It doesn't make a person an anti-intellectual conspiracy theorist right-wing sore loser to point out that Poilievre is losing the election more because the Liberals managed to suspend Parliament and replace their leader by abusing incumbent levers of power, and time the election during a major crisis that resulted in the NDP, Greens, and Bloc to collapse as their terrified voters rallied around the Liberals, more than due to him running a less than godlike-perfect campaign. Deeply, deeply frustrating.
The guy is getting up to 40% of the vote - where is he going to get more?
How's Carney's campaign? Total dogshit. He goes up in the polls the more he "suspends his campaign" and hides behind his desk.
(But also I'm cool with a little off-script ranting and don't have to agree with everything I listen to.)
How much of the country are not going to accept the results if the Liberals win a majority? It's not just the West. Rural Ontario and even some urban pockets are feeling completely unrepresented and even ruled by their enemies. We might have just lost the pressure release valve that it looked like we were about to get.
The Liberals definitely abused privileges of incumbency to retain power, however it is easy to imagine how a better leader than Poilievre would have pivoted accordingly. There are smart criticisms that can be made of the Carney Liberals, but the Poilievre Team gets too much of an adrenaline kick out out of baseless character assassinations and pandering to the pre-existing base.
It is also an own goal by the Conservatives to give the middle finger to the legacy media and to partisans of all other countries, such that spooked NDP sympathizers flock to the Liberals. This is literally the CPC repeating the exact same mistakes of 2015 all over again.
Again, we are holding Poilievre and the Conservatives to a standard of perfection, while the Liberals get to show up, get a pass on 10 years of objectively bad government, hold an election timed for maximum external distraction, screw up constantly, steal policies, propose no new ideas of their own, refuse to answer questions about a number of important topics, engage in petty dirty tricks, and (probably) win due to circumstance.
And in what world was the CPC getting the benefit of rally around the flag effect and absorb any significant number of NDP, Bloc, or Green voters?
I estimate the amount of vote share the Conservatives actually lost due to their own mistakes as maybe 3-4% max. Half of what they went down from their January (historic!) peak. That might end up being crucial, don't get me wrong, but it's not like they screwed up big. The real story is on the other side of the ledger and there is little they could have done about that.
1. Local journalism is dead and nonexistent. When was the last time you had a local journalist ask questions to a Mayor, Chief of Police, Chief Planner or Engineer? It’s not like citizens aren’t concerned, there are plenty of vloggers aka independent media aka citizen journalists who are seeking connections to get questions presented to local leaders but can’t because they can’t because local officials stonewalls those efforts.
2. Media is concentrated and focused on who treats them well rather than substance of the issue. Mark Carney’s (and Liberals[1]) China problem isn’t new, what’s new is his attitude towards journalists. It’s certainly noticeable that Mainstream media played nice with the Liberals so far until they were called out”fake news” by Mr. Carney. Conspiracy or favouritism or bad incentives or whatever you want to call it depends on your political preferences.
3. MSM doesn’t do itself favours when it constantly dismisses concerns of ordinary people. It was extremely surprising to hear CBC essentially dismiss local resident’s experience with getting mugged as “far right” or not real “trauma”.
4. I’m going to try to put this in most polite way possible. Boomers really need to wake up. Soft Liberals need to understand the Faustian deal that their party leaders are making. Both groups need to get out of their Trump tunnel vision and look at how bad things have become. You folks are supposed to be better than this.
[1] Anyone who lives in BC knows how deeply involved a certain East Asian country is in the provincial politics. They have bought out provincial politicians. It’s deeply concerning to see that same country scale up those tactics at a Federal level and there’s no stopping it.
The Boomers will only wake up once things get uncomfortable for them. Right now, governments at all levels cannot balance their budgets. The largesse to seniors is going to come to an end unless the economy can start generating the necessary revenue to support the programs.
Boomers, in general, only care about getting their entitlements until they die, and will leave the mess of how to pay for them to subsequent generations.
By the time things get really uncomfortable everyone born before 1965 will be in the ground or unaware of their surroundings.
If so, I am sure voters here won't take the lesson that we need more responsibility and economic growth but rather that we need elaborate government bailouts especially benefiting those over 55.
Jen's critique was well done. It is madness that so many people uncritically understand their surroundings on the basis of partisan perspectives that often have little to no link with reality.
Making the distinction between skepticism and anti-intellectualism may strike some as unnecessary, but clearly we have a problem which the tech bros have helped facilitate, with their toxic libertarian "anything goes" social media platforms (i gave up on Twitter, a.k.a. "X", long ago).
On governance, Paul Wells recently published a good two-part essay about our democratic deficit in Cabinet and Parliament, and other things besides. The hyper focus of all the big Canadian political parties on public relations insread of governance that you referred is clearly a part of this.
As for the Liberal Party's leader and his "China problem", I would agree that he and his will likely find it challenging to shake his reputation as someone who has tried too hard to build relations with the leadership of what can only be described as a noxious authoritarian regime.
Sorry guys, this was not your best podcast. The 40 minute rant was self-indulgent (in stark contradiction to Matt's assessment). I suspect the vast majority of your readership / listenership is educated and intelligent, and really doesn't need to hear a pedantic and defensive rant on the media and scepticism. I am not quick to complain, but this one put me over the edge.
Sorry but this was just not a professional podcast. Keep it less personal please. I cannot listen to the whole thing. I will keep coming back for now but you have to make these podcasts tighter and more focused.
I paid for a subscription for a second year in a row. You guys are drifting off into something else and I know I am not the only one to have noticed. I have never negatively commented on one of your podcasts before. I am not questioning your integrity as journalists nor where you stand on any issue. There just seems to be less and less structure and more self indulgence. If this is going to be your ongoing standard of broadcast, I won't be subscribing for a third year. I really hate writing this as I still subscribe to the notion of the importance of politeness. However, your comment just irked me.
Fair enough. Perhaps I am just having a bad day. My apologies if I am taking it out on you guys or if I appeared out of line. Honestly, I find the partisanship just overwhelmingly disturbing and frankly confusing. I followed you from the National Post where you impressed me with your "fairness" on so many issues. I have not been disappointed in that regard with The Line, and in my mind and I am sure in yours, there is nothing more important.
Having considered your comment overnight, I am even more inclined to agree with you. I subscribed to "The Line" on impulse after a plug from a J. Kay writing/ podcasting for Quillette, a thoughtful and inspiring publication that truly supports heterodoxy. Should this continue, this site will need to be renamed "The Whine", and I will take my post-tax dollars elsewhere.
Brad. I had a very similar reaction to yours. “Self indulgent” resonates. After listening today, I feel like that’s 1 hour 50 minutes of my life that I’m not getting back. How many minutes were spent on Jen’s (over?) reaction to criticism of her on Twitter? How many minutes spent on the service in the bagel shop (still not sure of the point)? Reader’s (listener’s, subscriber’s) time is valuable, maybe it’s worth considering that?
I used to really look forward to the insight provided in these podcasts, but this one (imho) fell way short on insight and was way long on self indulgence. There was a good 15minutes of actual insight if you had the fortitude to stick with it. Like you, I’m reconsidering my subscription. There are lots of places on the internet where I can get insulted (or bored) free of charge.
Me too. A 1hr 50m podcast but it was 1hr 16m before we arrived at what I, for one, signed up for - an adult discussion of last week’s political landscape. The first hour of self-indulgent whining by Jen was extremely disappointing and I hope that I won’t have to endure anything like it again. I mean, fifteen minutes maybe but . . . c’mon guys!
When Jen talks about people who are irritated at the media, she’s not talking about me because the description doesn’t match, so none of this is a rebuttal of anything she said.
But there’s another group of people, perhaps very small, perhaps large, who are dissatisfied with “the media” for entirely different reasons. Taken as a whole or an average, “the media” is to the left of the country. This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s just a side effect of self-selection. Jen has pointed this out herself when she pointed out that the hive mind of the media is probably more accurately just the hive mind of downtown Toronto.
But the more that journalists have seen themselves as activists reporting on what’s happening, the more that’s a problem. And it’s exacerbated by the concentration of big media.
Ding ding ding. I wrote a large missive below on this exact "hivemind" point. Yes there are conspiracy nuts, we shouldn't be so repelled by them that we deny that this dynamic exists
Hi Jenn and Matt. Paying subscriber to the Line here.
I can barely emphasize enough how self-indulgent and pointless I found the initial 50 minutes or so of this podcast to be. Ironically, in trying (apparently) to reach a small subset of anti-intellectual trolls who you fear you may have crossed - or, in airing personal grievances in respect of critiques from said trolls - you bored and irritated your otherwise sensible audience who tune in for your trenchant and topical political commentary. It was a tragic, almost reverse form of audience capture (devoting so much air time in reaction to listeners who apparently dislike you??)
With about two weeks left until this monumental election, please, PLEASE focus on the actual issues, to help listeners make sense of what is at stake, and what is on offer from the political parties. Stay off Twitter, Jenn.
I share the above because I have been a big fan of the Line and want it to succeed. Regards.
If I could put forward my one small vote, I’d love to hear more of this kind of stuff from the two of you. I think you are two of the most thoughtful journalists in Canada, and I want to know about the things you care about the most. Diagnosing destructive tribalism - the fundamental problems of public epistemology, of being able to distinguish truth from bullshit at a societal level - those seem like questions that are worthy of your talents.
I feel like I’m expressing myself awkwardly at best, but I’d like to see more of this kind of stuff. I also loved hearing the bits that Jen has shared about how the loss of widely shared ideas of identity and meaning - I think she was perhaps alluding to religion and religious meanings? - has left a vacuum that is now being filled by superficial and often toxic political identities. To me, that means something and is so much more interesting than a weekly play-by-play of the idiocy and hypocrisy that are inevitable aspects of public life.
I get that this may not be what a lot of your listeners/readers are tuning in for. I also get the idea of emotionally protecting yourselves - the comment section is indeed the doorway to crazy town.
However - I feel like a terrible person trying to lead you away from appropriate self-care - I’d love to hear you write and speak more about the things you care about the most. There is so much cynicism out there but I feel like this episode pushed back against so much of what is pathological in the current discourse. We need writers to normalize appropriate skepticism again. We need help distinguishing healthy patterns of thought from - a little dramatic here but - nihilism and doubt that truth could be anything more than the narrative that best serves those we want to be in power.
You’re doing that. I offer my thanks for a very powerful episode today.
Your explanation of what "the media" is gets to the heart of why people see "media bias" conspiracies: Left-Liberalism (or whatever you want to call the dominant moral framework which replaced Christianity) operates through a decentralized network of social signalling, people are incentivised to gain/maintain cultural prestige by aligning with left-liberal narratives. As with "the media", it's not a formal system, certainly not a cabal, but - it functions as if it had a Pope. Who decided we all have to say "unhoused" now, or any of the endless iterations of politically correct euphemisms over the years?
In the past there was literally a pope who would dictate what morality was, but now we have this decentralized hivemind apparatus. It's how wokeness managed to take over the culture so pervasively, through a virtue-signalling one-upsmanship arms race. Of course, elite cultural institutions like Academia play a big role here, but again - not a cabal, not a conspiracy.
Don't react in opposition to the conspiracytards, just ignore. The loudest are often the dumbest, but there is a there there, every conservative knows this, and I know you know it. It's why we all feel that slight bit of trepidation whenever meekly and haltingly self-describing as "....c-c-centre-right?"
Or, you could just listen to the smug liberal cognoscenti who say "reality has a known leftward bias ;) "
I liked the personal rant. I don't think it needs to be a weekly addition, but, I think I actually took something from it, and it may have actually helped me gain a better perspective.
I, too, am mourning our lack of AssHole Nation-ness. As shiny as Carney is, I'm quite concerned that with his past published beliefs about NetZero, and with surrounding himself with Trudeau's team, how could he not back away from any aggressive pipeline promise? I hope I'm wrong, and that he meets the moment.
Lastly, would love if defence came back into the fore as an election topic!
I didn't mind the rant. It wasn't Jen's best rant, but it was okay. Might I suggest to the Line eds, however, that they edit it so that the rant is last. I would have shared the video, but not when I have to write a disclaimer suggesting that people tune in after 40 minutes. Just a thought.
The last five minutes resonated to the core of my being. Canada needs to re-tool, basically, everything. Kick out the old cabinet for sure! Clean house in order to make “doing things well” the main thing.
About Matts bagel story, you need to watch "The Prisoner" from Late 60s. The people in the Village have numbers instead of Names. The main character shouts " I am not a number!" LOL
As a paid subscriber I have thoroughly appreciated the thoughtful and intelligent content you provide. However, I did not appreciate Jen’s out of control and seemingly endless rant. I am seriously considering not renewing if this behaviour becomes the norm. Kudos to Matt for your professionalism in response to Jen’s lack of same.
Matt - I get your bagel story. Huge fane of Airplane, Naked Gun and Police Squad. I pictured Leslie Neilson standing there totally deadpan looking for his lost receipt with number 2 and not getting his bagel.
Many thumbs up on your firearms observation- if only everyone knew or were informed on what it takes to own and posses a firearm in this country ……
It doesn't make a person an anti-intellectual conspiracy theorist right-wing sore loser to point out that Poilievre is losing the election more because the Liberals managed to suspend Parliament and replace their leader by abusing incumbent levers of power, and time the election during a major crisis that resulted in the NDP, Greens, and Bloc to collapse as their terrified voters rallied around the Liberals, more than due to him running a less than godlike-perfect campaign. Deeply, deeply frustrating.
The guy is getting up to 40% of the vote - where is he going to get more?
How's Carney's campaign? Total dogshit. He goes up in the polls the more he "suspends his campaign" and hides behind his desk.
(But also I'm cool with a little off-script ranting and don't have to agree with everything I listen to.)
There’s a reason why Western Alienation is increasing. You nailed it on the head, Liberals don’t understand the impacts of their extreme actions.
How much of the country are not going to accept the results if the Liberals win a majority? It's not just the West. Rural Ontario and even some urban pockets are feeling completely unrepresented and even ruled by their enemies. We might have just lost the pressure release valve that it looked like we were about to get.
Then they should show up. Turnout has been pretty low for decades.
Turnout might be the Conservatives' only hope. We will see.
Careful. Jen Gerson might yell at you…
I'm ok with that outcome. I looked and felt like she did in the podcast the last time I spent any time on Twitter so I understand. It's bad in there.
The Liberals definitely abused privileges of incumbency to retain power, however it is easy to imagine how a better leader than Poilievre would have pivoted accordingly. There are smart criticisms that can be made of the Carney Liberals, but the Poilievre Team gets too much of an adrenaline kick out out of baseless character assassinations and pandering to the pre-existing base.
It is also an own goal by the Conservatives to give the middle finger to the legacy media and to partisans of all other countries, such that spooked NDP sympathizers flock to the Liberals. This is literally the CPC repeating the exact same mistakes of 2015 all over again.
Again, we are holding Poilievre and the Conservatives to a standard of perfection, while the Liberals get to show up, get a pass on 10 years of objectively bad government, hold an election timed for maximum external distraction, screw up constantly, steal policies, propose no new ideas of their own, refuse to answer questions about a number of important topics, engage in petty dirty tricks, and (probably) win due to circumstance.
And in what world was the CPC getting the benefit of rally around the flag effect and absorb any significant number of NDP, Bloc, or Green voters?
I estimate the amount of vote share the Conservatives actually lost due to their own mistakes as maybe 3-4% max. Half of what they went down from their January (historic!) peak. That might end up being crucial, don't get me wrong, but it's not like they screwed up big. The real story is on the other side of the ledger and there is little they could have done about that.
1. Local journalism is dead and nonexistent. When was the last time you had a local journalist ask questions to a Mayor, Chief of Police, Chief Planner or Engineer? It’s not like citizens aren’t concerned, there are plenty of vloggers aka independent media aka citizen journalists who are seeking connections to get questions presented to local leaders but can’t because they can’t because local officials stonewalls those efforts.
2. Media is concentrated and focused on who treats them well rather than substance of the issue. Mark Carney’s (and Liberals[1]) China problem isn’t new, what’s new is his attitude towards journalists. It’s certainly noticeable that Mainstream media played nice with the Liberals so far until they were called out”fake news” by Mr. Carney. Conspiracy or favouritism or bad incentives or whatever you want to call it depends on your political preferences.
3. MSM doesn’t do itself favours when it constantly dismisses concerns of ordinary people. It was extremely surprising to hear CBC essentially dismiss local resident’s experience with getting mugged as “far right” or not real “trauma”.
4. I’m going to try to put this in most polite way possible. Boomers really need to wake up. Soft Liberals need to understand the Faustian deal that their party leaders are making. Both groups need to get out of their Trump tunnel vision and look at how bad things have become. You folks are supposed to be better than this.
[1] Anyone who lives in BC knows how deeply involved a certain East Asian country is in the provincial politics. They have bought out provincial politicians. It’s deeply concerning to see that same country scale up those tactics at a Federal level and there’s no stopping it.
The Boomers will only wake up once things get uncomfortable for them. Right now, governments at all levels cannot balance their budgets. The largesse to seniors is going to come to an end unless the economy can start generating the necessary revenue to support the programs.
Boomers, in general, only care about getting their entitlements until they die, and will leave the mess of how to pay for them to subsequent generations.
By the time things get really uncomfortable everyone born before 1965 will be in the ground or unaware of their surroundings.
I think the US is close to insolvency. The treasuries are telling you that. Things are happening faster than anyone thinks.
If so, I am sure voters here won't take the lesson that we need more responsibility and economic growth but rather that we need elaborate government bailouts especially benefiting those over 55.
Jen's critique was well done. It is madness that so many people uncritically understand their surroundings on the basis of partisan perspectives that often have little to no link with reality.
Making the distinction between skepticism and anti-intellectualism may strike some as unnecessary, but clearly we have a problem which the tech bros have helped facilitate, with their toxic libertarian "anything goes" social media platforms (i gave up on Twitter, a.k.a. "X", long ago).
On governance, Paul Wells recently published a good two-part essay about our democratic deficit in Cabinet and Parliament, and other things besides. The hyper focus of all the big Canadian political parties on public relations insread of governance that you referred is clearly a part of this.
As for the Liberal Party's leader and his "China problem", I would agree that he and his will likely find it challenging to shake his reputation as someone who has tried too hard to build relations with the leadership of what can only be described as a noxious authoritarian regime.
Sorry guys, this was not your best podcast. The 40 minute rant was self-indulgent (in stark contradiction to Matt's assessment). I suspect the vast majority of your readership / listenership is educated and intelligent, and really doesn't need to hear a pedantic and defensive rant on the media and scepticism. I am not quick to complain, but this one put me over the edge.
Sorry but this was just not a professional podcast. Keep it less personal please. I cannot listen to the whole thing. I will keep coming back for now but you have to make these podcasts tighter and more focused.
Listenership is not mandatory but it is encouraged.
I paid for a subscription for a second year in a row. You guys are drifting off into something else and I know I am not the only one to have noticed. I have never negatively commented on one of your podcasts before. I am not questioning your integrity as journalists nor where you stand on any issue. There just seems to be less and less structure and more self indulgence. If this is going to be your ongoing standard of broadcast, I won't be subscribing for a third year. I really hate writing this as I still subscribe to the notion of the importance of politeness. However, your comment just irked me.
After all your commentary, I think you can spot me one polite reply.
I’m here for the self-indulgence (and the biting commentary).
Fair enough. Perhaps I am just having a bad day. My apologies if I am taking it out on you guys or if I appeared out of line. Honestly, I find the partisanship just overwhelmingly disturbing and frankly confusing. I followed you from the National Post where you impressed me with your "fairness" on so many issues. I have not been disappointed in that regard with The Line, and in my mind and I am sure in yours, there is nothing more important.
I hope your evening is better than your day. Enjoy.
Having considered your comment overnight, I am even more inclined to agree with you. I subscribed to "The Line" on impulse after a plug from a J. Kay writing/ podcasting for Quillette, a thoughtful and inspiring publication that truly supports heterodoxy. Should this continue, this site will need to be renamed "The Whine", and I will take my post-tax dollars elsewhere.
Brad. I had a very similar reaction to yours. “Self indulgent” resonates. After listening today, I feel like that’s 1 hour 50 minutes of my life that I’m not getting back. How many minutes were spent on Jen’s (over?) reaction to criticism of her on Twitter? How many minutes spent on the service in the bagel shop (still not sure of the point)? Reader’s (listener’s, subscriber’s) time is valuable, maybe it’s worth considering that?
I used to really look forward to the insight provided in these podcasts, but this one (imho) fell way short on insight and was way long on self indulgence. There was a good 15minutes of actual insight if you had the fortitude to stick with it. Like you, I’m reconsidering my subscription. There are lots of places on the internet where I can get insulted (or bored) free of charge.
Brad, you are acting like a baby. Man up, its not the end of the world because one segment of one podcast is not to your liking.
Me too. A 1hr 50m podcast but it was 1hr 16m before we arrived at what I, for one, signed up for - an adult discussion of last week’s political landscape. The first hour of self-indulgent whining by Jen was extremely disappointing and I hope that I won’t have to endure anything like it again. I mean, fifteen minutes maybe but . . . c’mon guys!
Agreed
I agree wholeheartedly. Listening to Gerson ranting for almost an hour is a waste of my time.
When Jen talks about people who are irritated at the media, she’s not talking about me because the description doesn’t match, so none of this is a rebuttal of anything she said.
But there’s another group of people, perhaps very small, perhaps large, who are dissatisfied with “the media” for entirely different reasons. Taken as a whole or an average, “the media” is to the left of the country. This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s just a side effect of self-selection. Jen has pointed this out herself when she pointed out that the hive mind of the media is probably more accurately just the hive mind of downtown Toronto.
But the more that journalists have seen themselves as activists reporting on what’s happening, the more that’s a problem. And it’s exacerbated by the concentration of big media.
Ding ding ding. I wrote a large missive below on this exact "hivemind" point. Yes there are conspiracy nuts, we shouldn't be so repelled by them that we deny that this dynamic exists
Hi Jenn and Matt. Paying subscriber to the Line here.
I can barely emphasize enough how self-indulgent and pointless I found the initial 50 minutes or so of this podcast to be. Ironically, in trying (apparently) to reach a small subset of anti-intellectual trolls who you fear you may have crossed - or, in airing personal grievances in respect of critiques from said trolls - you bored and irritated your otherwise sensible audience who tune in for your trenchant and topical political commentary. It was a tragic, almost reverse form of audience capture (devoting so much air time in reaction to listeners who apparently dislike you??)
With about two weeks left until this monumental election, please, PLEASE focus on the actual issues, to help listeners make sense of what is at stake, and what is on offer from the political parties. Stay off Twitter, Jenn.
I share the above because I have been a big fan of the Line and want it to succeed. Regards.
Well said.
If I could put forward my one small vote, I’d love to hear more of this kind of stuff from the two of you. I think you are two of the most thoughtful journalists in Canada, and I want to know about the things you care about the most. Diagnosing destructive tribalism - the fundamental problems of public epistemology, of being able to distinguish truth from bullshit at a societal level - those seem like questions that are worthy of your talents.
I feel like I’m expressing myself awkwardly at best, but I’d like to see more of this kind of stuff. I also loved hearing the bits that Jen has shared about how the loss of widely shared ideas of identity and meaning - I think she was perhaps alluding to religion and religious meanings? - has left a vacuum that is now being filled by superficial and often toxic political identities. To me, that means something and is so much more interesting than a weekly play-by-play of the idiocy and hypocrisy that are inevitable aspects of public life.
I get that this may not be what a lot of your listeners/readers are tuning in for. I also get the idea of emotionally protecting yourselves - the comment section is indeed the doorway to crazy town.
However - I feel like a terrible person trying to lead you away from appropriate self-care - I’d love to hear you write and speak more about the things you care about the most. There is so much cynicism out there but I feel like this episode pushed back against so much of what is pathological in the current discourse. We need writers to normalize appropriate skepticism again. We need help distinguishing healthy patterns of thought from - a little dramatic here but - nihilism and doubt that truth could be anything more than the narrative that best serves those we want to be in power.
You’re doing that. I offer my thanks for a very powerful episode today.
Well said. The line is my must listen to podcast every week.
Your explanation of what "the media" is gets to the heart of why people see "media bias" conspiracies: Left-Liberalism (or whatever you want to call the dominant moral framework which replaced Christianity) operates through a decentralized network of social signalling, people are incentivised to gain/maintain cultural prestige by aligning with left-liberal narratives. As with "the media", it's not a formal system, certainly not a cabal, but - it functions as if it had a Pope. Who decided we all have to say "unhoused" now, or any of the endless iterations of politically correct euphemisms over the years?
In the past there was literally a pope who would dictate what morality was, but now we have this decentralized hivemind apparatus. It's how wokeness managed to take over the culture so pervasively, through a virtue-signalling one-upsmanship arms race. Of course, elite cultural institutions like Academia play a big role here, but again - not a cabal, not a conspiracy.
Don't react in opposition to the conspiracytards, just ignore. The loudest are often the dumbest, but there is a there there, every conservative knows this, and I know you know it. It's why we all feel that slight bit of trepidation whenever meekly and haltingly self-describing as "....c-c-centre-right?"
Or, you could just listen to the smug liberal cognoscenti who say "reality has a known leftward bias ;) "
I liked the personal rant. I don't think it needs to be a weekly addition, but, I think I actually took something from it, and it may have actually helped me gain a better perspective.
I, too, am mourning our lack of AssHole Nation-ness. As shiny as Carney is, I'm quite concerned that with his past published beliefs about NetZero, and with surrounding himself with Trudeau's team, how could he not back away from any aggressive pipeline promise? I hope I'm wrong, and that he meets the moment.
Lastly, would love if defence came back into the fore as an election topic!
Party on, friends.
Carny will not meet the moment, nor will he meet "the times". Too bad too many voter cannot/choose not to see him for what he is.
I didn't mind the rant. It wasn't Jen's best rant, but it was okay. Might I suggest to the Line eds, however, that they edit it so that the rant is last. I would have shared the video, but not when I have to write a disclaimer suggesting that people tune in after 40 minutes. Just a thought.
Totally appreciate the first hour! Thanks Jen for spilling it out and then to you both for the discussion.
The last five minutes resonated to the core of my being. Canada needs to re-tool, basically, everything. Kick out the old cabinet for sure! Clean house in order to make “doing things well” the main thing.
About Matts bagel story, you need to watch "The Prisoner" from Late 60s. The people in the Village have numbers instead of Names. The main character shouts " I am not a number!" LOL
So the CCP did attack Carney?
zing
As a paid subscriber I have thoroughly appreciated the thoughtful and intelligent content you provide. However, I did not appreciate Jen’s out of control and seemingly endless rant. I am seriously considering not renewing if this behaviour becomes the norm. Kudos to Matt for your professionalism in response to Jen’s lack of same.
I actually have unsubscribed but paid up until May.
Matt - I get your bagel story. Huge fane of Airplane, Naked Gun and Police Squad. I pictured Leslie Neilson standing there totally deadpan looking for his lost receipt with number 2 and not getting his bagel.
Many thumbs up on your firearms observation- if only everyone knew or were informed on what it takes to own and posses a firearm in this country ……