Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Robert Jarman

+David Hembrow

Terrorism Def 1: "Use of violence or intimidation or the threat of using violence or intimidation against non combatants, meant to create fear or mass panic, to achieve a political, ideological, or religious goal."

I can't see how Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, isn't a terrorist organization based on that definition.

And if anyone remembers the 60s, they should remember that when Black people were denied their freedom by police who acted like terrorists themselves, the Black Panthers carried guns to protect themselves. Why are modern ICE that acts like a terrorist group deemed to be so immune from accusations like this? And why should they expect to just be let in and to be allowed to kidnap children and adults without consequence?

+David Hembrow Have you ever read The Things They Carried?

I got a couple of the stories in it to read for English language arts class. I got very teary eyed with Ambush and The Man I Killed. I did not even predict that

Is there anything you think we should use war to deal with? I honestly don't know. I'd dodge a draft, but I can't see war at all as really good for anything right now.

+David Hembrow You of course have seen the news from Gaza. The obvious question is what even can you do to fix it?

I am actually concerned with many of those who call for twin states. Why? The border with Northern Ireland is showing what can happen when a border between two states is proposed to be closed. I fear that the two states may potentially have that happen as well. I also have no evidence for the integrity on domestic governance in Palestine's government, and they've been delaying elections, not one in the last 12 years. I'm very nervous about a coup IR autocrat taking over and possibly being worse than Israel.

I also don't want to create more governments if you can, and we do see cosmopolitan countries where you don't need multiple states to be fair to each ethnic group. The idea of two states is just too nationalist to me. You will never draw the borders well enough or include the correct rights for everyone by dividing them up along nationalist lines, no matter how oppressed one nation has been. Northern Ireland is peaceful today despite the oppression and terrorism of the past, we did not need new states, and it was expected at the time that the border with Ireland would be moot with an open borders treaty and the EU freedom of movement. The US is also far more free than it was during Jim Crow, although there is a lot to be done.

Maybe two would be better, but I have a lot of hesitation on that idea.

And I also am concerned about how any solution from anyone has on how to make it happen? There is nothing that is making the tenure of the prime minister of Israel be dependant on treating people from Palestine fairly. The courts are not nearly as protective as they are for Israelis and there are no seats or votes given from Palestinians despite the authority that Israel has. Few backbenchers are willing to condemn the government, especially given the closed list and nationwide constituency used for the proportionality system. The sanctions that can be used will hurt opposition to the government, especially unions and cooperatives, and the most powerful of them need the US to not veto them.

What do you think about this, and how one goes about getting more freedom and peace in the world?

+David Hembrow One thing about automated vehicles I see that many people to not address is their potential in relation to police powers. I think that if privacy laws don't change to be significantly worse, then the police will have a big problem with their power base in many places, the US especially. Much of their ability to search vehicles and detain people is based on the implicit license that people have when they begin to drive. A car that is run by a computer will almost never make mistakes once the programming is done right. Ergo, how can police claim to stop most vehicles?

This applies even if the police have a hunch about someone smuggling someone or something, probable cause will not be met by simple hunches. Much of the revenue police have via tickets and probably also civil forfeiture also declines.

This could very well impact the way many other forms of policing work. Someone in the parliament is going to have to start either oppressing people more or is going to have to liberalize about a bunch of things, like the drug war and transportation. A good number of arguments related to many claims could be superfluous, like the arguments about legalizing cannabis on the grounds of stoned driving.

+David Hembrow

In social studies, a huge amount of what we talk about is driven by the remaining conflicts in the world in authoritarian countries and countries with flawed electoral systems (the US's electoral college and first past the post legislatures come to mind, as does the UK's parliament, and Canada's of course).

I can often have a hard time finding topics in my news feed that would exist in a world with full democracy. Oil is artificially cheap with cartels in authoritarian countries, and some off shore places are where many of their taxes, whether you agree with the idea of taxes or not, are evaded of course. Iraq has political machines the way Tammany Hall did in NYC in the 1800s. Trump would not have happened without the electoral college most obviously but the reasons behind the anger and frustration leading to Bernie and Trump are difficulties with proportionality and reasonable discussion. Nobody questions immigration from the United Kingdom in Canada, but they do for places like Iraq and Syria. If they were peaceful places with political diversity, a lot less negativity would be driven by the exodus from there.

The Brexit has a lot to do with the immigration issues (themselves driven from the lack of proportionality and reasonable discussion in the US and UK before the Iraq War in 2003) and the idea of government insiders. Same with Mexico and Trump's border wall. No drug war and a somewhat more proportional system in Mexico's elections (also helping to remove their political machines), probably a much more stable country you don't associate with rape, drugs, and breeding like rabbits (even though their fertility rate is actually rather less than the US had in the 1960s).

Even in Alberta, the big discussion over the Transmountain Pipeline is driven in large part because none of the actors can stand down in their behavior. In BC, where they actually oppose the pipeline, they have a confidence and supply issue (and the probability of losing seats if an election were called early which could send all government party members out of government due to a few small changes in popularity with FPTP, and the same happens with the prime minister on the federal level and the provincial prime minister, both having FPTP elections and an election next year, both are projected to lose badly even if they might still have maybe 30-40% of the popular vote like they normally do.

TL;DR, a lot of the issues we actually talk about don't reach consensus, they inherently require a government to prop up many of the values on one side or the other.

+David Hembrow I was looking at British rationing during WW2, and I realized something. What would have happened to the food supply (and prices) had vegetarianism or veganism been adopted? Somewhat ironic given that I imagine Hitler would have wanted his state to have been the first to be vegetarian (which he of course never did), but the idea is far older. Some admin staff from British India keeping track of the food supply might have suggested it perhaps.

You could also imagine what might have happened to soldiers who adopted either veganism or vegetarianism whenever possible and for their normal diets. Fewer things that can spoil, and probably less disease problems, especially given that they didn't have as much access to cow medicine. Or human mediicne for that matter.

+David Hembrow Do you happen to know what the population and business density of central Assen, streets included? I'm looking to see how that compares to the city centre of Edmonton, which has skyscrapers indeed, but many surface lots, low density establishments like stand alone McDonalds, and wide streets that are used for little utility at all.

+David Hembrow How environmentalist do you think the last century could have been? Hydroelectric dams (not perfect of course, but better than coal) and electric railways existed a century ago, you have some old pictures of roadways that look like modern Dutch distributor level roads with cycle paths on either side with smooth concrete, but in the UK, even in the US there was more of an understanding of bicycles as being for more everyday people until the share the road idealists came along in the 70s. Expanding rights to previously overlooked groups was happening, maybe animals and not eating them might have caught on.

I think that we've really always had the ability since the industrial revolution and the invention of electricity, possibly even before that, to be environmentally friendly yet still have a very high quality of life. Probably not so good in say Dutch Indonesia, but that was on purpose.

I can also think of a lot of knock off effects, like the way many Americans and even people in other places see cars as expanding freedom (and being brothels on wheels) and same with big box stores, stand alone fast food and the promises of a local businessman opening a franchise. Cities would develop in ways that would be much cheaper and not tear down black neighbourhoods or create such a divide between the suburb and the urban.

Can you really think of anything we didn't always know was going to be environmentally unfriendly for a long time?

+David Hembrow

Something I found last week is that German and Dutch companies have supervisory boards, which aren't mandated in at least the US and I think UK, I don't think Canada has those too often.

Do you think this shapes their behavior in any way, or at least might have variations on the models that could make it useful?

+David Hembrow Jokes about genitals and nukes between the leaders of two nuclear states. At least nukes are keeping Kim Jong Un in his place without a coup and so has a demented reason for having them, Trump doesn't need them to not be threatened by a coup. 12 year old children can make better and less mean jokes about sexuality than these two bozos can.
Wait while more posts are being loaded