i'll answer her question.

it's because you run your society like a dark age fiefdom. half the country believes in noah's ark, and you can't even get decent health care.

the reality is that america is attracting the immigrants that it makes sense for it to attract given it's economic system. if you want to run a third world economy and a third world social system, you'll get third world immigrants. if you want the best immigrants, you want to study a country like sweden.

to put it another way...

the reason you can't attract quality immigrants is due to the nature of the society, as it was built by very stupid protestant white people.

have they ever broken 4/4 even once in their entire career?

Astreim
+deathtokoalas The messenger 2012 is close, but it's technically 4/4 I believe

deathtokoala
+Astreim i remember reading quotes from trent reznor about how funny it was watching people try to dance to march of the pigs (which is mostly in 7/8).

i understand why they stick to the steady beat. this is club music. it's just that it could be more than club music, too - if they took that extra step that they seem to be afraid of taking, or perhaps never really contemplated.

it's not just the timing. it's a lot of recycled ideas, a lot of cliches. i was just zeroing in on that because it's so obvious. and, they could still reach their potential if they approach it a little differently...

....but i get that that isn't what they're about, too.

it's somewhat of a tiring - and tired - formula and they stick precisely to the script of it. i suppose that if all you want is for somebody to do the math in front of you, it's going to do the job: right guitar tone, right drum patterns, right intervals, right vocal melodies. everything done right should make people happy. right?

they shouldn't listen to me. i'm not their fan base. but, what i'd need out of this is for them to mix it up a little bit, to breathe a bit of life into it - to take a chance in opening it up. it doesn't have to be dramatic; it doesn't necessarily have to be a breakdown into a polka or something. nor am i dissenting on the repetition, exactly. it's just that a little variation in songwriting tactics is something that is really necessary to avoid a crippling onset of monotony.

as it is, i've heard this before - and i've heard it done better, before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqEQiRZ0shs

i have to wonder if the reason people are having difficulty sleeping is that they've been told to turn the heat down at night to save energy costs. i mean, generally humans react to cold by waking up and react to warm by getting drowsy. if you want a good night's sleep, turn the heat up!

to be clear: because heat makes us tired and cold keeps us awake, the way to set your thermostat properly is to turn it up before you get to bed and turn it down when you wake up (and put on a sweater, if you're cold). that's the opposite of what most people do, because they're confused about how their bodies react to temperature. at least in ontario, that should also give you greater savings because the rates are set to be cheaper over night.

www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/heres-how-to-get-a-perfect-nights-sleep-this-winter/59418?intcmp=twn_promo_news1

Alice Ho
Our core body temperature drops during sleep. So in actual fact, a too-warm bedroom will end up causing sleep disturbance (as anyone trying to sleep on a hot summer's night knows). Sleep experts suggest a slightly cool temperature is the best for sleep. Taking a warm bath before sleeping is helpful (not because it warms the body but) because the skin capillaries vasodilate to allow the body to cool down as you are trying to fall asleep.

jessica murray
see, this is comical. if your body temperature drops during sleep, it stands to reason that you should turn the heat up to compensate, right? i can only speak for myself, but i sleep best in the summer [i'll stick with a blanket in 40 degree humidity, then sweat all night - and those are the best sleeps!]. it's those cold nights that keep me up staring at the ceiling, feeling like i should be doing something else...

from a biological perspective, you want to keep the heat up. the pop science is confused.

07-11-2015: lost day

05/06-11-2015: pinkish black

concert footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R76rg9Vd0ko

review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2015/11/06.html

well, he's certainly toned down the complexity.

that's a shame.

Jack Rae
This is good and all but why does it sound like it's being played through a phone speaker?

deathtokoalas
90% of the people that listen to it will, in fact, listen to it through a phone speaker. i was waiting for the "mixing for phone speaker" movement. seems to be upon us.

06-11-2015: pinkish black - i'm all gone (detroit/ferndale)

their music:
https://pinkishblack.bandcamp.com

vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=836P_yWZRCM

review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2015/11/06.html

listen. it's not hard to understand.

the policy is to take money out of the banks of the obnoxiously rich (where it's a useless dead weight) and give it to people who will spend it.

it's not designed to increase revenue; it's designed to be revenue neutral. it's not designed to address inequality; it's actually designed to increase it. it's simply designed to give people money to spend, and targeted towards the people most likely to spend it.

that is all.

will it create jobs, though?

probably not.

it probably would if we had tariffs to protect local production.

ipolitics.ca/2015/11/06/will-the-liberals-tax-plan-kick-start-the-economy/

the flat truth of it is that it's not healthy. the primary reason is iron - but not the availability of it, so much as the way our bodies have evolved to absorb it. you'll have to take b12 pills for the rest of your life, but it's doable. the iron, though, is unavoidable.

there are cosmetic issues as well. vegans tend to age faster; they end up with droopy skin. they look like smokers. i don't get the impression that this is important to you.

but, the iron thing is important. we're evolved to get our iron from animals. that's just how it is. but, i'll explain a few points...

vegans will counter that we're evolved to be vegetarians by citing things like our teeth. see, it's not that they're wrong, it's that they're missing the bigger picture. we do have flat teeth. and it is probably because, back when we lived in trees, we mostly ate leaves. but, we haven't lived in trees for a few million years now. so, why don't we have pointy teeth, then? the reason is that we didn't need pointy teeth because we built spears. pointy teeth are an adaptation for hunting - they kill things quickly, they stop prey from getting away - rather than an adaptation to eat faster. because our period of meat eating happened in conjunction with our development of hunting tools, there simply wasn't any evolutionary pressure on us to get pointy teeth.

but, the last several million years of eating meat has changed us in other ways. the chemical pathways that we use to absorb iron efficiently require catalysts that are only found in animals. so, the fact that nuts have lots of iron doesn't help us because we can't actually absorb very much of it. in order to get as much iron out of nuts, we need to eat huge amounts of them. but, nuts are also high in cholesterol. oops. to get a sufficient amount of iron out of nuts, you're going to have to gain some weight - or spend more time working out, burning the excess fat you're taking in.

well, that's the kind of thing that happens when you put the wrong fuel into a system. your car isn't going anywhere on a tank full of water, because that's just not the right chemical reaction. and, you'll have to convert the engine if you want to use diesel.

the trade-off is that you're almost certain to feel sluggish and tired - unless you're a fitness geek and do fitness geek things, like ride your bike a lot or run everywhere or whatever else. but, then you need to ask: are these vegans getting what they think they're getting from their diet or from their lifestyle?

for most people, switching to vegan is telling your body chemistry to function inefficiently, and you should obviously expect consequences from that.

a better idea is to minimize your meat intake. it's still your best source of iron and b12. eggs have proteins with few other sources that allow your synapses to function; think about what happens when you go deficient in that. you become an idiot. fish are a good idea in theory for similar reasons, but we've unfortunately managed to screw that up. because we're evolved to take advantage of meat efficiently, we can maximize it's benefits while eating small amounts of it.

you don't need to eat meat more than a few times a week, and you don't need to eat large servings when you do. but, you want to make sure that you do.

03/04-11-2015: canadian cabinet swearing in ceremony

she seems to have a hole in her shirt. did i miss grunge coming back into style?

oh, and i don't care about star wars. remotely.

there's really nothing he's doing here that can't be done on a regular guitar with a bit of string bending. and it actually sounds very irish.

while in the office of the minister of status of women, rona ambrose voted for criminalizing abortion. that is the top issue amongst conservative donors. this selection confirms the obvious, which is that the primary aim of the conservatives over the next four years will be in reinvigorating their base.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-interim-leader-vote-1.3306152

Rosie
Their base will be dead in four years.

jessica murray
in the urban centers? eight, anyways.

you have to realize that the ccpa and the liberal party are approaching this from different perspectives. the ccpa is looking at it as a way to reduce inequality (and perhaps debt), while the liberals are looking at it a a way to increase disposable income to get more money moving in the economy. when you realize that, the truth is that they’re both right. while the ccpa will correctly point out that this tax cut isn’t going to get anybody out of poverty, the liberals are equally correct in their logic that it’s spending by the upper middle class (or perhaps middle middle class) that is really what they’re aiming towards.

the reality is that if you give a big tax break to people on the lower end of the scale, it’s going to end up in the bank. it’s going to pay off credit card bills, go to downpayment on mortgages, pay down student loan debt and other things of the sort. this may help people’s finances, but there’s no economic benefit.

however, the thinking is that if you give a tax break in the middle of the scale then you get people buying cars and other big ticket items and that helps with a bit of stimulus spending. the next step here – and i’m using this language consciously – is that that money trickles down into the economy, creating service jobs.

the criticism of reaganomics is less in the idea and more in the implementation. if you give millionaires tax cuts, they don’t spend more money – because they already have more money than they can spend. if you give poor people tax cuts, they don’t spend more money either – because they’re in debt. this income range was targeted specifically under the thinking that it would maximize the amount of it getting spent, rather than saved or eaten by interest.

now, will that *actually* create jobs? not in an open economy, i don’t think. or, to put it another way – it might create jobs in asia or mexico, but perhaps not many here.

but, the ccpa’s analysis – while correct – is judging the policy on the basis of something it’s not intending to accomplish. it’s meant to give people that are in a position to spend more money to spend, not to tackle issues of inequality.

the truth is that everything about this makes sense, in terms of the textbook. we’ve got millionaires sitting on billions or trillions in the bank. the economy is stuttering because the rich aren’t spending their money. it’s entirely reasonable to take steps to get the money in circulation.

but, it’s a right-wing economic policy. you just don’t recognize it because it’s actually coherently constructed in order to actually work.

…or, if you want to play games with dynasties, to get a quick comparison in?

this is what the bush tax cuts should have looked like, and would have looked like if they were implemented intelligently.

www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-truth-about-justin-trudeaus-tax-cuts/

you would expect an oil executive to support a carbon tax because it won't hurt them directly (it's just a cost of business) but it will work up opposition to climate change policies. policy makers have solutions that may work to offset the effects, but we've learned rather clearly that those solutions do not resonate nearly as strongly as fear of a "tax on everything".

step one is diversifying the economy, so that scaling down production (which is the goal here - not increasing revenue) isn't such a shock. that actually has to happen outside the environment or resources file. it's some of the other ministers - like chrystia freeland and amarjeet sohi - that have the most immediate task at hand.

step two is ensuring that alternatives exist for consumers. it's one thing to tell people to use electric cars. it's another to drive electricity rates through the roof, so that it's not a truly feasible option. but, this does not address industry, which is one of the biggest sources of pollution.

that is why step three is passing laws that force co-operation under threat of criminal penalties or loss of operating license. nothing else will actually work. all other costs will merely be passed down to the consumer. and, if options do not exist - or are infeasible due to costs to market entry - then consumers will be unable to make a choice, and will be forced to merely pay the costs. many industries must simply be forced to comply, or else.

let's start with step one and step two before we start talking about the likelihood of implementing step three.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/trudeaus-ministry-of-environment-and-climate-change-spooks-oil-patch/article27110322/

westernpatriot
Please tell us how to diversify the economy, Professor.
Then explain how you're going to ensure that alternatives exist for consumers.
I won't hold my breath...

deathtokoalas
do i get an appointment to cabinet?

we had an economy before oil, you know. it wasn't even that long ago. it was focused on exporting in two primary sectors: resources and manufacturing.

one of our biggest natural resources export industries today is illegal, and conducted over the black market. legalization of marijuana has the potential to not just be a domestic industry, but to be a powerful export economy, as well. that bc bud's got a good reputation, dontcha know.

but, i'm sure there's lots of other things we can come up with as well if we invest sufficiently in research and development - and attract firms that are interested in taking part in that research and development. we can also invest directly in initiatives, and then spin them off (or maybe not...) when they're ready.

but, an export economy also benefits from a low dollar. a low dollar also acts as a tariff, which makes domestic production more competitive. that should be a central part of any economic policy in canada, so long as we remain under the globalist free trade regime.

making energy alternatives more feasible happens in two stages. the first is of course developing them - but the truth is that we're mostly past that stage, albeit no thanks to the last ten years of policy. the second is in easing regulations (remove restrictions around electric vehicles, for example) or tightening regulations (i'd like to see the government put some really strong pressure on wynne to reverse the recent electricity hikes - or build parallel infrastructure if they won't) to allow for product availability at a reasonable price. you could also put down some tax incentives - like a rebate on an electric vehicle, for example. and, it would be nice if that vehicle has to be made in this country, too.

these aren't obscure ideas, and you won't see them all in place. but, it's the general trajectory you should expect in the first term.

i've left a few thought out responses along these lines - this is a good idea because it will hopefully attract more strong female candidates - but i don't think there's much use in bothering further. maybe, and even hopefully, in a few years the critics will actually be right. for today, look at the bright side: a stronger focus on competency for male cabinet picks is a net positive. let's hope that sticks. and let's hope that conservative voters take the issue to heart in their future nomination processes.

they put a chiropractor in charge of science.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/elizabeth-may/gender-balance-cabinet_b_8472966.html

i've been recording, i just haven't edited or uploaded because i wasn't sure which day was which. suppose you wake up at 4 pm and crash the next day at noon, then get up at 6 pm and crash the next day at 7 pm. how do you date that?

i wanted to edit tonight, but i'm already fading so it will wait until i wake up - clearly starting a new day on nov 5.

so , by tomorrow morning, there will be two vlogs for the last three days, probably with the 3rd and 4th combined into one day.

just a slight correction: because you pay the marginal rate on each bracket, you'd have to be making around $215,000 to actual see a tax increase. so, that takes it a bit closer to the 1% rule. but, they're also going to lose their child benefit checks - and that's apparently going to bring in 15 billion dollars in revenue, according to the liberal platform. if deficits are important to you, note that this simple (and eminently fair) handout revocation for the wealthy could have kept the government in the red. but, realize that that wasn't incompetence - conservatives run deficits on purpose to lower the size of government.

the key thing is that when you change the narrative from deficits to surpluses then you allow for more spending on programs that benefit low-income canadians - both in terms of social services and in terms of economic growth. in a country like canada, where we have such high minimum standards and so many of the quality-of-life indicators are in some way collectivized, the question of inequality is less about income per capita and more about access to services. a little spending money doesn't hurt, and it helps the money cycle around. but, what's important to more low wage earners is that the health and education systems are well-funded and that job opportunities exist. that's what is real - it's what the concerns are, directly in front of us. nobody's really walking around yelling about percentages or graphs, or crying that whomever gets to live off a trust fund. that stuff's just not real.

the difference is consequently a change in priorities. i wouldn't exactly expect to see this government change the numbers; the curve may flatline a little, but you're not going to see the gap really close. i do hope - expect - that government is reclaimed as something that improves our quality of life, rather than something that's seen as an obstacle to frivolous and short-sighted spending.

it's a tactic called "starve the beast". it hasn't really worked out as intended, because those governments get replaced by governments that increase spending. but, this is how it works:

1) create a structural deficit. he did this by cutting the gst and corporate tax rates, and then handing out boutique tax credits.
2) argue you have to reduce the size of government to get out of deficit. it helps if you have the media in your pocket.
3) repeat.

you can look this up, if you'd like. it's been studied in some depth.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadas-1-per-cent-club-unchanged-but-faces-prospect-of-bigger-tax-bill/article27077119/

A- on the cabinet.

a few of the female cabinet positions were beyond softball. what is a minister for democratic institutions? or for small business and tourism? what's frustrating is that there was really no reason to do that, other than a desire for a glossy photo-op cabinet. the reality is that a few young female mps got cabinet positions because they're photogenic, while older and more qualified ones didn't because they're not photogenic. i don't like this direction - at all.

but, it's only applicable to a couple of them. mostly, the picks ranged from obvious to reasonable to acceptable.

i don't think alberta should have received two cabinet ministers. they voted for the opposition. i'd like to see them sit in it for a bit. that kind of pandering is disappointing, but at least they didn't get anything related to climate change. i hope that this does not become a theme, and that trudeau is able to have the backbone to stand up to albertans. i'm really sick of albertans running the country - and we just tossed them to curb with very serious intent.

i don't know anything at all about harjit sajjan other than that he's a veteran. ideally, i'd like to see the ministry of national defence taken over by a peace activist willing to convert it into a peace ministry. i doubt that this is that person, but i have to admit i admire the panache in putting a sikh person of colour in national defence. that is going to enrage conservatives, and i enjoy that.

there is only one pick that i actively dislike - jim carr at natural resources. i was really hoping this would go to a decidedly left-leaning voice willing to stop "business as usual". jim carr suggests that we are dealing with "business as usual" and need to immediately start protesting against pipelines.

but, over all? it's pretty good.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-trudeau-liberal-cabinet-ministers-1.3302743

you missed your true calling as a used car salesman, larry.

i've never even seen a politician present arguments this disingenuous. it wouldn't work.

what a huckster!

and i'm not even opposed to the united states exporting oil. it should get the price up a little, and hopefully take the renewable industry off life support.

i think the premise that southeast asia is seen as more connected to china than india, explicitly, is kind of wrong; it's more that southeast asia is seen as existing within the east asian sphere (of which the dominant powers are china and the united states), rather than the south asian sphere (where india is really the only significant country at all).

the reason is actually connected to the way the united states carved the world up after world war two, which itself was a consequence of the fighting during the war - this region was broadly occupied by japanese forces, and then came under american command after the war.

but, there were of course also conflicts here during the cold war, which led to chinese-backed and soviet-backed client states. india, on the other hand, was broadly non-aligned.

it's within this entire context of this conflict theatre that the association comes out both in terms of economic reality and in terms of academic categorization.

chrystia freeland will probably be confirmed as a cabinet minister in canada tomorrow; the smart money is on international trade, but there are a number of ministries that are related to foreign policy and trade initiatives, and she's a candidate for any of them - and may be shuffled around between a few of them over time. being a parliamentary democracy rather than a republic, we don't have the kind of confirmation hearings that you have in the united states. it's more like "what if the house of representatives ran the entire government". if you think on that baseline, it would be like combining the secretary of state with the house committee on foreign affairs. but, the representatives are not fixed in their roles and can be moved to any other committee/cabinet at any given time. if the liberal government sticks around a while, she'll likely get through most of the important posts, and may even one day be a contender for the prime minister's office.

if you ask around in canada, she has kind of the hillary problem - the right thinks she's a militant feminist, whereas the left thinks she's somewhat of a conservative hawk. when that happens, it's almost always the case that they're both right and they're both wrong.

what she's saying here is absolutely correct. i was posting things along these lines last year, or maybe a little earlier, suggesting that this is actually the optimal russian strategy. the reason is that the baltics are exactly where they're parking that missile defense shield, and the russians have a very dominant strategic objective in preventing this. you don't have to be a russophobe or a conspiracy theorist, or even a militant jingoist, to realize that russia has very legitimate defense concerns on their borders with nato. that's just cold objective facts. you'll get the same analysis on this from william kristol that you'll get from noam chomsky - it's not partisan, or based on a worldview, it's just the flat out reality of it.

where chrystia and i would seem to disagree is on why this is happening. see, here's the conservative hawk thing: she takes the kind of dominant washington consensus view that putin's an out of control maniac. the more subtle view, which i think is more rooted in fact, is that he's reacting to a very aggressive american foreign policy and would really rather focus on trade. when they took out ghadaffi, he didn't do anything. when they tried to take out assad, he didn't (initially) do all that much. when they went after iran, he played along. but, when they launched a coup in ukraine, he was forced to react.

to my knowledge, this isn't happening. yet. but, we have seen the russians put air defenses in iran (which is what the nuclear deal was really about) and we've seen them walk right into syria. putin's tactic seems to be to draw the center of conflict away from russia and into a proxy situation; the calculation around something like causing a ruckus in estonia is likely that it's too close to home (it's a short flight from talinn to moscow), and they'd rather fight this thing out somewhere else, if they must.

yet, given the reality, it remains entirely feasible that they could start backing oppositions not just in estonia and latvia but in poland and romania and even france. and, how she's describing this is exactly how it would happen. she knows this because it's exactly what nato did in ukraine.

americans are stupid because they're programmed to be stupid. in fact, the media and politicians are only able to present things to them the way they do because they're programmed to be stupid. it's the education system. it's parenting. it's the cultural goalposts. it's children's entertainment. there's not a stupid gene; there is a possible way out. but, it's entirely true, and it's crystal clear - unless, of course, you happen to be the topic of discussion.

bit of a twist, though: bill's not as smart as he thinks, either.

google has a history of failed rollouts.

this is really easy: don’t pay into it. tell your friends not to pay into it. share torrents of “original content”. etc.

it will be dead in six months.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL9RetC0ook

Tamitik
One per province for sure and one for the territories and the rest
3 more from BC , 2 more from Alberta , 2 more for Saskatchewan and Manitoba ,
3 more from Ontario , 2 more from Quebec and 2 more from Atlantic region.

That is fair and acceptable to the west, if we get shafted again we will separate

jessica murray
saskatchewan only has one representative, and that would suggest that three of the 4 alberta mps should be ministers. that would be 75% of the elected members from alberta.

4/184 = 2%. 2% of 30 is 0.65. one minister from alberta is being generous.

if it wasn't for the quota in regional representation, they shouldn't get anybody.

and, if they don't want to be in opposition, they should stop voting for it.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/trudeau-cabinet-ministers-toronto-gta-1.3302319

SimonYLW
I'd suggest start with the most critical cabinet positions and pick the absolute best person for the post, regardless of where they are from. Then when you get down to things like Public Safety, Transport, Employment, Heritage, State, you can pick the best of each region / province.

TruthUponYou
OMG, why not pick the best person for the job, rather then the loser.

jessica murray
it's very hard to define who the "best person for the job" is, or what that even means.

so long as we're talking about ought rather than is, the way this should be done is to look at each individual mp and determine what they best have to offer.

so, consider ralph goodale. you could plug him in anywhere. but, the thing he best has to offer as an individual is being house leader, and possibly deputy leader. somebody else can fill the other roles he's qualified for.

this is also the best way to promote new mps. for example, consider ginette petitpas taylor. she's totally off the radar. but, she's best positioned to offer a voice on the status of women, and has far more to offer on that file than anybody else.

or, consider hedy fry. she's held several portfolios. but, what she's best positioned to offer is a voice for seniors - because she is the oldest mp by a good margin.

the reason this is a better approach is that selecting cabinet positions is not an open market. you're not able to look outside of the 184 mps that are available. if we're going to do the best qualified thing, we want to call up people like john manley and anne mclellan. i'd suggest we should bring chretien back for the pm, even, and put martin back in charge of finance. but, they're not elected mps.

when faced with a restricted pool of candidates, what we ought to do is look at what we have, figure out what they're best positioned to contribute to and connect them with the appropriate ministries.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/trudeau-cabinet-ministers-toronto-gta-1.3302319

i've penciled in 9:

Minister of National Multiculturalism - navdeep bains
Minister of Health - carolyn bennett
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness - bill blair
Minister of International Development - kristy duncan
Minister of International Trade - chrystia freeland
President of the Treasury Board - john mccallum
Minister of National Revenue - bill morneau
Minister of Industry - judy sgro
Minister of Public Works and Government Services - adam vaughn

i'll acknowledge that judy sgro may very well be left out, and that putting kristy duncan in that file is a question of continuity - she's been the critic on that file for quite a while. but, i think she makes the cabinet, somewhere. i think the rest of them are the best fits for those ministries.

that leaves plenty of space for the rest of the country - but means manitoba & alberta only get one each, and they're really both there simply out of convention of regional representation. i really wouldn't give either any, otherwise.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/trudeau-cabinet-ministers-toronto-gta-1.3302319

Tamitik
Ontario is entitled to 3-4 ministers that's all

jessica murray
you know, it's this kind of thing that continues to place westerners in low regard in the eyes of easterners. i know - it's just some random troll on the internet, it doesn't represent westerners in any meaningful way. but, the complete lack of any kind of logic underlying this is just remarkable.

we could talk about how ontario is the most populous province, or how it has the most mps, or how it's almost half of the liberal caucus.

but, there's no use. it's just ridiculous.

Mahou Shoujo
Ontario is entitled to pay its own bills.

jessica murray
it would actually help a lot if we could keep the dollar low. what albertans don't realize is that the feeling is broadly mutual. i mean, it's cheaper for ontario to import oil from the middle east than it is to import it from alberta. think that through, and ask yourself how excited ontarians ought to be about being nice to albertans. all we're going to get is being told to freeze in the dark.

Bobo Macoute
Guess you don't like to eat fruit or wear clothes. A low dollar just makes us poorer.

jessica murray
not exactly - i prefer to eat fruit grown in canada, and buy clothes that aren't made by slaves.

a low dollar is going to be especially important with the tpp opening up more opportunities for corporations to use slave labour. what it does is act as a tariff on imports, while increasing our competitiveness in the export market.

but, hey - if you want a jobless economy where we tax professionals through the roof to put everybody else on welfare, we can do that with a petrodollar, too. i'm an artist. i'm happy to live on subsidies.

your call.

to be clear: i'm not opposed to free trade, if it's really free trade. but these agreements are not actually free trade agreements. and, a comparative advantage in slave labour is a pretty dramatic distortion of ricardian theory.

free trade with the united states was always a good idea. i don't know why it's been so hard to get mexico's labour standards up to par - when they are, that will also be a good idea. free trade with most of europe, certainly western europe, is a good idea. free trade with japan is a good idea. even china is getting better, although it's still awful.

it's the countries where unions are outlawed and workers live in jails that we should not be signing agreements with.

but, we're stuck with this - and, as we are, we need to do whatever we can to mitigate the damages. devaluation is our best tactic.

---

Tamitik
All Liberal Governments have been Quebecois ,
I say his will be no different ,most positions will be covered by Quebec and Ontario .

The west will not take that kindly like in the past ...................

jessica murray
well, maybe they should stop electing conservatives, then.

if calgary & edmonton want serious representation in a liberal government, they'll need to elect serious mps.

i think kent hehr would be a good fit in some kind of queer activist role, as i believe that's what his background is. but, i see no reason that he should get a big cabinet post. he's a good candidate for a junior role to start with, and then he can work his way up.

amarjeet sohi has a lot of background in ant-racism initiatives and would be a good junior minister for multiculturalism until, again, he works his way up.

the other two seem like backbenchers, to me.

this is a far cry from anne mclellan, who, amongst other things, sat on the board of the ccla.

TruthUponYou
let's see what happens in 4 years. if we don't see competence, and and we see more and more nasty jabs, we'll bring back the conservatives.

jessica murray
keep dreaming. electoral reform is going to be designed to prevent that. the conservatives will come out of the next election as the third party.

you know, i actually think he laid this out pretty clearly.

the senate thing is obvious: you appoint those 22 senators within a week, then you set up the process and let it work for future appointments. that's just a question of simple pragmatism, and i'll concede the point of foolishness if it doesn't happen - but you act like he's taking advice from his dead dog, or something. even if he happens to be firmly entrenched in not appointing a single senator before the process is set in place, even if he's holding to it as some unmodifiable ideal....the party will talk that out of him. well, they'd better, anyways. if they can't, we're indeed in for a long four years. but, let's be realistic, here. they're not going to spend all this time writing legislation, then let it get voted down when the senate is a fifth empty. it's preposterous.

they've got at least 15 chretien era ministers they can call up, and a lot of them are in their 60s. you could even cut a deal with somebody like brian tobin to sit for three years and then resign.

for the rest of this, hey: if a tactic fails then just keep doing it, right? it worked with trickle down economics, i'm sure it will work just fine with his hair, too. you should always keep doing the same thing and continue to expect different results. that's what strong leadership is all about!

the most fundamental change that happened on the 19th is that we no longer have an elected king. i know the media would like to think otherwise. but, we're back to a parliamentary democracy - one where the prime minister is merely first amongst equals. decisions are going to be made collaboratively, with input by many people.

there's no way those senators don't get appointed almost immediately.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-honeymoon-period-how-long-1.3300777

i'm going to take a guess on this.

Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency - hunter tootoo
Minister of Foreign Affairs - david mcguinty
Minister of Public Works and Government Services - adam vaughn
President of the Treasury Board - john mccallum
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons - ralph goodale
Minister of National Defence - andrew leslie
Minister of National Multiculturalism - navdeep bains
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food - wayne easter
Minister for La Francophonie - denis paradis
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness - bill blair
Minister of Finance - scott brison
Minister of National Revenue - bill morneau
Minister of Natural Resources - stephane dion
Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs - dominic leblanc
Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec - pablo rodriguez
Minister of State for Science & Technology - marc garneau
minister of state for multiculturalism - amarjeet sohi

Minister of aboriginal affairs - jody wilson-raybould
Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada - catherine mckenna
Minister of Health - carolyn bennett
Minister of International Development - kristy duncan
Minister of Industry - judy sgro
Minister of the Environment - joyce murray
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans - yvonne jones
Minister of International Trade - chrystia freeland
Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages - melanie joly
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration - alexandra mendes
Minister of Transport - maryann mihychuk
Minister for the Status of Women - ginette petitpas taylor
Minister of Employment and Social Development - judy foote
Minister of Sport - carla qualtrough
Minister of Veterans Affairs - karen mccrimmon
Minister of state for seniors - hedy fry
Minister of Labour - ??

there's just no obvious candidate - of either gender - for the labour position. which is sort of curious.

it's a very bourgeois caucus.

there's not even really anybody left on the ndp benches to try and coerce, either.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-liberal-government-trudeau-cabinet-1.3299968

the biggest thing with hedy is her age. she's 75. she's still going strong, don't get me wrong. and experience is important, to a point. but, you have to balance it out with long term planning, and it's hard to plan a ministry around somebody that should have retired an election or two ago. here's to hoping that hedy has a few more elections left in her, but to realizing that you can't plan around it.

that said, she is uniquely positioned to be a minister of state for seniors, and i think that's a good idea. there's a lot of focus in the media on presenting a younger cabinet. i understand the reasons for this. but, the liberals don't have problems with younger voters. they have problems with older voters. older voters have always skewed right, but not the way they have over the last ten years. i might suggest that this has something to do with the reality that the liberals lost an entire generation of good mps - people like allan rock and brian tobin - in the power shift from chretien to martin. my experience - this is unscientific - is that older people follow politicians the same way that younger people follow media personalities. they latch on to the ones they like, and follow them for extended periods. the fact that older boomers are drastically under-represented in the liberal caucus is no doubt a big reason why the liberals have such a hard time attracting older voters. and, putting out a cabinet full of young people is going to alienate what is almost certainly going to be the most important voting base for years to come. you can't call up hazel forever. and, putting hedy in the senior portfolio may be a mild gesture, but it's the kind of thing they have to do to win elections in the upcoming years, until we get through the demographic glut.

i know most people are pencilling dion in as environment minister, but i think there's a big misunderstanding about the role. the environment minister focuses mostly on things like wetlands and parks. this is important and everything, but it's not the most important post in terms of tackling climate change. it is the minister of natural resources that is going to be faced with these tough decisions, and that is where i would place dion.

that makes joyce murray the best remaining choice for actual environment minister.

that said.....i'm a little confused by the media rhetoric, and am starting to expect a cabinet that may not make a lot of sense. you expect a few goofy articles from the usual suspects. but, the totality of it seems to suggest that there's some co-ordination in setting expectations. it remains to be seen how much of this is just that - setting expectations. but, it seems as though he's set to make a major tactical and logical error, here.

part of the reason i felt ok about voting for a guy that has no business running for this office is that it seemed clear to me that he'd be relying on the experienced people around him. that is, that i didn't vote for trudeau as much as i voted for the liberal party machine. a choice to reject that machine in favour of a cabinet full of rookies is going to resonate very badly. but, there's a caveat to that, too.

scholars of the elder trudeau will point out that one of his major contributions to the way canada works was the dissolution of actual decision making power out of cabinet and to the civil service. the idea was that decisions should be made by life-long bureaucrats, who are appointed on merit and seniority, rather than elected people that more often than not have little real understanding of their files. when trudeau was doing interviews with mansbridge and others, he pointed out repeatedly that he rejected the centralizing approach of his father (picked up strongly by harper) to put power in the pmo and was in favour of devolving power back to the ministries. but, this is kind of a canard - what trudeau did was centralize political power, while shielding the way that ministries actually operate from the political process altogether. there's a kind of marxism in this; it's one of the more explicitly "left" parts of the whole third way approach. yet, it was assumed by everybody that what the younger trudeau meant was a return to parliamentary government, where capable ministers are in charge of their portfolios. if what he meant was that he wished to carry on with his father's movement towards separating the civil service from parliament, he was not at all clear. but, it's the only possible conclusion if he really does come out with a photo op cabinet like this, full of ministers that may accurately reflect a kind of "retail politics" but could not be described as independent or capable.

the message is that these people aren't actually doing anything. and, if that's the case, i'd rather support the abolition of cabinet altogether. i'm not opposed to taxes paying for capable ministers. but, i'd rather see that money spent on something worthwhile than to fund a glossy parliament that is just a public relations front to the civil service.

if the media is right, this is an error in multiple ways. i'm hoping the media is wrong. but, i don't have any evidence to back up the idea that he's going to be more rational about this - it's just faith. and, while i'd like to think that faith is well-placed in the party, there's no empirical reason for me to conclude that it's well-placed in the individual.

think about this...

excluding harper (who falls more into the "generation jones" category - he wasn't a true boomer), canada has managed to avoid a baby boomer prime minister. at this point, it seems safe to conclude it won't happen.

that's remarkable. they remain the largest voting group.

www.straight.com/news/568856/leak-suggests-jody-wilson-raybould-will-be-justin-trudeaus-cabinet

this argument is rooted in the idea that ensuring gender parity necessarily implies that unqualified people will be put into cabinet. i’m using that language for the reason that the idea of “most qualified” is impossible to define. for each portfolio, you’re going to have a handful of qualified people and it’s never going to be clear which is one is best qualified, or even to convincingly define why one is better qualified than the next.

that said, you have to understand the history of this. it goes back to the chretien years, where carolyn bennett was on the brink of organizing a caucus revolt over the lack of female representation in cabinet – and this is one of the reasons (there are a couple of others) why it’s clear that she’s really a lock on a cabinet position, despite some media suggesting otherwise. she won this argument. but, here’s the twist: did chretien have the advantage of having sufficiently many qualified women to allow for gender parity? it’s questionable. not clearly false, but questionable. it is, however, clear that he didn’t have a sufficient number of women with cabinet experience, but this is of course self-perpetuating.

that was twenty years ago, and it’s less that social attitudes have changed dramatically since then and more that a generation of women raised with different opportunities has presented a different caucus.

of the 50 women that have been elected, it’s not going to be hard to find plenty that have no business being discussed as potential cabinet material. but, it’s likewise not hard to find 14 that are no less qualified than any male alternative.

one could tenuously argue that this is somewhat unfair to qualified male mps and take the perspective that, rather than strict parity, it should be proportional to the number of elected female mps. but, the idea is for the cabinet to be representative of the general public, rather than representative of the caucus. further, it’s ignoring the fact that women remain underrepresented in parliament. part of the reasoning underlying this is to act as an incentive for greater female involvement.

but, the idea that gender parity is going to put unqualified people in cabinet? it may have been true in 1995, but it’s simply disingenuous in 2015.

www.therebel.media/_trudeau_getting_ready_to_unveil_his_cabinet_based

i'm not unsympathetic to the pushback, but these people *are* qualified and it's an incomplete shortlist, to boot. but, you have to keep in mind two extra factors:

1) women mps are facing the same problem all new job applicants face. you can't get the job without experience, but you can't get experience without the job. the discrimination clause in the constitution explicitly points out that programs designed to aid a disadvantaged group should be excluded from consideration. but, it doesn't append the caveat that a program of the sort should be temporary. affirmative action in the short run is necessary to reverse systemic inequality; affirmative action in the long run actually cements it in place.

2) the single, biggest reason that gender parity in caucus is a good idea is that it sends the message that if you run for office then you can make a difference. gender crusaders are important and everything, but it's easy to understand why so many women would rather live in such a way that allows them to explore opportunity than spend their time fighting against entrenched prejudices. hopefully - and i think this is the actual reason this is being done - a gender-balanced cabinet over the course of a term or two will encourage more women to run. but, the key is this - not just any women. i'd argue gender parity in cabinet is a far better idea than appointing female candidates; every single one of these women won a nomination battle and then won an election. parachuting women in is the worst possible approach. when strong women candidates run, they win. the struggle is getting more strong women candidates to actually run.

so, when you put that in context, is this something you can expect to be permanent? no. don't expect any affirmative action laws to be passed. and, don't be surprised if trudeau himself wavers on this after an election or two, if it works in increasing the number of quality female candidates.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/we-have-a-record-number-of-female-mps-but-hold-the-applause/article26887164/

02-11-2015: driver troubleshooting, part 4

i actually think this is fairly accurate, but i just want to add that social conservatism in canada is not aligned well with xenophobia, in large part because a lot of social conservative support comes from recent immigrants. it's still going to work out to a minority of voters, and it doesn't negate the absolute necessity of the conservatives holding red tory support to form a government - so it remains very delicate. but, they have more of a chance in expanding their base within urban centres - to recent immigrants, to union workers, to low wage workers - by focusing on social issues, even if it absolutely erupts the opposition to it.

people still like tax cuts. let's not forget that trudeau campaigned on one. but, almost nobody cares about the deficit, and truly shouldn't, so long as we're not dealing with rates that are set to fight stagflation.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/11/02/the-conservatives-dont-have-a-religion-problem-canadians-have-a-debt-problem/15:15

frank
You may wish to read this.
http://www.maxresistance.com/total-news-blackout-in-canada-people-vs-central-bank/

deathtokoalas
i'm actually very aware of this case, and the reality is that the facts cited by ellen brown and the rest of you right-wing populists are drastically inaccurate.

you begin with the premise that canada used to fund all spending through interest-free borrowing from the bank of canada. this is completely false. there was an infrastructure bank that provided some interest-free borrowing, but it was only on restricted types of projects and only ever took up a small minority of total spending. the vast majority of deficit spending between 1945 and 1975 was financed through the private bond market, which was absolutely interest-generating. the difference is that a lot of the bonds were bought by private citizens, rather than private banks. in fact, it was the basis of retirement for much of the "greatest generation". it's startling how easy it is to fool people on this, given that so many of us have grandparents that retired on the proceeds of public debt.

the interest free lending from the bank of canada was phased out in the 70s as a result of an international consensus (which canada signed) to combat what was called stagflation, which was a combination of economic stagnation and monetary inflation caused by high oil prices as a consequence of the opec embargo due to american support of israel. but, most of canada's debt was private to begin with, so it was a very minor shift.

in fact, trudeau rejected this consensus almost immediately. it's an example of a pattern that is older than trudeau and continues today: we signed on under american pressure, without really buying into it. instead, trudeau fell back to the standard keynesian idea of raising interest rates to fight inflation. this led to interest rates around 20% at their peak, but over 10% for most of the 70s and a good part of the 80s.

these high interest rates are the cause of the ballooning debt in the 70s, which is due to the consequence of interest and not due to over-spending.

at the time, it didn't seem like a big issue: the debt-to-gdp ratio was reasonable, and nobody expected it to go on for years and years. further, high growth rates (nearing 10%) were an expectation of economic recovery, at the time. it wasn't until the dust cleared on mechanization and the adoption of free trade that we had to come to terms with drastically lower growth potential, and the need to adjust to get the imf off our backs.

the lesson is that the key thing to concern ourselves with is neither debt, nor who owns it, but where interest rates are set.

frank
Thanks for the information.

My only confusion would be why you would incorrectly label me as right wing? That's the furthest thing from the truth.

deathtokoalas
this is the canadian version of the "end the fed" right-wing populism of ron paul.

01-11-2015: driver troubleshooting, part 3

i'm going to use this video as a place to vent for a moment, if you don't mind.

i want to be clear: i agree that this is a stupid debate. it's pretty clear what the slogan means. but, i think the proper response to this is to address and react to two concerns:

1) why are you getting this response? that is, why is it unclear what the slogan means? "white people are stupid" may be true (no! all people are stupid!), but it's not good enough.
2) can you modify the slogan so that it doesn't create confusion? i mean, (1) implies this is necessary, if you're being empirical about it. "all lives matter" doesn't cut it. but, clearly, "black lives matter" isn't getting across what you're intending.

i think that what is missing is just one word - "too".

black lives matter, too.

this gets the point across clearly, without accidentally suggesting something you're not intending. it's actually more direct - it's precisely what you mean to say.

but, why do you need to do this?

see, i think the other part of this is realizing that the push back you're getting is out of a legitimate sense of economic desperation. if you look at poverty rates and unemployment levels, there's a lot of white people in some bad shape right now. this is another issue unto itself. activists will tend to cite statistics that say that white people are disproportionately ultra-wealthy (that is, the "1%" is disproportionately white), and black people are disproportionately poor - and this is certainly true in most of the united states. but, they won't cite the stats that also say that whites make up the single largest ethnic group in poverty in the united states, and that this is a phenomenon that is increasing. there is a real phenomenon in the united states (and also in canada) where the middle class is becoming increasingly ethnically diverse, and whites are increasingly occupying the bottom of the income scale (while the elite remains disproportionately white). if you look at stats in canada, whites are actually fourth in terms of average wealth - east asians are the most wealthy people in canada, followed by south asians and west asians (which means muslims) and then whites.

that's not a klan fantasy. that's the statistical reality of the situation.

but, there's this constant stream of information bombarded at whites that tell them they have "privilege", that they exist at the top of a hierarchy, etc - when any data you can gather suggests that, on average, whites are in fact a moderately to severely disadvantaged group in the united states - despite being disproportionately represented in the media, in the super rich, etc. it's easy to see how they could misinterpret a slogan like this badly - that is as suggesting that they don't matter, in an economic climate where this is increasingly reflective of how they're feeling.

and, once you get this, it's easy to see how the request to modify the slogan is actually a request for inclusiveness - that is, a request to build a broader based and more class-focused struggle. and, maybe that's a worthwhile request to consider, even if it requires a little decoding.

i'm not suggesting that a lot of the reaction isn't racist, because it is. but, even when it is, it shouldn't be completely ignored. it should be analyzed and understood.

but, i think it's also important to take responsibility for poor messaging. i don't know who came up with this. i doubt it was focus grouped, or sent through a marketing evaluation; it was probably literally some kid that just typed it out without thinking about it much. throwing it out in the wild, though, is doing that. and the results suggest that some kind of adjustment to make the messaging clearer should be embraced, rather than rejected - it's clearly entirely necessary.

so, it seems that it's important to increase patent registration in china so the west has access to them. interesting logic.

31-10-2015: getting over the fear of failure in testing

it's always an interesting question when it's time to pivot, call it quits, part or whatever is the relevant idea. if you end it too soon, people will always wonder what was next - what never happened. if you keep going, people inevitably begin to whisper about relevance.

frankly? bluntly? i think this is actually pretty good timing.

i've never been explicitly interested in hip-hop; i've always been more of a punk, although that's repeatedly brought me to the fringes of hip-hop primarily through the medium of industrial music and "intelligent techno". but, i've been pushed repeatedly to make hip-hop (instrumental or with them) by friends who can hear the potential, and i've always had to sort of agree: the potential is there. it's just not at all where i'd direct myself, it would have to be collaborative. so, it's always been a j away from happening, but never has.

i'm in detroit - i'm a long ways away. but if you think you can use me for something, let me know.

he's right.

except it's crazy, because the americans would flip.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2311715/stop-bombing-isis-support-assad-canadian-military-expert/

proportional representation is not on the table, and the media is being irresponsible in continuing to suggest that it is. the liberal party has been clear that it supports preferential voting.

nor is it the case the preferential voting will help the liberals everywhere. it will only help the liberals win in ridings where they poll second and the ndp poll third. similarly, it will help the ndp in ridings where they poll second and the liberals poll third.

functionally, for much of the country, what this actually does is convert elections into a race between the ndp and the liberals as to who can get first choice status, as conservatives cannot break 50% in most of the country. eliminating the fear of conservatives winning will allow voters to focus more on individual mps and less on parties, which is the way our system is meant to work.

nor am i convinced that the ndp would have been better off in the previous election under mmp than under preferential voting. they would have clearly increased their seat count - at the expense of the conservatives - in british columbia, alberta and saskatchewan. i'm not guessing about quebec. but, you're easily looking at 70 seats, which is actually where they would be at strict pr, which no sane person would even consider.

the loser in the preferential vote is the conservatives, who would have been reduced to around 50 seats - and no doubt third party status. this is what you can actually expect. it's really actually not at all clear that the liberals are better off than the ndp under the preferential ballot, but it's absolutely clear that it throws the conservatives into a crisis situation for the foreseeable future.

what it would do is convert *every* election into an "everybody except conservative" election.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-electoral-reform-first-past-the-post-1.3292694

enrgyblogwalter
it was in their released platform to the public during the election. 18 months after winning they are to supposedly form a committee to make suggestions then implement.

jessica murray
but, the reality is that the preferential voting system has been the party's official position since 2006. it was most recently voted on at the party convention in 2012.

this stuff about forming a committee to study it is really just a formality, and even partly a political thing. it's the correctly empirical way to go about it. but if you're aware of where the party stands on this, there's really no ambiguity and hasn't been in a very long time.

regarding reaction, i actually think that this is the most likely system to pass a referendum. advocates of proportional representation talk big, but the truth is that popular opinion is really not at all onside with the ramifications of any kind of proportional representation - things like party lists, and creating mps that really don't represent anybody. as pointed out in the article, any type of pr system will fail a referendum. it's actually one of the reasons i got a little queasy about the idea of the ndp forming a government, even though i've voted for them repeatedly when they were clearly the third party. pr, senate reform, 50%+1 and a few of these other structural changes that the ndp has held to for years may be popular in the core of their base, but they're well outside of the mainstream of the country. we're not going to see a movement to the ndp on this; it was a part of the reason (certainly not the only one...) that people moved away from the ndp this year.

here's the thing: stephen harper made a public issue out of his desire to destroy the liberal party. he failed. now, the conservatives have very little rhetorical space to stand in in arguing against something like this. is it explicitly designed to destroy them? absolutely. but, they made their bed.

what the liberals have proven over the last ten years is that they need to be perceived as "progressive enough" to swing ndp voters, and if they aren't perceived that way then the vote splits and the conservatives win.

the same pressures for the liberals to remain left-leaning will continue to exist under a ranked ballot system. it may even amplify it, as less people will be afraid to vote for a good ndp candidate because they won't have to worry about splitting the vote.

so, suppose trudeau takes a 360 in his second term and starts imposing austerity measures. in order for the ndp to win a sweep in toronto, all they'll have to do is get more votes than the liberals - which could be as low as 30%. and, people will be more likely to make this voting choice, because they won't be afraid of accidentally electing a conservative.

so, that pressure remains.

i'd stop worrying about this - it will benefit the left more than pr will - and start making sure mulcair isn't converting the ndp into the country's new moderate conservative party. the ndp lost almost everybody in caucus that could have hoped to prevent this. you *do* have an existential crisis in front of you, but it's not this - it's in the direction of your own party.

the purpose of this change is to destroy the conservatives, not to hurt the ndp or even to really cement the liberals in place. it is really not at all clear that it benefits the liberals more than the ndp. but, it is crystal clear that it places the conservatives in third party status for the foreseeable future, and changes the entire political narrative to issues that exist on the center-left. elections in most of the country will be fought between the liberals and the ndp for position on the ballot, with the conservatives reduced largely to a fringe western protest party.

it should be supported. it's better than pr.

it's crude, but the conservatives would have won 59 seats with a cut-off at 46% (which is generous to the conservatives), which would have gained the liberals 30 seats and the ndp 10.

http://rabble.ca/news/2015/10/anything-first-past-post-not-answer-to-canadas-electoral-problem

again: this is another thing the liberals have been veering towards for a while, and is both already written and has already been tested. it's just a question of formalizing it. and, if you think they won't do it, take a look at their past senate appointments - as well as their past supreme court appointments. the truth is that these have not been partisan patronage appointments from the liberals in quite some time.

i doubt that harper would have sent in hugh segal, for example. nor was that a decision that came out of nowhere. it was made on recommendation of an advisory committee.

i do, however, think that he's going to have to move quickly to fill those vacancies, just out of simple pragmatism. he can appoint them as independents if he'd like, but they're not going to get any bills passed unless they make this a priority.

and, given that this is a pragmatic necessity, i think it's a great opportunity to reach out to the chretien supporters that were pushed out in the "martin purge". john manley. sheila copps. brian tobin. allan rock. martin cauchon. it's a new majority, let's all move forwards...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeaus-proposal-to-appoint-senators-on-merit-looks-promising/article27060268/

it's just a little bit of bullshit though.

the last guy slashed taxes too far, which created a structural deficit problem. it's the "starve the beast" thing. then, when there's deficits, he has to sell stuff and cut services. but, he went out and campaigned on tax cuts and balanced budgets. obvious contradiction, but we know that a lot of conservatives just aren't that bright. on top of that, oil just crashed, which has created a further revenue problem because he sent everybody else up the creek to create a petro dollar.

what trudeau (or the liberal party - trudeau is not a prime decision maker in the party, he really is mostly a good looking front person) did was look at the situation and realize that there was no possible way anything but a deficit could happen. yeah, it's true that harper was campaigning on a surplus, but he was just flat out lying about it.

faced with the reality of structural budget deficits, and a desire for infrastructure spending, they made the choice to approach the situation incrementally - which meant going into deficit in the short term to reverse this "starve the beast" stuff. that meant setting an expectation of the need for deficits, so they didn't get nailed on it for the next however many years. but what that means is that it was as much about painting the conservatives as fiscal imbeciles as it was about anything else.

the liberal party actually has a history and reputation in canada of superior fiscal management (much as the democrats do in the united states), and would have certainly preferred to campaign on balanced budgets. it's just that it was an impossible thing to follow through on, and they decided it was politically better to be transparent about it.

OroborusFMA
His last great album.  Funny how talent can evaporate when it smells the pop music money.

deathtokoalas
+OroborusFMA
i don't think he ever made a weak record. and while i'd agree that us and so are near the bottom of his output (i'd argue his second record is his weakest), i'd also place his soundtrack work after this at or near the top of it.

Shioumenato
+OroborusFMA I think that So was meant to be an album that sold well, I mean, something that gave the mainstream public what they wanted, not what Peter himself wanted. Maybe he needed money, more fame, or maybe it was just an experiment to show that he can do that. Its one of the reasons some people think the title album stands for Sell Out

deathtokoalas
+Shioumenato
so is really a very strange record. it had some successful singles, but it stands up well as a record, creatively. us maybe a little less so.

i guess i didn't live through it, so i don't know what that was like. but, looking at it from a distance, it's an entirely rational stepping stone in artistic evolution.

i just challenge the question of integrity. i think he grew into himself, rather than out of himself.

hans solo is an interesting choice. and, i actually give him credit for not forcing his kids into a wookie, r2d2 and cp-30. but, i think the key is that dressing as luke would have raised some eyebrows regarding his perception of his father. wise choice, sir.

i apologize; clearly, an important piece like this should have provided for a more serious and insightful commentary.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trick-trudeau-halloween-1.3298754

Don McIsaac
"and create new, stronger laws to punish more severely those who provide it to minors, those who operate a motor vehicle while under its influence and those who sell it outside of the new regulatory framework."
Great, but the "world-class marijuana framework" is producing marijuana far more expensive than the street price of the "illegally grown" types. I'm certainly not going to pay $15-$25/gram plus tax no matter who grows it or says it's the legal stuff. I usually pay around $5.75/gram when purchasing a "half ounce" or 14 grams from people who have been growing it for decades. See the problem? We are at risk of a "two tier" system that will do NOTHING to stem marijuana distribution by gangs or syndicates. Only by making the "legal" stuff the same price or cheaper will you have any effect on an already established grow and distribution system. Think your kids will buy the legal stuff? Hell no they'll get it off the existing dealers at far less. Think this through Mr Trudeau, and do it the right way.

jessica amber murray
i think you have to begin with the understanding that the bc pot industry is the largest industry in bc, by gdp. the capacity already exists, it's just a question of grow-ops coming out of the shadows.

the challenges have more to do with changes in labour codes. currently, dealers take a cut that they determine. legalization means that these will need to be converted into salaried workers, probably with benefits. that is necessarily going to increase costs, as it converts dealing out of something done part time for extra cash (or even just to supply friends) and into an actual job. you also have to work in the costs of running a business.

for that reason, it's basically impossible to undercut the black market. the black market will always be able to offer it cheaper because it's not paying salaries and storefronts. so, it's a little bit different than converting a speakeasy (which already paid salaries and store costs) into a bar.

there's consequently two necessary things that need to be taken on for this to work:

1) they have to shut down the black market. that's a short term policing cost, but it can also be done by getting the producers a higher profit margin. it's true that the black market can always undercut the state (unless the state takes a loss, which would defeat much of the point of this), but that assumes equivalent profit margins for producers. if the state offers incentives for producers to do this legally, it dries up the bulk of the supply.

2) we have to collectively agree to do this - to accept that a higher price is a valid offset for not having to worry about it anymore.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/28/trudeau-marijuana-legalization_n_8409710.html

let's be careful, here.

while i am not particularly fond of textspeak, and acknowledge that spelling can be important to avoid miscommunication (it's important to have two p's in rapping, for example), i feel it is equally important to reject centralized grammar authorities and am exceedingly apprehensive about allowing this unelected body to dictate the rules of discourse.

from where does this body claim it's authority to police free expression?

jessica
+falconpO8 mockery is what sociologists call an informal social control mechanism.

Space Dwarf
+jessica haha you use big words. You funny

jessica
+Space Dwarf this is actually a very serious concern. whomsoever controls our language controls our thoughts. this has been understood for centuries, but expresses itself in it's most known contemporary form in the writings of george orwell.

for an actual historical example, you want to look at french. we think of french as a derivative of latin. the actual truth is that french was something that was invented by french intellectuals around the time of the french revolution, and forced on the people of france (who spoke languages such as occitan). the language was written in such a way as to uphold certain hierarchical relationships, the most obvious being the way it approaches gender.

in english, the most obvious way that language is used as a means of control is in the use of capitalization to cement deference to authority.

the idea of policing language is one that should never be taken lightly.

Ruben Gz
+jessica We're good! Until they make a United Channels of Youtube, we'll be fine! Toast: to policing and exploiting grammar discrepancies, here here!

jessica
+Ruben Gz see, i must dissent out of principle and maintain my grammar anti-authoritarianism in the face of such an affront on personal liberty. hold to your individuality, people. do not be coerced into conformity,

MrQuelquDeux
+jessica You are either the biggest troll I've seen, or you absolutely missed the point (to avoid calling you a total idiot).

Please, go away if you're not here to have fun.

Space Dwarf
+MrQuelquDeux How dare you! She is trying to protect us from this oppression and conformity! Check your privilege!

jessica
+MrQuelquDeux i'm sorry - what point have i missed? do you not see how this kind of creeping totalitarianism is a threat on our grammatical freedom?

it starts with the grammar nazis in their brownshirts floating around making examples of people, and it escalates from there. soon, we'll be dealing with public executions for not capitalizing "ceo".

but, i suppose you think it can't happen here? oh, it can. and, it is. wake up! sheeple!

FilthyScooter
+jessica I hope you don't mind me point in out that this series started as a way to "troll the trolls" or to make fun of people who purposely use incorrect grammar. Which in fact, is annoying. We aren't forcing correct grammar unto people, but instead pointing out those who flat-out ignore it.

jessica
+FilthyScooter i think this is some a-level rationalizing.

Seamus Spike
+jessica Goodness me, I don't believe I have ever seen someone express anarchist ideals both through and about language. The frivolity of your language is comparable to a Russell Brand with actual ideals. Are you an anarchist? I personally believe that it is one of the only ways to truly allow the human race to evolve and reach a new plain of understanding, simply due to the fact that people would have the opportunity to truly fulfil their true creative and cognitive potential! 

jessica
+Seamus Spike an anarchist, i am. although, i dispute that my language is frivolous.

i do feel that abolishing the enforcement of grammatical conventions in favour of cultivating individual grammatical expression would be a positive change in the educational system. i'm not really against spelling - as mentioned, it is necessary to avoid misunderstanding. but, beating all these rules into kids just teaches deference to authority, while stamping out the individual spirit of expression. i think this is an especially important consideration when it comes to language, because it doesn't just frame the way we type, it also frames the way we think.

i mean, you can just imagine some grade three teacher sorting through poe and marking red xes all over it. that makes me frown.

_ninjaflower_
Uhh.... Okay I think you were saying that this whole thing is insulting? Idk. The obly thing that is insulting is the fact that u r saying we beed to be individual and everybody makes mistakes, and yet u r using perfact grammer!

jessica
+_ninjaflower_ i think, if you look a little more carefully, you'll realize that i put my anti-capitalism on full display.

in fact, i would make any linguist trying to analyze my writing very angry, you're just not aware of the reasons why.

i was in ottawa (which is eventually going to merge with montreal into a megacity) until a few years ago, and it seemed clear that grimes was trying very hard to market herself to an industrial-listening audience, which really made no sense to me. i remember hearing her last album and thinking "this sounds like madonna. it could be successful. but, why is it marketing itself to the underground? i'm never going to listen to this....".

i realize that this is going to confuse some people that bought her last record, but it really makes sense and isn't striking me as very surprising. she's made a career of watering down old ideas in a way that the younger generation can connect to, via the rose-tinted sunglasses of retro culture. this could easily be a ministry side project released c. 1989. but, realize that these ideas were released as side projects because they were failed tracks, despite becoming holy grails for record collectors.

she still has an opportunity to try and take her influences and mould them into something modern and forward thinking. and, she's still young. but, she's running out of time. and, by the standards of the genre she's ripping ideas out of, this is - predictably - trash.

i guarantee you that there's a stack of demos in the garage at wax trax! that never got listened to that are far more interesting than this.

YioMech
It's been over 4 years, get on that knee Roman!

jessica
+YioMech
i understand why you're posting this, but you should really question the logic of it. a ring isn't meant to be the key to a cage. that's both a shitty way to think and a tactic that doesn't work in the long run.

also, i've pointed this out before....

not getting married is not going to avoid a financial settlement. this is not the roman atwood vlog. this is the roman atwood & britney whatever vlog. any court will rule that she's entitled to a substantial amount of video revenue, by nature of being massively involved in the videos. that's in addition to helping run the merch sales.

i don't get the perspective that she has any malicious thoughts, and i don't even get the perspective that she particularly wants out. i do get the perspective that her physical attraction to roman may be a little weak, but that's up to them to work out.

nonetheless, if she wanted to, she could walk out of this tomorrow and get nearly half of what is listed under roman's name. and, no fair-minded person would argue she doesn't deserve it, either.

i check these bands out when i'm going through the show listings in detroit, and it's really remarkable - every song from every band is exactly the same. and, the basic formula they're all using is pretty much trash to begin with.

i know i'm not the first person to point this out. but, it's really remarkably frustrating. i should at least have a passing interest in the modern equivalent of alternative/prog rock, and i know that there are interesting things being produced, but what the labels are throwing out there and sending out on the tour circuit is just the same boring thing over and over again, trying to cash in on this stagnant late teen market that seems uninterested in defining itself.

this kind of commodification is what destroys art forms. i know - i'm twenty years too late for this rant. but, dammit rise and the rest of you medium sized indies, can you try to focus at least a little bit on getting some creative acts some exposure? relapse seems to be taking some chances, at least - what they're doing is picking up alternative acts that have established markets, but at least they're doing something to break the monotony..

30-10-2015: caught up on sleep

i understand how this is an issue in smaller municipalities.

but, toronto should have these facilities. it's not to take away from the story, or anything. but, i remember learning that the blue bin here in windsor takes these cups, and being a little surprised by it, then realizing my expectations were backwards. if we can do it in windsor, it can - and should - be done elsewhere and in toronto & ottawa, especially.

you can't trust businesses to do anything. it's disappointing. but, it's foolish to think they're going to change anything. it's really something the city should be doing.

www.cbc.ca/news/business/marketplace-tim-hortons-starbucks-coffee-cups-recycling-1.3278648

vlogs about attended concerts

29-10-2015: jazz concert in detroit

concert footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymmNNdpbh-M

review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2015/10/29.html

hey - it worked in canada.

and, this would help our new prime minister rather dramatically, too.

i think there's a lot of truth to this. what i think is that addiction should be studied from an essentially existentialist perspective: it all breaks down to a feeling of pointlessness, and the only serious way to get over it is to develop some kind of subjective sense of meaning in the face of overpowering objective meaningless.

but, it's making a category error in declaring that social connections are healthy, and non-social connections are not. conquering addiction is only going to be a social process for extroverts; for introverts, the socialization could even be at the root of it because being social is perceived as a stressful burden and addiction is a way out of it. it's also trivializing the physical effects of physical addiction, which sends the wrong message; it may be true that any addiction can be overcome with enough focus, but that doesn't mean it isn't really hard. people coming out of the hospital do go through withdrawal. they don't tend to become addicts, but they do have to struggle with it for a period. and, it suggests that the vietnam vets just came home and never gave the drugs a second thought - which is demonstrably false.

when i was in university, a lot of my remaining high school friends started experimenting with cocaine. we'd always partied with "soft" drugs, but it wasn't until that point in our early 20s that anybody started talking about "hard" drugs. i watched people take it, i hung out with them when they were on it, and i turned it down a lot - but i never had the slightest interest. the sole reason is that i was focusing on school and didn't want to deal with the possible consequences of withdrawal when i was trying to study. if i was working in a mall, like they all were, i probably would have tried it. i had focus and ambition that made me disinterested, but studying math is anything but a social experience.

today, i live on disability and there's nothing really stopping me from being drunk and/or stoned all the time, except that i don't want to be because i can't focus on recording music when i'm trashed (despite the misperception). this is not social either, it's just having a goal that takes precedence - it's getting over the existential angst and the understanding of objective meaningless and honing in on a goal i've determined is valuable to me.

so, this is kind of getting the right point, but it's spliced with a blinding political perspective that wants to blame everything on liberalism's focus on individualism, which, if not adjusted for, is going to perpetuate the same sorts of problems. it is true that if you force individualism on extroverts, they will become disconnected and turn to ways to fill that void. but, it is also true that if you force community interaction on introverts, they will turn to addictions to escape the pressure of it. the key is in recognizing the underlying issue in both scenarios: that what people need to reject the logic of addiction is something that drives them, as individuals - which may be greater community integration, or may be more greater means of individual expression, depending on the individual's personality.