liberal policies.

as this is a stable system, any collapse should eventually work to reconstruct it.

the collapse began in 1979, due to a tactical decision by the short-term conservative prime minister to not form a coalition in a minority government with the socreds because they were quasi-fascists; the result was that the socreds collapsed, and most of their votes swung to the conservatives. that in turn allowed the conservatives to win majority governments in 1984 and 1988 by absorbing socred support (and taking a little from the liberals). canada uses a first past the post system.

however, while that was happening, the former socred base (mostly in western canada) began to organize itself into a force that could overtake the ruling conservatives. the election of 1993 broke the conservative party into three parts, recreating the socred party (under the name "reform party") out of a base of very right-leaning westerners and also a quebec separatist party called the "bloc quebecois", in addition to the remnants of the party. further, the liberals found themselves in greater competition with the ndp and reacted by campaigning much further to the left (they opposed nafta, for instance). this domination of the ndp, combined with the collapse of the conservatives, created an astoundingly large liberal party majority - with the bloc quebecois (which had no seats outside of the province of quebec) as the official opposition.

this created an unstable spectrum: there were now five parties in a country that has traditionally supported four, none of the parties were much aligned with where their voters were and there was this hubris of promises flying around that nobody intended on keeping. that meant two things needed to happen out of the systemic collapse of 1993: five parties had to recombine into four, and they had to realign into the traditional spectrum: quasi-fascist, moderate conservative, left-leaning centrist and social democratic.

the power vacuum that the liberals found themselves in from 1993 to 2000 gave them virtual free reign over policy. the synthesis was abandoned, to be replaced by the friendly dictatorship of jean chretien - a man that was widely admired, but that nobody admired for his intelligence. the fact that they no longer needed to rely on the ndp to prop them up allowed them to move as far to the right as they wished, in stark contrast to their election promises. and, they did do exactly this, to attempt to dominate the conservatives before they could get back on their feet. this had the effect of pushing the other remnant of the conservative party - the bloc quebecois - much further to the left, to differentiate itself from the increasingly right-leaning liberals. the liberals in this period are not yet a moderate conservative party (they remained left-leaning in social policy), but are no longer a left-leaning centrist party. they are merely a centrist party.

this also allowed the ndp to move further to the centre, but the movement did not truly begin until the mid 00s.

the first merger that occurred was between the old quasi-fascist party (reform/socred) and the old moderate conservative party (progressive conservatives), and was done under the direction of the socreds - much to the chagrin of the prime minister of 1979, who had came out of retirement in the mid-90s to fight them. it combined socred social policy with neo-liberal economic policy. the election of 2004 saw the first canadian election with a reduced spectrum, but a fifth party emerged to fill the void left by the merger: the green party, who did not hold seats but managed close to 5% for the first time.

in 2006, the quasi-fascist/conservative merger actually won the election with largely the same coalition that existed in the 80s, but with a reversal of leadership - this time the quasi-fascists were in the driving seat. their consequent sharp turn to the right opened up a political vacuum that pulled the liberals further away from the center, and the ndp further into it. the liberals realized that they could attract moderate conservative support by criticizing their extreme policies, and the ndp in turn realized it could attract centrist support by criticizing the liberals' newfound conservativism. the greens remained somewhat distant, but began to define themselves as a party of the intellectual left - taking climate change and alter-globalization positions, which the ndp were sometimes questionable on.

there has been no synthesis in this period, merely a strong rightward pull with almost nothing to balance it. slowly, however, the electorate has adjusted by moving in the opposite direction: conservatives have been becoming liberals, and liberals have been becoming social democrats.

in 2011, the quebec party collapsed and it's support swung decisively to the ndp - the social democratic party. however, it's leader promptly died, which brought in a former liberal as party leader. he has seized the opportunity to move the party staunchly to the right, into the space that was vacated by the liberals in their attempt to chase conservative voters escaping the quasi-fascist tendencies of the conservative party. the current election is the first opportunity that voters have had to seriously examine this right-ward swing of the ndp, and it appears to be exaggerating the leftward flow of voters to compensate for the rightward shift of the parties. liberals are switching to the ndp in large numbers, which is making the conservatives seem increasingly extreme. in turn, traditional ndp voters are become increasingly alienated - and looking to the greens for a more principled means of political expression.

this has produced the pieces of what will likely construct the next stable, dialectical system - with the ndp as the synthesis in the middle. but, the process of voters shifting leftwards will likely need to wait another election to stabilize.

the current polling results are something like this:
quasi-fascist ("conservative party"): 30%
moderate conservative ("liberal party"): 25%
left-leaning centrist party ("ndp"): 35%
social democratic party ("green"): 5%
others: 5%

if i were to predict a result, it would be something like this:
quasi-fascist ("conservative party"): 25%
moderate conservative ("liberal party"): 20%
left-leaning centrist party ("ndp"): 40%
social democratic party ("green"): 10%
others: 5%

and, if i were to predict a result two-three years from now, it would be something like this:
quasi-fascist ("conservative party"): 10%
moderate conservative ("liberal party"): 30%
left-leaning centrist party ("ndp"): 35%
social democratic party ("green"): 20%
others: 5%

this is another stable alignment. and it could stay put for fifty years.

it would suggest that the ndp would require green support to govern, but must also listen to the liberals to prevent themselves from losing power.

harper is known for his targeted tax credits. it's not widely understood that this is the social credit idea of "dividends". if you look at his economic policy closely, many parallels begin to develop.

her contributions to canadian politics may turn out to be the things of political legend. but, the green party will be lucky to win 6 seats in this election. even if they win less than that, the ndp's dramatic swing to the right positions them to very strongly take over the political conscience of the nation - and they may even benefit from significant floor crossing under a decidedly center-right mulcair majority. she seems to be in good health, and life expectancy amongst canadian women of northern european descent is much older than 65. but, notwithstanding harper's recent changes to the retirement age, she'll be quickly approaching it by the next election. the green party is very strongly positioned for a breakthrough in the *next* election, and it may consequently be in it's interests to begin the process of transition immediately after the election.

i'm reminded of david lewis telling tommy douglas he should step aside for a younger leader.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-leaders-debate-may-1.3182459

mulcair is demonstrating himself as the archetypal canadian. he's dead center on every issue; he's the guy the liberals have been looking for since 2000. i don't know how many people actually watched this, but...

....trudeau just got sliced up and put on display under the counter. i was talking about him pushing 50% under the right conditions. those conditions are beginning to assert themselves.

the greens will get a mild bump. it might not last long, but it might come back after the election. elizabeth may is smart and capable, but i think they need to look at getting a younger leader in place before the next election - which they may be more competitive in.

and, harper lives on a different planet.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/macleans-debate-leaders-2015-1.3182000

does anybody know if this is streaming anywhere, for people that don't have access to television? because it's 2015...

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-harper-real-target-in-this-first-leaders-debate-1.3180842

i think it's here:
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/watch-macleans-national-leaders-debate-from-our-hub-2/

ants update

jessica
hi.

there's a few that have snuck in, but it's just a handful. the pesticides seem to have stopped their movement, but it does indicate that there's still a way in...

...but i noticed a large swarm of them out on the sidewalk today. i haven't seen that in a while. i think it indicates that they're moving the other way.

thinking back, there was some sewer construction right outside the place a few weeks ago, and that might have spooked them into moving in this direction. now that the construction is gone, perhaps they went back whence they came.

there's not an immediate problem. i'm not requesting action. but i think you should be aware that they are still able to get in through the holes that they burrowed, and that that might become a problem in the future.

the landlord
Thanks for the info     we will keep on top of this with your help.

the scenarios proposed in this article are incoherent. the canadian left has traditionally sought to work within the framework of international law, and has never been aggressive on these sorts of issues. even the bomarc issue was about defending existing international law. as a leftist voter, i would be downright alienated from either party if they were to take unilateral positions that argue against the processes at the united nations - and it would be a dramatic break from the legacy of both parties. we would be in a rather bizarre situation if the conservatives were all of a sudden the doves in the spectrum. further, the conservatives have been repeatedly belligerent on russia, pretty much on every issue.

rather, if this is an issue, i would expect the conservatives to take the offensive and use it to whip up their base. but this is really a small part of their base.

in the long run, canada and russia have more similarities than differences. we have similar economies. there are differences on governance, but they are not as great as some would claim. we really ought to be working together with the russians to build a more multilateral world.

canada was once on the brink of non-alignment, and this was a consensus position between the liberals and the ndp. i think this served us much better than harper's decision to align us squarely with nato on every issue under the sun.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/russia-s-arctic-claim-to-north-pole-could-be-an-election-issue-1.3179714

Trilobite Lollipop
Ok, let's lets leave the IR textbooks written by Liberal profs aside for a second.

How is one of the most democratic nations on Earth so similar to one of the most authoritarian regimes?

Is there a footnote or a reference to Russia being a mafia-state in there somewhere? How about one on Putin becoming a de facto Czar?

If not, I would advise that you kindly ask your leftist prof to stop singing the Internationale and perhaps find a better textbook.

Jessica Murray
the idea that russia is an authoritarian, czarist regime is really not borne out by the evidence. as i stated, the differences are not as large as some would claim.

russia is a liberal, capitalist democracy. politically speaking, putin is a sort of an old-timey conservative, not that dissimilar from somebody like winston churchill. we tend to look at these old timey conservatives through some fairly warped glasses. if churchill were alive today, he would probably run for the bnp.

there's some problems in russia, but they're not dramatically stronger than problems that exist in other liberal, capitalist democracies. the biggest problem russia is going to be dealing with over the next few decades is how to reintegrate religion into society. right now, the most dangerous, authoritarian institution in russia is not the kremlin but the orthodox church. some kind of balance needs to be worked out, but i think the russians are capable of getting there, even if there's a few growing pains - like the church generating homophobia.

but, economically, we're both northern, resource-dependent nations. we consequently have a lot of shared economic interests. unfortunately, a strong sense of pro-american patriotism has blinded the current government to this truth.

i made it to ten three times in a row and then got hit with an 8. i know where pretty much all the countries are, and i'm pretty good with capital cities, but when you give me an obscure city in brazil or russia i'm not going to be able to tell what side of the country it's on.

and china. i was very bad at locating cities in china.

yeah, but try and get those kids to locate those states on a map.

they should just allow dc residents to vote in maryland state elections, while otherwise retaining it's administrative independence.

Alex-Zander Browne
I thought DC was in Virginia.

deathtokoalas
+Alex-Zander Browne dc was initially created out of parts of virginia and maryland, but virginia took the parts it gave it back. the current dc is entirely composed out of areas that were previously in maryland.

i remember watching this a few months ago and thinking somebody would eventually steal the electronics in it.

wellens, you're an asshole. you smashed it out of paranoia that it had some data on you. but it was sending the data out - it was pointless. they already had it...

just admit it.

tim robbins was in a band?

the major political parties in canada seem to have not received the memo on this.

our dynastic, centrist party (that is facing possible destruction) is actually campaigning on it. ugh. somebody get me a fucking salmon...

http://climateactionnetwork.ca/2015/04/07/61-of-canadians-say-protecting-the-climate-more-important-than-pipelines-and-tarsands/

then, he'll blame the inability to connect with voters on the conservative ads.

no.

dammit.

your policies are terrible. fuck. do you not do internal polling?

ugh. i'm voting green.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tom-mulcair-says-stephen-harper-is-weak-and-vulnerable-on-tpp-talks-1.3178689 

WelfareState
ok, why?

Jessica Murray
the modern ndp is not supposed to endorse these kinds of investor-rights agreements. mulcair is basically ignoring his party's platform and sticking a knife into the back of the people that built the party that he walked into. enthusiastic support for the tpp is exactly what i don't want to hear. supply management is important, but the real problem is the restrictions on democracy that these deals put in place. the green party is apparently currently the only party that is in opposition to the tpp.

it seems like what we're going to get with an ndp government is a liberal government, but without the liberal party's more enlightened perspective on constitutional processes. if he's just going to be a liberal on economics, anyways, then the ndp walking into this void and gutting all the good parts of the liberals for goofy ndp ideas like abolishing the senate is a definite step backwards.

what i wanted was the liberal approach to governing with an ndp approach to economics. to me, that's true liberalism. but, it seems like what we're going to get is the ndp approach to government with liberal economics. and, that's a poison pill i'm "enthusiastically" skeptical of.

the green party is a protest vote. right now, that seems like the right choice in this election - with the liberals calling for pipelines and the ndp in support of free trade.

i'd like to see a caucus vote on this...

i think the proper, correct view on this is that it needs to be put to a referendum. i'm going to oppose it. but it's the kind of thing we really need a direct vote on.

------

ok. how about this...

this is politics. he's taking a position that all of the major parties have and trying to conflate it into an issue that doesn't really exist.

what i'm more concerned about is the question of extra-legal kangaroo courts that can overrule democratically enacted laws. trade should be carried out by countries with comparable labour standards, and i don't doubt that mulcair agrees on this. but, those kangaroo courts are a hard stop. that is what the biggest problem is: investors in japan stopping the government of ontario from carrying out a plan that would help the environment and boost the economy. that's what we can't have more of.

supply management is easy politics. it's a consensus issue. he's picking a superfluous fight. i can see through that.

what i want to know is where the ndp really stands on how these agreements subvert local democratic institutions.

---

i'm fighting with my computer, and had a little more time to think about this. it's ultimately creating more confusion than it's resolving.

i understand why he might think that taking a middle position on trade would help him in the center. he's probably thinking that if he comes out with a critical position then harper will nail him as a communist and scare away traditional liberal voters. i think he's misreading the electorate; people aren't actually that stupid, even if the right thinks they are, and i think opposition to these agreements is actually rather profound. i think this section of the electorate is probably better defined as "ndp leaning liberal voters" in the sense that they'd have voted ndp if they were voting with their heart instead of their brain. meaning this is the position they've always wanted to take, but didn't out of political pragmatism and hope that the liberals were not lying when they opposed nafta. but it's kind of conventional thinking that you have to hug the center on this. so, he's taking this characteristically liberal non-stance in supporting the agreement but being critical about supply management - which even the conservatives are clearly in support of. free trade if necessary, but not necessarily free trade.

on the one hand, the supply management issue may be the extent he actually knows of the agreement, so he might just be placing his criticism in actual fact. but what it comes off as is a decision to pick an issue that the entire spectrum agrees on, to make it seem like he's opposing something he's not opposing, and then use that to generate support fighting something that he's going to win anyways (due to consensus). it kind of reeks of classic, shady political posteuring. it's poltical theatre. and, the thing is that this is exactly what he's doing with the east-west pipeline, so there's a precedent for that reading of it.

i think that the limited evidence that we have does suggest that he's somewhere in the middle. he's probably not going to be categorically against nafta-like agreements as the ndp has been for many years. but he'll probably be a little more selective than either the conservatives or liberals. it's just a question of determining what the criteria actually is, and determining whether it's stringent enough. the alter-globalization movement was never opposed to global trade, it just rejected the idea that the rules be written by investors and multinationals - which is exactly what the tpp is, and exactly who the tpp will benefit.

the ndp policy on the issue is clearly not of much help in figuring this out, as he's essentially ignored his party's official position. that's obviously going to be an issue if he wins - that policy came from somewhere, and at least a part of his caucus is going to want to make sure they're doing what they're elected to do. some pressure to not abandon the platform is going to be apparent, and he can only waver so far before the caucus bolts.

but it's just not clear to me if he's muting his perspective for perceived electoral reasons (and he's actually going to push back a little harder against chapter-11 style legislation than he's letting on) or if he's trying to hide his larger support of free trade in order to stop his base from bleeding to the greens. and, that's an important thing to figure out if this is an issue that's important to you and you're thinking about voting for him.

the reality is that these kinds of shady politics were once normal in canada, and the liberals were the worst of the bunch. it's just a little disorienting to get it from the ndp. a big turn-off.

i don't think it's unreasonable for a voter to ask that a candidate behave consistently with it's party's official positions and that, if the candidate is going to move drastically away from it, that they produce a clear policy paper that explains it.

he might be thinking it will help him if he's vague.

but i think it might actually hurt him from both perspectives if he allows imagination to take hold, rather than being crystal clear.

bgGruff
sorry, the public record says otherwise-
Canadians seem easily influenced by Harper's propaganda
2 examples
1. the evil 2011 coalition
2. the per vote subsidy- scuttled by Harper, even though it
is the most 'democratic' funding vehicle- and almost uncorruptable - the 'individual political donations are a easy way for corporations to launder donations through employees or board members

Jessica Murray
i'm not really a fan of public political financing, and i don't really think that much of anything that harper has said has been very influential on much of anybody in canada. i think the opposition to the coalition was more centered around a concept of fair play - and a genuine sense of trepidation around stephane dion making decisions. it was legitimately not something people really wanted. harper didn't have to point that out.

in a healthy democracy, the volume in which a lie is stated doesn't make it more truthful. when harper has lied, people have called him on it. but, when he's pointed out some uncomfortable realities, people have also reacted - less by supporting him and more by grudgingly disengaging.

harper has not been politically successful, nor has he built any meaningful base of support. however, his opponents have been startlingly incompetent. they should take responsibility for this and stop blaming their losses on the tactical genius of a man that is, in fact, quite obviously an imbecile.

the ndp is arguing for a mixed member proportional system, and while the liberals have been a little confusing (as they tend to be), their most recent attempt was the single transferable.

mmp has been repeatedly rejected by plebiscite. it's not a popular option. personally, i'd be happy to see them move to the stv, but the perception is that it will cement the liberals in place. correct or not, it's a problem in it's adoption.

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/03/canada-election-parliament-stephen-harper

vote trudeau for more pipelines.

yeah. great. just what i wanted. more pipelines.

they're screwed.

and they don't seem to get it.

whatever. i'm going back to mixing my songs, now.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-justin-trudeau-takes-his-campaign-to-stephen-harper-s-backyard-1.3177921

the memo that trudeau clearly missed:
http://climateactionnetwork.ca/2015/04/07/61-of-canadians-say-protecting-the-climate-more-important-than-pipelines-and-tarsands/

82% of Liberals, 62% of New Democrats, 97% of Greens, 39% of Conservatives, 88% of the Bloc Québecois, and 53% of Undecided voters agree or strongly agree that protecting the climate is more important than building the Energy East pipeline and further developing the tarsands.

61% of Liberals, 73% of New Democrats, 90% of Greens, 43% of Conservatives, 73% of the Bloc Québecois, and 56% of Undecided voters feel it is important or very important to phase out coal, oil and gas and replace it with renewable energy.

so, what's he doing, here? running for leader of the conservative party?

peace1212
Do you work for the Arabian Oil Cartel?
Why did my Icelandic and Nordic ancestors live in Greenland for hundreds of years prior to the well known Global Cooling event of 1011 AD?

With respect, please consider what I'm saying.

Jessica Murray
i'm going to give you the chance to back out of this before i make a fool out of you, because it's really not what i wanted to spend my time doing this morning.

Spire
climate change is a big deal, but not the only deal. Trudeau does have some intriguing components of his platform - like creating a new income tax bracket for the wealthy.

Climate change is on everyone's mind, but is on the top of the list for only a few. 

peace1212
You can't answer my question then? I stated it with clear respect. I'm an orange leaning Albertan btw. So, what about Greenland being populated before?

Jessica Murray
the warming/cooling trend that you're speaking of in the northern hemisphere is defined largely by the north atlantic oscillation, which is a primarily solar effect determined by the tilt of the earth's axis. this is a process that is independent of carbon induced global warming.

82% of liberals saying stopping climate change is more important than building pipelines indicates that the opposite is true - that it's a far more important issue to voters than generating revenue streams for the government of china is.

longtime_in
WOW I am impressed. What impact does livestock have on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and in the ocean?

peace1212
The earth was hit with a cataclysm in 1011 AD. Nothing grew in the northern hemisphere for 3 full years. The people fled back to Iceland from vinland and Greenland. Vinland is what we call Newfoundland now.

This same type of event happened to a smaller scale in the 1850s as well. Massive numbers of people died of starvation in the new world colonies, 1/3 of Icelanders also died. This time, due to a volcanic eruption in Iceland. 1011 may have been an asteroid.

My point is that it's so easy to blame global warming on what we are told to blame it on. Increases in solar flaring from the sun also increase global warming.

We have a responsibility to live as caretakers and stewards of the earth. Frankly I wish I could by a vehicle that had modern technology to replace old combustion technologies which are non renewable. That is the best area to focus upon for those of us whom consider ourselves stewards of the environment. Attacking the oil sands does nothing to alleviate the combustion of oil from known terrorist nations such as Saudi Arabia.

I say these things with respect and with hopes for actual change such as improved technologies which are clean.

Jessica Murray
it's measurable, but it's not the dominant cause. it's something like 10% of the emissions. there's a lot of reasons why agriculture is not sustainable, either, and my ideal platform would have a number of strategies to address sustainability and food sovereignty. but, this isn't the direct issue at hand.

the tar sands are uniquely disastrous. it's difficult to consider them in aggregate like this.

we're not told to "blame" anything on anything. we have a demonstrable correlation of rising global temperatures with rising carbon levels. we have an easily demonstrable mechanism that tells us why this is true. that's not a process of belief, or "blame". that's a goddamned fucking fact.

it's thought that a small amount of the warming before 1980 was due to solar effects, but solar insolation has decreased since that point. the possibility of the warming that we're experiencing being due to solar effects is 0%. that's not an exaggeration. that's a goddamned fucking fact.

this is not a debate. and i'm not willing to pretend that it is. i'm not sure which party you're working for, but it's really simple: you get your heads out of your asses, or you deal with litigation that makes the project unprofitable. you can't win this fight. give up.

you're fighting massive levels of public opposition, you're fighting legal realities that you're in a weak position on, you're fighting all concepts of morality and social justice and you're ultimately fighting against history.

you will lose.

deal with it.

this is not a nation building project - unless you're trying to build support against it.

this is not an economic windfall. the money's being shipped out of the country, and the product is being shipped out of the country. it's not creating jobs. it's not creating wealth.

it's a disaster on every level, in every way. and this is indeed very bad leadership.

peace1212
I guess there is no way that the Global Warming is caused by Solar Flaring/radiant heat increases from the sun? Is it possible in your opinion?

Don't asteroids and massive volcanoes effect global warming and global cooling cycles?

Why did my ancestors live in Greenland and Vinland prior to 1011?

Why are we not fueling our vehicles with cutting edge clean technologies?

Jessica Murray
no. it is not an opinion that global warming is not caused by solar effects. this is an entirely debunked, completely unscientific claim. in fact, this is one of the arguments that the ipcc uses. solar effects have been *decreasing* since 1980, while warming has been *increasing*. if the climate was being driven solely by the sun, we'd be experiencing global cooling. the fact that we're not indicates that the warming is not caused by the sun.

volcanoes and asteroids mostly have cooling effects. they can be understood, just like carbon emissions. generally, the way they're worked into the models is as a mitigating effect.

presuming that you are speaking of norse settlers, they were not your ancestors and your ancestors consequently did not live in this region. they were all killed. the reason norse settlers set out to this region is complex - but this has nothing to do with the issue, to the point where it's not even wrong enough to be deconstructed.

longtime_in
I imagine you would be surprised to learn GHG emissions attributable to livestock where estimated at 18% of annual emission in 2006 by the UNFAO. Recent analysis found that livestock and their by-products account for 32.6 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalents or 51% of worldwide GHG emissions.

Livestock also requires huge tracks of land and a significant amount of water. Both of these items are in short supply to sustain human life. I recently learned that researcher have developed a process to mimic the taste and nutritional value of beef by extracting protein from plant matter. The residue from the process could be used as a feedstock for energy from biomass.

You might appreciate how exciting this prospect might be. So I am sorry I don't get excited about your views on oil sands and pipelines. We have to open our horizons to both economic and environmental challenges we face.

peace1212
My ancestors most certainly travelled from Iceland to Greenland and Vinland. There is even archeological evidence that they settled in Baffin Island or taught their house building techniques to those who lived in a warmed up arctic around 500 AD.

I have heard that the global warming data is skewed, if you believe in ur heart that u are doing the right thing fighting against it then good for you. Respect

Jessica Murray
@longtime_in
i don't think your numbers are accurate, but the idea that we need to find sustainable agricultural solutions in addition to reducing oil emissions is not new to the issue. you state this like it's some kind of surprise.

as mentioned, i would also support taking measures to reduce agricultural emissions. i agree that the ultimate solution to livestock is some kind of synthetic meat and i would support policies that help bring synthetic meats to market. but the fact that around 10% of the emissions are from agriculture doesn't some negate the reality that the vast majority of them are from industry and transportation, or somehow make the tar sands ok.

these tactics are like...i don't know who you're trying to appeal to. seven year olds? who thinks in such facile terms? who sets up every issue in these illogical binary terms, and then tricks themselves into nonsensical conclusions via restriction of reasonable analysis? i could see my dog implementing that kind of logic. she doesn't have much of an attention span. but the idea that you're going to get any human to look at this data:

transportation + industry: 50%
agriculture: 10%

(that's sourced roughly from the epa, which i know is not global)

and conclude that oil doesn't matter because of agriculture is...just...???

Jessica Murray
@peace1212
that archaeological evidence suggests that the settlers in newfoundland were killed by the natives and the settlers in greenland died of starvation.

the earth goes through broad climate shifts. historically, some of it has been carbon related: huge volcanic eruptions like you say. some of it's been related to subtle shifts in the earth's orbit. some of it has been caused by life itself changing the components of the atmosphere. we may have caused some flooding back at the dawn of the neolithic, and it might even be the source of the flood stories in the bible. this is all fine and true.

but what we're dealing with right now at this very moment is caused by our carbon emissions - and this can be proven with a high degree of certainty. the sun part is....it's absolutely, totally wrong. and the other factors (like milankovitch cycles) tend to work in the opposite direction.

longtime_in
Maybe you might get a little less arrogant. I was not referring to agriculture,That is understood. Read 2006 UNFAO paper on livestock not UNIPCC on agriculture.

You talk tactics. You come across as a closed minded eco-terrorist. Where are the sources for your absolutes. I am done with you, clearly you too smart to have a civil exchange other than with yourself. Clatter on.

Jessica Murray
livestock is a subset of agriculture. emissions labelled agriculture should be greater than emissions labelled livestock across the board. further, sometimes when we say agriculture we also refer to land-use, and then the numbers get a little bigger. in some sense, it's intertwined. but, there's a difference between saying "we need to raise our cattle differently" and saying "we need to stop cutting down forests for grazing".

it's not that this isn't important. but this debate over the numbers is meaningless; the best you can do is convince me that more effort needs to be put into regulating farmers. but, for the record...

i couldn't find the number you're citing, but i found the following, and what it indicates is that it is taking a broad concept of "livestock" that also includes land-use issues. a number closer to 20% is believable. that 51% is more difficult to make sense of.

from the document you're citing:

"human populations, economic growth, technology and primary energy requirements are the main driving forces of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions (IPCC– special report on emission scenarios). The net additions of carbon to the atmosphere are estimated at between 4.5 and 6.5 billion tonnes per year. Mostly, the burning of fossil fuel and land-use changes, which destroy organic carbon in the soil, are responsible.

The respiration of livestock makes up only a very small part of the net release of carbon that can be attributed to the livestock sector. Much more is released indirectly by other channels including:

• burning fossil fuel to produce mineral fertilizers used in feed production;
• methane release from the breakdown of fertilizers and from animal manure;
• land-use changes for feed production and for grazing;
• land degradation;
• fossil fuel use during feed and animal production; and
• fossil fuel use in production and transport of processed and refrigerated animal products"

"Carbon dioxide

Livestock account for 9 percent of global anthropogenic emissions

When deforestation for pasture and feedcrop land, and pasture degradation are taken into account, livestock-related emissions of carbon dioxide are an important component of the global total (some 9 percent). "

they emit a larger share of methane, but the amount of methane is much less, despite being much stronger.

i don't see anything in the report that contradicts the idea that it's around 10%. 12%, maybe. whatever. not the dominant problem...

the other thing you have to keep in mind about this is that the carbon cycle for agriculture is a little different than the carbon cycle for fossil fuels. i want to be careful with how i present this because i don't want to make the argument that agriculture is carbon neutral, but the take-away is that it's not really a good comparison and you can't put the policies on the same footing.

ultimately, all the carbon that goes into and comes out of the farming on the level of the actual farming is atmospheric. in that sense, the cow and the corn are really just recycling carbon. i mean, you certainly cannot generate carbon this way. those cow farts are returning whence they came. the conclusion is that agriculture itself doesn't contribute to a net increase in carbon. with a caveat.

where it gets problematic is when you start looking at the imbalance in the inputs and outputs. while the farming itself is not creating carbon, there are things like the land-use issues i previously mentioned, transportation costs, oil-based pesticides and all these other inputs. but the ultimate problem is the scale. because farming is atmospheric carbon, if we planted enough trees then we wouldn't actually be increasing emissions.

that's different than releasing stores of carbon from underground. agriculture really pushes an imbalance, rather than a net increase and this is really relatively easily dealt with by planting trees. fossil fuels are actually introducing carbon into the environment.

LeftBrain
Wow Bill Nye got so old. What happened?

mostpowerfull777
+LeftBrain He caught a terrible disease called Age. It affects 100 out of 100 people and is incurable.

Doomrider
+mostpowerfull777 According to some trials involving blood transfusion from younger mice into older mice that I read about a while ago, it may not be curable, but it may become treatable. ...Quite soon, in fact.

mostpowerfull777
+Doomrider Yeah, I heard a lot of ways on how age can be slowed down with blood transfusions to changing the genetics of unborn babies to slow aging. But I doubt there will ever be a 'cure' of a sort because aging is your DNA unraveling. And everything eventually has to decay or suffer other problems. Aesthetically wise, people may come to a point of 'not aging,' but internally it will continue. 

Doomrider
+mostpowerfull777 Yeah, I think the issue is primarily the fact that even with the rejuvenation effects of the transfusions, it was the brain that bore the brunt of the lasting damage of deteriorating DNA. You'd need to find a way to properly preserve the brain and nervous system to counteract aging and its conclusion.

mostpowerfull777
+Doomrider As well as preserving your cells so as to not be more prone to illnesses. It's really either you dying from your body giving away, or your body decaying to a weak point so that you die from something else.

deathtokoalas
+Doomrider
the blood transfusion thing is bunk. but, while time moves forwards perpetually (as we experience it), biological aging is a strictly chemical process and should consequently be completely reversible. there's been promising testing around the idea of preventing telomeres from shrinking on cell division, which seems to have some kind of a clock worked into it. and i do believe that scientists have created some immortal mice by turning certain gene expressions related to cell death off.

ultimately, the reason that we age and die is that our cells are programmed to. while i'd think this is probably impossible to reverse in aging humans, we should be able to genetically engineer humans that are immortal.

WhatsAfterThisPlace
+Doomrider That sounds nice, how ever what about our memories? Remember that the brain can only store so much information before it needs to start deleting other info. Even if we could stop aging, we cannot stop the brain from eventually deteriorating. 

deathtokoalas
+WhatsAfterThisPlace
your brain does not biodegrade over time - and, even if it did, that would also be a reversible chemical process.

the reason you experience memory loss and other mental issues related to aging is that you are programmed to. you don't expire. your body actively kills itself.

your body begins this procedural, genetic self-destruction starting around the age of 25.

reversing aging is consequently quite easy, in theory. you just need to reprogram the dna to not do that.