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.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
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.
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.
at
01:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
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.
and china. i was very bad at locating cities in china.
at
00:47
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
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.
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.
at
00:34
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
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.
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.
at
00:25
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
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?
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?
at
07:25
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
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.
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.
at
05:47
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
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
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
at
05:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
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.
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.
at
04:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Monday, August 3, 2015
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.
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.
at
08:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
his language is so transparently panderingly facile. it's painful. you can imagine his cartoon sidekick villain chiming in somewhere in a backroom "what about plan b, boss?".
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-what-day-1-tells-us-about-the-parties-campaigns-1.3177328
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-what-day-1-tells-us-about-the-parties-campaigns-1.3177328
at
08:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Sunday, August 2, 2015
tommy mulcair and free trade
To: elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca, elizabeth.may.c1a@parl.gc.ca
hi.
i think you really need to push mulcair on free trade in the debates, and generally.
whatever his recent rise in the polls is attributed to, the ndp base has been rooted in it's opposition to free trade since 1993. and, i'm not convinced that mulcair is really in line with this.
consider what happens if the ndp win and he takes the neo-liberal consensus on this and just pushes the tpp through. you're going get protests and strikes and the whole thing when it really kicks in. and, the liberals have no credibility on this. who wins when their base collapses? you.
but, it's not just self-interest. i'm a pragmatist; i'm not going to vote for a fourth or fifth place party, and i don't want to see you knock him down to win harper another majority. it's a really serious public debate that isn't happening and something that voters in general need to get a better grasp in - both in terms of what's at stake and in terms of where the guys stands on it. nobody's voting for the ndp to elect another (neo)-liberal government.
we don't have a lot of checks and balances in parliament. but we perhaps have too many parties, and this surplus of parties could maybe serve canadians better by acting as one.
we're not going to get another "nation's conscience" type ndp leadership, and they're not positioned to make sure much of anybody is sticking to their word and keeping their promises. rather, somebody needs to step in and fulfil that position as it relates to them. as a party that is (in some ways) to the left of the ndp, that's a role you can actually fill. the best the liberals can really do at this point is parrot the conservatives in critiquing their budgets.
there's lots of things in that platform of theirs that look pretty good. somebody's gotta make sure they're actually doing it.
hi.
i think you really need to push mulcair on free trade in the debates, and generally.
whatever his recent rise in the polls is attributed to, the ndp base has been rooted in it's opposition to free trade since 1993. and, i'm not convinced that mulcair is really in line with this.
consider what happens if the ndp win and he takes the neo-liberal consensus on this and just pushes the tpp through. you're going get protests and strikes and the whole thing when it really kicks in. and, the liberals have no credibility on this. who wins when their base collapses? you.
but, it's not just self-interest. i'm a pragmatist; i'm not going to vote for a fourth or fifth place party, and i don't want to see you knock him down to win harper another majority. it's a really serious public debate that isn't happening and something that voters in general need to get a better grasp in - both in terms of what's at stake and in terms of where the guys stands on it. nobody's voting for the ndp to elect another (neo)-liberal government.
we don't have a lot of checks and balances in parliament. but we perhaps have too many parties, and this surplus of parties could maybe serve canadians better by acting as one.
we're not going to get another "nation's conscience" type ndp leadership, and they're not positioned to make sure much of anybody is sticking to their word and keeping their promises. rather, somebody needs to step in and fulfil that position as it relates to them. as a party that is (in some ways) to the left of the ndp, that's a role you can actually fill. the best the liberals can really do at this point is parrot the conservatives in critiquing their budgets.
there's lots of things in that platform of theirs that look pretty good. somebody's gotta make sure they're actually doing it.
at
22:34
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
evolution doesn't really work in "steps". the error you're making of evolving to a higher state is widely made in evolutionary biology by experts and non-experts alike. if you want to know if this is going to be an evolutionary advantage, you need to ask if it's going to increase chances of survival. and, that practically amounts to arguing that the nerds will outbreed the jocks.
that said, i do agree that this is a type of variation that has the potential to be game changing should we find ourselves in the proper environment - which would need to be constructed by nerds. in the end, the nerds may inherit the earth, but only if they build it in such a way that they give themselves an advantage.
and, we're always under threat of being beaten up and having our technology stolen at recess.
the bottom line is that intellectual capacity of this type is probably never going to be an evolutionary advantage in any kind of strict sense. the best applicable model is sympatric, but what that would suggest is not the evolution of the entire species to some kind of higher state but a small population of nerds splitting off. it would basically have to be class-based. and i think that kind of class division really strains the boundaries of plausibility - and would also take quite some time to happen.
but, the increasing prevalence of asperger's type behaviour may very well indicate a type of variation in the human population that will both be with us very far into the future and create increasingly disparate types of people. and, we may end up face-to-face with needing to deal with a type of specialization that is genetic as much as it is economic.
paul tidwell
+deathtokoalas The nerds won't outbreeed the jocks for the simple fact that they're rational enough to plan to have fewer kids because finance.
Gea Vox
+deathtokoalas Evolution works in a disordered and uneven fashion, throwing up variants all the time. Those that give people who possess them evolutionary advantages succeed, breed and are passed on, those that do not, or even hamper, fail and their scions die out.
Gea Vox
+paul tidwell On the contrary, the "jocks" will not be able to keep up with the increasingly complex demands of the world the Neurodiverse are creating everyday. The "jocks" will end up being the farmers and labourers, instructed and guided by the Neurodiverse to build the world the NDs need and want. Endof. It's called evolution and Neanderthals - way sturdier and stronger then Homo Sapiens - became extinct, while the smaller but brainier HS triumphed... [Evolutyionary] History is repeating itself... Bye Bye Jocks! See you at the slave markets... 10 a penny!
deathtokoalas
+Gea Vox well, i think the evidence actually suggests that sapiens absorbed neanderthalensis, and that it's kind of wrong to think of them as a separate species in the first place.
but, what you're describing has been tried and abandoned by various ruling classes, because you can't hold a slave society without it revolting. it's this model that humans keep trying to implement, and yet keeps failing.
it follows that your proposal of elite nerd dominance - while perhaps not unreasonable - does not lead to your outcome of nerd evolution. it just leads to a stratified society, with a growing slave base that will eventually tear that elite down.
you can't get around it. in order for this to happen, nerds have to get laid more often than jocks.
that said, i do agree that this is a type of variation that has the potential to be game changing should we find ourselves in the proper environment - which would need to be constructed by nerds. in the end, the nerds may inherit the earth, but only if they build it in such a way that they give themselves an advantage.
and, we're always under threat of being beaten up and having our technology stolen at recess.
the bottom line is that intellectual capacity of this type is probably never going to be an evolutionary advantage in any kind of strict sense. the best applicable model is sympatric, but what that would suggest is not the evolution of the entire species to some kind of higher state but a small population of nerds splitting off. it would basically have to be class-based. and i think that kind of class division really strains the boundaries of plausibility - and would also take quite some time to happen.
but, the increasing prevalence of asperger's type behaviour may very well indicate a type of variation in the human population that will both be with us very far into the future and create increasingly disparate types of people. and, we may end up face-to-face with needing to deal with a type of specialization that is genetic as much as it is economic.
paul tidwell
+deathtokoalas The nerds won't outbreeed the jocks for the simple fact that they're rational enough to plan to have fewer kids because finance.
Gea Vox
+deathtokoalas Evolution works in a disordered and uneven fashion, throwing up variants all the time. Those that give people who possess them evolutionary advantages succeed, breed and are passed on, those that do not, or even hamper, fail and their scions die out.
Gea Vox
+paul tidwell On the contrary, the "jocks" will not be able to keep up with the increasingly complex demands of the world the Neurodiverse are creating everyday. The "jocks" will end up being the farmers and labourers, instructed and guided by the Neurodiverse to build the world the NDs need and want. Endof. It's called evolution and Neanderthals - way sturdier and stronger then Homo Sapiens - became extinct, while the smaller but brainier HS triumphed... [Evolutyionary] History is repeating itself... Bye Bye Jocks! See you at the slave markets... 10 a penny!
deathtokoalas
+Gea Vox well, i think the evidence actually suggests that sapiens absorbed neanderthalensis, and that it's kind of wrong to think of them as a separate species in the first place.
but, what you're describing has been tried and abandoned by various ruling classes, because you can't hold a slave society without it revolting. it's this model that humans keep trying to implement, and yet keeps failing.
it follows that your proposal of elite nerd dominance - while perhaps not unreasonable - does not lead to your outcome of nerd evolution. it just leads to a stratified society, with a growing slave base that will eventually tear that elite down.
you can't get around it. in order for this to happen, nerds have to get laid more often than jocks.
at
00:59
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm just trying to imagine exactly how it is that north korea might ship arms to hamas, who tend to create their rockets from scratch because they're under comprehensive blockade.
i suppose it would have to go by ship; land and air routes would have to go through israeli checkpoints. that would mean it would ship out through the us blockade of china, through the islands, past india (maybe it would refuel at diego garcia), through the suez canal and finally land in a palestinian port.
or, perhaps, hamas has carried out every child's fantasy and managed to dig a tunnel to china?
when you find the shipments, let me know. i bet there's some of that oil that isis is selling on the same ship, too.
i suppose it would have to go by ship; land and air routes would have to go through israeli checkpoints. that would mean it would ship out through the us blockade of china, through the islands, past india (maybe it would refuel at diego garcia), through the suez canal and finally land in a palestinian port.
or, perhaps, hamas has carried out every child's fantasy and managed to dig a tunnel to china?
when you find the shipments, let me know. i bet there's some of that oil that isis is selling on the same ship, too.
at
00:28
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Saturday, August 1, 2015
see, this is actually exonerating. she makes it clear that she's not selling parts, she doesn't know how it works and she wants to ask head office to clarify what the rules are. she's clearly clueless about how a sales process might work, and she's clearly not involved in any existing sales. if this was a trial, and the investigators were cops, it would be thrown out of court as entrapment.
at
23:56
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
the cop was obviously concerned that the driver might be armed, and flipped out in a bad split second "decision" that was driven by self-preservation. it was unjustified, but humans are not logic machines.
1) he should not have put his hand in the car. he didn't even ask him to leave the car.
2) because people in situations like this act on adrenaline rather than logic, the proper protocol for a cop in this situation should be to approach the car with non-lethal weapons. even with the error of reaching in, something like a taser in this circumstance would not have killed this person.
i've been over this before: humans are not god-like, rational, logic machines; we are not homo economicus, and we are especially prone to the suspension of thought in situations such as this. instead of letting this happen over and over and blaming it on the cop for making the wrong choice, we need to understand that the root of the problem is the scenario. no amount of training can fix this. the best, most ideal cop would have reacted the same way.
this cop did not make a conscious choice to shoot this person. this cop made a bad choice to enter the car, and then was subconsciously driven to shoot by a hormonal reaction of self-defense in the midst of a conflict.
the only way to stop police shootings is to take away their guns.
there's a broad, social epiphany underlying this. it flies in the face of our justice system, our concepts of economics, our perception of free will, our mainstream philosophical positions (if you want to call them that...) and ultimately the remnants of our dominant protestant religion.
but, we need to do this.
we are not in complete control. we're relatively advanced - for primates. but we're still very primitive creatures.
if i was defending the officer, i would argue against the existence of a mens rea. this is not murder. but, the law remains unlikely to let him off with less than involuntary manslaughter.
ＳＭＯҟＥ
+deathtokoalas Stop making excuses for the cop. You are talking as if the cop was a victim of humanity's imperfections, ignoring the fact that not only did he make a concious decision to draw his gun and fire at an unarmed man, he also tried to lie about it later.
His lies are proof that he knew he was in the wrong and it says a lot about his character to shamelessly try and place the blame on his murdered victim.
deathtokoalas
+Smoke i'm not placing the blame on the person he accidentally shot, i'm pointing out that nobody is to blame in this situation - excluding the initial error, but it's not the same thing. and, yes - our society is barbaric in terms of it's enforcement of retribution. it needs to place blame in situations where no blame can be assigned. it needs a zero sum game.
this man is not guilty of any crime, but he will pay a steep price to uphold unscientific concepts of free will and enforce the christian value of vengeance.
ＳＭＯҟＥ
+deathtokoalas This isn't something that just happened, these cops are trained to asses the situation and only use deadly force where they deem it absolutely necessary.
Drawing a gun I can understand, but firing before confirming the other guy had a gun is inexcusable.
You also said you think that the cop only drew because he thought the driver might have been armed. Well guess what? That's not what the cop said, he said that the guy dragged him with his car and only shot at him to save himself.
When the video was analysed it turned out that the cop shot before the car moved anywhere.
Even the cop himself doesn't back the excuse you're making for him.
You come across as someone who values logic and common sense, so why are you ignoring all the facts and fabricating your own scenarios to support your ideal outcome?
deathtokoalas
+Smoke what the cop says doesn't mean anything.it seems foolish, and not particularly borne out by the evidence, but that doesn't mean it's not what he was thinking. (inserted to replace strike: it does seem as though the video backs up his narrative. but what's more important than what actually happened is what he thought was happening before the adrenaline took over.). it's not really an important part of the scenario - or at least it wouldn't be if it was being approached with a scientific understanding of how humans react under stress.
my understanding is that the protocol in this situation is to draw as you're taking the person out of the car - that is, that he's trained to have his hand on his gun as he's taking the person out, in the case that he's armed. that's what i meant, and it's perfectly rational. it's not clear why this person is refusing to provide his license, and if the cop is going to make some assumptions the assumptions he needs to make are on the side of precaution. so, that's the answer as to why he drew his weapon - he was trained to draw his weapon.
as i pointed out, he should have a non-lethal weapon in this circumstance.
the important point here is that what we understand about how people work in these situations is that hormonal processes take over and people act on impulse. it's clear that he made a conscious choice to enter the car. it's clear that he made a conscious choice to draw - and that that was the right choice, both relative to his training and relative to the logic of the situation. it's also clear that when a struggle erupted, the impulse of self-defense overrode any rational thinking process and that he fired not out of a conscious decision but out of a subconscious reaction.
that's just how humans work. it's just the science of the situation. but our legal system has no framework to integrate this. rather, it's based on archaic concepts of imaginary "reasonable people" that are as absurd as the now largely discarded "homo economicus".
the blame is in the scenario. the solution is in taking the guns away. you can't train monkeys to act like robots. it's just not in our nature. when people get into struggle, and are placed under stress, they are unable to think clearly because their bodies are flushed with hormones that take control. our policies should be based on this understanding - and what that says is to disarm traffic cops.
as i mentioned: it's a challenging position to take relative to our existing legal, economic, philosophical and religious norms. but, the reality of the science is actually crystal clear and what it states is that when people are in situations like this cop was in they have almost no control over their actions.
so, we need to prevent the situation from occurring.
i don't think that whether he was actually dragged or not is a meaningful aspect in the case. it's enough to suggest he thought he was going to be dragged for the stress to kick in and the officer to lose control.
however, it is indeed clear that he's closer to the grey car when he gets up than he was when he reached into the car. the video rather clearly demonstrates that the car was moving with him attached to it, and that that aspect of the narrative is accurate.
it's not the important thing to try and figure out. if the car was moving, and it was, that doesn't mean it's ok to shoot to stop the driver. that still collapses to a fight-or-flight response, and a lack of conscious control. and it still suggests that traffic cops should not have guns.
1) he should not have put his hand in the car. he didn't even ask him to leave the car.
2) because people in situations like this act on adrenaline rather than logic, the proper protocol for a cop in this situation should be to approach the car with non-lethal weapons. even with the error of reaching in, something like a taser in this circumstance would not have killed this person.
i've been over this before: humans are not god-like, rational, logic machines; we are not homo economicus, and we are especially prone to the suspension of thought in situations such as this. instead of letting this happen over and over and blaming it on the cop for making the wrong choice, we need to understand that the root of the problem is the scenario. no amount of training can fix this. the best, most ideal cop would have reacted the same way.
this cop did not make a conscious choice to shoot this person. this cop made a bad choice to enter the car, and then was subconsciously driven to shoot by a hormonal reaction of self-defense in the midst of a conflict.
the only way to stop police shootings is to take away their guns.
there's a broad, social epiphany underlying this. it flies in the face of our justice system, our concepts of economics, our perception of free will, our mainstream philosophical positions (if you want to call them that...) and ultimately the remnants of our dominant protestant religion.
but, we need to do this.
we are not in complete control. we're relatively advanced - for primates. but we're still very primitive creatures.
if i was defending the officer, i would argue against the existence of a mens rea. this is not murder. but, the law remains unlikely to let him off with less than involuntary manslaughter.
ＳＭＯҟＥ
+deathtokoalas Stop making excuses for the cop. You are talking as if the cop was a victim of humanity's imperfections, ignoring the fact that not only did he make a concious decision to draw his gun and fire at an unarmed man, he also tried to lie about it later.
His lies are proof that he knew he was in the wrong and it says a lot about his character to shamelessly try and place the blame on his murdered victim.
deathtokoalas
+Smoke i'm not placing the blame on the person he accidentally shot, i'm pointing out that nobody is to blame in this situation - excluding the initial error, but it's not the same thing. and, yes - our society is barbaric in terms of it's enforcement of retribution. it needs to place blame in situations where no blame can be assigned. it needs a zero sum game.
this man is not guilty of any crime, but he will pay a steep price to uphold unscientific concepts of free will and enforce the christian value of vengeance.
ＳＭＯҟＥ
+deathtokoalas This isn't something that just happened, these cops are trained to asses the situation and only use deadly force where they deem it absolutely necessary.
Drawing a gun I can understand, but firing before confirming the other guy had a gun is inexcusable.
You also said you think that the cop only drew because he thought the driver might have been armed. Well guess what? That's not what the cop said, he said that the guy dragged him with his car and only shot at him to save himself.
When the video was analysed it turned out that the cop shot before the car moved anywhere.
Even the cop himself doesn't back the excuse you're making for him.
You come across as someone who values logic and common sense, so why are you ignoring all the facts and fabricating your own scenarios to support your ideal outcome?
deathtokoalas
+Smoke what the cop says doesn't mean anything.
my understanding is that the protocol in this situation is to draw as you're taking the person out of the car - that is, that he's trained to have his hand on his gun as he's taking the person out, in the case that he's armed. that's what i meant, and it's perfectly rational. it's not clear why this person is refusing to provide his license, and if the cop is going to make some assumptions the assumptions he needs to make are on the side of precaution. so, that's the answer as to why he drew his weapon - he was trained to draw his weapon.
as i pointed out, he should have a non-lethal weapon in this circumstance.
the important point here is that what we understand about how people work in these situations is that hormonal processes take over and people act on impulse. it's clear that he made a conscious choice to enter the car. it's clear that he made a conscious choice to draw - and that that was the right choice, both relative to his training and relative to the logic of the situation. it's also clear that when a struggle erupted, the impulse of self-defense overrode any rational thinking process and that he fired not out of a conscious decision but out of a subconscious reaction.
that's just how humans work. it's just the science of the situation. but our legal system has no framework to integrate this. rather, it's based on archaic concepts of imaginary "reasonable people" that are as absurd as the now largely discarded "homo economicus".
the blame is in the scenario. the solution is in taking the guns away. you can't train monkeys to act like robots. it's just not in our nature. when people get into struggle, and are placed under stress, they are unable to think clearly because their bodies are flushed with hormones that take control. our policies should be based on this understanding - and what that says is to disarm traffic cops.
as i mentioned: it's a challenging position to take relative to our existing legal, economic, philosophical and religious norms. but, the reality of the science is actually crystal clear and what it states is that when people are in situations like this cop was in they have almost no control over their actions.
so, we need to prevent the situation from occurring.
i don't think that whether he was actually dragged or not is a meaningful aspect in the case. it's enough to suggest he thought he was going to be dragged for the stress to kick in and the officer to lose control.
however, it is indeed clear that he's closer to the grey car when he gets up than he was when he reached into the car. the video rather clearly demonstrates that the car was moving with him attached to it, and that that aspect of the narrative is accurate.
it's not the important thing to try and figure out. if the car was moving, and it was, that doesn't mean it's ok to shoot to stop the driver. that still collapses to a fight-or-flight response, and a lack of conscious control. and it still suggests that traffic cops should not have guns.
at
23:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this is an unusually transparent briefing by the state department, centered around the need to do some damage control in a situation where they were caught a little off guard by netanyahu in his characteristic conniving behaviour. it's the rare situation where the truth is the best lie.
i don't think kerry went down there with the motives of really solving anything. and, the fact that he took a draft that had already been rejected and put his name on it largely underscores the point - he was looking to get a political bounce for playing a role in something that he really played no role in. but, american leaders do this all of the time. and, when you're the empire you can do that sort of thing. you can maybe be cynical about it but, in the end, hey, he could have stopped the bombs for a little while.
what i'm reading from the israeli reaction is that netanyahu wasn't about to let that happen - and for reasons of internal domestic american politics, rather than anything to do with his own region. this would not have happened if it was a republican secretary of state. but, netanyahu was looking to prevent the democrats from getting any kind of bump, and instead make them look bad to the republican base - with his absurd accusations around the airport closure (which, again, was clearly meant to prevent reporters from entering the region while kerry was there) and his subsequent "rejection" and leak. if you follow the fox news narrative that matt lee was pushing, it's actually entirely consistent and, if not rational, at least logical, in their usual warped sort of way.
this creates a rather dramatic problem for the united states. not for john kerry. not for obama. for the united states. this is a type of interference that a superpower like america just can't tolerate from a peon like israel.
i have a suggestion: if netanyahu wants to involve himself that deeply in american politics then america should annex israel as a state, and start building american settlements.
i don't think kerry went down there with the motives of really solving anything. and, the fact that he took a draft that had already been rejected and put his name on it largely underscores the point - he was looking to get a political bounce for playing a role in something that he really played no role in. but, american leaders do this all of the time. and, when you're the empire you can do that sort of thing. you can maybe be cynical about it but, in the end, hey, he could have stopped the bombs for a little while.
what i'm reading from the israeli reaction is that netanyahu wasn't about to let that happen - and for reasons of internal domestic american politics, rather than anything to do with his own region. this would not have happened if it was a republican secretary of state. but, netanyahu was looking to prevent the democrats from getting any kind of bump, and instead make them look bad to the republican base - with his absurd accusations around the airport closure (which, again, was clearly meant to prevent reporters from entering the region while kerry was there) and his subsequent "rejection" and leak. if you follow the fox news narrative that matt lee was pushing, it's actually entirely consistent and, if not rational, at least logical, in their usual warped sort of way.
this creates a rather dramatic problem for the united states. not for john kerry. not for obama. for the united states. this is a type of interference that a superpower like america just can't tolerate from a peon like israel.
i have a suggestion: if netanyahu wants to involve himself that deeply in american politics then america should annex israel as a state, and start building american settlements.
at
23:23
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
youse guys...
To: justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca, thomas.mulcair@parl.gc.ca
listen...
you're going to get all kinds of shit from focus groups and polling groups and media institutions with obvious biases (that you'll approach with cognitive dissonance), and they're all going to tell you that you're sending the same policies out to the same people and it's fucking with both of you.
that's bullshit. what you're doing is creating a stew of confused voters that would like to vote for parts of the ndp platform and parts of the liberal platform. their ideal party would by x% ndp and y% liberal, and those xs and ys are going to be all over the place and have all kinds of ramifications. it's confusing the hell out of people, wavering them all over the place and preventing them from being able to make any kind of choice. and, you're splitting a large electorate up into segments. for all the shit you correctly give the right for this, you're accidentally functionally doing exactly the same thing.
it'd be great if we could set each and every issue down and put them all up for referendum. direct democracy. a dead, white guy said something about that once. you don't have the time or the money.
what you can do is try and dominate each other. that's what you're *supposed* to do.
i'm an example. i want marijuana legalization. i don't want to get rid of the senate; i want to reform it so it acts as a check on the pmo's office and performs it's stated function. i'm opposed to free trade, as it exists ("investors rights agreements"). i'm in favour of a carbon tax. i'd like to see wages tied to inflation (after we give them a fair bump). i don't want pipelines running through ontario, or anywhere, really. i want corporate tax raises to pay for stimulus spending (preferably environmentally focused), and i'm not concerned about going into deficit in the short run to pay for services.
neither of you are great. in some ways, you both suck. in some ways, you're both acceptable. but i can't vote for both of you. and you can't be everything to everyone, you need to focus on coherent visions that separate you from each other.
figure this out. please. for fuck's sake. i don't want to go through this again in four years.
j
listen...
you're going to get all kinds of shit from focus groups and polling groups and media institutions with obvious biases (that you'll approach with cognitive dissonance), and they're all going to tell you that you're sending the same policies out to the same people and it's fucking with both of you.
that's bullshit. what you're doing is creating a stew of confused voters that would like to vote for parts of the ndp platform and parts of the liberal platform. their ideal party would by x% ndp and y% liberal, and those xs and ys are going to be all over the place and have all kinds of ramifications. it's confusing the hell out of people, wavering them all over the place and preventing them from being able to make any kind of choice. and, you're splitting a large electorate up into segments. for all the shit you correctly give the right for this, you're accidentally functionally doing exactly the same thing.
it'd be great if we could set each and every issue down and put them all up for referendum. direct democracy. a dead, white guy said something about that once. you don't have the time or the money.
what you can do is try and dominate each other. that's what you're *supposed* to do.
i'm an example. i want marijuana legalization. i don't want to get rid of the senate; i want to reform it so it acts as a check on the pmo's office and performs it's stated function. i'm opposed to free trade, as it exists ("investors rights agreements"). i'm in favour of a carbon tax. i'd like to see wages tied to inflation (after we give them a fair bump). i don't want pipelines running through ontario, or anywhere, really. i want corporate tax raises to pay for stimulus spending (preferably environmentally focused), and i'm not concerned about going into deficit in the short run to pay for services.
neither of you are great. in some ways, you both suck. in some ways, you're both acceptable. but i can't vote for both of you. and you can't be everything to everyone, you need to focus on coherent visions that separate you from each other.
figure this out. please. for fuck's sake. i don't want to go through this again in four years.
j
at
22:29
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i don't agree with this analysis. the mainstreet poll....it asked a different question. you've got differences in methodology across the different polling firms, making this kind of aggregate...it's useful, but you need to be careful. ivr, telephone & internet seem to be the three types and they have very different biases to correct for.
i don't have access to numbers to crunch. but it seems to be that the forum polls, specifically, are underestimating their margin of error. the most recent data is comparable to the one three polls ago, where the two in the middle are the same. and, it's similar when you move backwards a little. the electorate really doesn't seem to be that volatile right now. i mean, the undecided questions are consistently demonstrating that harper has almost no room to grow, yet the polling is consistently wavering around 5-6%. if he really had that much of a swing, it would come out in the undecided polling. rather, it just looks like more error exists than is being acknowledged. there are some reasons that i'm skeptical about ivr polling. but, the ekos polls are also ivr and haven't change much relative to themselves, within the margin of error - which i think is more along the lines of what a pollster ought to expect in july with no major reasons to shift voting intentions. at the least, you'd expect these to demonstrate the same trends. that they're not indicates something wrong with one of them. again, i think forum is underestimating their error.
net polling, i think, is even worse. you can't tell what is sampling error and what is a change in intentions. you can't even tell if people are filling out the results multiple times.
i don't see any clear trend at all over the last two months.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poll-tracker-harper-mulcair-in-close-race-as-campaign-begins-1.3176101
James in Kanata
@Jessica Murray
But the inescapable facts are:
* The Mainstream poll is the only one to reveal what questions were asked. Depending on the question, the results can be skewed, which is the case when an institution like the Star sponsors a polls and says "make sure the Conservatives are behind". Its called propaganda and the Soviets were masters of it
* The margin of error was the lowest because the sample base was 5 times the others. A Nanos poll showing each party the same with a 5 point margin of error actually legitimizes the Mainstream poll. Add and subtract the Nanos margin of error and you have the Mainstream one but the reverse is not true
Bottom line, there's no escaping the merit of the Mainstream poll and that company has an excellent record, unlike the others which predict
"Ignatieff surges ahead"
"Dix to be Premier of BC"
Jessica Murray
@James in Kanata
the mainstream poll was likely accurate in terms of what it reported. it reported 38% conservative amongst decided voters, which was about 80% of the sample. however, to translate that into results that are comparable to the other polls you need to scale it down by a factor of 0.80 to account for the 20% undecided. that takes the conservatives down to 30.4% of all voters in the mainstream poll.
it also suggested that almost all of the undecided vote is wavering between the ndp and the liberals.
in totality, there is nothing inconsistent about the poll. it's not an outlier.
now, i'd actually argue that the question they asked is better, if you're looking for a sort of a quarks & gluons type analysis. but, just dumping it into the other "leaning" type polls without accounting for it being a fundamentally different type of poll is bad methodology and it's going to inaccurately skew the results of the aggregate. the way he does this is in such a way that it fades out over time, so it will go away. but, he shouldn't repeat that error.
the nanos polling i've seen has put the conservatives in the 30-32% range - which is probably about right. a citation would be useful. it might be the same issue.
to be concrete...
the mainstreet poll reported:
cons: 38%
ndp: 27%
libs: 25%
grn: 6%
bloc: 4%.
...of the 80% of people that were decided.
the actual results were approximately:
cons: 30.4%
ndp: 21.6%
undecided: 20%
libs: 20%
grn: 4.8%
bloc: 3.2%
...based on napkin math that assume the whole number results that they reported.
generally, a statistician would want to distribute that 20% relatively evenly. but, we have plenty of polling on the topic, and we know that we can't do that - you couldn't reasonably give the conservatives more than a percent or two of it.
again: this is probably the most accurate poll because it measured undecideds rather than forcing them to pick an option they're not really decided on. i actually agree with that. it just wasn't reported well. and grenier is making an error with it that he really shouldn't be making.
i'm actually a good example of the results of the poll. if you forced me to pick, i'd pick the ndp. but, it's not really an accurate reflection - the truth is i'm not decided and could vote liberal in the end, if they make an effort to stop pushing fiscal conservatism and come out against the tpp. that would inflate the ndp's numbers a little at the expense of the liberals. i think that's what we're seeing - people on the left swing are leaning ndp, but we're just a tad uncomfortable about diving in for whatever reason.
if the ndp can get 12-15% of that, they win a majority. if it splits evenly, it's another four years of harper. and that's going to be his strategy for the election.
i don't have access to numbers to crunch. but it seems to be that the forum polls, specifically, are underestimating their margin of error. the most recent data is comparable to the one three polls ago, where the two in the middle are the same. and, it's similar when you move backwards a little. the electorate really doesn't seem to be that volatile right now. i mean, the undecided questions are consistently demonstrating that harper has almost no room to grow, yet the polling is consistently wavering around 5-6%. if he really had that much of a swing, it would come out in the undecided polling. rather, it just looks like more error exists than is being acknowledged. there are some reasons that i'm skeptical about ivr polling. but, the ekos polls are also ivr and haven't change much relative to themselves, within the margin of error - which i think is more along the lines of what a pollster ought to expect in july with no major reasons to shift voting intentions. at the least, you'd expect these to demonstrate the same trends. that they're not indicates something wrong with one of them. again, i think forum is underestimating their error.
net polling, i think, is even worse. you can't tell what is sampling error and what is a change in intentions. you can't even tell if people are filling out the results multiple times.
i don't see any clear trend at all over the last two months.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poll-tracker-harper-mulcair-in-close-race-as-campaign-begins-1.3176101
James in Kanata
@Jessica Murray
But the inescapable facts are:
* The Mainstream poll is the only one to reveal what questions were asked. Depending on the question, the results can be skewed, which is the case when an institution like the Star sponsors a polls and says "make sure the Conservatives are behind". Its called propaganda and the Soviets were masters of it
* The margin of error was the lowest because the sample base was 5 times the others. A Nanos poll showing each party the same with a 5 point margin of error actually legitimizes the Mainstream poll. Add and subtract the Nanos margin of error and you have the Mainstream one but the reverse is not true
Bottom line, there's no escaping the merit of the Mainstream poll and that company has an excellent record, unlike the others which predict
"Ignatieff surges ahead"
"Dix to be Premier of BC"
Jessica Murray
@James in Kanata
the mainstream poll was likely accurate in terms of what it reported. it reported 38% conservative amongst decided voters, which was about 80% of the sample. however, to translate that into results that are comparable to the other polls you need to scale it down by a factor of 0.80 to account for the 20% undecided. that takes the conservatives down to 30.4% of all voters in the mainstream poll.
it also suggested that almost all of the undecided vote is wavering between the ndp and the liberals.
in totality, there is nothing inconsistent about the poll. it's not an outlier.
now, i'd actually argue that the question they asked is better, if you're looking for a sort of a quarks & gluons type analysis. but, just dumping it into the other "leaning" type polls without accounting for it being a fundamentally different type of poll is bad methodology and it's going to inaccurately skew the results of the aggregate. the way he does this is in such a way that it fades out over time, so it will go away. but, he shouldn't repeat that error.
the nanos polling i've seen has put the conservatives in the 30-32% range - which is probably about right. a citation would be useful. it might be the same issue.
to be concrete...
the mainstreet poll reported:
cons: 38%
ndp: 27%
libs: 25%
grn: 6%
bloc: 4%.
...of the 80% of people that were decided.
the actual results were approximately:
cons: 30.4%
ndp: 21.6%
undecided: 20%
libs: 20%
grn: 4.8%
bloc: 3.2%
...based on napkin math that assume the whole number results that they reported.
generally, a statistician would want to distribute that 20% relatively evenly. but, we have plenty of polling on the topic, and we know that we can't do that - you couldn't reasonably give the conservatives more than a percent or two of it.
again: this is probably the most accurate poll because it measured undecideds rather than forcing them to pick an option they're not really decided on. i actually agree with that. it just wasn't reported well. and grenier is making an error with it that he really shouldn't be making.
i'm actually a good example of the results of the poll. if you forced me to pick, i'd pick the ndp. but, it's not really an accurate reflection - the truth is i'm not decided and could vote liberal in the end, if they make an effort to stop pushing fiscal conservatism and come out against the tpp. that would inflate the ndp's numbers a little at the expense of the liberals. i think that's what we're seeing - people on the left swing are leaning ndp, but we're just a tad uncomfortable about diving in for whatever reason.
if the ndp can get 12-15% of that, they win a majority. if it splits evenly, it's another four years of harper. and that's going to be his strategy for the election.
at
01:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
it's hard to have a really informed position on a trade deal that is being conducted in secret.
but, for what reason do we want to send milk around the pacific rim? there's no comparative or absolute advantage in one region producing more milk. it's not climate or even labour-related. it's a perishable item. there's a large carbon cost involved, which is no doubt being entirely ignored. and, the rumour floating around is that the primary issue is not related to allowing countries to export surpluses into countries with deficits [if such a thing is even demonstrable], but dealing with countries with surpluses flooding other markets with surpluses. maybe a little supply-management might be a better idea, so that resources can be better focused on demand? in helping farmers produce things that aren't milk, if they're overproducing it for domestic consumption and there is no real export market, because almost everybody is self-sufficient in milk?
if there's any kind of advantage, it's to do with things like currency manipulation. do i care? no. do i care about offsetting chinese influence in malaysia? no. but, do i care about knowing that the milk i buy in a store is made not just in canada but in ontario, for health and environmental reasons? absolutely: yes
it's just a ridiculous, absurd regime.
canada can make lots of wheat; malaysia would need to import it, although they'd no doubt prefer rice, but you get the point. malaysia can makes lots of rubber; canada would need to import it. let's trade. great. but there's no coherent reason at all why we should want an open market in perishable items that can be produced sufficiently at home - and are better produced at home for a variety of reasons.
another example...
i live in windsor. it's one of the biggest tomato-producing regions in the world. there should be massive surpluses of tomatoes right now, because they closed the heinz factory. but, the market is being flooded with beat to shit, mouldy, bruised tomatoes from mexico that have sat on a truck for a week before they get here. and, i'm not saving money by being stuck with this inferior product, either - the local tomatoes [when you can find them] are actually cheaper, in addition to not being mouldy, bruised and beaten to shit from sitting in a truck for a week.
this is not rational, ricardan equivalence type free trade. it's dictated by the difference in value between the mexican and canadian currencies.
it's not absurd to expect to be able to walk to the store and buy nice, fresh tomatoes that are grown down the road, instead of mouldy, bruised beat to shit ones from thousands of km away. nor is it unreasonable to expect policy that doesn't make that so difficult.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trans-pacific-partnership-talks-key-issues-preventing-a-deal-1.3176649
RustBeltON
Yes, Canada has been doing just fine in the past, for example, when under the late great Trudeau (Senior), "nobody" in the our western would would trade with Cuba. But Trideau did successfully, Canadian Wheat, for Cuban raw Sugar. AND, sugar was very cheap back then. It's was a win-win for us both.
Yep, Southern Ontario, (Leamington, Essex, Niagara,...) is the Fruit and Vegetable Capital of Canada, and yet many (S. Ontarian) Canadians are forced(albeit economically and Corporatively), to eat the crap from Mexico, ..., meanwhile Corps like Loblaws,..., who by it for only pennies on the pound, then CHARGE/gouge Canadian Consumers slightly less than Leamington prices. AND, Loblaws,..., doesn't really give consumers much of a choice 'cause they stick it right in our face on all the produce shelves.
It's disgusting.
...and. more importantly, back then we sure as heck didn't need no ($120 Million-per-year LOSS called)-NAFTA for all of our International trading.
Jessica Murray
my experience has been that the produce from mexico is generally considerably more expensive than the produce from leamington, but it's a variable thing, partly offset by where you can buy it. if you want local produce here, you have to find a farmer's market type store, and they're generally a little less across the board. but, local tomatoes at the local market are *consistently* about 30% less than imported tomatoes at the grocery store.
as mentioned - the local tomatoes are fresh, clean and grown with standards that we can see from experience are not followed in mexico. there was recently a case of mexican cilantro being swamped with fecal matter, and when they inspected the manufacturing sites they found there was no washroom - and there was actually used toilet paper on the ground of the production facility. you couldn't make that up. it defies fiction. but, it was true.
the mexican tomatoes are bruised, growing strange things on them and grown under who knows what kind of conditions.
consumers should pick the local product, in theory - it's better and cheaper. but we're not really given a chance because the stores won't carry them. you have to go out of your way to find the stuff, and most people just won't do it. then, we call this reality "free trade".
it's a farce.
but, for what reason do we want to send milk around the pacific rim? there's no comparative or absolute advantage in one region producing more milk. it's not climate or even labour-related. it's a perishable item. there's a large carbon cost involved, which is no doubt being entirely ignored. and, the rumour floating around is that the primary issue is not related to allowing countries to export surpluses into countries with deficits [if such a thing is even demonstrable], but dealing with countries with surpluses flooding other markets with surpluses. maybe a little supply-management might be a better idea, so that resources can be better focused on demand? in helping farmers produce things that aren't milk, if they're overproducing it for domestic consumption and there is no real export market, because almost everybody is self-sufficient in milk?
if there's any kind of advantage, it's to do with things like currency manipulation. do i care? no. do i care about offsetting chinese influence in malaysia? no. but, do i care about knowing that the milk i buy in a store is made not just in canada but in ontario, for health and environmental reasons? absolutely: yes
it's just a ridiculous, absurd regime.
canada can make lots of wheat; malaysia would need to import it, although they'd no doubt prefer rice, but you get the point. malaysia can makes lots of rubber; canada would need to import it. let's trade. great. but there's no coherent reason at all why we should want an open market in perishable items that can be produced sufficiently at home - and are better produced at home for a variety of reasons.
another example...
i live in windsor. it's one of the biggest tomato-producing regions in the world. there should be massive surpluses of tomatoes right now, because they closed the heinz factory. but, the market is being flooded with beat to shit, mouldy, bruised tomatoes from mexico that have sat on a truck for a week before they get here. and, i'm not saving money by being stuck with this inferior product, either - the local tomatoes [when you can find them] are actually cheaper, in addition to not being mouldy, bruised and beaten to shit from sitting in a truck for a week.
this is not rational, ricardan equivalence type free trade. it's dictated by the difference in value between the mexican and canadian currencies.
it's not absurd to expect to be able to walk to the store and buy nice, fresh tomatoes that are grown down the road, instead of mouldy, bruised beat to shit ones from thousands of km away. nor is it unreasonable to expect policy that doesn't make that so difficult.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trans-pacific-partnership-talks-key-issues-preventing-a-deal-1.3176649
RustBeltON
Yes, Canada has been doing just fine in the past, for example, when under the late great Trudeau (Senior), "nobody" in the our western would would trade with Cuba. But Trideau did successfully, Canadian Wheat, for Cuban raw Sugar. AND, sugar was very cheap back then. It's was a win-win for us both.
Yep, Southern Ontario, (Leamington, Essex, Niagara,...) is the Fruit and Vegetable Capital of Canada, and yet many (S. Ontarian) Canadians are forced(albeit economically and Corporatively), to eat the crap from Mexico, ..., meanwhile Corps like Loblaws,..., who by it for only pennies on the pound, then CHARGE/gouge Canadian Consumers slightly less than Leamington prices. AND, Loblaws,..., doesn't really give consumers much of a choice 'cause they stick it right in our face on all the produce shelves.
It's disgusting.
...and. more importantly, back then we sure as heck didn't need no ($120 Million-per-year LOSS called)-NAFTA for all of our International trading.
Jessica Murray
my experience has been that the produce from mexico is generally considerably more expensive than the produce from leamington, but it's a variable thing, partly offset by where you can buy it. if you want local produce here, you have to find a farmer's market type store, and they're generally a little less across the board. but, local tomatoes at the local market are *consistently* about 30% less than imported tomatoes at the grocery store.
as mentioned - the local tomatoes are fresh, clean and grown with standards that we can see from experience are not followed in mexico. there was recently a case of mexican cilantro being swamped with fecal matter, and when they inspected the manufacturing sites they found there was no washroom - and there was actually used toilet paper on the ground of the production facility. you couldn't make that up. it defies fiction. but, it was true.
the mexican tomatoes are bruised, growing strange things on them and grown under who knows what kind of conditions.
consumers should pick the local product, in theory - it's better and cheaper. but we're not really given a chance because the stores won't carry them. you have to go out of your way to find the stuff, and most people just won't do it. then, we call this reality "free trade".
it's a farce.
at
01:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i hope the next government nationalizes it and sends the saudis a soiled diaper as compensation.
that'll make these groups think very hard about "investing in canada" should another neo-liberal government take power.
gotta be careful, though. they might send isis after us.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/ottawa-closes-sale-of-canadian-wheat-board-name-changes-to-g3-canada-ltd-1.3175983
that'll make these groups think very hard about "investing in canada" should another neo-liberal government take power.
gotta be careful, though. they might send isis after us.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/ottawa-closes-sale-of-canadian-wheat-board-name-changes-to-g3-canada-ltd-1.3175983
at
00:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Friday, July 31, 2015
the outcome of a debate like that would likely be to split the vote up further, because there's not really a clear dividing line between the ndp and the liberals. i prefer the ndp on economic issues and the liberals on issues of governance, and haven't made a real choice yet (although i'm leaning ndp). it'd be nice if mulcair could take a stronger stand on marijuana legalization. a lot of people will say the opposite, or pick other single issues. that kind of jumbled up reality on the issues is the primary problem facing the anti-harper vote. it's less that all these parties are presenting the same thing, and more that they're all segmented up into this confused stew, where the electorate is picking and choosing in this kind of piece-meal fashion.
so, there is an easily understandable tactical basis for this decision.
the flip side is that it's going to alienate a lot of people. we'll have to see how that works out - but we'll never know whether the hit he takes for it is greater or lesser than the hit he doesn't take for it.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ndp-threatens-to-pull-out-of-broadcasters-debates-1.3175720
lady goodiva@Jessica Murray
Anyone who is leaning NDP should think long and hard about what Mulcair is doing by threatening to withdraw from these debates. He once said he would debate "anywhere, anytime." Was he lying then or is he lying now? Mulcair has either fallen into Harper's trap or the polls have gone to his head and he thinks he's PM already and can use Harper-style bullying tactics to get his way. Do your really want a PM who is just the opposite side of the Harper coin?
Jessica Murray@lady goodiva
no. i think he's trying to avoid splitting the vote. his condition is if harper shows up, and i'll take his word at that. it's not beneficial to progressive forces for us to tear each other up over specifics while harper stays at home and laughs.
harper's decision to pull out is a divide and conquer strategy. mulcair's decision to pull out is an attempt to prevent the damage of such a strategy.
as mentioned, it's going to piss some people off. might even backfire. we'll have to see.
so, there is an easily understandable tactical basis for this decision.
the flip side is that it's going to alienate a lot of people. we'll have to see how that works out - but we'll never know whether the hit he takes for it is greater or lesser than the hit he doesn't take for it.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ndp-threatens-to-pull-out-of-broadcasters-debates-1.3175720
lady goodiva@Jessica Murray
Anyone who is leaning NDP should think long and hard about what Mulcair is doing by threatening to withdraw from these debates. He once said he would debate "anywhere, anytime." Was he lying then or is he lying now? Mulcair has either fallen into Harper's trap or the polls have gone to his head and he thinks he's PM already and can use Harper-style bullying tactics to get his way. Do your really want a PM who is just the opposite side of the Harper coin?
Jessica Murray@lady goodiva
no. i think he's trying to avoid splitting the vote. his condition is if harper shows up, and i'll take his word at that. it's not beneficial to progressive forces for us to tear each other up over specifics while harper stays at home and laughs.
harper's decision to pull out is a divide and conquer strategy. mulcair's decision to pull out is an attempt to prevent the damage of such a strategy.
as mentioned, it's going to piss some people off. might even backfire. we'll have to see.
at
23:36
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
but, this doesn't make sense.
there are no spending limits before the election is called. if the conservatives have such an advantage, they ought to wait as long as possible to prevent the spending limits from kicking in. further, the other parties are more reliant on public spending. waiting as long as possible would starve them of funds.
but, if i was a liberal, i'd be pushing for the campaign to start as soon as possible to open up those public funds and put limits on what the conservatives can do. i'm calling shenanigans on this.
however, if this is more than a media circus and there is truth to the idea [i remain skeptical] then it indicates some desperation by the conservatives. if they saw themselves in a strong position, they would wait for the reasons i just stated.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-says-stephen-harper-changing-the-rules-to-hold-power-1.3175482
enrgyblogwalter@Jessica Murray
they want to stop PAC spending which is legal before the election at any amount but restricted when the writ is dropped. By forcing the parties to spend on ads it means the Connies hold the media advantage and will milk it
Jessica Murray@enrgyblogwalter
you don't think the conservatives have the corporate pac advantage over anything the ndp can squirm together with union funds?
harper has a history of kneejerk, irrational reactions. i've argued strenuously that you can't really analyze his actions through strict adherence to rational thinking. in that sense, it's sort of characteristic - but only if he sees himself in serious trouble.
NanaimoGuy@Jessica Murray
What the Conservatives care about is how much they can spend on TV ads in the last few days before election day. If the campaign in longer they have a higher limit on total spending. They are allowed under their new law to spend it at any time during the campaign. That includes the final week.
Jessica Murray@NanaimoGuy
that's still not really adding up, because the limits are the same across the parties once the election starts. the longer the conservatives have to save for ads, the longer the other parties have to save for ads.
the only actual advantage the conservatives can have in terms of funding is pre-election.
the bottom line is that the spending limits are the same for each party once the election starts. i suppose a fiscal conservative might naively think that their fundraising capacity is an advantage, but that's ignoring the ability of the other parties to borrow money. and, if you're specifically talking about an advertising blitz at the end of the election? the ndp is going to borrow until it's swimming. this might be the first, best, last chance it has at forming government. it's not going to blow that opportunity to balance it's budget.
so, there's not an actual advantage to the conservatives in doing this. they absolutely have an advantage in fundraising capacity, but if they're going to spread it out evenly then they're better off not capping themselves until the the end. and, if they're trying to blitz, well...that's the error of conservative "logic" acting against itself.
again: i think that if there's any truth to this, and i remain skeptical, then what they're trying to do is force the narrative into a campaign mode. harper tends to do a little better when dealing with concrete proposals than he does when dealing with abstract philosophical positions. the one policy advantage that the conservatives are going to have in this election is that their policies are clear and already written. but, if that's true then it's a trade-off: it's actually forfeiting their financial advantage (relatively more so than absolutely) in order to sharpen the message. and, it demonstrates a little bit of desperation
---
Chris.S.PEI
Justin is absolutely right whether or not you support the LPC.
In a time of economic recession and budget deficit Harper has chosen to spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to benefit himself. Harper, only in it for himself.
Jessica Murray@Chris.S.PEI
see, this is a really head-scratching thing to say and it's indicative of the amount of confusion that exists in canadian politics right now. with all due respect, your sloganeering suggests you're not really a real person. i apologize if i'm being presumptuous, but real people don't tend to walk around spouting catch phrases.
harper comes from a sort of anti-intellectual school of economics that has never been very mainstream in an academic sense but managed to build a considerable amount of political support in the 80s and 90s. he would agree that it's a bad idea to spend money in a recession. unfortunately, since the 90s, a lot of liberals would also agree with him. which is why i'm leaning towards the idea that you work for the liberal party.
but, generally, economists would argue that you want to spend money in a recession. this comes out of the understanding that recessions are largely created due to a lack of money circulating in the economy, and the government being the only way to get it going in a recession [because the recession hurts demand, acting as a disincentive for private sector spending]. even harper would agree that recessions are solved by incentivizing spending, he just argues that a better way to get people to spend more is through tax cuts to corporations. this is that anti-intellectual school of economics, which has no empirical support and doesn't even make any sense when you sit down and work it out logically. tax cuts on the supply side don't incentivize spending. tax cuts to consumers may help a little, but it's the kind of thing you do in a structurally healthy economy - not one ravaged by job losses from free trade and mired in personal debt. serious recessions require government spending, which necessarily means you have to go into deficit. this isn't a negative thing. although increasing corporate tax rates would be a good start to balancing the situation a little, and increasing revenue when the situation picks up.
it's a sort of a rabbit hole situation, because liberals used to understand this and built policies around it. but, all of the evidence seems to be that they don't understand this anymore, and have drunk the anti-intellectual kool-aid that argues against deficits in recessions. and, it's not a coincidence that they're seeing this huge collapse in support amongst educated voters, who understand the economics of the situation well enough to realize that they're pushing the same broken neo-liberal economic model that the conservatives are.
liberal party voters have traditionally supported deficit spending. and, if the liberal party no longer does, then they're going to switch to a party that does.
there are no spending limits before the election is called. if the conservatives have such an advantage, they ought to wait as long as possible to prevent the spending limits from kicking in. further, the other parties are more reliant on public spending. waiting as long as possible would starve them of funds.
but, if i was a liberal, i'd be pushing for the campaign to start as soon as possible to open up those public funds and put limits on what the conservatives can do. i'm calling shenanigans on this.
however, if this is more than a media circus and there is truth to the idea [i remain skeptical] then it indicates some desperation by the conservatives. if they saw themselves in a strong position, they would wait for the reasons i just stated.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-says-stephen-harper-changing-the-rules-to-hold-power-1.3175482
enrgyblogwalter@Jessica Murray
they want to stop PAC spending which is legal before the election at any amount but restricted when the writ is dropped. By forcing the parties to spend on ads it means the Connies hold the media advantage and will milk it
Jessica Murray@enrgyblogwalter
you don't think the conservatives have the corporate pac advantage over anything the ndp can squirm together with union funds?
harper has a history of kneejerk, irrational reactions. i've argued strenuously that you can't really analyze his actions through strict adherence to rational thinking. in that sense, it's sort of characteristic - but only if he sees himself in serious trouble.
NanaimoGuy@Jessica Murray
What the Conservatives care about is how much they can spend on TV ads in the last few days before election day. If the campaign in longer they have a higher limit on total spending. They are allowed under their new law to spend it at any time during the campaign. That includes the final week.
Jessica Murray@NanaimoGuy
that's still not really adding up, because the limits are the same across the parties once the election starts. the longer the conservatives have to save for ads, the longer the other parties have to save for ads.
the only actual advantage the conservatives can have in terms of funding is pre-election.
the bottom line is that the spending limits are the same for each party once the election starts. i suppose a fiscal conservative might naively think that their fundraising capacity is an advantage, but that's ignoring the ability of the other parties to borrow money. and, if you're specifically talking about an advertising blitz at the end of the election? the ndp is going to borrow until it's swimming. this might be the first, best, last chance it has at forming government. it's not going to blow that opportunity to balance it's budget.
so, there's not an actual advantage to the conservatives in doing this. they absolutely have an advantage in fundraising capacity, but if they're going to spread it out evenly then they're better off not capping themselves until the the end. and, if they're trying to blitz, well...that's the error of conservative "logic" acting against itself.
again: i think that if there's any truth to this, and i remain skeptical, then what they're trying to do is force the narrative into a campaign mode. harper tends to do a little better when dealing with concrete proposals than he does when dealing with abstract philosophical positions. the one policy advantage that the conservatives are going to have in this election is that their policies are clear and already written. but, if that's true then it's a trade-off: it's actually forfeiting their financial advantage (relatively more so than absolutely) in order to sharpen the message. and, it demonstrates a little bit of desperation
---
Chris.S.PEI
Justin is absolutely right whether or not you support the LPC.
In a time of economic recession and budget deficit Harper has chosen to spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to benefit himself. Harper, only in it for himself.
Jessica Murray@Chris.S.PEI
see, this is a really head-scratching thing to say and it's indicative of the amount of confusion that exists in canadian politics right now. with all due respect, your sloganeering suggests you're not really a real person. i apologize if i'm being presumptuous, but real people don't tend to walk around spouting catch phrases.
harper comes from a sort of anti-intellectual school of economics that has never been very mainstream in an academic sense but managed to build a considerable amount of political support in the 80s and 90s. he would agree that it's a bad idea to spend money in a recession. unfortunately, since the 90s, a lot of liberals would also agree with him. which is why i'm leaning towards the idea that you work for the liberal party.
but, generally, economists would argue that you want to spend money in a recession. this comes out of the understanding that recessions are largely created due to a lack of money circulating in the economy, and the government being the only way to get it going in a recession [because the recession hurts demand, acting as a disincentive for private sector spending]. even harper would agree that recessions are solved by incentivizing spending, he just argues that a better way to get people to spend more is through tax cuts to corporations. this is that anti-intellectual school of economics, which has no empirical support and doesn't even make any sense when you sit down and work it out logically. tax cuts on the supply side don't incentivize spending. tax cuts to consumers may help a little, but it's the kind of thing you do in a structurally healthy economy - not one ravaged by job losses from free trade and mired in personal debt. serious recessions require government spending, which necessarily means you have to go into deficit. this isn't a negative thing. although increasing corporate tax rates would be a good start to balancing the situation a little, and increasing revenue when the situation picks up.
it's a sort of a rabbit hole situation, because liberals used to understand this and built policies around it. but, all of the evidence seems to be that they don't understand this anymore, and have drunk the anti-intellectual kool-aid that argues against deficits in recessions. and, it's not a coincidence that they're seeing this huge collapse in support amongst educated voters, who understand the economics of the situation well enough to realize that they're pushing the same broken neo-liberal economic model that the conservatives are.
liberal party voters have traditionally supported deficit spending. and, if the liberal party no longer does, then they're going to switch to a party that does.
at
22:25
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this is a man that has drank enough koolaid to piss gaza into the sea.
at
05:47
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm just trying to imagine how this might work.
up here in canada, we have a firearms registry. contrary to popular misconception, guns aren't impossible to buy here - they're just very regulated. what that means is that the cops have a system they can check to see if you have a registered gun.
in fact, they are required to check the system and take special precautions. if the system tells them you have a gun, they have to behave differently. this is particularly useful for things like domestic violence complaints.
drawing a parallel, the tailgate scenario is not a "might create problems" issue, so much as a "will create problems" issue because there will undoubtedly be certain procedures that the police are required to follow should they come into contact with people on this list. and, perhaps, there should be - if the list is reasonably constructed, rather than dragneted.
worse is that any possible positive consequences will be quickly nullified by the system's lack of practical utility. it won't take long for the cops to realize that the list is far too broad to be useful. in some places, that won't matter - because the cops are racist and/or because there are very few minorities. in more liberal areas with more diverse populations - like seattle, say - it will quickly cease to be taken seriously. on the miniscule chance that a cop might actually be dealing with somebody worth detaining, they'll just ignore the database hit as yet another false positive.
i think the answer to this is changing america's foreign policy, but no change in foreign policy is going to completely eliminate the threat of crazy people doing crazy things. and, this is just badly designed as a means to address that.
i should point out that our dipshit conservative ruling party removed this registry a few years ago, but it was a very unpopular move and it should be one of the first things that's reinstated when they lose power.
up here in canada, we have a firearms registry. contrary to popular misconception, guns aren't impossible to buy here - they're just very regulated. what that means is that the cops have a system they can check to see if you have a registered gun.
in fact, they are required to check the system and take special precautions. if the system tells them you have a gun, they have to behave differently. this is particularly useful for things like domestic violence complaints.
drawing a parallel, the tailgate scenario is not a "might create problems" issue, so much as a "will create problems" issue because there will undoubtedly be certain procedures that the police are required to follow should they come into contact with people on this list. and, perhaps, there should be - if the list is reasonably constructed, rather than dragneted.
worse is that any possible positive consequences will be quickly nullified by the system's lack of practical utility. it won't take long for the cops to realize that the list is far too broad to be useful. in some places, that won't matter - because the cops are racist and/or because there are very few minorities. in more liberal areas with more diverse populations - like seattle, say - it will quickly cease to be taken seriously. on the miniscule chance that a cop might actually be dealing with somebody worth detaining, they'll just ignore the database hit as yet another false positive.
i think the answer to this is changing america's foreign policy, but no change in foreign policy is going to completely eliminate the threat of crazy people doing crazy things. and, this is just badly designed as a means to address that.
i should point out that our dipshit conservative ruling party removed this registry a few years ago, but it was a very unpopular move and it should be one of the first things that's reinstated when they lose power.
at
05:37
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
when i was a kid, growing up in the 90s, i remember how netanyahu was widely viewed as a sort of beacon of rationality on the right. i have a specific memory of a botched joke at dinner with an older member of my extended family. the way he told the joke went something like this:
"speaking of israel, netscape and yahoo just announced a merger. anybody want to guess what it's called."
dead air
i replied at the last minute:
"netanyahu. he's the opposition leader in israel."
blank stares across the dinner table, and a little surprise from the jester.
"you know, most adults don't know that."
"i read a lot on the internet."
he was relatively young. he very much presented himself as a free market conservative, stressing open economic relations over military might. almost a ron paul type, really.
how things have changed. a just war. wow.
"speaking of israel, netscape and yahoo just announced a merger. anybody want to guess what it's called."
dead air
i replied at the last minute:
"netanyahu. he's the opposition leader in israel."
blank stares across the dinner table, and a little surprise from the jester.
"you know, most adults don't know that."
"i read a lot on the internet."
he was relatively young. he very much presented himself as a free market conservative, stressing open economic relations over military might. almost a ron paul type, really.
how things have changed. a just war. wow.
at
04:49
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
hunting for sport is barbaric. but, lions are our oldest and most mortal enemies. they're not like cartoons in disney movies; they're worse than terrorists. they're worse than koalas. i don't exactly want to stand up for a hunter on the terms of him being a hunter. but, we ought not shed tears for dead lions. co-existence is really not possible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LzXpE1mjqA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LzXpE1mjqA
at
04:17
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
senate reform.
none of the parties are very good on the issue. i might abstractly agree most with the liberals' position, but i don't see it as a vote changer. recent polling has upheld that this is the case amongst most voters.
our system of government really doesn't have a lot of checks and balances. i'm in favour of structural changes to reduce the power of the prime minister's office, which strikes me as a far more pressing concern than senate reform. if we can do both at once, great. so, in all honesty, i do like the idea of a chamber of "sober second thought".
but, if that was ever an accurate description of the senate, it sure isn't an accurate description of it at any point in my lifetime. there is clearly a need to reform the appointment process so that it can accomplish it's stated purpose. we don't need a house of lords, of course. i'd rather see it work as some kind of an independent, technocratic body that draws primarily from academia and is largely run by the civil service - which might not be what the liberals are actually calling for, but is philosophically very trudeauvian. and, i think, inherent with that, is salary cuts. one of the best ways to prevent it from being a patronage institution is to take the money out of it. this is directly contradictory with liberal capitalist thinking, which is going to push the idea that if you want quality candidates then you need to pay them; that's true sometimes, but in this case it's the opposite - you want candidates that are willing to do the job as a public service because they give a fuck, not in order to get a nice pension. you want to throw people looking for personal gain out of the pool of candidates.
the value of the institution is that it remains unelected - i would certainly oppose an elected senate, as harper is pushing. our separation of powers was constructed to avoid the problems with states rights in the united states, which our framers saw as the cause of the american civil war. and, continuing on with the historical approach of learning from the mistakes made in the american system, i think the gridlock they get down there is reason enough to avoid emulating their system of government. an elected senate would likely grind ottawa to a halt. but, we do need to find ways to restrict the pmo in other ways.
the ndp position is not serious. in a practical sense, the ndp can promise to abolish the senate all they want, although they seem to have retreated from that position. the reality is that they're never going to get the premiers to agree. it's a non-issue in a practical sense. it's consequently not really rational for somebody that leans liberal on the issue to take the position of not voting ndp because they want to abolish the senate, because they're never going to succeed in abolishing the senate. and, you could say the same thing about an elected senate.
we need senate reform. it's just that none of the ideas being floated around are very good - or have any real chance at success.
after all - the whole purpose of bringing the east into confederation with upper and lower canada was to break the gridlock.
none of the parties are very good on the issue. i might abstractly agree most with the liberals' position, but i don't see it as a vote changer. recent polling has upheld that this is the case amongst most voters.
our system of government really doesn't have a lot of checks and balances. i'm in favour of structural changes to reduce the power of the prime minister's office, which strikes me as a far more pressing concern than senate reform. if we can do both at once, great. so, in all honesty, i do like the idea of a chamber of "sober second thought".
but, if that was ever an accurate description of the senate, it sure isn't an accurate description of it at any point in my lifetime. there is clearly a need to reform the appointment process so that it can accomplish it's stated purpose. we don't need a house of lords, of course. i'd rather see it work as some kind of an independent, technocratic body that draws primarily from academia and is largely run by the civil service - which might not be what the liberals are actually calling for, but is philosophically very trudeauvian. and, i think, inherent with that, is salary cuts. one of the best ways to prevent it from being a patronage institution is to take the money out of it. this is directly contradictory with liberal capitalist thinking, which is going to push the idea that if you want quality candidates then you need to pay them; that's true sometimes, but in this case it's the opposite - you want candidates that are willing to do the job as a public service because they give a fuck, not in order to get a nice pension. you want to throw people looking for personal gain out of the pool of candidates.
the value of the institution is that it remains unelected - i would certainly oppose an elected senate, as harper is pushing. our separation of powers was constructed to avoid the problems with states rights in the united states, which our framers saw as the cause of the american civil war. and, continuing on with the historical approach of learning from the mistakes made in the american system, i think the gridlock they get down there is reason enough to avoid emulating their system of government. an elected senate would likely grind ottawa to a halt. but, we do need to find ways to restrict the pmo in other ways.
the ndp position is not serious. in a practical sense, the ndp can promise to abolish the senate all they want, although they seem to have retreated from that position. the reality is that they're never going to get the premiers to agree. it's a non-issue in a practical sense. it's consequently not really rational for somebody that leans liberal on the issue to take the position of not voting ndp because they want to abolish the senate, because they're never going to succeed in abolishing the senate. and, you could say the same thing about an elected senate.
we need senate reform. it's just that none of the ideas being floated around are very good - or have any real chance at success.
after all - the whole purpose of bringing the east into confederation with upper and lower canada was to break the gridlock.
at
03:46
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Thursday, July 30, 2015
because she knows why the establishment hates her [contrary to the popular narrative, her husband did everything he could to stop that, but he got overruled by a senate supermajority] and why she's been challenged so strongly by wall street candidates over the years.
it's just a part of it. they got single-payer out of the way - or so it seems. there's a list of other issues...
it's just a part of it. they got single-payer out of the way - or so it seems. there's a list of other issues...
at
17:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
if you do the research, you find startling connections between the eec and the remnants of post-war fascism. almost as though they saw the german occupation as a kind of pax germanica.
i've entertained notions that this is by design, but it doesn't seem to add up. the right-wing block actually seems to have strangely close ties to russia. that's inconsistent with this idea. the destabilization seems real, and the russians are helping with it.
if there's a parallel, it's closer to a replay of the german occupation of greece. same kind of looting. but it's ultimately failed neo-liberalism. forget about the outcomes of austerity being predictable. this was predictable from the establishment of the euro - or at least was to people who hadn't drunk the kool-aid. and, i think a lot of people legitimately drank from that chalice, and expected this experiment in the gold standard to have a different result.
that said, i'd remind people that europe had repeated opportunities to accept a political union, which was a necessary corollary to the establishment of the euro, and that a political union could have prevented this. the greeks ratified this. it's not their fault. but bankers are assholes. and, i'm not willing to rule out the idea that the elite may have decided to unite the continent by force as a consequence of it's refusal to rubber stamp their initiatives.
i've entertained notions that this is by design, but it doesn't seem to add up. the right-wing block actually seems to have strangely close ties to russia. that's inconsistent with this idea. the destabilization seems real, and the russians are helping with it.
if there's a parallel, it's closer to a replay of the german occupation of greece. same kind of looting. but it's ultimately failed neo-liberalism. forget about the outcomes of austerity being predictable. this was predictable from the establishment of the euro - or at least was to people who hadn't drunk the kool-aid. and, i think a lot of people legitimately drank from that chalice, and expected this experiment in the gold standard to have a different result.
that said, i'd remind people that europe had repeated opportunities to accept a political union, which was a necessary corollary to the establishment of the euro, and that a political union could have prevented this. the greeks ratified this. it's not their fault. but bankers are assholes. and, i'm not willing to rule out the idea that the elite may have decided to unite the continent by force as a consequence of it's refusal to rubber stamp their initiatives.
at
16:47
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
see, this idea that there was no space or light or time and there was this spontaneous explosion that created everything out of nothing...this is as ridiculous as any religious thinking. it's just religion with more math. that needs to be explained before you can take the idea seriously.
i do think that you should take the idea seriously. i just think it's painfully incomplete, and we're deluding ourselves if we don't shift our thinking about it.
i think we need a philosophical shift in approach to a complex cosmos that is interrelated and consequently a universe that has multiple complex causes, rather than a closed universe with a single cause. it's a reclamation of naturalistic thinking away from religious thinking.
you don't need a lot of math to get your head around it, just an intuitive conception of probability. i think this change in approach is the solution to a long list of issues that have no apparent explanation in the context of a universe with a single cause.
i don't like the process of mathematically creating dimensions on a whim - there's no real reason for this. it's magical thinking. but, i think that the theoretical conclusions that m-theory have come to are the only really rational approach to this, and will no doubt eventually be arrived at through some other means. what this theory suggests is that the big bang was the result of an outside explosion - that there is energy and time outside the universe, although it might not exactly be comprehensible in the way that we understand it inside the universe. further, these explosions happen all the time. it removes the mystery from some kind of singularity, and suggests our universe is really nothing remarkable.
i can't take the idea that there are infinitely many universes seriously. but, the number may be unfathomably large. then, we don't need ideas like the universe "creating space". it would simply be expanding into space that already exists. we don't need an irrational universe that spontaneously combusts out of nothing. it would be the rational consequence of events outside of it. further, it opens up a number of questions as to how our universe might interact with other ones. for example, we can't explain why we have more matter than anti-matter; the big bang theory actually cannot explain why we exist. but, if we acknowledge that matter (and anti-matter) may possibly shift between universes, then we can maybe understand why there's an imbalance. that's not a proof. it's not even a hypothesis. but, it's an idea that is currently not acknowledged, and it's that lack of acknowledgement that is untenable. for, if there are multiple universes then they must interact in some manner or other. and it follows that our universe would not exist in a vacuum. and, if the universe does not exist in a vacuum, then this approach of explaining it with a single cause is hopeless - because it is wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKBkyN5os9s
think of it like this: imagine trying to explain the history of the earth with no understanding of things that happen outside of it. no concept of gravity, or comets, or any of the other things floating around out there. we don't have to speculate: we can look at history. and, we can see that the theories were limited by a lack of knowledge of how forces outside the earth effect what happens on the earth.
it could be centuries or millenia before we're able to grasp what is outside the universe. but, if we're to be serious in our theories, we have an obligation to recognize that our ability to understand the universe is drastically limited by our conception of it as a closed system. we may have little choice but to asterisk things for future research at some undisclosed point in the distant future. but, we should be thinking it through carefully and pointing out where outside forces may have a possible influence.
future generations may very well look back and laugh at us for believing the universe is flat, while historians argue that it's a myth, based on the writings of ancient relativistic philosophers.
i do think that you should take the idea seriously. i just think it's painfully incomplete, and we're deluding ourselves if we don't shift our thinking about it.
i think we need a philosophical shift in approach to a complex cosmos that is interrelated and consequently a universe that has multiple complex causes, rather than a closed universe with a single cause. it's a reclamation of naturalistic thinking away from religious thinking.
you don't need a lot of math to get your head around it, just an intuitive conception of probability. i think this change in approach is the solution to a long list of issues that have no apparent explanation in the context of a universe with a single cause.
i don't like the process of mathematically creating dimensions on a whim - there's no real reason for this. it's magical thinking. but, i think that the theoretical conclusions that m-theory have come to are the only really rational approach to this, and will no doubt eventually be arrived at through some other means. what this theory suggests is that the big bang was the result of an outside explosion - that there is energy and time outside the universe, although it might not exactly be comprehensible in the way that we understand it inside the universe. further, these explosions happen all the time. it removes the mystery from some kind of singularity, and suggests our universe is really nothing remarkable.
i can't take the idea that there are infinitely many universes seriously. but, the number may be unfathomably large. then, we don't need ideas like the universe "creating space". it would simply be expanding into space that already exists. we don't need an irrational universe that spontaneously combusts out of nothing. it would be the rational consequence of events outside of it. further, it opens up a number of questions as to how our universe might interact with other ones. for example, we can't explain why we have more matter than anti-matter; the big bang theory actually cannot explain why we exist. but, if we acknowledge that matter (and anti-matter) may possibly shift between universes, then we can maybe understand why there's an imbalance. that's not a proof. it's not even a hypothesis. but, it's an idea that is currently not acknowledged, and it's that lack of acknowledgement that is untenable. for, if there are multiple universes then they must interact in some manner or other. and it follows that our universe would not exist in a vacuum. and, if the universe does not exist in a vacuum, then this approach of explaining it with a single cause is hopeless - because it is wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKBkyN5os9s
think of it like this: imagine trying to explain the history of the earth with no understanding of things that happen outside of it. no concept of gravity, or comets, or any of the other things floating around out there. we don't have to speculate: we can look at history. and, we can see that the theories were limited by a lack of knowledge of how forces outside the earth effect what happens on the earth.
it could be centuries or millenia before we're able to grasp what is outside the universe. but, if we're to be serious in our theories, we have an obligation to recognize that our ability to understand the universe is drastically limited by our conception of it as a closed system. we may have little choice but to asterisk things for future research at some undisclosed point in the distant future. but, we should be thinking it through carefully and pointing out where outside forces may have a possible influence.
future generations may very well look back and laugh at us for believing the universe is flat, while historians argue that it's a myth, based on the writings of ancient relativistic philosophers.
at
15:57
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
see, you're defeating your own relevancy by confusing the issue. instead of this being an anti-trafficking issue, like it ought to be, and which would generate you cross-spectrum support, you're trying to turn it into an anti-abortion issue. and, that's going to get you ignored in the wider context.
it's quite unfortunate, because there's a rather serious concern, here - one that really needs to be addressed.
it's quite unfortunate, because there's a rather serious concern, here - one that really needs to be addressed.
at
14:12
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
"Kerry cautioned against viewing the matter through the lens of just the US"
that's why the coverage of this is so awful. for years, it's been viewed as the hegemonic americans enforcing their will on the insolent iranians. in fact, for at least five years now, it's been a struggle between russia and america for influence over iran. nobody realizes this.
when the americans push down these brutal sanctions, what it does is create incentives to integrate further with the russians. what it's done is put the americans in a position where they've had to play catch up.
it's true that the negotiating approach was terrible and backfired badly. but, it's because it was tyrannical and oppressive, not because it was too lax.
the russians have walked out of this with all the actual control in terms of the actual material. iran is leaning towards integration into the shanghai co-operation organization, which is functionally a russian-chinese defense pact against american aggression in asia. an alliance like that takes them out of the list of countries that the americans can bomb without consequence. and, that is why the americans are pulling back - iran has squirmed out of this, with russian help.
russian help that is a direct consequence of american sanctions over ukraine.
by Guy Taylor - The Washington Times - Monday, April 13, 2015
Russia on Monday gave the green light to a long-stalled $800 million deal to deliver an advanced anti-missile rocket system to Iran, bringing sharp criticism from the White House and Israel and new political peril for President Obama’s prospective nuclear deal with Tehran.
Iran has pushed since 2007 to purchase the S-300 system from Russia — hardware that analysts say will dramatically increase Iran’s ability to defend itself from airstrikes, including a strike on its nuclear facilities from either the U.S. or Israel should international negotiations break down.
that's why the coverage of this is so awful. for years, it's been viewed as the hegemonic americans enforcing their will on the insolent iranians. in fact, for at least five years now, it's been a struggle between russia and america for influence over iran. nobody realizes this.
when the americans push down these brutal sanctions, what it does is create incentives to integrate further with the russians. what it's done is put the americans in a position where they've had to play catch up.
it's true that the negotiating approach was terrible and backfired badly. but, it's because it was tyrannical and oppressive, not because it was too lax.
the russians have walked out of this with all the actual control in terms of the actual material. iran is leaning towards integration into the shanghai co-operation organization, which is functionally a russian-chinese defense pact against american aggression in asia. an alliance like that takes them out of the list of countries that the americans can bomb without consequence. and, that is why the americans are pulling back - iran has squirmed out of this, with russian help.
russian help that is a direct consequence of american sanctions over ukraine.
by Guy Taylor - The Washington Times - Monday, April 13, 2015
Russia on Monday gave the green light to a long-stalled $800 million deal to deliver an advanced anti-missile rocket system to Iran, bringing sharp criticism from the White House and Israel and new political peril for President Obama’s prospective nuclear deal with Tehran.
Iran has pushed since 2007 to purchase the S-300 system from Russia — hardware that analysts say will dramatically increase Iran’s ability to defend itself from airstrikes, including a strike on its nuclear facilities from either the U.S. or Israel should international negotiations break down.
at
13:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
guys...
it's just a question of being less direct. the truth is that couples really do meet each other on the bus, or in the grocery store, or in random places. but, it helps to break the ice in less forward ways. there's nothing wrong with being friendly. and, there's really no reason to question whether it's true that that strip club was hiring.
it's less that these are hits. it's more that they're really bad hits.
it's more like that these guys need to really up their game.
it's just a question of being less direct. the truth is that couples really do meet each other on the bus, or in the grocery store, or in random places. but, it helps to break the ice in less forward ways. there's nothing wrong with being friendly. and, there's really no reason to question whether it's true that that strip club was hiring.
it's less that these are hits. it's more that they're really bad hits.
it's more like that these guys need to really up their game.
at
12:59
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
see, this is the kind of thing that you simply don't get from corporate media due to a combination of manipulation and arrogance - but that the internet has made widely available to pretty much everybody. and, it's pretty devastating. not just for harper, but for his entire mode of economic thinking and anybody else willing to play in that sandbox. even ten years ago, you'd have to go to the library to get this, or sort for it through obscure blogs that you're only going to get to via insider link trading. so, there's really no mystery in the electorate's - and specifically educated electorate's - sudden rejection of neoliberalism and embrace of the economic left. it's just a question of being informed, in a new reality where being informed is much easier than it used to be.
rabble.ca/columnists/2015/07/worst-canadas-economy-under-harper-government
rabble.ca/columnists/2015/07/worst-canadas-economy-under-harper-government
at
00:38
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)