Computer-Generated Animation of Tea Party Ravings
The fourth or fifth time someone told me I should watch this video, I finally got around to doing so. And they were right; it’s pretty good. From Nathan Dintenfass, using the cool xtranormal engine:
54 Responses to “Computer-Generated Animation of Tea Party Ravings”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 31st, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Betcha shcb doesn’t have the attention span to watch it all.
It’d have more allure for the teapartiers if it was interactive – like they jumped around behind trees and you could shoot at them causing injuries.
While we are on the topic…
Start Quote:
Thank to Vera Gottlieb, whose quote of the week is “terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich” – Sir Peter Ustinov
Eight False Things the Public “Knows” Prior to Election Day
Friday 22 October 2010
by: Dave Johnson | Campaign for America’s Future | Report
There are a number of things the public “knows” as we head into the
election that are just false. If people elect leaders based on false
information, the things those leaders do in office will not be what
the public expects or needs.
Here are eight of the biggest myths that are out there:
1) President Obama tripled the deficit. Reality: Bush’s last budget
had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama’s first budget reduced that to
$1.29 trillion.
2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy. Reality:
Obama cut taxes. 40% of the “stimulus” was wasted on tax cuts which
only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it
could have been.
3) President Obama bailed out the banks. Reality: While many people
conflate the “stimulus” with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts
were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former
Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts
to be “non-reviewable by any court or any agency.”) The bailouts
passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.
4) The stimulus didn’t work. Reality: The stimulus worked, but was
not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office,
the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.
5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts. Reality: A business
hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra
cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a
demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want
customers, not tax cuts.
6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion. Reality: The health care
reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.
7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is “going broke,” people live
longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc. Reality: Social Security has
run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is
completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow
so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military
budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die;
people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.
8) Government spending takes money out of the economy. Reality:
Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the
People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds
the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are
the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all
government spending is on “welfare” and “foreign aid” when that is
only a small part of the government’s budget.
This stuff really matters.
If the public votes in a new Congress because a majority of voters
think this one tripled the deficit, and as a result the new people
follow the policies that actually tripled the deficit, the country
could go broke.
If the public votes in a new Congress that rejects the idea of
helping to create demand in the economy because they think it didn’t
work, then the new Congress could do things that cause a depression.
If the public votes in a new Congress because they think the health
care reform will increase the deficit when it is actually projected
to reduce the deficit, then the new Congress could repeal health care
reform and thereby make the deficit worse. And on it goes.
End Quote
November 1st, 2010 at 6:12 am
You’re right about that! I made it about a minute into it, looked at how far that little bar had moved and put the damn thing out of its misery. Did same with the Keynesian nonsense above.
November 1st, 2010 at 7:21 am
“Did same with the Keynesian nonsense above.”
Durrrr….Economics iz hard.
November 1st, 2010 at 9:51 am
That vid was excellent! I’m forwarding this to so many people..
November 1st, 2010 at 11:16 am
The OMB (Office and Management and Budget) states that the Federal national debt is higher than its been in 65 years.
The Social Security Trustees report for this year says that revenue for the fund exceeds payouts starting this year, and will exhaust the reserve fund (2.5 trillion) by 2037 if nothing is done to change the % amount taken in via payroll taxes and the amount paid out.
November 1st, 2010 at 11:41 am
knarly’s item #1 talked about the deficit
you are talking about the total debt (I just explained these same concepts to my 11 and 8 year old, they got the distinction, do you?)
dumbya doubled our total national debt
Obama’s budget deficit is less than dumbya’s last budget deficit
And the reason Social Security is hitting a shortfall in incoming $ is due to the dumbya depression. duh. So roughly 20 years from now, SS may only pay out 80 to 90% of projected benefits? Rs don’t want to fix social security, they want to bury it (they come to bury it, not to praise it).
That the public is frustrated and angry is a given due to the bad economic situation we are in. That Obama didn’t kiss it and make it all better in less than two years shows how unrealistic the public really is. It’ll be a bad day for Dems on Weds, but I guess they’ll hodl the Senate but lose the House. I predict the pendulum swings back hard by 2012: teapartiers is plumb crazy and won’t be any good at actually getting sh!t done. And I wager every cent I own Issa and his band of witchhunters will impeach Obama for… well, they’ll just make something up.
this animation is cute, but the iphone4 one got more chuckles from me
“It fucking prints money… I don’t care, I want iPhone4!”
November 1st, 2010 at 11:49 am
That sounds like a real, serious problem expressed in rational terms.
Now, is it possible to have a real, serious and rational discussion on what to do about it? Up here, we have some major issues like the debt we just racked up; the purchase of billions in military equipment (stealth jets, which will dramatically add to the debt)’ and the extraction of oil from Alberta’s oil sands and the corresponding environmental damage and carbon emissions, to name a few. I want our leaders to discuss these things like rational adults. I figure I can help meet this goal by walking the walk myself. We shall see.
*Note: I don’t know if any of you watched the Rally to Restore Sanity on Saturday but I did. As I was listening to Stewart’s closing remarks I started thinking to myself, “Am I one of those folks from the fringe who simply shouts at the other person just because I know they support someone I don’t really care for? And I realized I do sometimes…
So I made a promise to myself that I’m going to try and disagree with people in a rational manner from now on. When someone starts with the hyper-partisan crazy talk I’m not going to reply in kind anymore — I’m going to tell them that I’m not going to get into anymore pissing matches, back and forth shouting crap at each other. My country has some real issues facing it and I know that most people out there can sit down and talk about solutions without calling each other socialists and fascists.
I think my new revelation came to roost last night as I was getting ready to watch Game 4 of the World Series. George W. Bush was to toss the ceremonial first pitch. Only a few short weeks ago I would’ve started cursing or turned the channel but I started thinking to myself, “you know, I’m sure he was only doing what he thought was best for his country and to be honest, it wasn’t really him that got under my skin so much as it was the hawks around him — Rummy, Cheney, Rove.” Last night I forgave Bush. And I’m sure you all know how much I – and I don’t want to use this word, but I did – hated him. Forgiving him was a big step for me.
I’m going to try this new, sane, approach to discourse. I’m not going to watch clips of Glen Beck inciting hate and fear anymore because then I get all mad and do the same in return. I’m not going to watch Michael Moore and listen to him say that all conservatives are crazy anymore.
In case any of you are interested and didn’t see it on Saturday, here’s the link to Stewart’s closing remarks from the rally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cj_cY4Tgcs
November 1st, 2010 at 1:02 pm
well NL, that is nice, but expect no quarter from the crazy
so now you forgive w, but you draw the line at Rummy or Cheney? What about Rice? She is smart and pretty, so… or Powell? i like rational discourse just as much as anyone, and engage in plenty of reasonable dialog with reasonable people. But what about wwnjs like, say, wwnj? What if the difference in ‘opinion’ is such that one side ignores fact, and lives entirely in a fox fantasy of crypto-Muslim presidents, liberal tyranny and white slavery (income taxes)
Faced with bullshit, I prefer mockery rather than screaming, but to each their own and good on ya for trying harder to reach across to anyone who responds reasonably. I try hard to do that and I’ll try harder (but do not expect any progress from the other side, in fact after wednesday the wwnj triumphalism will be deafening).
still, the rent is too damn high
November 1st, 2010 at 1:18 pm
LMAO – I have to say that politics without some of the fringe folk would be really, really boring.
Yes, the rent is too damn high.
As for Rice and Powell I actually truly believe they are decent people who feel regret for some of what they took part in. Same with W. He was a puppet who let himself be used. That feeling of regret and remorse – I truly do think they feel that from what I’ve seen and heard from them since – is what makes me want to forgive.
Not sure I’ll ever warm to Rove, Cheney and Rummy. ;)
November 1st, 2010 at 1:39 pm
I’m game NL.
November 1st, 2010 at 1:45 pm
I’ll toss one out there, if #5 in Knarly’s list were true people like me (R&D, product development types etc.) wouldn’t have jobs.
November 1st, 2010 at 2:31 pm
I have no problem at all with tax cuts if they fit into the budget. If the gov is running a surplus or finds matching savings elsewhere go for it. It’s our money after all.
I also think there’s a big difference between tax ‘cuts’ and tax ‘incentives’ to encourage something, again if its paid for.
I think what knarly is saying is that tax cuts as stimulus don’t seem to work very well. Which I think is fair to say is a reasonable assessment, looking at history.
November 1st, 2010 at 2:53 pm
In #5, I think that what the person whom I quoted from was saying is that it’s not as simple as: “if you cut taxes that’ll create jobs.” Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. If the business has no future the extra-net revenue arising from a tax cut will go elsewhere (retained earnings, dividends, overseas investments, etc.) Not likely much job creation there. But if business prospects are promising, i.e there are lots of ready, willing and able consumers for the business’ product, then the tax cuts will likely have a direct and significant impact on jobs.
Right now, in America it seems that businesses want customers the most, so tax cuts are not likely to do much.
Also remember that the taxes are not just dead funds, government spends the money on services that employ people too – and depending on economic conditions that sometimes results in more jobs than if businesses held on to the funds waiting for conditions to improve before investing them…
So the point is sipmly that it is simplistic (e.g. stupid to just assume that tax cuts always result in more jobs, because sometimes they do not and that “sometimes” looks a hell of a lot like the current economy.
i.e. there is no shortage of funds as interest rates are at near historic lows, the problem lies elsewhere.
November 1st, 2010 at 2:56 pm
You’re correct enkidu, I did mean deficit, not debt. And according to the OMB, it is the highest deficit to GNP ratio since the 40’s. And Social Security has bigger issues in its future projections than simply the current recession.
November 1st, 2010 at 3:20 pm
“Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand.” This is true to a point, companies are price takers, not price setters, they will also only make what they can sell so to that this statement is true.
“Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire” true, to the point the above statement is true, however extra cash can be used to improve the product or innovate. The consumer didn’t know it needed an Ipod until it was developed, and it was developed with extra cash, that in turn created jobs.
“but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire” not if it can make the product cheaper somewhere else, money like so many things in life finds its way to the path of least resistance.
“Businesses want customers, not tax cuts” businesses want profits, without profits there is no reason to work. Some businesses will only have a few customers, others require many. Without profits the business can’t grow and it can’t prosper. It doesn’t matter if you have all the customers in the world, if you aren’t making money you will be out of business just as sure as if you were without customers.
“So the point is simply that it is simplistic (e.g. stupid to just assume that tax cuts always result in more jobs…” true, but confiscatory taxes reduce incentive, this slows an economy, doesn’t stop it, but it slows it. At some point investors find other investments.
November 1st, 2010 at 3:46 pm
shcb, agreed.
November 1st, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Over to you Enk to deal with Ms. Malkin.
November 1st, 2010 at 5:09 pm
craig/malkin, sorry to correct you again my dear fellow, but the correct statement is that under the current administration, we are currently at the highest total debt to GNP ratio since WWII (but really, so what? we are still the world’s reserve currency and the system can absorb quite a bit of debt, note that in the 50s, the debt was still high, but coming down, income taxes on the highest earners was around 90% not 35%).
If you intended to talk about the annual budget deficit, here are some handy numbers to remember:
bush 2009 $1.416 trillion deficit
Obama’s 2010 $1.29 trillion (and falling as the economy slowly improves)
If you wanted to be more accurate with your statement, perhaps you could say “the highest annual budget deficit to GNP ratio was incurred under the bush administration, while the Obama administration has managed to cut that titanic total considerably. A good first step, despite having to deal with the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.” Of course you wouldn’t say that, as it doesn’t fit your preconceived narrative.
graphs like this must not compute for wingers
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2010/04/03/job-growth-improves-under-obama-as-bush-recession-continues/
re: social security, are you aware of the whole concept of the baby boom? demographics? o wait, more reality that doesn’t fit
How was that NL?
Accurate, but not ceding a inch to the wingnut worldview.
Hey did you guys catch the pic of the possible future speaker of the House campaigning with the Waffen SS re-enactor? Boehner wore red (not sure about arm-bands or iron crosses)
November 1st, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Here is an extention of the job growth chart that you feel doesn’t compute for right-wingers:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_09/025513.php
But, as suggested in the above link, a “private-sector only” graph was also done, with positive growth throughout most of 2010 (although it dropped off significantly in recent months).
I believe Obama’s 2011 budget, and deficit estimates are based on 3.8% GDP growth and a 9.2% unemployment average. Numbers which, many economists are considering less and less likely as 2010 rolls on.
And on Social Security, the baby boomer effect is part of why the issue must be addressed by someone. The negative trend is not a projection that will be fixed by an improvement in the jobs market. Check the Social Security Trustees report for 2010.
November 1st, 2010 at 8:01 pm
I’m just a dumb farm kid from Kansas but why is the section of graph in 2008 marked “Bush Administration”? It’s 2010 and Obama’s been in the White House 2 years hmm. Peloci had another set of stats where she just left out 2009, the gains she claimed only made up for 20% of the losses preceding those gains, but since she left out the losses all she had left were gains. She then compared that to the worst three months of the Bush administration, the numbers work if no one is watching.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:51 am
Found a bigger graph, one I could read the months, my mistake.
It would be interesting to see the data this graph comes from, I think what it is showing is the number of jobs lost that month. A more representative view of what actually happened is a steady decline in the number of jobs until it bottomed out. You have to remember also that a third of the jobs created toward the end of the year in ’09 were temporary census workers. If you were to take them out of the equation the graph would look much different.
November 2nd, 2010 at 8:22 am
Dumb farm kid from Kansas: Obama did not actually take office until the beginning of 2009. He will not have held office for 2 years until this coming January. The 2008 job-loss numbers are all Bush, obviously.
It’s interesting to me that someone who cites his engineering background as a factor in his ability to discern the truth would make such a mistake. Maybe your subsequent statement is an indication that you identified the mistake yourself and were willing to acknowledge it; if so, I guess that makes up for it somewhat. (I’m not actually sure about that, though, because — characteristically — your acknowledgement of error is somewhat elliptical and confused-sounding. You seem to become detached and disinterested just when you should be paying the most attention.)
Still, you were able to 1) make the original mistake, and 2) post about it here before realizing it. I think that should tell you something. It certainly tells me something.
Everybody has “virtual error bars” on their interpretations of reality. Some people are poorly informed, or careless in how they gather information. Their error bars tend to be larger.
A separate, but related, problem is when someone is willing to cherrypick an interpretation from within those error bars based on how well that interpretation conforms with their preconceptions, and treat that cherrypicked interpretation as a factual datapoint, as if the error bars don’t exist. You can think of that as a sort of ideological “false precision”.
The two problems reinforce each other. The more poorly informed you are (that is, the larger the error bars), the easier it is to find false-to-fact interpretations that conform with your pre-existing ideology. And the more willing you are to believe that those cherrypicked interpretations are true, the more firmly that ideology takes hold.
I think that’s why the Fox News crowd has been getting dumber and wackier over the last decade or so. There’s a progressive element in their propagandization. They’re poorly informed because they watch Fox News, and their being poorly informed makes it easier to sell them on dubious claims that reinforce their false-to-fact ideology, which makes them easier to misinform next time. It’s a vicious cycle, resulting eventually in the modern tea party movement.
At a certain point, the Fox News followers find that no other news outlets make sense to them anymore. It reminds me a little of the process of speciation. A population becomes isolated, and begins to diverge from the larger population. Later, when the barrier that separated the two groups is removed, they can no longer interbreed.
Maybe the analogy is more like animal husbandry, though. The Fox News viewers are not just randomly diverging; they’re part of an active breeding program, intentionally isolated, and then subject to heavy selective pressure intended to produce a particular set of changes. The people who have an actual media, professionals who seek to report the news in a manner that is tethered to reality and actually informs the viewer, are like wild animals roaming the landscape, evolving in response to environmental changes. The Fox News viewers are the domesticated version, fed, fattened, and selectively bred to produce a variety that can be herded en masse to market, where they will follow the tug on the ideological rings in their noses into the pens to be slaughtered, or at least to pull the levers next to the indicated candidates.
Happy election day, America!
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:41 am
Fascinating post jbc, thanks.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:48 am
Jesus Christ, my eyes are old, I couldn’t see the months in the link Enky gave and it didn’t blow up any larger, I had some time later to find the same graph on a different site that was larger, when I noticed my error, I admitted it, settle down. By the way, I didn’t think you looked this deep in threads.
And the rest of it, good Lord, get over yourself, half the informed voters are conservative and half liberal, we have different views, we’re not stupid, and we’re not led around by our noses, either side, we as individuals have made choices in our lives to be who we are and believe what we believe, whether that be conservative or liberal. Being conservative isn’t a disease, it’s not a malady, we weren’t born with a genetic defect that somehow makes us stupid, we just have different priorities.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:50 am
Political media seems, by nature, to be partisan-driven. Few, if any, such sources are successful because they look at issues, accurately describe the arguments made by both political sides, assess the strengths and weaknesses of both arguments and then say, “you decide what you think is right”. That’s because any such programs would be left way behind in the ratings battle. People, generally, don’t want to think about what is right or truthful. They want to be told what is right, or at least, to be validated in what they prefer to believe already.
And that is what the cable news networks and the political blogosphere deleivers.
Anyone who believes that their favorite cable talking head who is “fill in the blank” is a straight shooter with no agenda or no slanting of facts and issues, is only fooling themselves. Or their favorite political blog site such as “fill in the blank” is an unbiased presenter and analyzer of political issues, is likewise deceiving themselves.
People generally visit such sites or watch such cable info-tainers because they agree with the worldview that these sources filter their viewpoint through.
Don’t agree? Go back and look at all the websites that all of us have linked to over time on this board. We’d have a very good idea of each others political viewpoint simply by seeing a list of these links, even if we know nothing about each other ahead of time.
If people want to play the “yeah, but your cable favorites are X times worse than my cable favorites”, that’s a whole different kind of argument.
Fox News is particularly successful because this nation overall trends toward a center-right inclination. Thus there are more people (and therefore more easily-led people) who feel comfortable with the viewpoint demonstated there. I would venture to say the Fox News doesn’t “domesticate” much of its audience. It takes those who want to be domesticated and gives them what they want.
MSNBC is similarly modeled but they don’t the same size audience pool to draw from.
The blogosphere is the same in that it is geared to deliver traffic to their sites, and sites will not be successful by calling out both political parties for their partisan approaches to issues. People, generally, don’t like having their preferred political narratives questioned or challenged. So why go to a site that will often irritate them? People want to feel validated, not defensive. Thus the most successful sites are almost straight-line partisan.
I watch each of the big three cable news sources and try to keep the source in mind as I hear a narrative being played out. I avoid the alarmist Beck, watch O’Reilly (he is an entertaining blowhard, not a news person), and get annoyed at Hannity’s robotic style. On MSNBC, I’ll tolerate Matthews (I can sometimes glean some information value from his show), Ed is just a loudmouth hack, Keith comes from O’Reilly’s school of blowhards (but not entertaining), and I want to like Rachel in that she seems sincere, so I give her a listen. Lawrence’s show seems to have some potential too. CNN is a mess, although Anderson Cooper isn’t too bad.
But in each case, I’ll listen to them with an understanding of the ideology they are coming from.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:57 am
sure you guys, as if… nice rationalizing though.
November 2nd, 2010 at 10:33 am
The two things that Mike Rosen has said through the years that make the most sense are “take everything through a filter” and “bias plus bias equals balance”
November 2nd, 2010 at 10:49 am
Agree with the first depending on whether the right filter is used.
The second is just plain wrong – it is akin to saying that two wrongs make a right. That is only true if there are only two biases solutions (extremely rare in the real world) and they exactly oppose each other (also rare in the real world, although I’d guess that Rosen creates a simple “this or that” paradigm for himself & his listeners so in that two dimensional world the saying might seem valid.)
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:26 am
It’s just a saying so it will be simplistic. That said, the filter you are using doesn’t have to be equal, you have to use common sense and judgment. Rosen will require less filter than Beck, Maddow less than Rhodes, and so on. Then the filter is applied to the bias.
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:28 am
You are thinking of Limbaugh breaking things into this or that, Rosen has been doing talk radio longer than Limbaugh and is a whole lot more informative.
November 2nd, 2010 at 12:41 pm
“Fox News is particularly successful because this nation overall trends toward a center-right inclination.”
Is that really true though? I mean, I look down and I see (as of right now anyways :) a liberal Dem in the WH and Dems in control of Congress and the Senate. That doesn’t seem very “centre-right” to me. Issue by issue I think people tend to be centre-left.
I have the same debate with people up here who insist Canada is a centre-right country (stop laughing shcb), and North America is a centre-right continent. We have a minority Conservative government in control here but the majority of MPs are from centre-left and way-left parties, hence the Conservative minority. The left vote is split by three parties.
Which brings me to Fox News.
I think some of Fox’s success is due to the fact that they have a monopoly on right-wing 24/7 cable news, whereas the middle and left leaning folks are spread accross the other networks. Not to mention that many tune in to Fox to just to hear what kind of crazy shit they’re saying. I’m included in this demographic, and as you mentioned above Craig, you are too.
November 2nd, 2010 at 1:29 pm
I think it is true we are center right, most people live their lives more conservatively than they expect government to exist, does that make sense? I think conservatism is just more natural, take care of number one over the needs of others, that sort of thing. I’m not making a value judgment here, just saying it is more natural.
I think you make a good point of Fox having a monopoly, but remember, while Fox have a large percentage of the cable market the cable market is still dwarfed by the networks. The faithful of any of the cable networks is probably going to be on the edge or outside the center right or left, not goofy right or left just involved enough to have strong feelings, with the bulk of the folks watching the networks. I think this is why the cable shows seem so polar, they are just catering to their audience.
November 2nd, 2010 at 2:56 pm
I do think the US, overall, is center-right. By center-right, I’m saying the Country is a bit of a mix. Generally conservative in financial issues, and more moderate in some social issues. The coasts can be thought of as more Democratic while much of the rest of the Country trends more Republican. There are exceptions that pop up in election years, especially in 2008. That’s why, I think, that you see a swing back toward Conservative voting with some more fluid voters, like independants and moderates. The economy is overriding many people’s concerns and is driving voter preferences.
It’s a broad generalization, but fairly accurate, I think.
November 2nd, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Does Craig’s point hold true with Canada NL? From what I’ve heard the coasts are more liberal.
November 2nd, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Craig/Malkin, anyone who thinks Michelle Malkin is ‘balanced’ by Chris Matthews isn’t using the same scales. Anyone who thinks fox is a news channel is drinking too much of their poison teabagger brew (how many fox viewers *still* think Saddam attacked us on 9/11? *Still* think we found teh WMDz? how many think Obama is a secret muslim/commie/space alien etc)
Craig/Malkin you are right, the vast empty plains are indeed center right, but the places where most people live are center left. To sum up: surface area=leans center right, while human population centers=leans center left. I’d like a Constitutional amendment that says 90% of any fed income tax taken from a state must come back to that state: I’m tired of subsidizing red state nonsense. California would have a budget surplus if this were law.
The America of the 1950s (i know some of you teabaggers long for 1850) is long gone. It is no longer and will never be again. Change is the only constant and we aren’t changing the way you might like. Get over it.
November 2nd, 2010 at 3:51 pm
shcb, That’s a tough question you asked NL, I’d say it’s not so much regional as it is community based, and the liberal / conservative distinction varies a lot by issue (military, farm subsidy, union wage, unemployment insurance, abortion, taxation, law enforcement, medical insurance) and not as much by category (economic, social). Except Quebec is liberal / social mostly and some of the east coast provinces are conservative socially and liberal economically. NL can feel free to disagree and he’ll probably be correct too, depending on the time of day and the weather, but I’ll leave him to describe Ontario as I can’t figure out whether they’re socialists or hard line right wingers.
I used to say the west coast was liberal, especially compared to Alberta, but there’s been a palpable movement to the right here over the past decade with our far right of centre “Liberal Party” leading the movement to the right (i.e. yes, its a misnomer as they are liberal in name only); while the centre-left New Democrats is to meek to issue clear policy positions and thus can’t shake the perception or accusations that they are far too far left of a reasonable left-of-centre positioning, hence they tend to be eternally the underdogs even when they are ahead in the polls!
November 2nd, 2010 at 3:53 pm
“anyone who thinks Michelle Malkin is ‘balanced’ by Chris Matthews isn’t using the same scales”
Boom!
November 2nd, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Yeah Craig, I can agree that’s fairly accurate, too.
shcb,
Yeah knarly has pretty much answered it. In Ontario you see a lot of rural (Conservative) and city (Liberal) divide, that’s not even really consistent. The City of Toronto, which is an absolute Liberal stronghold, just last week elected a right-wing mayor, Rob Ford. But again if you look at the map it’s completely divided by downtown (Liberal votes) and the ‘burbs (Ford votes).
I think you described the political process as a pendulum a few years back and that’s probably the best way to describe it. It seems here in Ontario whenever the Provincial government is *party x* the voters here tend to choose *party y* in Federal elections, and vice versa.
November 2nd, 2010 at 4:32 pm
But to answer your question more directly, shcb, I think Canada is, on the whole, a centre-left country. Now that’s by my Canadian definition of centre-left, lol. I think you’d probably classify us as far left, perhaps even Socialist, which actually I think you’ve said before :)
But hey, we’re buying 65 F-35 stealth fighter-jets… if that helps with the perception…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
November 2nd, 2010 at 4:56 pm
NL – What are the odds that we eventually end up cancelling much of the deal and paying a whole lot of taxpayer $ in penalties?
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:18 pm
As much as I don’t think we can really afford them right now, I don’t think it can be canceled. Read the wiki link above, we’ve invested in the program along with 6 or 7 other NATO partners and been involved for a long time. Our flag is on the side of the plane.
Plus I do they we could use them to help assert our Arctic sovereignty. I think it’s important for us to be a major player up there. Plus, Santa dresses in red and white. ‘Nuff said. :)
I just don’t want their purchase to be the cause for cuts to our social fabric. Stupid GST cut…
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:22 pm
NL – ok you win I was just blowing smoke. At least we got a 15% income tax cut in BC starting January 1. Too bad there is not enough $ in the budget to fund homeless shelters, feed poor kids and provide adequate teaching assistance for ESL & special needs kids in our schools, but at least I’ll be able to afford more expensive dog food now.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Maybe you can sell the old F-16s to an African warlord and regain some of your losses :)
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:27 pm
so what’s the big story for each on this election night? is pot legal in Cali now?!
November 3rd, 2010 at 5:13 am
looks like pot failed and the Co. senate race is headed for a recount.
November 3rd, 2010 at 9:46 am
The Nazi impersonator in Ohio lost…
November 3rd, 2010 at 10:39 am
damn, I was seriously considering taking my next vacation in California and the passing of 19 would’ve ensured it. Still, I’ve always wanted to go there so I probably still will.
November 3rd, 2010 at 11:54 am
legality has never interupted supply and the sun and women will still be there. All you’ll need to do is brush up on your ability to be completely superficial, unless you go to northern California, then you can go as you are.
November 3rd, 2010 at 12:41 pm
i wanna try some that “indo” dr. dre and snoop dogg speak so highly of :)
November 3rd, 2010 at 12:54 pm
out of my league there :)
November 3rd, 2010 at 2:34 pm
shouldn’t be a problem NL, just follow your nose
walk down Haight St and at the first pungent cloud you could loudly exclaim how fragrant the pine trees are in cali – how lovely the bouquet – how refreshing the salt sea air – etc
lost by 3.6%
We’ll try again in 2012 and then 2014 and again in 2016 and we’ll keep trying until we win. The trend is in one direction. I have no idea what indo is (Indonesian cultivar?) but there are more flavors than baskin robbins has ice cream.
stop by for a nice micro brew if you visit SF (I am more partial to Sierra Nevada than Anchor Steam, tho i love CO’s Fat Tire brewery [mb a touchy ‘malty’ but very nice craft brews])
November 3rd, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Haha, awesome, thanks for the yips! Actually when I go I’ll def be hittin SF and a Giants game at the park. On t.v. that ballpark looks freakin wicked! Plus you guys are running really sweet tourist commercials up here right now Our dollar is almost even these days so it’s nice to be able to go to a warm place in the winter for a break that is also a safe place, that’s also cheap.
“indo” – slang for “indoor”, as in weed that is grown “indoors”, hydroponics.
Now i know enk will probably remember this song but shcb you may not lol.
From the chorus of Snoop Dogg’s 1993 classic hit “Gin & Juice”
“Rollin down the street, smokin indo, sippin on gin and juice
Laid back [with my mind on my money and my money on my mind]”
Great tune from Cali :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTH2fDzyqOM#t=0m59s
November 3rd, 2010 at 7:37 pm
*tips
too much indo… lol
November 4th, 2010 at 4:44 am
yeah, snoop dog isn’t on my ipod :)