P.S. Jen raises an excellent point that it's difficult to imagine how the British courts are moving as fast they are (which is normal for them, they were about this fast during the London riots in 2011) without cutting corners.
That said, I also agree with her that 30 months is absurd in the other direction. Prosecutors aren't using 30 months to prepare for trial, there just aren't nearly enough of them or enough judges.
Also worth noting here that in addition to the psychological toll of that delay on the accused, the prosecution's case rarely gets stronger with time. The memories of key witnesses fade, complainants decide they want to move on with their lives and stop cooperating, principal investigators retire and take their case knowledge with them, evidence is lost or accidentally destroyed, deadlines are forgotten. *Entropy* happens, man.
Even if all a person cares about is making sure prosecutions don't fall apart for bad, preventable reasons, they should care about speedy trial timelines.
Maybe, but you'd also have to consider what's happening outside of North America. We saw the UK and Australia elections go the other way too. Best possible explaination is everyone is in the throw the bums out mood.
I don't disagree with Jen that it can be ineffective to throw a material solution at a spiritual problem, but I think it's telling that all the examples Matt and Jen proceeded to give were of policies that are ineffective because they attack problems that are very, very material (unaffordable housing, uncompetitive economy, inadequate transit, unobtainable health care) with patently inadequate band-aid solutions.
Consider the possibility, as you noodle over the subject, that a great number of progressives, liberals, and conservatives might *all* be blind, by collective virtue of being Canadian, to viable routes out of our current malaise - not because they require spiritual solutions but because they require ambitious, transformative change of a kind that rattles a lot of teacups, and we've trained ourselves as a society to react cynically to even the possibility of transformative change.
Such changes would look a lot like Gondek pissing off half the city of Calgary recently by pushing through aggressive new zoning regulations. Teacups weren't just rattled, there were quite a few thrown at her head, but the new zoning will create the kind of densification necessary to maintain housing affordability at a level that promotes family growth and economic growth.
Regarding the American election, I love Matt's sports analogy. Trump's campaign had a playbook designed around Biden and it was producing results. Now Biden's benched, they're facing a fresh second string playing a much looser, more aggressive game, and they've got no answer for it.
Matt says the Trump campaign is acting like losers, and I know what he means. Nothing they try is working and they're starting to look clumsy and uncertain. Their bench is quiet. Their fans are grumbling. The internal squabbling is getting louder. There's a lot of complaining to the refs. The other team is chirping them mercilessly and they're not firing anything back.
At first that was expected - of course a period of adaptation would be normal - but with every day that goes by where they fail to find an angle that gets them any traction, the possibility mounts that maybe they weren't winning before this because they were a good team, maybe they were only winning because the now-benched first string they were competing against was a couple seasons past its best-before date and overdue to retire.
Trump has only ever won one general election in his life, and it was against arguably the most hated woman in America (fairly or unfairly). There's a plausible possibility, growing by the day, that against even a replacement-level opponent he's now getting exposed.
"they require ambitious, transformative change of a kind that rattles a lot of teacups, and we've trained ourselves as a society to react cynically to even the possibility of transformative change."
I think this is another way of getting at what I'm classifying as a "spiritual" problem. Or perhaps I should term it an "existential" problem. JG
I think it's totally reasonable to frame a loss of belief that bold change for the better is possible as a kind of spiritual malaise.
40 years ago we drafted and launched our very own constitution and legally-enforceable bill of rights. Now we try to update FPTP voting to something that sucks even a little bit less and bail at the first speed bump.
Densification with 300-square-foot condos reduces competition for larger properties (and thus their price), e.g. people who might have otherwise organized a house rental with a few roommates instead individually rent tiny condos.
Relaxing zoning to permit missing-middle housing also means more options become available between "tiny condo in an apartment tower" and "detached house", which is overwhelmingly the two options that result from current zoning.
For example, a duplex is often perfect for a young family: more room than an apartment and more access to green space, but significantly cheaper than a detached house in the same neighbourhood.
if the 90s are "old School" I am well and truly damned. What about the '70s or before? I predate the current flag. Plus I'm from Newfoundland and we graciously let you join us in '49.
I was born during WW II and remember well the “bloody handkerchief” Pearson flag debate. And I have a sister in law born in NL and my wife grew up in NL. That being said, the good people of NL were never offered the option of applying for US statehood. By offering a c(r?)ooked choice Premier Joey showed he was a true Canadian by following the time honored Canadian tradition of never giving up control by offering the citizenry a real choice in any referenda.
"The little feller from Gambo" was one interesting politician to be sure. I'se a bit younger than ya. My Dad was sent to NL from the States and assigned to the NE Air Command. He traveled all over the far North country surveying and building installations that were part of the DEW line. As I recall, Joey had to shepherd three votes to before getting NL to agree to Confederation. Always thought that the April 1st Confederation Day was highly ironic. Grew up humming and singing "The Anti-Confederation Song".
Perhaps Jen living in dry Calgary need worry less than Matt living in humid Toronto. I mostly grew up in Calgary. Leaving bags open on packaged items like cereal, chips and cookies rarely mattered.
I agree with Matt's sports analogy to the US election and also that this is a vibes election, which makes polls about issues less relevant, especially when it comes to the ballot question: "Do you want old and angry or young and optimistic?"
I don’t think it is that simple. You have to look at it from blue collar America. To them, Harris is peddling the same old slop. She has energized the base but there hasn’t been much movement in the 6 states they need to win.
There actually has been movement in the polls of various swing states. Nate Silver's latest polling averages have Harris leading in all the "blue wall" states, in addition to Nevada, and within striking distance in Arizona and Georgia (and to a lesser extent, North Carolina): and she doesn't need to win all of these. The race is now basically a tossup, but Harris seems to have a slight edge. Silver's poll-based model gives her a 53.8% to win the electoral college, while betting markets give her a 50.7% chance (versus Trump's 46.6%).
On the 30 month thing, the reason I and SO many other people have a problem with these cases being thrown out is not that we think 30 months is reasonable. I don’t think 12 months is reasonable.
The reason I don’t like the cases being thrown out is that it’s punishing the wrong people.
For lack of a better word, the “elites” who run our justice system and our political system have created the problem by running system that takes an inordinate amount of time to do a trial, doing nothing to fix it and often making the problem worse.
But when the violent criminal is set free BECAUSE OF THEIR FAILURE AND INCOMPETENCE, the violent criminal is not living in their neighborhood. They are not riding the bus with him to work. They’re not in the same dating scene as him.
No, no, dealing with the consequences of a violent criminal roaming free is what the “little people” are for.
It’s the same problem with throwing out valid, but improperly obtained evidence. The violent criminal walks free, but he’s not moving in next-door to the judge. He’s not even moving in next-door to the cop.
The “pain” of these problems must fall on the people who caused the problems or they will not be resolved.
Why would anybody suppose that someone whose dissatisfaction with mainstream media is a direct consequence of his/her critical awareness and skepticism would turn off those faculties when sampling alternative sources? Shouldn't we be given some reason for speculating that a MSM critic might suddenly start exhibiting the same kind of logical inconsistency in his/her behaviour that he/she found objectionable in MSM in the first place? Isn't it far likelier that he/she will continue to subject all information sources to the same critical scrutiny that MSM currently proves incapable of withstanding?
What would be the advantage of sampling different sources otherwise, and what would motivate someone to undertake this activity if not a genuine desire to seek source reliability and convincing evidence of it? Aren't we being admonished to do the mental equivalent of brushing our teeth here, and isn't that patronizing and insulting to the type of viewer/reader/listener you presumably want to attract? Have the subscribers you've met left you with the impression they need this kind of basic advice? That would surprise me but it's your experience, not mine, and shaping your presentations accordingly is clearly your prerogative and responsibility, just as continuing the quest for sources that merit and repay close attention is ours as consumers.
Jen, to your point. I think you are trying to articulate that individualism and the nuclear family are unfulfilling for millenials and Gen Z. Yes, they can't afford it, but also the world is too risk laden and the nanny state which was supposed to replace the extended family unit and church has failed to do that.
I highly doubt we would have this existential spiritual crisis if the state was successful in replacing the extended family, church and community.
It isn't a coincidence that the most individualistic societies are either win/lose (like the US) or nanny states like France/Quebec and Scandinavia.
Western society is becoming more "Latin" as are our politics.
I think you're all too bearish on the UK. Sure, they can follow you home with CCTV and sure they can sentence you within days, raising questions about fairness and justice. On the other hand, they already sell chips (or as they would call them, crisps) in individual packages. The regular size bag of chips (maybe 200-250g each) will have five or six individual bags within.
Packaging of crackers, eh? If Canadians really wanted their crackers packaged differently, I'm sure that some supplier would comply, if only to get a competitive edge. But I don't think Matt was being serious -- he was satirizing something -- perhaps the credulity of readers/listeners of Internet posts?
Or perhaps we will be seeing a prize of Gurney crackers(TM) to anyone who signs up twenty new subscribers.
I only buy the family size package of Ritz crackers now, specifically because they come in eight individually wrapped sleeves. But they're not always easy to find.
What I really wish would be that cereal came in ziplock bags.
Interesting discussion about Jen’s new look. We always used to speculate about what TV navy blue jacketed network news readers wore below tabletop level with the consensus being sweat pants or jeans. With this in mind, will 90s Jen be wearing stripes and either crew or slouch socks?
P.S. Jen raises an excellent point that it's difficult to imagine how the British courts are moving as fast they are (which is normal for them, they were about this fast during the London riots in 2011) without cutting corners.
That said, I also agree with her that 30 months is absurd in the other direction. Prosecutors aren't using 30 months to prepare for trial, there just aren't nearly enough of them or enough judges.
Also worth noting here that in addition to the psychological toll of that delay on the accused, the prosecution's case rarely gets stronger with time. The memories of key witnesses fade, complainants decide they want to move on with their lives and stop cooperating, principal investigators retire and take their case knowledge with them, evidence is lost or accidentally destroyed, deadlines are forgotten. *Entropy* happens, man.
Even if all a person cares about is making sure prosecutions don't fall apart for bad, preventable reasons, they should care about speedy trial timelines.
Maybe, but you'd also have to consider what's happening outside of North America. We saw the UK and Australia elections go the other way too. Best possible explaination is everyone is in the throw the bums out mood.
I don't disagree with Jen that it can be ineffective to throw a material solution at a spiritual problem, but I think it's telling that all the examples Matt and Jen proceeded to give were of policies that are ineffective because they attack problems that are very, very material (unaffordable housing, uncompetitive economy, inadequate transit, unobtainable health care) with patently inadequate band-aid solutions.
Consider the possibility, as you noodle over the subject, that a great number of progressives, liberals, and conservatives might *all* be blind, by collective virtue of being Canadian, to viable routes out of our current malaise - not because they require spiritual solutions but because they require ambitious, transformative change of a kind that rattles a lot of teacups, and we've trained ourselves as a society to react cynically to even the possibility of transformative change.
Such changes would look a lot like Gondek pissing off half the city of Calgary recently by pushing through aggressive new zoning regulations. Teacups weren't just rattled, there were quite a few thrown at her head, but the new zoning will create the kind of densification necessary to maintain housing affordability at a level that promotes family growth and economic growth.
Regarding the American election, I love Matt's sports analogy. Trump's campaign had a playbook designed around Biden and it was producing results. Now Biden's benched, they're facing a fresh second string playing a much looser, more aggressive game, and they've got no answer for it.
Matt says the Trump campaign is acting like losers, and I know what he means. Nothing they try is working and they're starting to look clumsy and uncertain. Their bench is quiet. Their fans are grumbling. The internal squabbling is getting louder. There's a lot of complaining to the refs. The other team is chirping them mercilessly and they're not firing anything back.
At first that was expected - of course a period of adaptation would be normal - but with every day that goes by where they fail to find an angle that gets them any traction, the possibility mounts that maybe they weren't winning before this because they were a good team, maybe they were only winning because the now-benched first string they were competing against was a couple seasons past its best-before date and overdue to retire.
Trump has only ever won one general election in his life, and it was against arguably the most hated woman in America (fairly or unfairly). There's a plausible possibility, growing by the day, that against even a replacement-level opponent he's now getting exposed.
"they require ambitious, transformative change of a kind that rattles a lot of teacups, and we've trained ourselves as a society to react cynically to even the possibility of transformative change."
I think this is another way of getting at what I'm classifying as a "spiritual" problem. Or perhaps I should term it an "existential" problem. JG
I think it's totally reasonable to frame a loss of belief that bold change for the better is possible as a kind of spiritual malaise.
40 years ago we drafted and launched our very own constitution and legally-enforceable bill of rights. Now we try to update FPTP voting to something that sucks even a little bit less and bail at the first speed bump.
Densification with 300 square foot condos does not promote family formation. It just maximizes developer profit.
Densification with 300-square-foot condos reduces competition for larger properties (and thus their price), e.g. people who might have otherwise organized a house rental with a few roommates instead individually rent tiny condos.
Relaxing zoning to permit missing-middle housing also means more options become available between "tiny condo in an apartment tower" and "detached house", which is overwhelmingly the two options that result from current zoning.
For example, a duplex is often perfect for a young family: more room than an apartment and more access to green space, but significantly cheaper than a detached house in the same neighbourhood.
if the 90s are "old School" I am well and truly damned. What about the '70s or before? I predate the current flag. Plus I'm from Newfoundland and we graciously let you join us in '49.
I was born during WW II and remember well the “bloody handkerchief” Pearson flag debate. And I have a sister in law born in NL and my wife grew up in NL. That being said, the good people of NL were never offered the option of applying for US statehood. By offering a c(r?)ooked choice Premier Joey showed he was a true Canadian by following the time honored Canadian tradition of never giving up control by offering the citizenry a real choice in any referenda.
"The little feller from Gambo" was one interesting politician to be sure. I'se a bit younger than ya. My Dad was sent to NL from the States and assigned to the NE Air Command. He traveled all over the far North country surveying and building installations that were part of the DEW line. As I recall, Joey had to shepherd three votes to before getting NL to agree to Confederation. Always thought that the April 1st Confederation Day was highly ironic. Grew up humming and singing "The Anti-Confederation Song".
Agree with Jen about the cracker packaging. Chip clips & cookie tins. :-)
Perhaps Jen living in dry Calgary need worry less than Matt living in humid Toronto. I mostly grew up in Calgary. Leaving bags open on packaged items like cereal, chips and cookies rarely mattered.
I agree with Matt's sports analogy to the US election and also that this is a vibes election, which makes polls about issues less relevant, especially when it comes to the ballot question: "Do you want old and angry or young and optimistic?"
I don’t think it is that simple. You have to look at it from blue collar America. To them, Harris is peddling the same old slop. She has energized the base but there hasn’t been much movement in the 6 states they need to win.
There actually has been movement in the polls of various swing states. Nate Silver's latest polling averages have Harris leading in all the "blue wall" states, in addition to Nevada, and within striking distance in Arizona and Georgia (and to a lesser extent, North Carolina): and she doesn't need to win all of these. The race is now basically a tossup, but Harris seems to have a slight edge. Silver's poll-based model gives her a 53.8% to win the electoral college, while betting markets give her a 50.7% chance (versus Trump's 46.6%).
On the 30 month thing, the reason I and SO many other people have a problem with these cases being thrown out is not that we think 30 months is reasonable. I don’t think 12 months is reasonable.
The reason I don’t like the cases being thrown out is that it’s punishing the wrong people.
For lack of a better word, the “elites” who run our justice system and our political system have created the problem by running system that takes an inordinate amount of time to do a trial, doing nothing to fix it and often making the problem worse.
But when the violent criminal is set free BECAUSE OF THEIR FAILURE AND INCOMPETENCE, the violent criminal is not living in their neighborhood. They are not riding the bus with him to work. They’re not in the same dating scene as him.
No, no, dealing with the consequences of a violent criminal roaming free is what the “little people” are for.
It’s the same problem with throwing out valid, but improperly obtained evidence. The violent criminal walks free, but he’s not moving in next-door to the judge. He’s not even moving in next-door to the cop.
The “pain” of these problems must fall on the people who caused the problems or they will not be resolved.
Why would anybody suppose that someone whose dissatisfaction with mainstream media is a direct consequence of his/her critical awareness and skepticism would turn off those faculties when sampling alternative sources? Shouldn't we be given some reason for speculating that a MSM critic might suddenly start exhibiting the same kind of logical inconsistency in his/her behaviour that he/she found objectionable in MSM in the first place? Isn't it far likelier that he/she will continue to subject all information sources to the same critical scrutiny that MSM currently proves incapable of withstanding?
What would be the advantage of sampling different sources otherwise, and what would motivate someone to undertake this activity if not a genuine desire to seek source reliability and convincing evidence of it? Aren't we being admonished to do the mental equivalent of brushing our teeth here, and isn't that patronizing and insulting to the type of viewer/reader/listener you presumably want to attract? Have the subscribers you've met left you with the impression they need this kind of basic advice? That would surprise me but it's your experience, not mine, and shaping your presentations accordingly is clearly your prerogative and responsibility, just as continuing the quest for sources that merit and repay close attention is ours as consumers.
"Stop buying so many goddamn crackers."
Amazing.
I think I'm with Jen on the cracker packaging issue.
Jen, to your point. I think you are trying to articulate that individualism and the nuclear family are unfulfilling for millenials and Gen Z. Yes, they can't afford it, but also the world is too risk laden and the nanny state which was supposed to replace the extended family unit and church has failed to do that.
I highly doubt we would have this existential spiritual crisis if the state was successful in replacing the extended family, church and community.
It isn't a coincidence that the most individualistic societies are either win/lose (like the US) or nanny states like France/Quebec and Scandinavia.
Western society is becoming more "Latin" as are our politics.
Like the saltines, Townhouse crackers (the 391g) box comes with 4 sleeves inside. Also, Old Dutch chips still have 2 bags inside the box.
and peak frean 'life style' cookies come in 2 packaged sleeves
I think you're all too bearish on the UK. Sure, they can follow you home with CCTV and sure they can sentence you within days, raising questions about fairness and justice. On the other hand, they already sell chips (or as they would call them, crisps) in individual packages. The regular size bag of chips (maybe 200-250g each) will have five or six individual bags within.
Packaging of crackers, eh? If Canadians really wanted their crackers packaged differently, I'm sure that some supplier would comply, if only to get a competitive edge. But I don't think Matt was being serious -- he was satirizing something -- perhaps the credulity of readers/listeners of Internet posts?
Or perhaps we will be seeing a prize of Gurney crackers(TM) to anyone who signs up twenty new subscribers.
I thought “cracker” was a Liberal word for any English speaker who lives outside Toronto or Ottawa
I only buy the family size package of Ritz crackers now, specifically because they come in eight individually wrapped sleeves. But they're not always easy to find.
What I really wish would be that cereal came in ziplock bags.
Interesting discussion about Jen’s new look. We always used to speculate about what TV navy blue jacketed network news readers wore below tabletop level with the consensus being sweat pants or jeans. With this in mind, will 90s Jen be wearing stripes and either crew or slouch socks?