We don't need to produce nuclear power. We just need to put solar panels on every building. Look at how well that has worked for Germany.
And we can put fertilizer based emission caps on agricultural. Look at the amazing success Sri Lanka has achieved by reducing chemical fertilizer and going to organic agriculture.
Jul 30, 2022·edited Jul 30, 2022Liked by Line Editor
I see no one is addressing the important issue, assless chaps. The assless might seem redundant but it is an important signifier: if you hear “he was wearing chaps” you will probably visualize a generic cowboy in jeans, with chaps overtop, wearing those chaps for their functional purpose. To get the same image and meaning as “assless chaps” you need to say “wearing chaps and no pants” or “only chaps” or something like that. The asslessness signifies the wearer’s state of undress/lack of other clothing, not the chaps themselves, and that this item of clothing is not being used in its original functional purpose, but instead as a sexualized costume.
It’s perhaps not using the correct grammatical structure to convey its meaning, but it does sound better than having to say “he was wearing the chaps asslessly”.
Sorry Jen, the Pope has more than just words. He controls the world’s largest cache of artifacts, he controls tons of secret information. He can do more, not easily mind you. He swims against the current in the Vatican. We’ll see what he can accomplish.
Whining and not listening are the two dominant positions of the chattering classes in this country. There is something happening here and they don't have the smarts to really try to understand what it is. So I rely on the Line to articulate the reality in this country. The box the liberals and NDP have got us in and the failure of the conservative party to give us a sensible way out is disconcerting. The Federal bureaucracy has been particularly incompetent and needs to be put under scrutiny. But who is going to do this? The Federal parties are offering nothing to move us ahead as is pointed out in this podcast. Good work
As someone desperate for an end to the Liberals for the next generation, it's hard to listen to your analysis of the Cons. But, in many respects, you're not wrong. There is intellectual emptiness. One reason is that the media wouldn't let policy be debated if they put anything out (hence why it's all taking place on podcasts). There's also social media, which Poilievre gets very well but at times can seem pretty typical. I for one wish he would go to the 3rd debate. Anyhow, there are brighter days ahead with him in charge rather than Trudeau. But, if they don't have solutions, those sunny days will last just about as long as they did for JT.
I found the remarks on the repeal of the Doctrine of Discovery interesting.
As was pointed out, this doctrine is not invoked in modern day Canadian jurisprudence.
Indeed, Canadian law has explicitly rejected application of the notion of terra nullius which is part and parcel of this doctrine: “The doctrine of terra nullius (that no one owned the land prior to European assertion of sovereignty) never applied in Canada, as confirmed by the Royal Proclamation (1763), R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 1.” See Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 at para. 69.
But, of course, in typical Canadian fashion a lazy media glommed on to the demands for the repeal of the doctrine as if this stood to have earthshaking implications.
What is fascinating about this whole issue is that it ignores history, i.e. the fact that NA was discovered by Europeans and was settled and transformed beyond recognition into modern day Canada and America.
Repudiate whatever doctrines you want but we are left with that fact which strangely seems to be an irrelevant consideration to those fixating on doctrines elaborated in papal bulls of the 1400s.
If you are standing on the corner of Yonge and Dundas and some tells you that the doctrine of discovery is now repudiated, assuming it were still part of Canadian law, what does it mean in practical terms?
Too much work for the media to try and elucidate this.
The only thing I took away from this podcast (actually YT video) was Assless Chaps. This was the only thing on my brain after hearing this. If you did a word cloud on this podcast, indicating what words/phrases were mentioned the most, it would be 'Alberta', 'Assless', and 'Chaps' I didn't know what 'chaps' was. I googled it. Its for bikers and cowboys. And presumably male strippers.
I don't think I'll be wearing one.
okay, I guess 2 things.....
Absolutely right about Conservatism in N. America, but let me suggest a couple of things.....
Its kinda hard to be a conservative. In terms of temperament, a liberal is curious, open-minded, values education, and is more receptive to nuance, subtlety, and abstraction; a conservative is more certain, less likely to question, formal education is good, but not strictly necessary, and does not value subtlety (also, I'm not attaching any moral judgement about any of the above traits).
Given that society has undergone tremendous change since Gen X (the 70's more or less), liberal thinkers are always in the vanguard of new ideas. Conservatism, in a sense, is REACTIVE to liberal thought. At its best, conservative thinking proposes a slower, methodical approach to problems that never forgets that best laid plans go awry and that the future might not play out exactly as you imagine it. Nowadays however, this has been replaced by anti-intellectualism, crudeness for its own sake, conspiracy theories, and Owning rhe Libs. You cannot simply react to things knee-jerk or you will never take the initiative in any conversation and will be forever the Grumpy Old Man telling the kids to get off your lawn.
Cons are absolutely right that progressives are a bit nutty (politicians in general too....), but their response is, as Gerson mentioned, resembles National Lampoon's Animal House in its sophistication.
Conservative parties seem to be more driven by rage and anger than any coherent agenda at this point. Things are changing, and their most fervent supporters don’t like it and feel like they’re losing. This is amplified for Alberta conservatives - the decline of the energy sector has badly hurt the prospects of non-college educated men, and the old balance between rural and urban political power has decisively tilted towards the cities. Rural areas are disproportionately not college educated people; cities are dominated by the politics of the college-educated. The problem is that the non-college educated group doesn’t seem to have the language or strategy to articulate a different platform, and it results in stuff like the Ottawa convoy. They’re angry, they’re unhappy, but they can’t really come up with something that persuades anybody else. It doesn’t help when they spiral down conspiratorial rat holes based on misinformation.
My problem is that this doesn’t speak to me at all. When I briefly joined the federal party a decade ago, I was completely turned off by the regular red meat fundraising phone calls. Quit telling me “look at what those bastards are doing now!” and tell me what *you’re* doing better! Unfortunately, that kind of pointed where the political energy was. Resentment, fear, and anger motivated people to give money. A rubber puppet had it right in The Empire Strikes Back: “Fear, anger, hate - these are the paths to the dark side. Once you take the easy path, forever will it control your destiny!”
Loved this...as usual. Where governance is concerned, I still believe they don't know what to do....and that's every party at every level. There's massive under investment in the military which will never generate a return. There's a climate crisis that shows its fangs seemingly once a week these days. And you cannot get elected by telling the truth....that things aren't actually great. The electorate knows it, and it seems everyone is angry about it. Everyone's taxes are way to high.....but ask someone what they'd give up to lower them...crickets. We're at that point where leadership is really hard.....there isn't any in Canada.....anywhere. To quote Peter Schilling's "Major Tom"..."The count goes on....."
We don't need to produce nuclear power. We just need to put solar panels on every building. Look at how well that has worked for Germany.
And we can put fertilizer based emission caps on agricultural. Look at the amazing success Sri Lanka has achieved by reducing chemical fertilizer and going to organic agriculture.
I see no one is addressing the important issue, assless chaps. The assless might seem redundant but it is an important signifier: if you hear “he was wearing chaps” you will probably visualize a generic cowboy in jeans, with chaps overtop, wearing those chaps for their functional purpose. To get the same image and meaning as “assless chaps” you need to say “wearing chaps and no pants” or “only chaps” or something like that. The asslessness signifies the wearer’s state of undress/lack of other clothing, not the chaps themselves, and that this item of clothing is not being used in its original functional purpose, but instead as a sexualized costume.
It’s perhaps not using the correct grammatical structure to convey its meaning, but it does sound better than having to say “he was wearing the chaps asslessly”.
The task force is convening like every other department in the government
Sorry Jen, the Pope has more than just words. He controls the world’s largest cache of artifacts, he controls tons of secret information. He can do more, not easily mind you. He swims against the current in the Vatican. We’ll see what he can accomplish.
Whining and not listening are the two dominant positions of the chattering classes in this country. There is something happening here and they don't have the smarts to really try to understand what it is. So I rely on the Line to articulate the reality in this country. The box the liberals and NDP have got us in and the failure of the conservative party to give us a sensible way out is disconcerting. The Federal bureaucracy has been particularly incompetent and needs to be put under scrutiny. But who is going to do this? The Federal parties are offering nothing to move us ahead as is pointed out in this podcast. Good work
As someone desperate for an end to the Liberals for the next generation, it's hard to listen to your analysis of the Cons. But, in many respects, you're not wrong. There is intellectual emptiness. One reason is that the media wouldn't let policy be debated if they put anything out (hence why it's all taking place on podcasts). There's also social media, which Poilievre gets very well but at times can seem pretty typical. I for one wish he would go to the 3rd debate. Anyhow, there are brighter days ahead with him in charge rather than Trudeau. But, if they don't have solutions, those sunny days will last just about as long as they did for JT.
Congratulations on working out the equivalent energy for fossil fuels! That is the first level of understanding for solving the problem.
Poor Frances.
Has someone told him that his penitential trip was not penitential enough and that he is going to have to come back?
I found the remarks on the repeal of the Doctrine of Discovery interesting.
As was pointed out, this doctrine is not invoked in modern day Canadian jurisprudence.
Indeed, Canadian law has explicitly rejected application of the notion of terra nullius which is part and parcel of this doctrine: “The doctrine of terra nullius (that no one owned the land prior to European assertion of sovereignty) never applied in Canada, as confirmed by the Royal Proclamation (1763), R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 1.” See Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 at para. 69.
But, of course, in typical Canadian fashion a lazy media glommed on to the demands for the repeal of the doctrine as if this stood to have earthshaking implications.
What is fascinating about this whole issue is that it ignores history, i.e. the fact that NA was discovered by Europeans and was settled and transformed beyond recognition into modern day Canada and America.
Repudiate whatever doctrines you want but we are left with that fact which strangely seems to be an irrelevant consideration to those fixating on doctrines elaborated in papal bulls of the 1400s.
If you are standing on the corner of Yonge and Dundas and some tells you that the doctrine of discovery is now repudiated, assuming it were still part of Canadian law, what does it mean in practical terms?
Too much work for the media to try and elucidate this.
Perhaps after admitting you cannot speak for Indigenous people you either stop there or talk to some Indigenous folks.
I largely love the work the Line does.
Well, I suppose in your own way you are aiming to reduce the amount of fertilizer in some fashion, according to your byline "We reject bullshit."
:-)
The only thing I took away from this podcast (actually YT video) was Assless Chaps. This was the only thing on my brain after hearing this. If you did a word cloud on this podcast, indicating what words/phrases were mentioned the most, it would be 'Alberta', 'Assless', and 'Chaps' I didn't know what 'chaps' was. I googled it. Its for bikers and cowboys. And presumably male strippers.
I don't think I'll be wearing one.
okay, I guess 2 things.....
Absolutely right about Conservatism in N. America, but let me suggest a couple of things.....
Its kinda hard to be a conservative. In terms of temperament, a liberal is curious, open-minded, values education, and is more receptive to nuance, subtlety, and abstraction; a conservative is more certain, less likely to question, formal education is good, but not strictly necessary, and does not value subtlety (also, I'm not attaching any moral judgement about any of the above traits).
Given that society has undergone tremendous change since Gen X (the 70's more or less), liberal thinkers are always in the vanguard of new ideas. Conservatism, in a sense, is REACTIVE to liberal thought. At its best, conservative thinking proposes a slower, methodical approach to problems that never forgets that best laid plans go awry and that the future might not play out exactly as you imagine it. Nowadays however, this has been replaced by anti-intellectualism, crudeness for its own sake, conspiracy theories, and Owning rhe Libs. You cannot simply react to things knee-jerk or you will never take the initiative in any conversation and will be forever the Grumpy Old Man telling the kids to get off your lawn.
Cons are absolutely right that progressives are a bit nutty (politicians in general too....), but their response is, as Gerson mentioned, resembles National Lampoon's Animal House in its sophistication.
What's the name of the public policy book?
Conservative parties seem to be more driven by rage and anger than any coherent agenda at this point. Things are changing, and their most fervent supporters don’t like it and feel like they’re losing. This is amplified for Alberta conservatives - the decline of the energy sector has badly hurt the prospects of non-college educated men, and the old balance between rural and urban political power has decisively tilted towards the cities. Rural areas are disproportionately not college educated people; cities are dominated by the politics of the college-educated. The problem is that the non-college educated group doesn’t seem to have the language or strategy to articulate a different platform, and it results in stuff like the Ottawa convoy. They’re angry, they’re unhappy, but they can’t really come up with something that persuades anybody else. It doesn’t help when they spiral down conspiratorial rat holes based on misinformation.
My problem is that this doesn’t speak to me at all. When I briefly joined the federal party a decade ago, I was completely turned off by the regular red meat fundraising phone calls. Quit telling me “look at what those bastards are doing now!” and tell me what *you’re* doing better! Unfortunately, that kind of pointed where the political energy was. Resentment, fear, and anger motivated people to give money. A rubber puppet had it right in The Empire Strikes Back: “Fear, anger, hate - these are the paths to the dark side. Once you take the easy path, forever will it control your destiny!”
We had 3 feet of snow in August back in the 90’s. Flattened all the crops. We live south of Fort Macleod AB
Loved this...as usual. Where governance is concerned, I still believe they don't know what to do....and that's every party at every level. There's massive under investment in the military which will never generate a return. There's a climate crisis that shows its fangs seemingly once a week these days. And you cannot get elected by telling the truth....that things aren't actually great. The electorate knows it, and it seems everyone is angry about it. Everyone's taxes are way to high.....but ask someone what they'd give up to lower them...crickets. We're at that point where leadership is really hard.....there isn't any in Canada.....anywhere. To quote Peter Schilling's "Major Tom"..."The count goes on....."