I've said this elsewhere: Poliviere feels a lot like Social Credit 2.0; Prairie populism for a digital age. The 'evil bankers' message stays; social credit gets bumped for the magic inflation fighting magic of Bitcoin; and hardworking young couples can (something, something, gatekeepers) suddenly afford a lovely home in an area with lots of amenities. It didn't deliver what it promised in v1.0 and I'm not convinced v2.0 will be more successful.
If Canadian conservatism is going to thrive it really needs to have something meaningful to say about real issues a lot of people care about. Poliviere was his strongest on issues of affordability, but he doesn't seem to have any convincing solutions. Solutions are hard and take time and there seems to be large chunk of the electorate that is short on patience. Certainly, a rapidly changing economy, shifting demographics, Canada's place in a rapidly changing world, a changing climate -- all of these beg for sober policy solutions, not slogans. None of the candidates really approaches this standard, though.
Poliviere is the first politician in a long time to zero in on real issues like affordability, while at the same time proposing limits on government. This approach is refreshing after years of political focus on abstract social issues (ex. inequality, climate change). He may or may not be the right person to lead Canada, but at the very least, his campaign is steering discussion back to issues on which government progress can be measured.
Almost all governments of recent memory have focused on some version of "strengthening the middle class", which usually meant some kind of nod to affordability. Harper gave me tax rebates for putting my kids in activities. While I liked the cheques, I knew I would have put my kids in activities anyway, and that was probably true for most families well off enough to be able to wait for a tax rebate. Trudeau is subsidizing child care. Addressing the economic anxieties of large swaths of voters is campaigning 101; I don't see Poliviere bringing much new to the table here, though I'd acknowledge he's good at this.
Federal governments have two ways of improving affordability (or prosperity or whatever the buzzword of the day is). The right one, in my opinion, are focusing on long term economic conditions: particularly competition and productivity. Having capable firms fighting tooth and nail for business tends to create a vibrant, dynamic economy, which helps prosperity, and competition tends to create more value, helping affordability.
Of course, those are long term projects that don't tend to gain the attention of the average middle class voter. So instead, most governments create programs -- tax breaks or direct funding -- to show how they can directly improve the lot of key voter groups. Trouble is that this costs money and, once people have a benefit, they tend to take it for granted, meaning a new government has to start the process all over again.
Nothing I've heard so far from Poliviere sounds much different. He uses a lot of vague buzzwords (gatekeepers is a favourite) bit I've seen little in the way of policy proposals. Scott Aitchison had a more detailed proposal around housing affordability which points out that this is an area the feds don't really control (municipal zoning) and can only, at best, influence. Every government in recent memory had tried to make housing more affordable -- it's a hard problem and I've seen little radical new thinking in the leadership campaign.
Poliviere actually reminds me a lot of Trudeau in terms of relating to more emotional priorities that a lot of Canadians relate to (housing affordability, 'sunny ways') without a ton of detail on how they were going to deliver. Clearly that worked for Trudeau and he assembled a Cabinet of reasonably smart people (although doesn't always seem to listen to them, unfortunately). The challenge any new CPC leader will have is reassembling a fractured party to be able to draw off of talent from various factions -- we'll see how that goes.
Lucki says she regrets the way she handled the meeting with the NS Division. I think she regrets it going public for if she truly regretted it she would have contacted the Division the following day and apologized for her conduct and given the staff an “attaboy” for coping with the stress they were under.
As you said; in the podcast I believe, the government doesn't know what to do about the big problems so it invents small ones and fails to solve those. You're right that Lucki is finished, but this seems too close a parallel to SNC for me to give Trudeau any benefit of the doubt.
Poilievre plays for the photo op and the sound bite. Being a smart politician doesn't make you a smart leader, and the disaster area he might be taking over in 2025 requires a true leader. I'm not certain Canada currently has one, but he's not it....so far anyway. There is indeed great danger for his party as portions of it regale themselves with joy watching like-minded social conservatives ending American democracy. To think that mindset isn't a threat here would be quite naïve. But having American democracy fail in a span of 40 years is troubling to say the least. What happens there always comes here, and if living next to Trump was bad, I can only imagine what living next to a dictatorship is going to be like.
Matt was right...but "bonkers" is an understatement. Enjoy the time away.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Faith is a wonderful wonderful thing. Imposing it on others is abuse. We're disgusted when the Taliban does it, but it's OK when it's Christianity? I view organised fundamental religion as humanity's greatest failure....a tool of oppression and control, and it has been bastardised beyond imagination in the last 50 years. The good that religion could be has been bastardised into the greatest of evil.
The GOP has almost completed the dismantling of its democracy....backed by the Christian Fundamentalist right. It will be done within a year after the Supreme Court rules on this case. At that point, it's over. Most of the damage is already done, and SCOTUS has made it clear that they, ironically, intend to "rule from the bench". It wasn't the Democrats voting unanimously against voting rights. It's the democrats striking people from voting lists, and re-districting. It's not the democrats closing polling stations in certain districts or making it illegal to bring water to people in voting lines. The democrats are absurd, and disorganised because they are not marching in step with the biggest liar in presidential history. The roots of this calamity extend back to Reagan. The GOP is all in on minority rule, and I believe with what they've done with SCOTUS has now accomplished that. You can say the democrats are against it; the GOP has ended it. The testimony to the J6 committee has been stunning. The GOP doesn't care..... because it's already over.
Suffice it to say the hatred is not blind. Eyes are wide open...and disgusted by what they see.
...also you have to throw in the word, "White". Black Evangelicals voted with all the other Protestants who were not White Evangelicals (39% Trump, 61% Clinton). Jews were 24% Trump, even Catholics only 52%.
Veering back to the Canadian scene, I think the jury is still out as to the whether Canadian evangelicals are more conservative, or more likely to vote right wing, than other Canadians.
It does seem like Canadian evangelical leaders and institutions are right wing - trinity western for example. And it does seem like evangelicals are becoming more right wing. But have you seen any polls on this?
I hope that we don't go down a road where faith groups vote on partisan lines, uniformly.
The two Canadian evangelicals I've known for 40 years are both very conservative. One just in the political-voting sense, plus buying all Rush Limbaugh's books in the nineties. But the other, a fine gentleman, great guitarist, wonderful father and grandfather ... spent the pandemic emitting three "plandemic"-type memes a day at facebook. I saved a few of the most-appalling, the ones that mocked a mother who got vaxed, then lost her baby, say. They were mostly pretty bad. I stopped contradicting him and just waited; the memes stopped several months back, like a fever breaking. (Pardon the expression.)
But the polling says my old friends are not typical:
...lots of Canadian Evangelical Liberal voters as recently as 2008. Majority conservative, but not monolithic like the 81% Trump vote by American White Evangelicals.
In short, ours vote like BLACK American Evangelicals. The same theology, which does affect voting rightwards, but ours don't have anything like the level of racism. In particular, our Evangelical congregations are not segregated. 86% of the Southern Baptist Fellowship worships in mono-racial congregations. Canadians do not.
I'm familiar with the study you mention. The analysis uses data from the Canadian election study, http://www.ces-eec.ca/.
This study does exit polling during federal elections.
Thing is, I haven't seen any analysis since this 2008. A research book did come out like 8 years ago comparing 4 evangelical churches along the detroit-windsor. It also found what you have already summed up.
But yes, it's the very study you cite which leads to me ask whether the trend has gone rightward the last 14 years.
The exit polls are rich in data, and exist for each federal election since 2008. I don't yet have the know how to access and analyze.
"Social conservatives" is a code for "Religion"? Which one?
Jews mostly have a very liberal political record. So do non-evangelical Christians, and in America, evangelical Black Christians, too.
Where do you get "blind" from, for that matter? Nobody was on about "American democracy" until the American gerrymandering and voter-suppression laws revved up several years back, and now, of course, it's election-overturning efforts. If it were "blind", it would be about all "social conservatives", everywhere, since forever, not just Americans, and recently.
1/ What is a columnist organization? Or did your spell checker get away from you again? To be perfectly honest Pat, there are aspects of our way of life that should be overthrown, sooner rather than later.
2/ Wow! Pretty much impossible to pull the wool over your eyes. What are you doing here? Get out there and announce what you know to the world. You're articulate. You can recognize a columnist organization when you see one. Think of all those poor subversive white kids.
Oh Pat, you use the NY Post as your example of "real information"? Hell, they even quote Breitbart. NY Post is fish wrap. You might as well just read the rags at the grocery store checkout. But if you want to buy what they are selling knock yourself out. To be a Marxist is not illegal—yet in the US. God knows where the states will be in another decade.
What gave you the idea that I want to overthrow your/our way of life? Do you think everything is about as perfect as can be or only the way you live is and somehow BLM is a threat to you? Or Marxists are? I am clear. You not so much. No one should live by absolutes.
I can't resist...who is Lyle? I read a lot and yes, I know things and I am aware of things. You are not wrong. I don't read the NY Post (except for chuckles). Do you consider NYP to be MSM, or alternative news? Breitbart, MSM or alt? Have you read Marx? He was brilliant. He's been dead for about 140 years and he still makes people crazy. You and I will not make such a mark on history.
Why are you so narrow and shortsighted? Loosen up.
I totally agree with your Trekki portion of the report. All those other suggestions such as For All Mankind, The Expanse and Westworld are outstanding shows. But you're forgetting The Orville and Star Trek Lower Decks, as well. All good quality sci-fi options.
Where have I been? I never heard of The Orville. I will check it out, thanks. I must have been waiting patiently for Doctor Who to recover, again. I can't do animation. For years I listened to the Simpson's but I didn't actually see any of it.
There's some excellent television out there. As for The Orville, give it a chance to the present (3rd just started) season, it's changed to a more serious vibe.
I totally understand, l didn't like it at first either. But at the insistence of a friend gave it another chance, then l was hooked. Not everything is for everyone.
It was the same for me too. I had issues with no subtitles for the Belters on Ceres. Once l got over that... l was done for. Give SNW a crack. I suggest you won't be disappointed. 😉
I'm enjoying SNW, 9 ep so far. Will there be one more and that's the season?
I'll give The Expanse another try. It's been a while so I don't clearly remember why I didn't like it.
Right now it's For All Mankind and Long Way Up which is not sci-fi at all but another Obi-Wan, I mean Ewan McGregor and his friend Charlie, doing another bike trip this time from the tip of South America to Los Angeles. All electric. Prototype Harley Davison's, prototype trucks (Riven) for gear etc. Funny and interesting as hell.
I am just halfway through Memory's Legion, which is all of the novellas combined. I agree, it's the best series and l too hope they do the last 3 books too, as l think 6-9 were the better storyline. More Laconic. I can only guess they're going to or want to else why show Laconia, Durate and the Strange Dogs?
Yes, it was a great ending. I'm going to re-read the series in a year or two. It's the best sci-fi I've ever read and worth every penny spent, including the novella collection.
I think as far as politics go there just seems to be no good choice, seems all involved care more about what other parties are doing wrong than what they could do to help the country we live in.
Re sci fi: And don't forget Foundation on Apple TV+. As a big fan of the book series I was struggling with the deviations but, for me, it all came together in the finale. I loved it. Really clever. Your mileage may vary.
Very Good advice. "...In short, we urge everybody to chill out. It’s not that we don’t think we have big problems. We definitely think that we have big problems. We’re just saying it would be better to respond in a way that doesn’t make them worse, is all... "
Regarding the Lucki affair. There seems to be two issues here. First, that Lucki was inappropriately rude in an emotional teleconference meeting around the traumatic tragedy in Nova Scotia. Second, there is a charge of improper political inference in a police investigation.
There seems to be no one, including Lucki, who disputes the first charge. It's not clear this warrants a public inquiry beyond the gossipy tweets that spin breathless and ephemeral before the prevailing winds of public attention. (No Trekky innuendo intended.)
Yes, but maybe we can establish a profitable narrative pattern in the public mind, said the communication guru to no one in particular.
Regarding political interference, one apparent topic of discussion in the meeting was information regarding the type of firearms used in the Nova Scotia shooting. The motive for gathering this information was apparently that the government would incorporate it in publicly addressing legislation regarding restrictions on gun ownership in Canada.
Now asking for such information does not, of itself, appear to imply improper political interference. The government is seeking to develop legislation and is seeking relevant info from law enforcement about types of weapons used in criminal activities.
[Note: As Matt noted in his reply below, this is not a correct characterization of the alleged impropriety. It is not a matter of the government pressuring the RCMP to get the information, but of the government pressuring the RCMP to publicize that information.]
Apparently, in this meeting, the issue is raised of needing to keep the particular Nova Scotia shooting incident info from the public to protect certain aspects of the investigation. If this is in fact the crux of the issue then unless it can be demonstrated that there was sustained efforts on the part of the government to demand such info despite the government knowing (the crucial point here) that the Nova Scotia RCMP wanted to keep it secret for operational reasons, then it's unclear that this meeting qualifies as creating a case of political interference, as opposed to just a meeting with competing agenda items. (And not to be confused with fistfuls of stinky salami flung, eyes closed, in a feisty partisan food fight.)
The government is not directly party to this meeting. Lucki is not the government. This appears as possibly just an awkward meeting moment set against the backdrop of internal RCMP squabbling hitting the juiced up headlines of Canuck politics.
Of course, the various partisans, inside and outside the RCMP, will use their own calculi to evaluate the headline worthiness of the effort to plant patterns in the public mind, said the communication guru to no one in particular.
Many Canucks, of course, are thankfully off to camp. The public mind on vacation from the predatory mischief of communication gurus.
Should have read the timeline from last week, Robert. The government knew the details re: the firearms. It was told on April 24th. The nasty meeting was April 28th. The alleged pressure was entirely related to a PUBLIC disclosure of the information. And, again allegedly, the desire was for that info to be released ahead of the gun-control announcement.
Wait, I should be flipping my repeated question around. Shouldn't somebody be asking if the RCMP put all those Coutts guns on TV, immediately after arrest, because they were ordered to 'support' the Emergency Measures Act that was declared about six hours later?
I was already on-board before I saw the guns, but they definitely concentrated the mind wonderfully.
Roy, from the pictures I've seen of the captured weapons all appear to be legal (though one could possibly on the "new" restricted list (scarier looking but the same functionally) but not yet repurchased by the government. There did seem to be a couple of magazines that appear to exceed the legal capacity.
"Most of those rifles were legal up until last year. They're not legal now. If you have one it's supposed to be sitting in your [. . .] gun locker in your house," says David Bercuson, an author and military historian."
Thank you for answering for them, but, again, "civilian oversight", to me, means taking their word for nothing. They were not asked, about either decision.
Thanks for the link. It confirms what I said the only one is for sure now on the restricted list. It also shows how silly the list is. All the guns are functionally similar but if the gun looks too much like an "assault" gun it goes on the list.
" Based on photographs of the seizure provided by RCMP, there appear to be seven semi-automatic rifles. At first glance, six appeared to be designated "prohibited" under the federal assault weapons ban.
However, some firearms owners have pointed out that five of those six guns appear to be a non-restricted AR-variant manufactured by Spectre Limited, called the WS-MCR, which retails for about $1,600.
Despite having similar function and features to many newly-prohibited firearms, under current law, the Spectre WS-MCR are the same as many common hunting rifles."
Thanks for the reply, sorry, if I misled (as per your advice, went back and re-read the piece), however, in effect my questions remain.
I assume the charge of improper 'political' interference turns on whether the government pressured the RCMP to publicly participate in the government's communications strategy? Or was Lucki just mishandling her role in a meeting, as you also consider? I assume if it's the latter then it's not 'political' interference, it's simply an internal RCMP mishap. Again, Lucki not being the government.
The allegation of improper 'political' interference appears to be built from a few tidbits, primarily, notes taken at a very tense meeting where apparently conflicting agendas were hotly in play. (Note: I'm in no way a government apologist, simply trying to see through the fog of this little war : )
On the assumption of plausibly constructing the government's public communications strategy (there being no direct evidence at this point, I gather), why could the government not simply have said, in public, that the new regs cover the weapons used in Nova Scotia without saying specifically which guns on the list of 1500 guns they were? After all how many folks in the general public (generally supportive of gun regs) would recognize the detailed identity of the weapons in any meaningful way? Other than gun enthusiasts, law enforcement and a few criminals, who would be the public target for such detailed info?
Blair presumably understands the protocols here, why risk improper conduct for i) info you already have, (so your planned public claim to have regs that cover them is safe) ii) a communication strategy (an RCMP announcement) you don't really need? Surely the public's emotional commitment to the new regs, based on the tragedy in Nova Scotia, did not need a public RCMP technical announcement, re specific guns, to be effective.
The allegation seems tantamount to saying the government wanted the RCMP to stand up in public and say the RCMP politically supports the new regs the government is announcing. The problem at this point, it's not clear we have agenda-free sources of evidence for a claim of that level of 'political' interference.
The sole basis for this allegation of 'political' interference are notes taken by an RCMP participant within that heated meeting. Followed up, almost a year later, by a letter from a Nova Scotia RCMP communications officer corroborating that view.
If we strip away the agendas (inside and outside that meeting), what is the most plausible reconstruction of this meeting? A botched internal RCMP communications event or a planned 'political' interference campaign that was essentially unnecessary?
You say: "The motive for gathering this information was apparently that the government would incorporate it in publicly addressing legislation regarding restrictions on gun ownership in Canada." That is exactly correct. The government needed cover to pass a law outlawing legally purchased guns purchased by licensed owners. Since one of the guns used was on the list of scary looking rifles the government wanted to ban, they pressured the RCMP to release that little tidbit.
But there were 1500 guns on that list. How would this RCMP announcement concerning one event have provided cover for 1500 guns against the riled up wrath of their heavily armed owners? My point is, what are the facts here and what are the narratives being constructed around them? The facts seem pretty slim, the partisan narratives, hot and spicy plots of endless intrigue? Fair enough, and hey, fun summer reading.
Because they could call it an "assault rifle" as it was on the list. If you may have noticed most of the guns on the list are not "assault rifles" since they had been banned years ago. The announcement was not for gun owners (who you like to call "heavily armed" showing your bias) who were riled up because a tool they legally bought was declared illegal, but for urban Canadians who just want all guns banned. Never miss a crisis to drive a wedge into the Canadian electorate.
Sorry my reference to 'heavily armed' was meant as humour, clearly tossed too nonchalantly into a grim partisan gun fight at the not-so-OK Corral.
However, your point actually bolsters my line of argument.
You note that the announcement was targeted at "urban Canadians who just want all guns banned" not at more knowledgeable gun owners. So if that's true, why did the government need specific details about specific guns, if the target audience would not know or care about such details. In other words, claiming the political interference in a police investigation was necessary as part of a government public comms strategy makes no real sense. They could have accomplished all they needed without the RCMP publicizing details of the guns used in Nova Scotia. All they had to do was put those guns on the list and say the list covers the guns used in Nova Scotia. Their target audience successfully reached, no political interference needed. The only folks who would recognize the guns would be knowledgeable gun owners. As you note, not their target audience, unless the goal was to rile them up with a little political bait.
However, the knowledgeable crowd (gun owners) could just read the list, no need to run the risk of pressuring the RCMP to publicly name a couple of guns on the list. Bait set, if intended. The non-gun owners would not read the list. In other words, this looks like an inside baseball argument about political interference tossed around with bravado at the local gun club not the chatty gossip at the local ladies' knitting club.
Finally, "never miss a crisis to drive a wedge" sounds like a lazy partisan trope to drive a lazy narrative for those uncurious about the logic of the evidence.
Sorry, I didn't catch your humour in calling gun owners "heavily armed". I think you are overthinking the government line. They wanted to send a message that would appeal to urban voters that guns like the ones used in NS are being banned. By showing the NS gun was on the list it showed they were on the ball and saving Canadians from evil. That, I assume, is why they wanted the information made public. Of course they could have just banned guns (which amounts to putting any gun they want on a list) without the crisis but the killing spree adds urgency and amplifies "righteousness" of the action.
Sorry if I sound lazy but when you ban weapons that are already banned or add weapons for looks rather than function I find the law more theatrical than effective. When it is done to further alienate legal, law abiding gun owners and renders their legally purchased firearms illegal (because they don't vote Liberal anyway) to win urban votes from people who think this list will reduce crime. If the government had instead concentrated on the fact that the guns were illegally obtained/smuggled in and enacted stronger border measures that might actually reduce the number of guns used in our cities then I would support that. But that is NOT what they did. So ya, I view their action cynically and think that they could have wanted a gun on their list highlighted by the RCMP to add to their "bona fides".
By the way I think it is rather lazy to say the government wouldn't interfere because they don't have to. Especially when they've done it before.
Thanks for the reply. Just to be precise, I haven't said the "government wouldn't interfere because they don't have to".
The whole gist of Matt's piece, as I read it, is to attempt to construct a plausible narrative of possible political interference around a single moment in a single meeting based on a single note by a participant in a heated conflict, and one corroborating letter by an NS comms official a year later. The issue is what's the evidence for any narrative construction here?
The point of my rebuttal is to attempt to set aside the partisan constructions, within and without that meeting, to see what those modest facts imply. Of course, for hard core partisans, facts are simply annoying speed bumps because carpet bombing the enemy lines with narrative tropes is an effective end in itself.
The evidence appears to indicate that that meeting was part of a hotly contested, agenda-rich environment. So it's not clear we can take any one participants 'play' in the game on face value as the unbiased basis for constructing the true narrative. That's all I'm saying.
That the alleged claim of political interference is built more on the 'pattern recognition' of the perceiver than upon the unbiased facts presented, thus far. Of course, depending on the objective, carpet bombing may work. Just ask Putin.
On the LEFT, ladies and gentlemen, our contender is a uniformed, public servant from a lightly-armed service, who asked subordinates in her public safety organization to support public safety legislation by releasing the same gun information they were so good at showing at Coutts. She was considered "disgusting".
On the RIGHT, our contender approached a uniformed public servant from a very heavily-armed service, (the ones really, really never supposed to get political), who widely popularized political opinions that the government was tyrannical in its public health measures, and must be opposed. Our contender feels this man deserves sympathy and support.
The battle for most-disgusting public official is on!
And I've give up asking if anybody can explain why the investigation required the guns be kept under wraps, when the Coutts guns were all on TV, same day.
And, also, I've given up asking why our police must never, never touch upon political issues, when that clearly is not universal:
The bonus rant, tangential topic, is BUG theory, which explains why the Superintendent wasn't asked why the guns had to be secret.
My BUG theory is that when a public official states some spending or policy is needed because we have needs professionals can see, for infrastructure, medicine, education, economics, or research - this assertion must be proven, each proof parsed and criticized, often by op-ed writers with no special expertise, save their years of covering public policy after J-school.
But when a BUG, a Big Uniformed Guy, in service of the military, police, or spy services, asserts that something just has to be for their technical reasons, they never have to prove it.
Spy guys say Saddam is conspiring with religious fanatics who normally want to bring down secular dictators like him? We'll take your word for it! Military says that Afghanistan is just months away from a dramatic turning point? For the ninth time? No further questions about how! Police say that they just had to shoot, for reasonable fear of their life, after years of articles about testilying? Who are we to question? We weren't there! He had a split second to decide!
Oh, to be a BUG in front of reporters, they jot down your words and go away, no further questions.
If Trump had wanted to save lives, he would have used BUG theory. Kept tiny Fauci in his office, and hired Herman Cain (6'1") as "US Surgeon General", which comes with a uniform, and had him go on podium and say "You have to take the vaccine for reasons related to its Chinese origin that I'm not at liberty to discuss, but, trust me, you need that vaccine as a matter of National Security".
Cain himself would be alive today, and so would about another quarter-million Americans.
I just had fun today, what with all the ST stuff that's far more interesting to me than the fate of Ms. Lucki; I'm all over the place.
I've never heard the reason for hiding the guns at ALL, so it might relate to investigating murder, though the suspect was hardly in doubt. I thought it had even been said that they were investigating how he got the guns. And in Coutts, that absolutely applied, murder or no, they were investigating where they got those guns.
But my point isn't really whether they were right, only whether they should be asked such things by the press, the ultimate level of civilian oversight.
A thought experiment: what if the RCMP liked to use their discretion about what to reveal, and what to say "must be kept secret for investigative reasons", not only to avoid criticism and embarrassment (that one is a certainty, repeatedly proven) but to put THEIR OWN pressures on the political process, affect legislation by mis-using their public office? Shouldn't somebody ask? I mean, suppose there was NO reason to keep the guns secret in NS, but somebody did it because he didn't like the legislation? And the RCMP quickly revealed all about the mysteriously-acquired guns at Coutts, because they strongly supported the Emergencies Act giving them power?
How do we know, if we don't ask that they justify both decisions: to a public appointee right at the time, and to the general public when the investigation no longer needs secrecy? Like two years later, for instance.
Roy I would like an investigation on this too. I suspect one is/has been done. I've not heard whether these guns were legally purchased or not. Most legal gun owners would love to have all smuggled guns seized and gun smugglers locked up. It is mostly illegal guns used in crimes and these crimes lead to more restrictions on the legal, lawful gun owners.
Also, there's Taylor Anderson's Destroyerman series, sort of alt history sci-fi. John Birmingham and the axis of time series that starts off with Weapons of Choice. Maybe these guys won't be to your taste, but l do like the military sci-fi type of fiction. Also, Jack Campbell is straight up sci-fi too.
I've also noticed what you describe as the intellectual bankruptcy of the CPC. I attribute it to them decisively losing every major cultural battle in my lifetime. Seriously. When you look at the competing visions for Canadian society offered by the Liberals and Conservatives in, say, the 90s, where have the Conservatives scored even a single victory?
1. Abortion.
2. Marijuana.
3. Gun control.
4. Gay marriage.
5. Climate change (existence of; cause of).
6. Public health care.
7. Immigration.
8. Cultural sensitivity (a bit of an umbrella, but I'm not sure how else to describe First Nations land acknowledgements, the MeToo movement, etc.).
When Canadian society has rejected your base's fundamental beliefs so resoundingly that saying them out loud is now seen as politically fatal, what's left to build on? What's left to run on? Conservative politicians are reduced to being vague and emotive in front of cameras (or bashing the Liberals, which gets lots of mileage) because concrete discussion of their actual values either sends centrist voters screaming in the other direction or makes the Conservative base reach for their pitchforks.
Great 'dispatch'! A couple of things though, 1) There is/was no 'Captain' Spock. It was Mr. Spock, the insouciant, perennially unreadable and coldly logical Vulcan foil for the flighty and sometimes downright silly Captain James Kirk.....the human. 2) I was done with 'Star Wars' in 1977, the best and never to be improved-upon grand distraction of a more hopeful time. The rest is feathers and fluff.
I stand corrected. I've never seen any of the sequels....OOPs! Guess I'm a little out-of-touch with the modern Trekkie culture...... Thanks for the update.
My fears and anxiety well summed up. Adding to them is a propensity among increasing numbers of the population to look for leaders with easy, simple - find a villain to blame - answers. Have a great summer!
I’m not sure if “Stranger Things” would qualify as Sci Fi but having binge watched the entire Season 4 last night, it continues to delight. I haven’t seen on screen chemistry between friends since watching the original Star Wars in 1977. Just offering that series as a consideration.
"It ain’t perfect, but it’s good." Is that where we're at now with Star Trek and Star Wars? If you kind of wince your eyes a bit, it's not that bad. As if our nostalgia from the 80s and 90s has that much more left to give. Studios pump a ton of money into these productions and are backed by talented writers, actors and producers - we should hold them to the highest standard.
The same approach should be taken with the politicians we elect, regardless of their political stripes. "It ain’t perfect, but it’s good" shouldn't be good enough especially with the big problems our country is facing.
I grew up on Gilligan's Island and The Beverly Hillbillies. "It's really bad, but kind of funny in how bad it is". I felt that way about those two shows by the time I was ten. The celebrated "camp" of Batman '66 was only a slight exaggeration of how in-your-face dumb half the shows were. ("Gomer Pyle"...shudder.)
I am deeply, deeply grateful for modern television. Yes, original Star Trek had me double-arms length from the 19" B&W when it was first on. (For one thing, no way to record it.) But it was 3 years and we went years with was no other science fiction available. After several years with none on TV, I watched the original "Battlestar Galactica"....voluntarily. I paid theatre money to see the pilot released as a movie, a shameful memory.
SF was still being treated as childrens-action monster shows. "Lost in Space", on same years as ST, constantly had the 9-year-old, my age, menaced by monsters; speaking of Irwin Allen, "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" qualified as SF, but though I remember all the ST, I can't remember a SINGLE plot of VttBotS...it was not good, obviously. It's never crossed my mind to find DVDs and nostalgia-watch. They didn't do more quality SF, even though ST and Zone rose to the level of literature better than any of the cop/doctor shows of the time, in a good half their episodes. Even though "2001", in 1969 was the first "literature" SF movie, combined with huge box office. And despite people actually GOING to the ****ing Moon(!)
You didn't consistently get good SF, every year, until our whole generation, raised on it, had gotten into the business and started writing it.
We are of an age you and I. I remember watching Gilligan and the Hillbillies, sort of. I guess I didn't pay much attention because nothing sticks out for me. But Star Trek, yes. Everyone had to watch ST with me or find something else to do. That hour was mine. LiS was my brother's.
Currently, SNW is good. Very good. I had trouble with Picard mostly because he looks so damned frail I couldn't stop worrying. And I had to check to make sure if I watched all 5 seasons of ST Discovery. ST Short Takes were fun. Seeing Spock and Number One trapped in the turbo lift singing the Major-General's song from Pirates of Penzance was utterly unexpected.
The Man Who Fell To Earth is...pretty good. I missed the first episode which is never great. Supposedly a sequel to David Bowie's movie in the 70s which was from a book published in the 60s.
Right, but like Zone, didn't overlap with ST; you almost never had two decent SF shows on at one time. We had some fantasy shows that imitated each other (Bewitched/ I Dream of Jeannie), but so few that ever interacted with a social or philosophical issue.
Wow...looking up OL just now, I see they did a script for "I, Robot" - which was NOT the Asimov story, but an earlier one with the same title? (Asimov was pissed.) And Leonard Nimoy one of the stars? And, it's in the Vancouver Public Library.
I've said this elsewhere: Poliviere feels a lot like Social Credit 2.0; Prairie populism for a digital age. The 'evil bankers' message stays; social credit gets bumped for the magic inflation fighting magic of Bitcoin; and hardworking young couples can (something, something, gatekeepers) suddenly afford a lovely home in an area with lots of amenities. It didn't deliver what it promised in v1.0 and I'm not convinced v2.0 will be more successful.
If Canadian conservatism is going to thrive it really needs to have something meaningful to say about real issues a lot of people care about. Poliviere was his strongest on issues of affordability, but he doesn't seem to have any convincing solutions. Solutions are hard and take time and there seems to be large chunk of the electorate that is short on patience. Certainly, a rapidly changing economy, shifting demographics, Canada's place in a rapidly changing world, a changing climate -- all of these beg for sober policy solutions, not slogans. None of the candidates really approaches this standard, though.
Poliviere is the first politician in a long time to zero in on real issues like affordability, while at the same time proposing limits on government. This approach is refreshing after years of political focus on abstract social issues (ex. inequality, climate change). He may or may not be the right person to lead Canada, but at the very least, his campaign is steering discussion back to issues on which government progress can be measured.
Almost all governments of recent memory have focused on some version of "strengthening the middle class", which usually meant some kind of nod to affordability. Harper gave me tax rebates for putting my kids in activities. While I liked the cheques, I knew I would have put my kids in activities anyway, and that was probably true for most families well off enough to be able to wait for a tax rebate. Trudeau is subsidizing child care. Addressing the economic anxieties of large swaths of voters is campaigning 101; I don't see Poliviere bringing much new to the table here, though I'd acknowledge he's good at this.
Federal governments have two ways of improving affordability (or prosperity or whatever the buzzword of the day is). The right one, in my opinion, are focusing on long term economic conditions: particularly competition and productivity. Having capable firms fighting tooth and nail for business tends to create a vibrant, dynamic economy, which helps prosperity, and competition tends to create more value, helping affordability.
Of course, those are long term projects that don't tend to gain the attention of the average middle class voter. So instead, most governments create programs -- tax breaks or direct funding -- to show how they can directly improve the lot of key voter groups. Trouble is that this costs money and, once people have a benefit, they tend to take it for granted, meaning a new government has to start the process all over again.
Nothing I've heard so far from Poliviere sounds much different. He uses a lot of vague buzzwords (gatekeepers is a favourite) bit I've seen little in the way of policy proposals. Scott Aitchison had a more detailed proposal around housing affordability which points out that this is an area the feds don't really control (municipal zoning) and can only, at best, influence. Every government in recent memory had tried to make housing more affordable -- it's a hard problem and I've seen little radical new thinking in the leadership campaign.
Poliviere actually reminds me a lot of Trudeau in terms of relating to more emotional priorities that a lot of Canadians relate to (housing affordability, 'sunny ways') without a ton of detail on how they were going to deliver. Clearly that worked for Trudeau and he assembled a Cabinet of reasonably smart people (although doesn't always seem to listen to them, unfortunately). The challenge any new CPC leader will have is reassembling a fractured party to be able to draw off of talent from various factions -- we'll see how that goes.
PPs might not be offering many solutions to average Canadians problems, but perhaps that is on purpose?
Liberals are serial campaign platform poachers, and if I were any CPC leadership candidate, I would be holding my cards pretty close.
Lucki says she regrets the way she handled the meeting with the NS Division. I think she regrets it going public for if she truly regretted it she would have contacted the Division the following day and apologized for her conduct and given the staff an “attaboy” for coping with the stress they were under.
As you said; in the podcast I believe, the government doesn't know what to do about the big problems so it invents small ones and fails to solve those. You're right that Lucki is finished, but this seems too close a parallel to SNC for me to give Trudeau any benefit of the doubt.
Poilievre plays for the photo op and the sound bite. Being a smart politician doesn't make you a smart leader, and the disaster area he might be taking over in 2025 requires a true leader. I'm not certain Canada currently has one, but he's not it....so far anyway. There is indeed great danger for his party as portions of it regale themselves with joy watching like-minded social conservatives ending American democracy. To think that mindset isn't a threat here would be quite naïve. But having American democracy fail in a span of 40 years is troubling to say the least. What happens there always comes here, and if living next to Trump was bad, I can only imagine what living next to a dictatorship is going to be like.
Matt was right...but "bonkers" is an understatement. Enjoy the time away.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Faith is a wonderful wonderful thing. Imposing it on others is abuse. We're disgusted when the Taliban does it, but it's OK when it's Christianity? I view organised fundamental religion as humanity's greatest failure....a tool of oppression and control, and it has been bastardised beyond imagination in the last 50 years. The good that religion could be has been bastardised into the greatest of evil.
The GOP has almost completed the dismantling of its democracy....backed by the Christian Fundamentalist right. It will be done within a year after the Supreme Court rules on this case. At that point, it's over. Most of the damage is already done, and SCOTUS has made it clear that they, ironically, intend to "rule from the bench". It wasn't the Democrats voting unanimously against voting rights. It's the democrats striking people from voting lists, and re-districting. It's not the democrats closing polling stations in certain districts or making it illegal to bring water to people in voting lines. The democrats are absurd, and disorganised because they are not marching in step with the biggest liar in presidential history. The roots of this calamity extend back to Reagan. The GOP is all in on minority rule, and I believe with what they've done with SCOTUS has now accomplished that. You can say the democrats are against it; the GOP has ended it. The testimony to the J6 committee has been stunning. The GOP doesn't care..... because it's already over.
Suffice it to say the hatred is not blind. Eyes are wide open...and disgusted by what they see.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-hear-republican-appeal-over-north-carolina-electoral-map-2022-06-30/
You'll want to edit "Chretien" to "Christian"...
...also you have to throw in the word, "White". Black Evangelicals voted with all the other Protestants who were not White Evangelicals (39% Trump, 61% Clinton). Jews were 24% Trump, even Catholics only 52%.
http://brander.ca/blog/evangelicals/evangelical_bw.html
(Washington Post poll of voters by religion about 75% of the way down.)
Veering back to the Canadian scene, I think the jury is still out as to the whether Canadian evangelicals are more conservative, or more likely to vote right wing, than other Canadians.
It does seem like Canadian evangelical leaders and institutions are right wing - trinity western for example. And it does seem like evangelicals are becoming more right wing. But have you seen any polls on this?
I hope that we don't go down a road where faith groups vote on partisan lines, uniformly.
The two Canadian evangelicals I've known for 40 years are both very conservative. One just in the political-voting sense, plus buying all Rush Limbaugh's books in the nineties. But the other, a fine gentleman, great guitarist, wonderful father and grandfather ... spent the pandemic emitting three "plandemic"-type memes a day at facebook. I saved a few of the most-appalling, the ones that mocked a mother who got vaxed, then lost her baby, say. They were mostly pretty bad. I stopped contradicting him and just waited; the memes stopped several months back, like a fever breaking. (Pardon the expression.)
But the polling says my old friends are not typical:
http://www.files.efc-canada.net/min/rc/cft/V02I03/Evangelical_Voting_Trends_1996-2008.pdf
...lots of Canadian Evangelical Liberal voters as recently as 2008. Majority conservative, but not monolithic like the 81% Trump vote by American White Evangelicals.
In short, ours vote like BLACK American Evangelicals. The same theology, which does affect voting rightwards, but ours don't have anything like the level of racism. In particular, our Evangelical congregations are not segregated. 86% of the Southern Baptist Fellowship worships in mono-racial congregations. Canadians do not.
I'm familiar with the study you mention. The analysis uses data from the Canadian election study, http://www.ces-eec.ca/.
This study does exit polling during federal elections.
Thing is, I haven't seen any analysis since this 2008. A research book did come out like 8 years ago comparing 4 evangelical churches along the detroit-windsor. It also found what you have already summed up.
But yes, it's the very study you cite which leads to me ask whether the trend has gone rightward the last 14 years.
The exit polls are rich in data, and exist for each federal election since 2008. I don't yet have the know how to access and analyze.
"Social conservatives" is a code for "Religion"? Which one?
Jews mostly have a very liberal political record. So do non-evangelical Christians, and in America, evangelical Black Christians, too.
Where do you get "blind" from, for that matter? Nobody was on about "American democracy" until the American gerrymandering and voter-suppression laws revved up several years back, and now, of course, it's election-overturning efforts. If it were "blind", it would be about all "social conservatives", everywhere, since forever, not just Americans, and recently.
Yup, all those white kids marching for BLM, subversion.
1/ What is a columnist organization? Or did your spell checker get away from you again? To be perfectly honest Pat, there are aspects of our way of life that should be overthrown, sooner rather than later.
2/ Wow! Pretty much impossible to pull the wool over your eyes. What are you doing here? Get out there and announce what you know to the world. You're articulate. You can recognize a columnist organization when you see one. Think of all those poor subversive white kids.
Oh Pat, you use the NY Post as your example of "real information"? Hell, they even quote Breitbart. NY Post is fish wrap. You might as well just read the rags at the grocery store checkout. But if you want to buy what they are selling knock yourself out. To be a Marxist is not illegal—yet in the US. God knows where the states will be in another decade.
What gave you the idea that I want to overthrow your/our way of life? Do you think everything is about as perfect as can be or only the way you live is and somehow BLM is a threat to you? Or Marxists are? I am clear. You not so much. No one should live by absolutes.
I can't resist...who is Lyle? I read a lot and yes, I know things and I am aware of things. You are not wrong. I don't read the NY Post (except for chuckles). Do you consider NYP to be MSM, or alternative news? Breitbart, MSM or alt? Have you read Marx? He was brilliant. He's been dead for about 140 years and he still makes people crazy. You and I will not make such a mark on history.
Why are you so narrow and shortsighted? Loosen up.
I totally agree with your Trekki portion of the report. All those other suggestions such as For All Mankind, The Expanse and Westworld are outstanding shows. But you're forgetting The Orville and Star Trek Lower Decks, as well. All good quality sci-fi options.
Where have I been? I never heard of The Orville. I will check it out, thanks. I must have been waiting patiently for Doctor Who to recover, again. I can't do animation. For years I listened to the Simpson's but I didn't actually see any of it.
There's some excellent television out there. As for The Orville, give it a chance to the present (3rd just started) season, it's changed to a more serious vibe.
Did not like The Expanse. Watched one season and that was that.
I totally understand, l didn't like it at first either. But at the insistence of a friend gave it another chance, then l was hooked. Not everything is for everyone.
I struggled to get through the first. Took me three tries. Once I did I was hooked.
It was the same for me too. I had issues with no subtitles for the Belters on Ceres. Once l got over that... l was done for. Give SNW a crack. I suggest you won't be disappointed. 😉
I'm enjoying SNW, 9 ep so far. Will there be one more and that's the season?
I'll give The Expanse another try. It's been a while so I don't clearly remember why I didn't like it.
Right now it's For All Mankind and Long Way Up which is not sci-fi at all but another Obi-Wan, I mean Ewan McGregor and his friend Charlie, doing another bike trip this time from the tip of South America to Los Angeles. All electric. Prototype Harley Davison's, prototype trucks (Riven) for gear etc. Funny and interesting as hell.
I am just halfway through Memory's Legion, which is all of the novellas combined. I agree, it's the best series and l too hope they do the last 3 books too, as l think 6-9 were the better storyline. More Laconic. I can only guess they're going to or want to else why show Laconia, Durate and the Strange Dogs?
I sure hope so, more of them all.
Yes, it was a great ending. I'm going to re-read the series in a year or two. It's the best sci-fi I've ever read and worth every penny spent, including the novella collection.
I think as far as politics go there just seems to be no good choice, seems all involved care more about what other parties are doing wrong than what they could do to help the country we live in.
Re sci fi: And don't forget Foundation on Apple TV+. As a big fan of the book series I was struggling with the deviations but, for me, it all came together in the finale. I loved it. Really clever. Your mileage may vary.
Very Good advice. "...In short, we urge everybody to chill out. It’s not that we don’t think we have big problems. We definitely think that we have big problems. We’re just saying it would be better to respond in a way that doesn’t make them worse, is all... "
Regarding the Lucki affair. There seems to be two issues here. First, that Lucki was inappropriately rude in an emotional teleconference meeting around the traumatic tragedy in Nova Scotia. Second, there is a charge of improper political inference in a police investigation.
There seems to be no one, including Lucki, who disputes the first charge. It's not clear this warrants a public inquiry beyond the gossipy tweets that spin breathless and ephemeral before the prevailing winds of public attention. (No Trekky innuendo intended.)
Yes, but maybe we can establish a profitable narrative pattern in the public mind, said the communication guru to no one in particular.
Regarding political interference, one apparent topic of discussion in the meeting was information regarding the type of firearms used in the Nova Scotia shooting. The motive for gathering this information was apparently that the government would incorporate it in publicly addressing legislation regarding restrictions on gun ownership in Canada.
Now asking for such information does not, of itself, appear to imply improper political interference. The government is seeking to develop legislation and is seeking relevant info from law enforcement about types of weapons used in criminal activities.
[Note: As Matt noted in his reply below, this is not a correct characterization of the alleged impropriety. It is not a matter of the government pressuring the RCMP to get the information, but of the government pressuring the RCMP to publicize that information.]
Apparently, in this meeting, the issue is raised of needing to keep the particular Nova Scotia shooting incident info from the public to protect certain aspects of the investigation. If this is in fact the crux of the issue then unless it can be demonstrated that there was sustained efforts on the part of the government to demand such info despite the government knowing (the crucial point here) that the Nova Scotia RCMP wanted to keep it secret for operational reasons, then it's unclear that this meeting qualifies as creating a case of political interference, as opposed to just a meeting with competing agenda items. (And not to be confused with fistfuls of stinky salami flung, eyes closed, in a feisty partisan food fight.)
The government is not directly party to this meeting. Lucki is not the government. This appears as possibly just an awkward meeting moment set against the backdrop of internal RCMP squabbling hitting the juiced up headlines of Canuck politics.
Of course, the various partisans, inside and outside the RCMP, will use their own calculi to evaluate the headline worthiness of the effort to plant patterns in the public mind, said the communication guru to no one in particular.
Many Canucks, of course, are thankfully off to camp. The public mind on vacation from the predatory mischief of communication gurus.
Should have read the timeline from last week, Robert. The government knew the details re: the firearms. It was told on April 24th. The nasty meeting was April 28th. The alleged pressure was entirely related to a PUBLIC disclosure of the information. And, again allegedly, the desire was for that info to be released ahead of the gun-control announcement.
Wait, I should be flipping my repeated question around. Shouldn't somebody be asking if the RCMP put all those Coutts guns on TV, immediately after arrest, because they were ordered to 'support' the Emergency Measures Act that was declared about six hours later?
I was already on-board before I saw the guns, but they definitely concentrated the mind wonderfully.
Roy, from the pictures I've seen of the captured weapons all appear to be legal (though one could possibly on the "new" restricted list (scarier looking but the same functionally) but not yet repurchased by the government. There did seem to be a couple of magazines that appear to exceed the legal capacity.
"Most of those rifles were legal up until last year. They're not legal now. If you have one it's supposed to be sitting in your [. . .] gun locker in your house," says David Bercuson, an author and military historian."
https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/analysis-of-guns-and-ammunition-seized-near-coutts-alta-blockade-1.5782983
Thank you for answering for them, but, again, "civilian oversight", to me, means taking their word for nothing. They were not asked, about either decision.
Thanks for the link. It confirms what I said the only one is for sure now on the restricted list. It also shows how silly the list is. All the guns are functionally similar but if the gun looks too much like an "assault" gun it goes on the list.
" Based on photographs of the seizure provided by RCMP, there appear to be seven semi-automatic rifles. At first glance, six appeared to be designated "prohibited" under the federal assault weapons ban.
However, some firearms owners have pointed out that five of those six guns appear to be a non-restricted AR-variant manufactured by Spectre Limited, called the WS-MCR, which retails for about $1,600.
Despite having similar function and features to many newly-prohibited firearms, under current law, the Spectre WS-MCR are the same as many common hunting rifles."
Thanks for the reply, sorry, if I misled (as per your advice, went back and re-read the piece), however, in effect my questions remain.
I assume the charge of improper 'political' interference turns on whether the government pressured the RCMP to publicly participate in the government's communications strategy? Or was Lucki just mishandling her role in a meeting, as you also consider? I assume if it's the latter then it's not 'political' interference, it's simply an internal RCMP mishap. Again, Lucki not being the government.
The allegation of improper 'political' interference appears to be built from a few tidbits, primarily, notes taken at a very tense meeting where apparently conflicting agendas were hotly in play. (Note: I'm in no way a government apologist, simply trying to see through the fog of this little war : )
On the assumption of plausibly constructing the government's public communications strategy (there being no direct evidence at this point, I gather), why could the government not simply have said, in public, that the new regs cover the weapons used in Nova Scotia without saying specifically which guns on the list of 1500 guns they were? After all how many folks in the general public (generally supportive of gun regs) would recognize the detailed identity of the weapons in any meaningful way? Other than gun enthusiasts, law enforcement and a few criminals, who would be the public target for such detailed info?
Blair presumably understands the protocols here, why risk improper conduct for i) info you already have, (so your planned public claim to have regs that cover them is safe) ii) a communication strategy (an RCMP announcement) you don't really need? Surely the public's emotional commitment to the new regs, based on the tragedy in Nova Scotia, did not need a public RCMP technical announcement, re specific guns, to be effective.
The allegation seems tantamount to saying the government wanted the RCMP to stand up in public and say the RCMP politically supports the new regs the government is announcing. The problem at this point, it's not clear we have agenda-free sources of evidence for a claim of that level of 'political' interference.
The sole basis for this allegation of 'political' interference are notes taken by an RCMP participant within that heated meeting. Followed up, almost a year later, by a letter from a Nova Scotia RCMP communications officer corroborating that view.
If we strip away the agendas (inside and outside that meeting), what is the most plausible reconstruction of this meeting? A botched internal RCMP communications event or a planned 'political' interference campaign that was essentially unnecessary?
You say: "The motive for gathering this information was apparently that the government would incorporate it in publicly addressing legislation regarding restrictions on gun ownership in Canada." That is exactly correct. The government needed cover to pass a law outlawing legally purchased guns purchased by licensed owners. Since one of the guns used was on the list of scary looking rifles the government wanted to ban, they pressured the RCMP to release that little tidbit.
But there were 1500 guns on that list. How would this RCMP announcement concerning one event have provided cover for 1500 guns against the riled up wrath of their heavily armed owners? My point is, what are the facts here and what are the narratives being constructed around them? The facts seem pretty slim, the partisan narratives, hot and spicy plots of endless intrigue? Fair enough, and hey, fun summer reading.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-gun-control-measures-ban-1.5552131
Because they could call it an "assault rifle" as it was on the list. If you may have noticed most of the guns on the list are not "assault rifles" since they had been banned years ago. The announcement was not for gun owners (who you like to call "heavily armed" showing your bias) who were riled up because a tool they legally bought was declared illegal, but for urban Canadians who just want all guns banned. Never miss a crisis to drive a wedge into the Canadian electorate.
Sorry my reference to 'heavily armed' was meant as humour, clearly tossed too nonchalantly into a grim partisan gun fight at the not-so-OK Corral.
However, your point actually bolsters my line of argument.
You note that the announcement was targeted at "urban Canadians who just want all guns banned" not at more knowledgeable gun owners. So if that's true, why did the government need specific details about specific guns, if the target audience would not know or care about such details. In other words, claiming the political interference in a police investigation was necessary as part of a government public comms strategy makes no real sense. They could have accomplished all they needed without the RCMP publicizing details of the guns used in Nova Scotia. All they had to do was put those guns on the list and say the list covers the guns used in Nova Scotia. Their target audience successfully reached, no political interference needed. The only folks who would recognize the guns would be knowledgeable gun owners. As you note, not their target audience, unless the goal was to rile them up with a little political bait.
However, the knowledgeable crowd (gun owners) could just read the list, no need to run the risk of pressuring the RCMP to publicly name a couple of guns on the list. Bait set, if intended. The non-gun owners would not read the list. In other words, this looks like an inside baseball argument about political interference tossed around with bravado at the local gun club not the chatty gossip at the local ladies' knitting club.
Finally, "never miss a crisis to drive a wedge" sounds like a lazy partisan trope to drive a lazy narrative for those uncurious about the logic of the evidence.
(Warning!: may contain attempts at humour : )
Sorry, I didn't catch your humour in calling gun owners "heavily armed". I think you are overthinking the government line. They wanted to send a message that would appeal to urban voters that guns like the ones used in NS are being banned. By showing the NS gun was on the list it showed they were on the ball and saving Canadians from evil. That, I assume, is why they wanted the information made public. Of course they could have just banned guns (which amounts to putting any gun they want on a list) without the crisis but the killing spree adds urgency and amplifies "righteousness" of the action.
Sorry if I sound lazy but when you ban weapons that are already banned or add weapons for looks rather than function I find the law more theatrical than effective. When it is done to further alienate legal, law abiding gun owners and renders their legally purchased firearms illegal (because they don't vote Liberal anyway) to win urban votes from people who think this list will reduce crime. If the government had instead concentrated on the fact that the guns were illegally obtained/smuggled in and enacted stronger border measures that might actually reduce the number of guns used in our cities then I would support that. But that is NOT what they did. So ya, I view their action cynically and think that they could have wanted a gun on their list highlighted by the RCMP to add to their "bona fides".
By the way I think it is rather lazy to say the government wouldn't interfere because they don't have to. Especially when they've done it before.
:)
Thanks for the reply. Just to be precise, I haven't said the "government wouldn't interfere because they don't have to".
The whole gist of Matt's piece, as I read it, is to attempt to construct a plausible narrative of possible political interference around a single moment in a single meeting based on a single note by a participant in a heated conflict, and one corroborating letter by an NS comms official a year later. The issue is what's the evidence for any narrative construction here?
The point of my rebuttal is to attempt to set aside the partisan constructions, within and without that meeting, to see what those modest facts imply. Of course, for hard core partisans, facts are simply annoying speed bumps because carpet bombing the enemy lines with narrative tropes is an effective end in itself.
The evidence appears to indicate that that meeting was part of a hotly contested, agenda-rich environment. So it's not clear we can take any one participants 'play' in the game on face value as the unbiased basis for constructing the true narrative. That's all I'm saying.
That the alleged claim of political interference is built more on the 'pattern recognition' of the perceiver than upon the unbiased facts presented, thus far. Of course, depending on the objective, carpet bombing may work. Just ask Putin.
On the LEFT, ladies and gentlemen, our contender is a uniformed, public servant from a lightly-armed service, who asked subordinates in her public safety organization to support public safety legislation by releasing the same gun information they were so good at showing at Coutts. She was considered "disgusting".
On the RIGHT, our contender approached a uniformed public servant from a very heavily-armed service, (the ones really, really never supposed to get political), who widely popularized political opinions that the government was tyrannical in its public health measures, and must be opposed. Our contender feels this man deserves sympathy and support.
The battle for most-disgusting public official is on!
And I've give up asking if anybody can explain why the investigation required the guns be kept under wraps, when the Coutts guns were all on TV, same day.
And, also, I've given up asking why our police must never, never touch upon political issues, when that clearly is not universal:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/phoenix-police-chief-addresses-gun-violence-before-senate-judiciary-committee/ar-AAYw4Du
...Just pro-forma, I'm posting both questions for a third time, though nobody has answers.
Oh, heck, once a year, why not bonus ranting?
The bonus rant, tangential topic, is BUG theory, which explains why the Superintendent wasn't asked why the guns had to be secret.
My BUG theory is that when a public official states some spending or policy is needed because we have needs professionals can see, for infrastructure, medicine, education, economics, or research - this assertion must be proven, each proof parsed and criticized, often by op-ed writers with no special expertise, save their years of covering public policy after J-school.
But when a BUG, a Big Uniformed Guy, in service of the military, police, or spy services, asserts that something just has to be for their technical reasons, they never have to prove it.
Spy guys say Saddam is conspiring with religious fanatics who normally want to bring down secular dictators like him? We'll take your word for it! Military says that Afghanistan is just months away from a dramatic turning point? For the ninth time? No further questions about how! Police say that they just had to shoot, for reasonable fear of their life, after years of articles about testilying? Who are we to question? We weren't there! He had a split second to decide!
Oh, to be a BUG in front of reporters, they jot down your words and go away, no further questions.
If Trump had wanted to save lives, he would have used BUG theory. Kept tiny Fauci in his office, and hired Herman Cain (6'1") as "US Surgeon General", which comes with a uniform, and had him go on podium and say "You have to take the vaccine for reasons related to its Chinese origin that I'm not at liberty to discuss, but, trust me, you need that vaccine as a matter of National Security".
Cain himself would be alive today, and so would about another quarter-million Americans.
there was no ongoing murder investigation in Coutts though.
I just had fun today, what with all the ST stuff that's far more interesting to me than the fate of Ms. Lucki; I'm all over the place.
I've never heard the reason for hiding the guns at ALL, so it might relate to investigating murder, though the suspect was hardly in doubt. I thought it had even been said that they were investigating how he got the guns. And in Coutts, that absolutely applied, murder or no, they were investigating where they got those guns.
But my point isn't really whether they were right, only whether they should be asked such things by the press, the ultimate level of civilian oversight.
A thought experiment: what if the RCMP liked to use their discretion about what to reveal, and what to say "must be kept secret for investigative reasons", not only to avoid criticism and embarrassment (that one is a certainty, repeatedly proven) but to put THEIR OWN pressures on the political process, affect legislation by mis-using their public office? Shouldn't somebody ask? I mean, suppose there was NO reason to keep the guns secret in NS, but somebody did it because he didn't like the legislation? And the RCMP quickly revealed all about the mysteriously-acquired guns at Coutts, because they strongly supported the Emergencies Act giving them power?
How do we know, if we don't ask that they justify both decisions: to a public appointee right at the time, and to the general public when the investigation no longer needs secrecy? Like two years later, for instance.
Roy I would like an investigation on this too. I suspect one is/has been done. I've not heard whether these guns were legally purchased or not. Most legal gun owners would love to have all smuggled guns seized and gun smugglers locked up. It is mostly illegal guns used in crimes and these crimes lead to more restrictions on the legal, lawful gun owners.
https://www.westernstandard.news/news/exclusive-rcmp-slow-to-release-status-of-weapons-seized-at-coutts-protest/article_760629ba-1dfc-5b0d-87eb-9e01845ee53a.html
oops reply in the wrong spot for Roy :)
Also, there's Taylor Anderson's Destroyerman series, sort of alt history sci-fi. John Birmingham and the axis of time series that starts off with Weapons of Choice. Maybe these guys won't be to your taste, but l do like the military sci-fi type of fiction. Also, Jack Campbell is straight up sci-fi too.
I've also noticed what you describe as the intellectual bankruptcy of the CPC. I attribute it to them decisively losing every major cultural battle in my lifetime. Seriously. When you look at the competing visions for Canadian society offered by the Liberals and Conservatives in, say, the 90s, where have the Conservatives scored even a single victory?
1. Abortion.
2. Marijuana.
3. Gun control.
4. Gay marriage.
5. Climate change (existence of; cause of).
6. Public health care.
7. Immigration.
8. Cultural sensitivity (a bit of an umbrella, but I'm not sure how else to describe First Nations land acknowledgements, the MeToo movement, etc.).
When Canadian society has rejected your base's fundamental beliefs so resoundingly that saying them out loud is now seen as politically fatal, what's left to build on? What's left to run on? Conservative politicians are reduced to being vague and emotive in front of cameras (or bashing the Liberals, which gets lots of mileage) because concrete discussion of their actual values either sends centrist voters screaming in the other direction or makes the Conservative base reach for their pitchforks.
Great 'dispatch'! A couple of things though, 1) There is/was no 'Captain' Spock. It was Mr. Spock, the insouciant, perennially unreadable and coldly logical Vulcan foil for the flighty and sometimes downright silly Captain James Kirk.....the human. 2) I was done with 'Star Wars' in 1977, the best and never to be improved-upon grand distraction of a more hopeful time. The rest is feathers and fluff.
Have a great vacay!
I stand corrected. I've never seen any of the sequels....OOPs! Guess I'm a little out-of-touch with the modern Trekkie culture...... Thanks for the update.
LOL!
My fears and anxiety well summed up. Adding to them is a propensity among increasing numbers of the population to look for leaders with easy, simple - find a villain to blame - answers. Have a great summer!
Spot on commentary once again; thank you.
I’m not sure if “Stranger Things” would qualify as Sci Fi but having binge watched the entire Season 4 last night, it continues to delight. I haven’t seen on screen chemistry between friends since watching the original Star Wars in 1977. Just offering that series as a consideration.
"It ain’t perfect, but it’s good." Is that where we're at now with Star Trek and Star Wars? If you kind of wince your eyes a bit, it's not that bad. As if our nostalgia from the 80s and 90s has that much more left to give. Studios pump a ton of money into these productions and are backed by talented writers, actors and producers - we should hold them to the highest standard.
The same approach should be taken with the politicians we elect, regardless of their political stripes. "It ain’t perfect, but it’s good" shouldn't be good enough especially with the big problems our country is facing.
I grew up on Gilligan's Island and The Beverly Hillbillies. "It's really bad, but kind of funny in how bad it is". I felt that way about those two shows by the time I was ten. The celebrated "camp" of Batman '66 was only a slight exaggeration of how in-your-face dumb half the shows were. ("Gomer Pyle"...shudder.)
I am deeply, deeply grateful for modern television. Yes, original Star Trek had me double-arms length from the 19" B&W when it was first on. (For one thing, no way to record it.) But it was 3 years and we went years with was no other science fiction available. After several years with none on TV, I watched the original "Battlestar Galactica"....voluntarily. I paid theatre money to see the pilot released as a movie, a shameful memory.
SF was still being treated as childrens-action monster shows. "Lost in Space", on same years as ST, constantly had the 9-year-old, my age, menaced by monsters; speaking of Irwin Allen, "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" qualified as SF, but though I remember all the ST, I can't remember a SINGLE plot of VttBotS...it was not good, obviously. It's never crossed my mind to find DVDs and nostalgia-watch. They didn't do more quality SF, even though ST and Zone rose to the level of literature better than any of the cop/doctor shows of the time, in a good half their episodes. Even though "2001", in 1969 was the first "literature" SF movie, combined with huge box office. And despite people actually GOING to the ****ing Moon(!)
You didn't consistently get good SF, every year, until our whole generation, raised on it, had gotten into the business and started writing it.
DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!
We are of an age you and I. I remember watching Gilligan and the Hillbillies, sort of. I guess I didn't pay much attention because nothing sticks out for me. But Star Trek, yes. Everyone had to watch ST with me or find something else to do. That hour was mine. LiS was my brother's.
Currently, SNW is good. Very good. I had trouble with Picard mostly because he looks so damned frail I couldn't stop worrying. And I had to check to make sure if I watched all 5 seasons of ST Discovery. ST Short Takes were fun. Seeing Spock and Number One trapped in the turbo lift singing the Major-General's song from Pirates of Penzance was utterly unexpected.
The Man Who Fell To Earth is...pretty good. I missed the first episode which is never great. Supposedly a sequel to David Bowie's movie in the 70s which was from a book published in the 60s.
Everything old is new again.
You forgot the Outer Limits.
I recently subscribed to Netflix and watched the whole Star Trek series again -- it's like a different show in colour.
Right, but like Zone, didn't overlap with ST; you almost never had two decent SF shows on at one time. We had some fantasy shows that imitated each other (Bewitched/ I Dream of Jeannie), but so few that ever interacted with a social or philosophical issue.
Wow...looking up OL just now, I see they did a script for "I, Robot" - which was NOT the Asimov story, but an earlier one with the same title? (Asimov was pissed.) And Leonard Nimoy one of the stars? And, it's in the Vancouver Public Library.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0667816/?ref_=ttls_li_tt
Thanks for reminding me!
I loved all of Asimov's "Robots". Even the awkward intertwining to the Foundation stories and prehistory.
My g'son has taken them over which is great. He can actually read even if he can't read cursive. A lost art.