[New American States]

There is almost no benefit for prosperous regions to join larger nations. The number of countries in the world has been growing over the last several decades, not declining, as regions separate so they can have their own sovereign governments that better look after their own interests. As long as there are reasonable trade relations in place between nations, and migration/employment between nations is not too heavily impeded, people everywhere benefit from many smaller nations rather than fewer larger nations. 

Some provinces or regions of Canada could perhaps one day separate from Canada. But join the US? No. Not unless the future is a far meaner and darker time than today.

[How Do We Deal With Overpopulation, While Respecting Human Rights?]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

My point is that governments have to set environmental policy.  Individuals can only do so much.  Solar panels are a small piece of the puzzle.  

Don’t forget that China and India are signatories of the Paris Agreement.  They are implementing national policies to curb emissions. The US federal government is scrapping such measures. 

They are implementing policies which involve projections of peaking 10-20 years from now, at levels much higher than today, before slowly starting to reduce emissions. That's not "curbing". If every country in the world follows the commitments that they made at the Paris agreement, the world would still blow right past the 2C targets all the way to 4C or more, primarily because these commitments allow China and India and SE Asia to massively increase emissions over the coming decades. 

The billions of people in China, India, and SE Asia will not be held back from attaining development and comforts comparable to Western nations, and the emissions they will generate to get there will far surpass what's been emitted so far. 

The most realistic way that warming that has been assessed as "catastrophic" can be avoided is through solar engineering approaches, like a sun shield. NASA studies suggest that a sun shield sufficient to partially counteract global warming could be built for just a few trillion dollars, a small price to pay if the consequences of global warming are as problematic as predicted. 

Once the impact of global warming becomes clear, and the political impetus to act becomes urgent, solar engineering will present by far the easiest options for meaningful action, especially since in a few decades time it may be quite realistic for an individual country, or even an individual corporation, to fund such projects, rather than attempting to reach global consensus on action which can be sabotaged by just one large economy that dissents. 

[Endgame]

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Because Naziism and Communism gave us 20M-40M deaths and social justice gave us wedding cakes with two grooms on them !

It's early days yet for social justice ideology, unfortunately.

Many deaths have already come as an indirect result, as for example Western nations refuse to recognize that certain individuals in wartorn areas like Syria are at much greater risk of violence than the surrounding Muslim majority. Thousands of Yazidi are dead, largely because Western countries failed to recognize their special plight relative to other Muslims, which was a blind spot resulting primarily from social justice ideology. Similarly, most Western countries are shutting their doors to whites fleeing South African violence against them, again because of social justice ideology. And personally, I think the Arab-Israeli conflict has been drastically drawn out as a result of Western tampering that stems primarily from social justice ideology, although I'm sure many would argue that point. 

But you're right, the above results are nowhere near what was caused by Nazism and Communism. But remember that it took those ideologies getting into complete control of nations and implementing their agendas over a decade or more before the deaths by the millions began. Social justice ideology isn't there yet. There were those who could see through the evil of Nazism and Communism in advance, but they were ignored, as plenty of other people, among them many upstanding intellectuals of the day, thought that Nazism and Communism were great ideas, the cures to some or all of mankind's many problems. Today, social justice ideology is in the early stages, with some people (like myself) warning against its evils, but largely being ignored. History repeats itself.

I really hope I'm wrong on this one and you're right, I really do. 

 

[This week in Islam]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

By western standards? Probably most of them, given the cultures and value systems of the countries in which they were raised.

Well, by western (progressive/liberal) standards, even most Westerners are "extreme misogynists". Maybe that's the real reason people on the left don't seem to find any exception with Muslim misogyny. Not knowing enough about the world, they fail to realize the difference between the alleged misogyny they constantly complain about in Western countries and that of Muslims. 

[How Do We Deal With Overpopulation, While Respecting Human Rights?]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

In part, yes.  The U.S. economy influences international policy.  It can be used for good or evil.  Progress or regression.  Not supporting a major climate change agreement with everything we know about the impact of greenhouse gasses is reckless in the extreme, darn right inimical.

US greenhouse gas emissions peaked in 2007 and have been declining since, and are projected to continue to decline gradually over the coming years, even with the relatively "anti-environment" policies of the current administration. Yes, with more effort they could be made to decline a bit faster. 

On the other hand, China, India, and SE Asia are increasing emissions at a rate that far outpaces any impact that could possibly be made in the developed world. Every 10 years, the CO2 output of Asia increases by an amount equal to the entire current emissions of the US. Whether the US cuts emissions by 5% or 8% over the next decade makes virtually no impact when China and India will be emitting an entire extra America's worth of emissions by then. 

This is where the "environmental justice" people totally ignore reality. They talk about "historical emissions", etc. But what's been done in the past cannot be changed, all that can be affected is the future. And there is no way to significantly impact total world CO2 output without focusing almost exclusively on China, India, and SE Asia, which together are responsible for over 90% of all the growth in emissions, while the Western world is already gradually reducing its output. You just can't argue with the math. The US and Europe could cut their output to 0 and we would still shoot right past the 2C target all the way to >4C, without even missing a beat. 

[This week in Islam]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Right.  How many of the Muslims we import are "extreme misogynists"?  Can you quantify them in some way?   If you truly aren't intending to broadbrush Muslim men as 'extreme misogynists', then I am sure you'll be able to specify just how many Muslim men are 'extreme misogynists'.  Right?

I understand that in your expert opinion, the only reason he punched her was because he's an 'extreme misogynist"; young, male and drunk had nothing at all to do with it.  Because young, drunk, males never ever get drunk and punch women - unless they are Muslim, I guess. 

 By the way, this guy is not a Canadian Citizen, or even a permanent resident.  He's a Saudi - from one of the most extremely misogynistic countries in the world, I agree.  And since he's being deported - guess we're not importing that 'extreme misogynist'.   Which is fine by me, by the way.  Even if he's the nicest guy imaginable when sober, and only a misogynistic asshole drunk, I'm ok with not keeping him around.  (There are only about 8,000 Saudi-Canadians, we don't import many of them at all).

By the way, weren't you just recently criticizing JT for supporting Freeland in her stand against Saudi Arabia's terrible human rights record?   

What I have said, and what I will continue to say, is that just like all religions, Islam easily lends itself to misogyny.   Generally speaking, Middle Eastern and African cultures are patriarchal, regardless of whether one is Christian, Muslim or "other".  Misogynistic practices in the Middle East and in Northern Africa are widespread, whether one is Christian, Muslim or "other".    

I think most people who argue against "importing Muslims" don't particularly care if its the religious or the cultural aspects of their views that make them likely to be "extreme misogynists". From this point of view, you're not really scoring any points with the argument of "It's not because he's Muslim, it's because he's from the middle-east"!

If it would make you happier to call these people "individuals of Middle-Eastern or North-African cultural background" rather than "Muslims" I'm sure that can be arranged. Although, personally, I think it's much less discriminatory to criticize a religion, which is just a dumb belief and can be changed at any time (except in Muslim countries where that would be punishable by death, of course), rather than national origin or ethnicity, which are not changeable. 

[Should Canada switch to an inquisitorial system?]

You should elaborate on what you mean by an "inquisitorial" system. 

[Endgame]

Social justice is the worst ideology to emerge in human civilization since Nazism and Communism. Treating people based on group identity rather than as individuals leads to the greatest injustices, and yet that is precisely what the ideology of social justice is all about. Social justice is literally the opposite of actual justice. 

As for the OP's topic of Russian information/psychological/societal warfare... yes, it's seemingly been pretty effective. But really it's been social media that has allowed it to be effective. More and more people have a poorer and poorer grasp of reality. Personally, I'm at the point where I just assume any and all information I might casually hear or see is complete bullshit. Only on topics of particular interest to me will I bother putting in the time and effort to sift out what reality is from among all the noise.

The thing is, even if this disreality campaign is aimed at the US, it hurts other nations just as much, because ideas flow very quickly around the world and people everywhere have the same reduced sense of reality, not just in America. Dictatorships and semi-dictatorships may not care much about whether their people can tell what is real from what is not as long as their people remain obedient, but long term economic prosperity requires a rational and informed population. 

 

[I am the New Minister of Immigration!]

47 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

You're probably old enough to recall being taught about population graph/pyramids and how countries with less pyramid-y age distribution (ie straight up and down) were the ideal ones that all should strive to achieve. Now we are told this was a bunch of BS and HUGE families are what is needed...and WHY didn't you all have MORE babies!??

The same people that talk endlessly about environmental problems (while opposing all existing scalable technologies to address the problems - hydro and nuclear), are also the people that totally dismiss environmental concerns and argue for more population. The number one driver of environmental damage is population, and yet we apparently need a vast increase of it. These are also the same people that talk about a "labor shortage" at the same time as they advocate for the need for a "guaranteed income" for everyone since most people will be left unemployed by automation. There's no consistency or logic or rationality, just a bunch of disjointed emotional feel-good ideas:

"Open borders! Cut CO2 emissions (but don't use hydro or nuclear, do it by going vegan)! Robots will do all the work for us so we need free money from the government for everyone! But we need more people! Use all the wealth that's been created to lift people out of poverty! But capitalism (which creates the wealth) is evil! Islam is peace and Western culture is rape culture! Listen to the scientific consensus on climate change! But scientists are in the pockets of big agriculture and they're all lying about GMOs being safe! No religion in the classroom! But the religion of social justice must be incorporated into everything, even math class! We're all about tolerance and inclusiveness! Except of anyone who happens to have a different opinion!"

 

[I am the New Minister of Immigration!]

The labor shortage is a myth, just like the supposed demographic apocalypse. Everyone who's paid attention to anything over the last decade or two knows that the real economic debate is about what the heck will people do as automation takes over more and more jobs, not a "labor shortage". 

[White South African Farmer Plight.]

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

Right.  All kids lie.   Everything they say is not true.  (BTW: that "kid" is a surgical resident - yeah can't trust them, can we?)

She was there, you were not, but YOU know exactly what happened.

Yeah, sub-Saharan African governments alway report the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

You feeble efforts to deflect are pathetic.

The extent to which people here want to cover up and dismiss the atrocities going on in South Africa really calls into question their motivations. 

[White South African Farmer Plight.]

20 minutes ago, cannuck said:

My black friends (all American, and totally isolated from RSA today except for what they get in the media) claim that such claims of white rape and slaughter are being posted by white supremacist groups.  My buddy's brother - a retired policeman living in Empangeni - points out to me that while there seem to be a fair number of white farmers being attacked and murdered, the official government record shows that it is simply not happening - and it is.  Well, now that I was confused, I decided to ask a South African friend who recently emigrated to the UK.   I had never discussed this with her before, but when I asked, her tone of voice changed dramatically and she told me of the three violent invasions of their family farm (by blacks) that in the last murdered her Mother's boyfriend and attempted to attack and kidnap her (other family members intervened).  The police did nothing, crimes didn't happen.  They decided it was time to go (two years ago) and to this time, 6 of her family and 7 more of her close friends are dead from many of these farm attacks that didn't happen.   Now, 19 a year, and she alone can personally account for 14 of them?   You REALLY think 19 is in any way representative and accurate>??????

I have a South African acquaintance as well and his family left for similar reasons. While none of them were killed, they were the victims of several violent attacks. The people pointing at official SA government statistics and saying "see, everything is fine" are clearly missing the point. Regimes that are trying to eradicate or push out a minority group rarely publicly document their crimes for the world to see. 

[White South African Farmer Plight.]

1 hour ago, scribblet said:

Would Russia be better -A delegation of 30 South African farming families has arrived in Russia’s farmbelt Stavropol Region, Rossiya 1 TV reports. The group says it is facing violent attacks and death threats at home.  http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/248587

 

I'd take Russia over South Africa any day. 

[Is Immigration too High]

Just now, Machjo said:

Simple solution: impose environmental policies that restrict construction in any environmentally sensitive area. This would limit the availability of housing which would naturally push prices up and so make Canada naturally less attractive. Trust the market.

Trust the market under an assumption of ideally crafted environmental policies? Sorry but I don't trust the government to have that much foresight. If politicians thought it would be to their political benefit over the next 2-4 years to let a billion people into Canada, I'm sure they would, future be damned. 

[Is Immigration too High]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I hear "too bad" and "tough" and a poll saying that people want home prices to fall.  I don't see it... people want their homes to increase in value.

Wealthy GTA and GVRD landowners are a very tiny portion of the Canadian population. 

[Is Immigration too High]

8 hours ago, Machjo said:

I can't vote in that poll but I don't think of it in terms of numbers. If one billion people come to Canada and find work, that's just fine. 

If one billion people come to Canada to find work, even if they are the highest quality people, intelligent, driven, law-abiding, etc, Canada's environment would be utterly destroyed. There is simply no need for so many people in Canada. Part of what makes Canada a great and unique place is its vast untouched wilderness areas where nature can take its course as it has for millions of years. Add a billion people and Canada would have 100 more major cities and their surrounding farmland and suburbs, and essentially no natural environments left. No thank you!

[Is Immigration too High]

52 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Who is going to tell those GTA homeowners the value of their assets won't be increasing at the rate they would like.

Too bad so sad? The last thing Canada's major cities need is further increases in housing costs. 

[Your thoughts on the Libertarian Party of Canada?]

Canadians aren't Libertarians and aren't especially receptive to a Libertarian message. Canadians want "peace, order, and good government". 

[Are two conservative parties better than one?]

38 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Associating your positions with people that behead women without male escorts while associating your opponent's positions with people like Voltaire and John Stuart Mill seems like you are conceding a lot of unearned linguistic territory to your political opponents.

I don't think many Western conservatives "associate their positions" with that of Islamic theocracies. Nor, for that matter, do I think that even many of their opponents would accuse of them doing so. 

Quote

Also, if we redefine words like 'liberal' and 'conservative' to the point where we don't mean what they actually mean then I think this destroys meaning, makes bizarre word associations, and makes it harder to convey ideas in society.

I believe it's mostly you that's trying to do the redefining. Most people who follow politics in Western countries today even in a very cursory way know what "liberal" and "conservative" means in the current context. Yes, the meaning of words changes over time. Languages are living things and so are societies. Trying to say that the currently accepted meaning of words should be discarded and we should only use words according to the meanings they had in the oldest known usage of those words is an exercise in pointlessness.

[Are two conservative parties better than one?]

5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Our politicians are a pretty good reflection of the population, except for the fact that they work 80 hours a week, give up on a career for severals years (if it is a law practice, they will take a 75% pay cut), miss time with family, and work to get problems with the EI system for one of their bosses who calls them a crook and a liar.

Exactly. And what kind of person would put up with all that, just to get into public office? Someone who is power hungry as hell, that's who. 

[Are two conservative parties better than one?]

6 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is why you need to get involved in the nomination. Unless the party leader axes your candidate, you have some say. To avoid the evils, make sure you get behind a good candidate. Maybe one that will work to eliminate the leader's power to block a nomination.

I have better things to do than mingle with a bunch of political hacks. As do most other reasonable people. 

[Are two conservative parties better than one?]

6 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Democracy is only as good as the electorate.

I would revise that to say that Democracy is only as good as the worst among the electorate. 

 

[Are two conservative parties better than one?]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

And does it result in better politicians? I've seen no evidence of that.

I don't think anything can really result in better politicians. Except maybe if we do selection by lottery instead of voting. Modern representative democracy is specifically set up to encourage only the most power hungry and unethical individuals to get into office. 

[Are two conservative parties better than one?]

2 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

If someone is too go*****med lazy to get off their a*s to go to a polling station, even getting a ride from a campaign organization, they don't deserve a vote. Voting is THE most important part of democracy. You get time off from work, the campaign will provide child care, rides to the polls, etc.

The campaign will provide child care and rides? Where and when? Doesn't sound like a universally available service. Moreover who would want to leave their children in the hands of fanatical political operators? 

Quote

There is no excuse for not showing up at the polls.

It's not a matter of excuse, it's a matter of convenience. Here in WA state we switched to voting by mail and it works a heck of a lot better from what I've seen. Online is the obvious next step. The idea that voting should be some archaic procedure where you have to physically go somewhere to prove your dedication is not productive. Voting is a matter of recording citizen's preferences for government, and should be achieved just like any government service, in the most cost effective, timely, and accessible way possible. And that means online. 

Quote

 If you don't get out and campaign for your candidate, both in the nomination process and the election, you have no right to complain about the result.

Campaigning for a candidate is an exercise that's only for political fanatics. Most normal people want nothing to do with politics and just vote for the lesser of the evils presented to them by the system. 

[Are two conservative parties better than one?]

8 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Aside from putting forward a decent platform and good candidates, getting out the vote is vital. Some elections are won or lost with the ground game. 

1. Canvass - identify the vote.

2. Election day- ensure EVERY supporter gets to the polls. 

1972. A Conservative supporter was working in a cafe. It was 45 minutes until the polls closed. She called the campaign office and asked if every one on the list had voted. Yes.

What about the guys out on the construction site? Well, no. 

Who's on the list?

She jumped into a van and drove out to the site, picked up only the conservative voters (identified by the canvassers) and got them to the polls with five minutes to spare. There were ten of them. The Tory won by 8 votes.

This whole idea is absurd in the year 2018. People should be able to securely and conveniently vote from their computer or mobile phone. People always bring up issues of security/verification when this is mentioned but the reality is that those are mere simple technical issues to solve. Allowing online voting would significantly boost voter participation rates, I would guess up to 90% or more of eligible voters, and reduce the under-representation of all kinds of groups in voting (the young, the poor, etc).