I was a bit disappointed at the Tik Tok lobby advertising too. You can also add me to the list of people who are not happy they take money from Rothmans (funders of Unsmoke) to promote vaping (sorry everyone, but vapings astronomical growth is with young new users, not grizzled smokers trying to dial it down). I will continue to support Matt and Jen of course, but I do disagree with taking ad money from lobby groups and tobacco companies. They do have to make a living so I am not completely ignorant t9 the realities of running their own business, so I am not outraged, just disappointed. I think if it was a 3rd party commercially produced spot and they are selling a commercial spot it might be a bit easier to digest instead of them out right reading the script given to them. But hey, still enjoy you Matt and Jen but we know how advertising dollars (and concerns about losing it ) can influence editorial content in Canada . We see this everywhere. so please try to keep it clean
I personally see no issue with the Chinese government's premier Western propaganda outlet giving a bag of cash to one of Canada's few independent media outlets.
You can't be independent of someone if you accept their money to promote their talking points, e.g., "Shutting down TikTok Canada doesn't make Canadians safer — but it does eliminate jobs and investments in this country."
Running the ad implies that The Line is in agreement with TikTok's point of view, or at least that they have no problem flogging a view they don't agree with as long as there's money to be made. Many of us subscribed precisely because we saw Matt and Jen as different from the mainstream mould. Which makes this all deeply hypocritical and disappointing.
I have only gotten a short way into the podcast and, Jen, you indicated that you would like to see PP give a bit of vision of the Canada he is trying to achieve. Wonder of wonders! I was on the internet looking at a YouTube of something (that I have forgotten right now) and at the end of it up popped a Jordan Peterson podcast with PP and said PP offered up something very much like that in response to a question from Peterson as to what he (PP) wanted to achieve. It was actually interesting to me because, while it did have some of the golden oldies (axe the tax and so forth) it also talked in almost lyrical words about what he wants to achieve for people.
As near as I can tell the podcast with Peterson and PP was recorded in the last day or two so folks should give that a listen.
It was a very good interview. I dont care if someone hates Jordan Peterson, the man can ask questions and can dig into intellectual commentary that very few can do. These long form online interviews are the way to go in the future. It connects with people alot more than the traditional canned scripted Q&A things people do eating softball questions surrounded by their advisors and teams. Even if a person loathes PP for some reason, this will still give a very clear idea of what he wants to do and where he is going. No 30 second soundbyte made with an agenda (pro or anti) can give you what this style of interview can
Poilievre was excellent on the podcast in identifying real problems that Canadians face, how hard young adults work - and he was a failure in identifying any new actual policy solutions for said problems.
Well, I'm not so certain that you are correct, Stefan.
What I am meaning is that PP - seemed to me, at least - offered some goals; he didn't offer specifics of how to achieve those goals but offering goals, i.e. his vision, is a start.
I would hope that, between now and the point at which the election is called, he fleshes out his vision with more visionary comments to shape a hoped for future under his government. After the call of the election, I would hope that we get some actual policy choices; specific, granular policies are too much to hope for until after the election but broad policy thrusts are important.
So, to summarize, I think that he is starting with the vision thingy - something that G & G seemed to want, just as the whole country does - but he will need to continue fleshing it out.
Now, having made those points, among other visions he did repeat his specific promises that he would "axe the tax" and that he would "defund the CBC." So, having offered those comments, you will note that he did not say that he would close down the CBC or that he would defund Radio Canada; he said he would "axe the tax" but he did not say that he would axe the carbon tax on industrial emitters so I interpret his comment that he would axe the carbon tax on individuals. That means that, again, he has to go further on his vision thingy but he has started the process as far as I can see.
Well point (1), to whatever extent true, would prove a certain level of cynicism by the Conservatives in willfully delaying potential improvements to quality of life.
But at any rate, Poilievre has a two-decade long record of promoting and encouraging partisan ignorance about public policy. There's already been a lifetime of waiting for Poilievre to show some serious policy maturity, and it is simply in his political DNA not to do so.
If Jen is right about Poilievre being a Regan/Thatcher conservative, the policy direxrion is already mature. It is also obvious: government austerity, deregulation and a focus on economic development.
I’ve got a slightly different take on SNC-Lavalin and how the wheels came off the Liberal government: I don’t think that scandal marked anything actually changing in how the Trudeau government operated. I think that marked the moment that people started perceiving that’s what the Trudeau government actually was. It’s kind of a Schroedinger’s Cat moment where the act of observation ended the indeterminate state that allowed people to assume the best about the Trudeau Liberals.
I find myself in the rare position of completely disagreeing with a piece of Matt and Jen's analysis. Poilievre should not move on from "axe the tax"; on the contrary, he hasn't repeated it nearly enough.
One of the hard lessons I learned working on political campaigns is that by the time journalists, pols and plugged-in voters (the kind who listen to political podcasts and pay for news) are heartily sick of a line, it is just beginning to penetrate with regular voters. I instantly recognize McDonald's slogans back to "you deserve a break today" from the 1970s because they were repeated, endlessly, at immense expense, for years on end. A Canadian politician can only dream of that level of message penetration.
Kamala Harris's campaign just spent over $1Bn in a few months, achieving share of voice well past saturation. What was her slogan? What was her message? I'd have to look it up. But "make America great again" has been burned into my brain for nine long, annoying years. The dumbest thing Trump could have done (as a pure matter of tactics) is move on.
I was deeply involved in Mike Harris's 1999 re-election campaign, and vividly recall discussing the campaign with a non-political friend. In the middle of our conversation, his young daughter heard him say "Dalton McGuinty" and she proudly piped up with "he's just not up to the job!" (the attack line from our ads). She had no clue who McGuinty was; all she knew about him was those seven words. That's what good looks like. If Poilievre repeats "axe the tax" ten thousand more times, it won't be enough.
Quite so, and while I also despise slogans, you are quite correct that they are effective.
They do, however, have a shelf life - that's why we don't hear 'you deserve a break today' and 'where's the beef' any more - they have to be refreshed periodically.
Here's some other slogans you may have heard over the past decade, by the way:
'Putting A Price On Pollution'
'Standing Up For Canadians'
'Supporting The Middle Class And Those Hoping To Join It'
'Fighting Climate Change'
'Banning Assault-Style Weapons'
'Putting More Money In Your Pockets'
'Building Back Better (that one didn't last long)'
'Real Action On... (Insert Issue Here)'
I'm predicting right now that the *NEW IMPROVED* Liberals will cancel the carbon tax prior to the next election, thereby neutering the top slogan/mantra of the CPC for months, perhaps years at this point. That likely won't be the only CPC slogan/policy they will adopt before the next election, in an effort to chip away at the gap in the polls.
I'm writing this after PMJT announced his intention to resign, while shutting down parliament until the end of March, and allowing his party time to have a process to replace him. My bet is the PMO has secured agreement(s) with the NDP and/or Bloc to pass the confidence motion on Supply in March, so that spring election may evaporate.
We will see how gullible and stupid Canadians really are (or not) by the end of 2025.
Jen, Canadian values in 21st century- the core needs to be equality of “opportunity” in a meritocracy. Equality of opportunity must include looking out for those who “cannot” help themselves. Meritocracy must also apply to the ability of governments deliver “good governance.”
Helping those who cant help themselves should always be a core value, but over the last number of years that pool of people who "cant help themselves" has been flagrantly expanded to a ridiculous degree which is creating too high of a population of people who think they cant function without handouts or supports.
The meritocracy ideal flies in the face of group rights. How can individuals have equal opportunity if groups must have equal opportunity? Politicians in general, but those on the progressive side in particular, will struggle to move away from targeting groups with policies.
Ordinary Canadians have plenty of good qualities, some shared and some varying. But I don't know why we'd expect a coherent and compelling national identity suddenly to emerge from them, especially one that's different from the identity and purpose espoused by our elites – the one schoolchildren would dutifully repeat to you if you asked them right now what it means to be Canadian.
I personally like the idea of a culture that values liberty and opportunity; I just see no particular evidence that Canada is about to develop such a culture as the core of a broadly shared national identity.
Your comments on “none so Albertan” struck home, born and bred here, but I’ve had several neighbors from elsewhere, only one still pines for her old province. The most pronounced “converts” were from Quebec.
CBC … suspect they will keep English Radio, and it’s really only English TV that will have to fly on its own or disappear.
Reading thru the comments, why is everyone surprised at the TikTok thing, much less concerned. It’s advertising dollars! That being said, I work for a corporation, that banned TikTok From any devices that may cross into our professional lives, so I don’t and won’t use it.
Re: CBC. Poilievre obviously won't be directly involved in any hiring or firing decisions. But if he can somehow contrive to put CBC management in a position where it becomes possible to consign Ron McLean's non-stop, politically correct but irrelevant blather to the dustbin of history, he'll spare thousands of hockey fans the nuisance of having to PRV the games and then fast-forward through all segments of the telecasts in which MacLean is talking.
Obviously, there are many other CBC 'personalities' the public would be relieved to see disappear, but MacLean tops the list. (They should keep Chantal Hebert, though, the one true original the network seems to have who has some personal integrity, and clearly couldn't care less whether what she says coheres with her colleagues' narratives or not.)
Interestingly, they're listed as his joint employers (maybe something to do with the licensing arrangement). In any event, CBC still has rights to the 'Hockey Night In Canada' phrase, and MacLean is there (alas!) every Saturday night on CBC.
Re PP promises, for me the most important is that he will repeal Bill C-69, the tanker ban, and other Liberal attempts to destroy the oil and gas industry and other industries monetizing Canada's natural resources. Can't happen soon enough!
Thanks for answering my question about the “tip” of the pendulum swing. Great answers. Mine would have been the Dylan Mulvaney Bud Light fiasco.
I think society was starting to get sick of being told to be “tolerant “ of some extremes
Bud Light gave ordinary people the ability to express their feelings simply by choosing a brand of beer to pickup. They didn’t need to vote or march in the streets or carry a protest placard. They simply chose to buy different beer. And they learned they weren’t alone. And they learned they have some power.
Someone once said “beware the silent majority”. I think Bud Light gave them the ability to be silently powerful.
This was an extremely strong podcast, one of your best - I think the format sends the conversation to interesting places. Maybe consider doing a "reader Q&A" podcast like this monthly in the future?
Seconded... reader Q & A is great stuff. The Line has a very good comment section and its reflected in this podcast. It was , honestly, too long though.... was a big meal to digest :)
Too long for some. OK length for others. I was simply soaking up the contents while doing housework. Some podcasts I cannot hear in one go, so I pause it and return later.
I'd honestly rather The Line accept money from TikTok than the Canadian government. It's one thing for a foreign corp that is politically aligned to take money, it's a whole other thing for your own government to buy off the local press.
Ok. That was fun and interesting. I agree,there is definitely a class system in Canada. I call Alberta home now for 45 years,’went West’ in 1979. I love it here,big blue skies,Rockies and serious income,if you apply yourself. The wife and I have been back to Ontari Ari Ari O over a dozen times. 90 km an hour on the Trans Canada drives me crazy! Toronto Pearson Airport has very seldom made our connection. Usually we are literally running from our flight out of Sudbury across the airport because we are late. WT? Who timed that one? Anyway,different attitudes definetely!! We get things built in Alberta!
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and a few parts of Ontario get things built. The rest produce plans, billable hours and grant/subsidy application forms.
Enjoyable pod today. I think Jen has mentioned her husband used to be involved in MMA and now that he does some vaguely political US-related work, so my subconscious has decided her husband is actually Joe Rogan. (Mainly because that’s roughly the extent of my entire knowledge about Joe Rogan, and my brain has not retained anything else she mentioned about her spouse, including name). So as a chaos agent, I send this out into the universe and look forward to a year of Jen/Joe conspiracy theories.
On the other hand, that might just be the cocktail of medications my dental surgeon prescribed talking. Either/or.
In other news, I really look forward to it being socially acceptable to express pride in Canada again, regardless of who’s leading the government.
I wish the Pierre-Jordan interview was out before this Q&A, but ce la vie. This was a really great format and look forward to the next one, maybe during/after the next election?
I'm generally indifferent to Jordan Peterson, but he conducts competent long form interviews.
Poilievre demonstrated his ability to talk about a wide range of subjects over an extended period of questioning. He is part of the new generation of politicians than can perform on a podcast. The Trudeau generation is stuck in 2008 with Instagram selfies.
Looking forward to this.
I noticed that you've taken sponsorship from TikTok Canada.
I have concerns.
I also have concerns about The Line taking sponsorship from TikTok Canada. Saying it frankly, it leaves a smudge on The Line's face.
I was a bit disappointed at the Tik Tok lobby advertising too. You can also add me to the list of people who are not happy they take money from Rothmans (funders of Unsmoke) to promote vaping (sorry everyone, but vapings astronomical growth is with young new users, not grizzled smokers trying to dial it down). I will continue to support Matt and Jen of course, but I do disagree with taking ad money from lobby groups and tobacco companies. They do have to make a living so I am not completely ignorant t9 the realities of running their own business, so I am not outraged, just disappointed. I think if it was a 3rd party commercially produced spot and they are selling a commercial spot it might be a bit easier to digest instead of them out right reading the script given to them. But hey, still enjoy you Matt and Jen but we know how advertising dollars (and concerns about losing it ) can influence editorial content in Canada . We see this everywhere. so please try to keep it clean
Part of the ethos of The Line is "you're a grown up and freedom also means the freedom to make your own mistakes."
I’d say take the money, although I wouldn’t mind a statement at the start of the spot clarifying that the following message is a paid ad.
I personally see no issue with the Chinese government's premier Western propaganda outlet giving a bag of cash to one of Canada's few independent media outlets.
You can't be independent of someone if you accept their money to promote their talking points, e.g., "Shutting down TikTok Canada doesn't make Canadians safer — but it does eliminate jobs and investments in this country."
Running the ad implies that The Line is in agreement with TikTok's point of view, or at least that they have no problem flogging a view they don't agree with as long as there's money to be made. Many of us subscribed precisely because we saw Matt and Jen as different from the mainstream mould. Which makes this all deeply hypocritical and disappointing.
I was being sarcastic.
Totally went over my head, sorry.
Hmmm .....
I have only gotten a short way into the podcast and, Jen, you indicated that you would like to see PP give a bit of vision of the Canada he is trying to achieve. Wonder of wonders! I was on the internet looking at a YouTube of something (that I have forgotten right now) and at the end of it up popped a Jordan Peterson podcast with PP and said PP offered up something very much like that in response to a question from Peterson as to what he (PP) wanted to achieve. It was actually interesting to me because, while it did have some of the golden oldies (axe the tax and so forth) it also talked in almost lyrical words about what he wants to achieve for people.
As near as I can tell the podcast with Peterson and PP was recorded in the last day or two so folks should give that a listen.
It was a very good interview. I dont care if someone hates Jordan Peterson, the man can ask questions and can dig into intellectual commentary that very few can do. These long form online interviews are the way to go in the future. It connects with people alot more than the traditional canned scripted Q&A things people do eating softball questions surrounded by their advisors and teams. Even if a person loathes PP for some reason, this will still give a very clear idea of what he wants to do and where he is going. No 30 second soundbyte made with an agenda (pro or anti) can give you what this style of interview can
It was a good, informative conversation.
Poilievre was excellent on the podcast in identifying real problems that Canadians face, how hard young adults work - and he was a failure in identifying any new actual policy solutions for said problems.
Well, I'm not so certain that you are correct, Stefan.
What I am meaning is that PP - seemed to me, at least - offered some goals; he didn't offer specifics of how to achieve those goals but offering goals, i.e. his vision, is a start.
I would hope that, between now and the point at which the election is called, he fleshes out his vision with more visionary comments to shape a hoped for future under his government. After the call of the election, I would hope that we get some actual policy choices; specific, granular policies are too much to hope for until after the election but broad policy thrusts are important.
So, to summarize, I think that he is starting with the vision thingy - something that G & G seemed to want, just as the whole country does - but he will need to continue fleshing it out.
Now, having made those points, among other visions he did repeat his specific promises that he would "axe the tax" and that he would "defund the CBC." So, having offered those comments, you will note that he did not say that he would close down the CBC or that he would defund Radio Canada; he said he would "axe the tax" but he did not say that he would axe the carbon tax on industrial emitters so I interpret his comment that he would axe the carbon tax on individuals. That means that, again, he has to go further on his vision thingy but he has started the process as far as I can see.
Why would the Conservatives discuss policy details in advance if a campaign?
1)) The Liberals would pilfer the popular ideas, much like they already have on some of the hinted housing and immigration ideas
2) The Liberals would stoke fear over the remaining policies or spin them as racist/misogynist/homophobic etc.
3) The world is in such a state of flux, that specific policies may matter less than the government's ability to react to events
The Reform Party learned the hard way about points 1 and 2.
Well point (1), to whatever extent true, would prove a certain level of cynicism by the Conservatives in willfully delaying potential improvements to quality of life.
But at any rate, Poilievre has a two-decade long record of promoting and encouraging partisan ignorance about public policy. There's already been a lifetime of waiting for Poilievre to show some serious policy maturity, and it is simply in his political DNA not to do so.
If Jen is right about Poilievre being a Regan/Thatcher conservative, the policy direxrion is already mature. It is also obvious: government austerity, deregulation and a focus on economic development.
I’ve got a slightly different take on SNC-Lavalin and how the wheels came off the Liberal government: I don’t think that scandal marked anything actually changing in how the Trudeau government operated. I think that marked the moment that people started perceiving that’s what the Trudeau government actually was. It’s kind of a Schroedinger’s Cat moment where the act of observation ended the indeterminate state that allowed people to assume the best about the Trudeau Liberals.
I find myself in the rare position of completely disagreeing with a piece of Matt and Jen's analysis. Poilievre should not move on from "axe the tax"; on the contrary, he hasn't repeated it nearly enough.
One of the hard lessons I learned working on political campaigns is that by the time journalists, pols and plugged-in voters (the kind who listen to political podcasts and pay for news) are heartily sick of a line, it is just beginning to penetrate with regular voters. I instantly recognize McDonald's slogans back to "you deserve a break today" from the 1970s because they were repeated, endlessly, at immense expense, for years on end. A Canadian politician can only dream of that level of message penetration.
Kamala Harris's campaign just spent over $1Bn in a few months, achieving share of voice well past saturation. What was her slogan? What was her message? I'd have to look it up. But "make America great again" has been burned into my brain for nine long, annoying years. The dumbest thing Trump could have done (as a pure matter of tactics) is move on.
I was deeply involved in Mike Harris's 1999 re-election campaign, and vividly recall discussing the campaign with a non-political friend. In the middle of our conversation, his young daughter heard him say "Dalton McGuinty" and she proudly piped up with "he's just not up to the job!" (the attack line from our ads). She had no clue who McGuinty was; all she knew about him was those seven words. That's what good looks like. If Poilievre repeats "axe the tax" ten thousand more times, it won't be enough.
Great thoughts on the slogans. I am getting tired of them, but as you say, political works have listened to Poilievre for years.
However, I am not tired of Poilievre.
Quite so, and while I also despise slogans, you are quite correct that they are effective.
They do, however, have a shelf life - that's why we don't hear 'you deserve a break today' and 'where's the beef' any more - they have to be refreshed periodically.
Here's some other slogans you may have heard over the past decade, by the way:
'Putting A Price On Pollution'
'Standing Up For Canadians'
'Supporting The Middle Class And Those Hoping To Join It'
'Fighting Climate Change'
'Banning Assault-Style Weapons'
'Putting More Money In Your Pockets'
'Building Back Better (that one didn't last long)'
'Real Action On... (Insert Issue Here)'
I'm predicting right now that the *NEW IMPROVED* Liberals will cancel the carbon tax prior to the next election, thereby neutering the top slogan/mantra of the CPC for months, perhaps years at this point. That likely won't be the only CPC slogan/policy they will adopt before the next election, in an effort to chip away at the gap in the polls.
I'm writing this after PMJT announced his intention to resign, while shutting down parliament until the end of March, and allowing his party time to have a process to replace him. My bet is the PMO has secured agreement(s) with the NDP and/or Bloc to pass the confidence motion on Supply in March, so that spring election may evaporate.
We will see how gullible and stupid Canadians really are (or not) by the end of 2025.
Jen, Canadian values in 21st century- the core needs to be equality of “opportunity” in a meritocracy. Equality of opportunity must include looking out for those who “cannot” help themselves. Meritocracy must also apply to the ability of governments deliver “good governance.”
Helping those who cant help themselves should always be a core value, but over the last number of years that pool of people who "cant help themselves" has been flagrantly expanded to a ridiculous degree which is creating too high of a population of people who think they cant function without handouts or supports.
Yes, there is a difference between can’t and won’t.
The meritocracy ideal flies in the face of group rights. How can individuals have equal opportunity if groups must have equal opportunity? Politicians in general, but those on the progressive side in particular, will struggle to move away from targeting groups with policies.
Ordinary Canadians have plenty of good qualities, some shared and some varying. But I don't know why we'd expect a coherent and compelling national identity suddenly to emerge from them, especially one that's different from the identity and purpose espoused by our elites – the one schoolchildren would dutifully repeat to you if you asked them right now what it means to be Canadian.
I personally like the idea of a culture that values liberty and opportunity; I just see no particular evidence that Canada is about to develop such a culture as the core of a broadly shared national identity.
Your comments on “none so Albertan” struck home, born and bred here, but I’ve had several neighbors from elsewhere, only one still pines for her old province. The most pronounced “converts” were from Quebec.
CBC … suspect they will keep English Radio, and it’s really only English TV that will have to fly on its own or disappear.
Reading thru the comments, why is everyone surprised at the TikTok thing, much less concerned. It’s advertising dollars! That being said, I work for a corporation, that banned TikTok From any devices that may cross into our professional lives, so I don’t and won’t use it.
Re: CBC. Poilievre obviously won't be directly involved in any hiring or firing decisions. But if he can somehow contrive to put CBC management in a position where it becomes possible to consign Ron McLean's non-stop, politically correct but irrelevant blather to the dustbin of history, he'll spare thousands of hockey fans the nuisance of having to PRV the games and then fast-forward through all segments of the telecasts in which MacLean is talking.
Obviously, there are many other CBC 'personalities' the public would be relieved to see disappear, but MacLean tops the list. (They should keep Chantal Hebert, though, the one true original the network seems to have who has some personal integrity, and clearly couldn't care less whether what she says coheres with her colleagues' narratives or not.)
Ron MacLean works for Roger’s, not CBC.
Interestingly, they're listed as his joint employers (maybe something to do with the licensing arrangement). In any event, CBC still has rights to the 'Hockey Night In Canada' phrase, and MacLean is there (alas!) every Saturday night on CBC.
MacLean and Cuthbert.
Re PP promises, for me the most important is that he will repeal Bill C-69, the tanker ban, and other Liberal attempts to destroy the oil and gas industry and other industries monetizing Canada's natural resources. Can't happen soon enough!
Thanks for answering my question about the “tip” of the pendulum swing. Great answers. Mine would have been the Dylan Mulvaney Bud Light fiasco.
I think society was starting to get sick of being told to be “tolerant “ of some extremes
Bud Light gave ordinary people the ability to express their feelings simply by choosing a brand of beer to pickup. They didn’t need to vote or march in the streets or carry a protest placard. They simply chose to buy different beer. And they learned they weren’t alone. And they learned they have some power.
Someone once said “beware the silent majority”. I think Bud Light gave them the ability to be silently powerful.
Great call on Bud Light Ian. I agree. That event broke the spell 100%.
This was an extremely strong podcast, one of your best - I think the format sends the conversation to interesting places. Maybe consider doing a "reader Q&A" podcast like this monthly in the future?
Seconded... reader Q & A is great stuff. The Line has a very good comment section and its reflected in this podcast. It was , honestly, too long though.... was a big meal to digest :)
Too long for some. OK length for others. I was simply soaking up the contents while doing housework. Some podcasts I cannot hear in one go, so I pause it and return later.
I'd honestly rather The Line accept money from TikTok than the Canadian government. It's one thing for a foreign corp that is politically aligned to take money, it's a whole other thing for your own government to buy off the local press.
I am okay with The Line having advertising from business. That keeps our costs down and The Lines revenue up. Seems like a win/win to me.
So many good points. Great podcast. Hypocritical Bullshit I think sums up Trudue and the liberals Reign.
Ok. That was fun and interesting. I agree,there is definitely a class system in Canada. I call Alberta home now for 45 years,’went West’ in 1979. I love it here,big blue skies,Rockies and serious income,if you apply yourself. The wife and I have been back to Ontari Ari Ari O over a dozen times. 90 km an hour on the Trans Canada drives me crazy! Toronto Pearson Airport has very seldom made our connection. Usually we are literally running from our flight out of Sudbury across the airport because we are late. WT? Who timed that one? Anyway,different attitudes definetely!! We get things built in Alberta!
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and a few parts of Ontario get things built. The rest produce plans, billable hours and grant/subsidy application forms.
Enjoyable pod today. I think Jen has mentioned her husband used to be involved in MMA and now that he does some vaguely political US-related work, so my subconscious has decided her husband is actually Joe Rogan. (Mainly because that’s roughly the extent of my entire knowledge about Joe Rogan, and my brain has not retained anything else she mentioned about her spouse, including name). So as a chaos agent, I send this out into the universe and look forward to a year of Jen/Joe conspiracy theories.
On the other hand, that might just be the cocktail of medications my dental surgeon prescribed talking. Either/or.
In other news, I really look forward to it being socially acceptable to express pride in Canada again, regardless of who’s leading the government.
I wish the Pierre-Jordan interview was out before this Q&A, but ce la vie. This was a really great format and look forward to the next one, maybe during/after the next election?
I'm generally indifferent to Jordan Peterson, but he conducts competent long form interviews.
Poilievre demonstrated his ability to talk about a wide range of subjects over an extended period of questioning. He is part of the new generation of politicians than can perform on a podcast. The Trudeau generation is stuck in 2008 with Instagram selfies.
Jen, really good response and “blueskying” on Canadian identity.