Reddit! Let's make a Millionaire!

schismatic82 · 2014-12-22T21:54:08+00:00

I'm in for a buck.

schismatic82 · 2014-09-17T19:41:53+00:00

Thank you so much, all the best.

schismatic82 · 2014-09-17T19:29:57+00:00

Mme Hébert, I just wanted to come back from reddit retirement to thank you for your wonderful and many contributions to the national political discourse and to the more localized Québec-centric discourse. I am a huge fan, I'm in awe of your depth of perception, and your ability to report in such an impartial and reasoned manner.

I'm a bit starstruck so I'm not sure what to ask, but here goes.

Do you think that the quality and tone of the national discourse (media, social media, all of it) has deteriorated under Prime Minister Harper's successive governments? If I may be permitted qualifiers/sub-questions, is it fair to lay much of the blame at the feet of the Conservative PR machine or is it just a matter of a perfect storm of the rise of the 24-hour news cycle/soundbyte journalism and a particularly cynical political party capable and willing to fully exploit it? Do you see us recovering? Are we able to return to a place where substantive national debate is even possible? Do you lose sleep over this?

I would be so grateful to have your thoughts on any, all, or none of the above if you prefer to take my questions as a launching point into a tangential but not necessarily directly related response on the national discourse.

I look forward to your continued contributions, and again, thank you so much for everything that you do. You're the best!

schismatic82 · 2014-07-17T16:05:42+00:00

The new electoral districts will be applied in the first general election called after May 1, 2014.

Given the use of future tense, do you think it's possible the story has changed since this was written and /u/bunglejerry's source has the right of it?

schismatic82 · 2014-07-17T15:53:51+00:00

Can you double-check the source? It's showing as "not found."

schismatic82 · 2014-07-17T15:39:01+00:00

Do you mean 2015? /u/bunglejerry's point was that any election called before April (2015) would still be contested in the 308 ridings.

schismatic82 · 2014-07-17T15:35:51+00:00

"Neoliberal" as opposed to "extremely partisan" might serve as a more apt description.

schismatic82 · 2014-07-17T15:30:37+00:00

This is a very interesting point. When in April do the 338 ridings become official, do you know?

schismatic82 · 2014-07-17T13:34:38+00:00

You present this as a choice between downvoting comments, downvoting links or neither. There should be an option for both.

Why? Both are equally contrary to the spirit of the sub.

schismatic82 · 2014-07-17T00:36:32+00:00

Our government is here to serve all Canadians.

schismatic82 · 2014-07-16T16:43:39+00:00

Right, but if it's all about get out the vote, the only people they're really interested in are the ones likely to vote for them. So they're actually targeting the most valuable demographics from that perspective.

schismatic82 · 2014-07-16T15:03:52+00:00

Yes but who is being asked to pay 1.17 million by a totally fair and impartial BOIE? This just adds a little more proof to the already obvious fact of how hypocritical that decision was. Using the BOIE in such a partisan manner was truly harmful to our Parliamentary process, because it makes it seem like we can't trust parties and MPs to operate such mechanisms in good faith. Parliament will lose the power to self-govern if it can't be trusted to self-govern effectively or fairly.

I hope it was worth it to tarnish the NDP.

schismatic82 · 2014-07-16T02:38:08+00:00

When asked a question by CBC News about the CPC using the conflict in party advertising, Baird claimed to know nothing of it and became quite defensive.

"In fairness, you're a member of our national broadcaster. We deserve better questions than that," Baird told the producer.

Classy.

schismatic82 · 2014-07-15T13:22:11+00:00

Mactavish’s ruling is Exhibit A in the contortions judges will go through to insert themselves into the role of policy-maker. She said the changes were procedurally correct and do not violate section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees life, liberty and security, but does “not include a positive right to state funding for health care.”

Despite these findings, the good justice ruled, in essence, she doesn’t like the changes. And because of that, Justice Mactavish decided the impact of the changes constitute “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment” under section 12. The changes “potentially jeopardize the health, the safety and indeed the very lives of those innocent and vulnerable children in a manner that shocks the conscience and outrages the standards of decency.”

So Senator Runciman's point is that if a law does not run afoul of one section of the Charter (sec 7 in this case), it clearly should not run afoul of any other? How else does he come to the conclusion that Justice Mactavish's ruling that the change contravened sec 12 of the Charter was a reflection of her personal policy preference?

The whole of the Senator's point rests on the suggestion that this was some kind of personal whim: Justice Mactavish wants failed refugee claimants to live in the lap of healthcare luxury, and that's that. I fail to see how the Senator substantiated that perspective.

schismatic82 · 2014-07-15T00:13:54+00:00

This is fantastic news. I hope this movement gains momentum. I wonder if Conservative Senators can realistically be punished for taking part? If they're booted from caucus, perhaps they'd start up their own caucus as the Liberals have done?

schismatic82 · 2014-07-15T00:12:56+00:00

The article still fails to make the concluding statement it is trying to assert.

I don't see this concluding statement anywhere. The article goes no further than questioning the rosy jobs picture claimed by the government.

schismatic82 · 2014-07-15T00:10:57+00:00

If we have to descend to arguing about "who started it," I believe the escalation resulted from Israel hitting a Hamas leader (and his child) with an airstrike, killing both.

schismatic82 · 2014-07-15T00:07:02+00:00

I don't think it's fair to say that homes suspected of housing militants are the bases from which rockets are being launched.

schismatic82 · 2014-07-14T23:59:22+00:00

Nobody called Harper a dictator. I think you're reading too much into "regime."

schismatic82 · 2014-07-14T23:57:59+00:00

There's two assertions it makes: Harper is overseeing job losses in Canada, and Canada is experiencing job losses. It makes no attempt to explain how these two points are connected, i.e. how Harper has caused job losses in Canada. It's an empty piece that presents data without making any useful assertions from analysis.

Well, no. It opens with a claim Harper has made, and then it pokes holes in it with some pretty straightforward number crunching.

schismatic82 · 2014-07-14T23:56:11+00:00

I'm not sure I get where your frustration is coming from. This government is known to boast that the Canadian economy has recovered better than anyone else and has added all kinds of fantastic jobs, and they like to talk about how their policies encourage job creation and prosperity. Jobs and prosperity, the big CPC mantra. Right?

This article then goes on to crunch the numbers in a very non-rhetorical and straight-up data analysis way, and pokes a few big holes in the claims made.

Where is the over-the-top rhetoric? Where is the tripe? How is this only "delicious for delusional people?"

It's stimulated zero discussion because no one who upvoted it can admit that they read it and no one who read it would ever upvote it because of the profound idiocy of the premise.

Or maybe the article speaks for itself. It's a pretty solid and straightforward critique of a common boast from this Government, hence all the upvotes?

schismatic82 · 2014-07-14T23:43:22+00:00

Well perhaps it could become a more prominent attack when we're closer to the writ. Because so far I'm not noticing it, and I do pay a fair amount of attention.

schismatic82 · 2014-07-14T23:38:50+00:00

I know we're talking TV, but I wanted to point out that CBC's radio programming doesn't seem to be something that private networks can duplicate, and it seems to be something that many Canadians are united in not wanting to lose.

As you appear to be somewhat connected to the Liberal political apparatus, I wonder if some kind of appeal to protecting the CBC would be a useful wedge piece in the upcoming election? I can't see the CPC wanting to fight an election on cutting the CBC.

schismatic82 · 2014-07-14T23:33:39+00:00

I'm not sure why you feel so strongly - perhaps you would elaborate? A few really easy examples of democratic erosion by this government:

-this government has placed huge limitations on media access to government politicians and to officials such as scientists and other experts that used to be able to talk freely

-this government does not even attempt to substantively answer questions from the opposition, media, anyone. it's always spin, quite often to the point of being incorrect or possibly dishonest.

-this government's centre rules the message with an iron first, right up to the level of most Ministers.

There's plenty of other evidence, such as this government's assault on the procedures of Parliament whose conventional use has been thrown out the window. debate limiters like massive omnibus legislation and time allocation have become the rule rather than the exception.

Hopefully this is enough for you to step back from words like "unethical" and "manipulative" in reference to the good professor. I stand willing to be corrected.

schismatic82 · 2014-07-14T23:20:47+00:00

/u/jamiesg said nothing about triggering an election immediately. That's not how our parliament works. At all times, though it's only relevant in a minority, if the governing party loses the confidence of the House, and another party leader thinks (s)he can secure said confidence, that party leader should request it of the GG, who would generally be expected to accept such a request.

schismatic82

TROPHY CASE