Skip Navigation

Posts
1
Comments
277
Joined
11 mo. ago

  • I totally respect you donating. What your choices are as an individual are very different from the government's choices. The Canadian government has capacity to offer help with the fundamental needs that individuals don't. Our government's choice to go with basic aid reflects a position different from yours as an individual supporting basic aid. They understand the situation in Cuba and the cause of it, and have chosen not to address the fundamental need in the form of aid provided nor to address the fundamental cause of the crisis in the rhetoric used. In fact, by choosing to use the framing of a humanitarian crisis in Cuba instead of openly recognizing it as an illegal blockade imposed to devastate Cuba and lead to regime change, Canada is effectively supporting the US framing that the problem is Cuba's government, which supports the idea that the US is justified in doing this as it serves the welfare of the Cuban people. So, yeah, Canada actually is supporting the US position on this, just as we conspicuously said nothing to oppose the regime change in Venezuela that has enabled this.

  • Even the US is supplying aid to Cuba. It's not aid Cuba is missing. It's fuel.

    Unless we send fuel, we're basically going along with the US, providing basic aid that will be utterly inadequate to deal with the real crisis of an economy being brought to a full stop by a blockade on fuel and financial sanctions.

  • We lined up behind Trump on Gaza, said nothing about Venezuela, are saying nothing about Cuba, and essentially support the US against Iran. Where is the rupture?

    Rubio flies over to Munich and gets a standing ovation for a speech in which he talks about a return to transatlantic empire flexing over the rest of the world, and materially we're basically still seeing that.

    Carney's rhetoric at Davos was nice. I remain totally unconvinced that there is material change to accompany that rhetoric. Seems like dropping liberalism for values-based realism is just a retreat into realism. Calling it "Values-Based" is just the new rhetorical compromise and branding effort to make it palatable for stakeholders who were attached to the narrative of the liberal international order.

    Canada doesn't want diplomatic relations with Iran. Fine. Personally, I think diplomatic engagement should exist with every country, because diplomacy includes engaging even with those you regard as enemies and that's how diplomacy offers benefits. But, if Canada's government doesn't want that, okay. Still, while the US is building up a massive force in the region, we won't even make a statement about opposing wars of aggression or unilateral engagement in armed conflict?

    Sure seems like we're still aligned with the Transatlantic Empire idea.

    What are the Global South countries we seem to be trying to hedge our bets with to think of us? They're not blind. Should they trust us? We don't actually seem to have any problem with US adventurism, even while having our national identity and sovereignty threatened and undermined by the US on the daily.

    A rupture should be a matter of material change, but I'm thinking a few years from now everyone will look back on this as just a nice speech while we kept sailing right alongside the US through the night.

  • Their problem isn't that their white supremacy is misdirected. It's more just that it's fundamentally wrong. Just as bad if it's aimed at people from India or elsewhere.

  • Listening to what everyone had to say, I most liked Tony McQuail and least liked Rob Ashton. Worst of all was whoever was in charge of handling sound for the voiceover translations, because that was horrendous. The rest were all fine, but nobody I found inspiring. All pretty likeable though, except for Ashton who came across as kind of caustic and a bit fake. I liked Tanille Johnston's positive energy.

    One thing that struck me watching it: I wish the NDP would speak the language of finance, tech, and economics with much more sophistication. It's no good just talking about big business, billionaires, or the 99% in cartoonish ways. If you're going to take on these huge challenges, you need to show you actually understand them at a really sophisticated level, otherwise you end up sounding like your ideas are all pie in the sky. Talk to NDP voters like they're adults who understand economics, business, and tech, and who want a different way of dealing with them. If you've got a sophisticated plan, lay it out and educate us on it like adults, not undergrads who just read Graeber for the first time. It's the working class you need to win back, and they're not idiots. At the end of the debate, because they didn't speak to these topics with sophistication, I was left feeling nobody on stage was really plugged in to a number of the most pressing challenges the party needs to be ahead of.

  • Wut? Dude could have just stayed in his job as a conservative MP if all he wanted was to fill a seat and collect a paycheck.

  • You mean by contacting my elected representative to express my views about the situation and the policy positions I would like her to take wrt this issue? Yes.

  • It's taking too long, but at least it's moving. There's a proposed Commissioner for it now and the public consultation on draft regulations has wrapped up. If the process to appoint the Commissioner can get through all the mandated review processes soon, it will actually be in place. Hopefully in H1 2026.

  • It's war, aimed at causing widespread suffering among civilians. We should be standing up against it. All indications so far are that we won't do anything.

  • Shocking to absolutely nobody. Will the Conservatives hold press conferences about this foreign influence? I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting on it.

  • Chinese emissions have plateaued and started falling. They actually dropped in 2025, including a 1% drop in Q4.

    Cutting off Chinese manufacturing and bringing it all here, including cutting out Chinese inputs to Canadian manufacturing, would not be more efficient at all. It would not be better for the environment. This is a fantasy. We would need massive industrial expansion. We would be making the global situation less efficient and more harmful by reducing complementary systems, increasing redundancies, and increasing industrial inefficiencies.

  • In what way would ending imports from China reduce emissions? Giving up buying from the most efficient manufacturing ecosystem in the world that also happens to be electrifying and moving to nuclear and renewables at an unmatched pace is not going to increaseefficiency. What more efficient alternative would we switch to? Canada will not be more likely to hit goals by moving currently outsourced industrial manufacturing from an extremely effecient ecosystem with economies of scale to somewhere like here that has no comparable efficiencies of scale, grid development, or ecosystem development. We would need massive industrial expansion here, including with our grid. Dramatically expanding hydro is going to require huge new projects in places that are harder to develop than our existing hydro. Trying to build out solar while not buying from China? Let's see how efficient that is. We should be taking advantage of China's efficiencies to complement and build out our own systems, not cutting them off. It's one planet we share, and efficiencies and harm reduction in the global manufacturing ecosystem is what we should aim for, which requires leveraging complimentarities, not reducing them.

  • The PM is just the leader of our government for a time, but the government has continuity. We are not under the rule of the whims of PMs. Policies are formed that have continuity with government and extend beyond whoever happens to be leader of the party with the most seats at a given time. The NOTAM for Russia is still in effect. It is a total and indefinite ban by the Canadian government, not a PM.

    There is no NOTAM for Israel. The Carney government should act to correct this. The fact that Netanyahu is not under domestic sanctions in Canada and can freely traverse our airspace, as can any Israeli flight, should be corrected.

    It is an obvious double standard that Canada's government is responsible for. It's made even more jarring in that Canadian airlines have been banned from the massive airspace of Russia, which is a substantial consequence, but the potential of being banned from Israeli airspace is trivial, and yet we haven't done it.

    If you want to say "the ban in 2022 wasn't on Carney's watch and maybe this issue hadn't come to his attention before, so cut him some slack," okay, sure. But, now that Netanyahu has flown through Canadian airspace under his watch, what's he going to do?

  • Netanyahu should not be allowed to fly through Canadian airspace.

  • I really don't see why Solomon is in that position apart from being Carney's buddy. It has never made sense to me as an appointment for such a critical role, and it makes less and less sense as time goes by.

  • This is at US instruction. Go back and listen to Hegseth's speech a year ago. Read the strategic documents around burden sharing. The US identified their own lack of sufficient industrial capacity to produce enough arms for war on all the fronts they plan to fight on, so they have pushed for Europe and Canada to revitalize their defense industries. The US essentially needs vassals to arm themselves to be the frontlines that get expended while the US retains more of its own capacity so they end up on top in the end.

  • I've known two people who used MAID to end their lives. Both had terminal illnesses that were heading towards protracted, painful, debilitating ends. They used MAID ro end their lives on their terms and because they didn't want to live through that or to put their families through it.

    To me, their access to MAID absolutely provided more humane, dignified, caring treatment than they would have had in being forced to live through what they were facing.

    Their cases were pretty clear cut imo, but I understand there are much less clear cut circumstances and situations where concerns over mental health and necessity of MAID vs alternatives requires much more challenging judgment. It's not straightforward and clear cut in all circumstances. You never want to throw the baby out with the bathwater on either side of this issue, be it needlessly enforcing suffering or needlessly ending a life.

    What that indicates to me is MAID is a good thing to have, but we just really need to invest in quality research and policy development, and that includes research and investment into ensuring the system of administration is well-designed and well-maintained in accordance with the research and humane ethics. As long as we keep doing that, we're taking the right approach to do the best we can.

  • Everything about this is tragic. I really hope the majority discourse around this in Canada can handle it with empathy and not get swept up in US-style culture wars about it.

  • To some extent, I'm kind of glad the provincial Conservatives in BC are so openly nuts and awful. It's kind of amazing that they so openly say the dumbest stuff, and it's wild that they still win their local ridings, but at least they let everyone see who they are.

  • Canada @lemmy.ca

    Trump Officials Discussed $500M Alberta Independence Loan, Separatist Claims

    www.desmog.com /2025/07/22/trump-officials-discussed-500m-alberta-independence-loan-separatist-claims/