Tankies… what utterly moronic slang.

It isn’t disingenuous to call out authoritarian practices, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they’re on. What’s disingenuous is the left/progressive failure to recognise/take action on their own failings in this regard, as failing to do so calls into question the legitimacy of their convictions and the validity of their arguments, and ultimately alienates some moderates. It makes it easier to poke holes and demonstrate that the left isn’t serious about the issue being a ‘problem’, because the left engages in the same behaviour – just to a lesser extent, or in a different format, arguably. Even in the clip linked by the Op – it’s all “BOO CONS SO BAD FOR THIS!” and then the admission “Yeah, everyone does this”, subverts the message. How can people be annoyed at the cons for doing X, if the analysts openly admit (once you’re past the click bait), that everyone does X?

In some ways, what the ‘left’ does is more insidious. They present themselves as the alternative to the republicans, but then people like Pelosi abuse the system to acquire giant fortunes, while maintaining laws and tax systems that benefit themselves / their rich benefactors. They pit the poors against one another by pushing demographic conflicts, to keep the commoners ire away from their bank accounts. Both sides of the political spectrum are moving increasingly towards authoritarian ideals – turning a blind eye to the faults of the ‘left’, just because you feel the ‘right’ is more egregious, doesn’t make it any better - it just green lights the moral decay on the left. The heavy-handed/forced tactics of the DNC in the states, would be hard to call anything other than a dangerous “authoritarian” trend, which arguably cost them two recent elections. Excusing that sort of ‘trend towards authoritarianism’ just because the right-wing is going harder towards the same steaming pile of feces, doesn’t make things any better. So yes, I’ll “both sides” things all I want in this context. The freedom for an individual to call out bs on both sides is egalitarian at its core, I’d argue: I can hate all politicians equally.

Trying to rail road me into a single, left/progressive approved, narrative… using the tired old cry of “both sidesing!”, is a very authoritarian thing to do.

Not entirely opposed to it, though it needs transparency and some ‘post implementation’ checks imo. Emergency responses, especially to international things, are usually better organised at the federal level too… I’m not too keen on provincial leaders acting with an international scope. That sort of thing leads to situations like Alberta licking Republican taint, with people accepting it as normal for provincial leaders to do that sort of international “diplomatic” blowie.

In some ways, the more concerning bit is hearing that they get 50% of their electricity via the columbia river treaty. So BC isn’t ‘sovereign’ in its power generation, despite generally presenting that image to the public for a long time. You’re not really in control, if a ton of your stuff requires the Americans to follow through on paper agreements.

We likely ought to also diversify our power generation methods, given climate change can potentially hoop hydro. Nuclear power takes years to get built, so they ought to start talking to the prairies about gettin some reactors goin in BC – I think it was like Ontario, Man and Sask that were working on mini reactor options, which’d make sense for us to position in areas further away from the border. There are also micro power generators that can be setup on smaller rivers fairly easily, with less impact than the current massive hydroelectric dams we’ve built – those likely have a far shorter lead time to get built, and would be “Canada”-centric in nature, so also worth exploring.

So… at about 9m16s, he admits that it’s not just the conservatives that do this sort of thing / have authoritarian undertones. And he’s right… but it’s a point that’s downplayed. Most political parties are marching to an authoritarian drum at this point.

I disagree, especially when focusing on Public Sector Unions. Making arguments about the cost of a service compared to the wage, is nonsensical when discussing public sector employment – 80-90% of the cost is the wage, and the ‘value add’ is nebulous and undefined, removed from regular market pressures. Trying to equate the job security provided by public sector unions to private sector business realities is also not convincing – in private sector, if business is stagnant/declining due to a recession, you fire people – doing so may allow you to increase wages for those who remain, though they may also need to increase efficiency/productivity. The OPs article is basically about unions wanting to ignore market realities… something that public sector unions do all the time, as they don’t need to look at the ‘cost’ side from a market perspective. They just yell at the government to tax us private sector workers more.

Unions have a purpose and a function, yes. But in public sector they are detached from market realities, and have skewed public sector employees into a position where they are the subject of private sector anger. It sets the stage for Republican style/Musk style cuts to gain support amongst the voting electorate – so regardless of whatever high horse pro-union people want to perch themselves on, its folly if they don’t take this disparity as a serious risk.

Even the Ops article belies that unions are no longer about ‘regular’ working class people – the letter is specifically saying that the unions are petitioning to provide better Employment Insurance options for “high earners”. So these salaries, that are well above the Canadian average need our government to increase the payouts to help protect those unionized workers from potential job losses? If their high pay is justified by high demand, they should be able to get other employment quickly in their field… but that whole letter sure isn’t about protecting the ‘regular’ common workers, and its the sort of statement that’s just going to antagonize private sector workers who earn “regular” wages. Why should even more of a waiters paycheque go to paying taxes, so that an Airplane Pilot can have an easier time if they lose their top 5% salary job?

I’d agree to some extent, but I honestly think it’s a bit more nuanced than a direct “He’s doing what Putin wants” situation – as it’s also what the various groups backing Trump in the states want (the folks who were all in on Project 2025). I find it easier to understand as a conflict between an “egalitarian” world view, and an “authoritarian” one. Putin, and Trump’s crowd, are clearly on the authoritarian side.

Someone recently pointed out to me that this view of it also aligns to the difference between the greek orthodox church and the roman catholics. In the latter, the translation of the bible into different languages meant individuals were encouraged to read the bible, and determine (in part on their own) how best to avoid hell; in the orthodox approach, it was entirely up to the priests to inform the masses what they had to do to avoid hell, as only the priests could read latin. Russia’s still very much of the orthodox approach – and in the US, many of those mega pastor sorts have pushed in this direction as well. So their interests line up.

That authoritarian mindset also lines up with big tech, and the whole Yarvin nonsense. It lines up with the blanket firing approach and terrorization of the federal work force, to make them more subserviant/compliant. And it generally lines up with the Russian view that the world should be cut up into like 4 blocks, with a ‘strong man’ leading each block. That division that was pushed forward by Dugin, generally “gives” north America to the US.

I recognise the benefit and purpose of unions, but recently I have to admit I’ve been a bit conflicted over them.

We frequently see stories about pending cuts / budget shortfalls here in BC, for things like Teachers and Transit workers. The news releases always phrase the issue as the amounts the govt gives these orgs having ‘failed to keep up with inflationary pressures’. They’ll very rarely also note that a huge % of that budget goes directly to salaries… where we’ve heard unions in past years negotiate fairly huge wage increases. Leads to a fairly simple conclusion that the “inflationary pressures” that are causing things like after school programs to be cut, are the union’s negotiated salary increases.

The wage increases that they negotiate, are also way higher than most of the increases I’ve seen / heard of in the private sector. The economy’s so bad, some jobs have even been unable to provide regular CPI increases… yet union workers still get their ~20% increase over 3-4 years or whatnot. The bank of Canada had cautioned people not to setup high-multi year increases due to the market uncertainty around the time covid restrictions were easing – private sector generally listened, unions/public sector did not.

The public sector also now employs more people than ever before – skewing statistics significantly. A recent stat I saw placed it at about 1 in 4 workers in Canada work for the public sector, where these sorts of increases are more standard. As a result, lopsided increases in public sector wages skews national numbers in regards to aggregate stats on wages. However, public sector funding comes from private sector taxes – and without gains in the private sector / productivity to fuel increased tax revenue, how exactly do unions / govt think we’re going to pay for those “inflationary pressures”? The private sector workhorse can only survive so much flogging.

When I was younger, govt work was viewed as lower pay, but far greater job stability. Now, it’s higher pay and greater job stability. And the amount of govt workers has increased dramatically, making it all the more obvious that it’s a golden ticket. When interacting with govt workers, there’s also a sense of ‘waste’ from the private side – like seeing 6 workers at a govt dispensary just standing around with no customers for hours, as they collect higher pay cheques than regular retail + have better job security. This creates animosity towards what’s essentially a privileged worker class. Govt workers in the states faced a huge backlash from the public, in part because of this sort of disparity, I imagine. I hope that the progressive folks are keenly aware of that gap, and are mindful of what may result if they leave it to fester. It’s the sort of situation that makes people vote in favour of things like DOGE, and allows more extreme folks to co-opt that message for far more nefarious purposes / more extreme actions. There needs to be an alternative, or a shift to more practical budgetary sanity.

This is dumb. Only a small % of the goods in alaska are brought in via truck – the vast majority is via boat.

Meanwhile the ‘obvious’ response from the US would be to toll trucks carrying goods from Mexico to Canada. Which is a much bigger trade route.

Russia’s objective isn’t tariffs – it’s to splinter/decouple international coordination and cooperation amongst western nations.

So, yeah. The faster Trump can accelerate that, the happier his boss’ll be.

Like the buy[local] type campaigns are most likely getting a bit of a bump from Russian propaganda agents – even if they are ‘real’ sentiments to some extent too.

Many/most of Canada’s government agencies are entrenched in Microsoft products. Our financial regulators in many provinces have their data portals, to which Financial Institutions submit significant ‘customer specific’/private information, hosted in Microsoft365 sites. Payments Canada, a government org, requires that our ATMs run on Windows.

Many/most Financial Institutions also run their online banking on non-Canadian company products, hosted or managed by foreign actors. Central1, the primary trade association that previously hosted about 80% of Canada’s Credit Union websites, recently exited the hosting business – and transferred those sites over to a company from India. This company also provides the sites for a few of Canada’s Big Banks. The CEO of Central1, having failed to deliver on one of her 3 primary functions as the industry’s Trade association, was given a business award for it – in part, because Central1 has become largely x-banker run, as required by Canada’s regulators recently, and as a result C1 lost sight of what it means to be a cooperative. As part of their exit from hosting online banking, Central1 also indicated that they’ll support two other recommended options if people don’t want to use the default – one that’s in Microsoft365 (US controlled), and another from Portugal. No Canadian owned/accountable org was part of the short list that the majority of “small local” credit unions could go with. So even if you’re banking with a tiny credit union, you’re likely exposed to the risk of foreign manipulation / privacy issues, and your banking services are beholden to a foreign country’s whims. Some CU’s even run on Microsoft365 extensively internally on their back end, meaning their services are all totally down whenever Microsoft has an outage – which, given that Microsoft is beholden to the whims of the orange man as a US company, could mean that Donald and crew could effectively “turn off” your ‘small local’ CU.

When raising questions about the US’s access to Microsoft’s cloud data through their “National Security Letter” approach previously, I’ve heard lawyers comment that it’s not an issue, because realistically we’d hand the data over anyway if it was requested – so it just cuts out some bureaucracy. Admittedly, this was at a time when trade relations were more amicable – but it implies heavily that, frankly, yes, most of the data that’s held in US cloud products is already accessible to US interests/government agencies. And yes, that continues to apply even if the physical servers are located in Canada, as per government regulations – the Control centre is still foreign. Extending the cloud act just makes it more official, in my view.

The solution, if we Canadians want ‘real’ autonomy on this front, is that you need companies that will be wholly accountable to Canadian laws and regulations, and not interests owned by foreign adversaries. Any “Critical” service, such as our Banking Infrastructure and Government Agencies, should be required to use Canadian made products / host assets within Canada, with control of those assets also being within Canada. The EU’s GDPR blocks them from using US cloud services on security/privacy reasons, for certain areas of the economy/government. Countries like China use Linux as their official govt operating system. There’s no specific reason we couldn’t do the same, we just need the govt to recognize the risk and take some action on it.

I’m historically a green voter – but honestly, I get “the defectors” point on this one, and am a bit surprised that there’s so much drama over it.

Like the news stories about her saying there were no child bodies at one site – people comment how what she’s saying is disrespectful to survivors of the residential system, but they aren’t saying she’s factually incorrect. The articles highlight that even the first nation “revised” their wording over the years from “remains of 215 children”, to “potential burial sites”, to eventually just “anomalies”.

So she’s correct in her statement on that front, no?

This sort of situation alienates moderates. The extreme backlash against anyone who asks questions in this area makes it impossible for moderates to engage with it without being labelled in some way. When moderates are unable to even ask questions/discuss the topic openly, well, they tend to become less moderate. So her going from questioning / highlighting objective truths, to experiencing a huge backlash, to doing a stupid mocking voice on a podcast, isn’t really that surprising a trajectory. The federal government making it a “hate crime” to question this stuff, is just amazing to me – and it’d be a huge point against the Liberals staying in power, if the alternatives weren’t so gross.

Yeah, Google’s monopoly is a problem. Wonder if there’d be any real appetite for a (potentially govt supported) index for Canadian businesses, which could link through to those businesses public websites (if they have them) — and/or just serve as a host for a basic business brochure / info set.

I mean, businesses need to register within jurisdictions in order to operate – why not have those jurisdictions have a semi federated setup of sites to host indexes for consumers / b2b. Publicize it to the general public, and ensure that businesses let their own employees know about it (so that local workers, know there are local options to look up shops / businesses). You could connect the jurisdictional sites via federation to make it a “one stop site” for Canadians to go to for local business references/info, even as they move around to different areas.

If this lemmy site is legit in its costs being like $1.10/user/year, I imagine our govt could do similar for similarly low costs – and offset it by having some modest local advertising options on the sites. You’d basically setup a class of ‘business’ users that’d have a bit more of a portal, and a landing page associated with their brand, where they could post basic information up / connect with potential customers. Have the business registration process in different municipalities / jurisdictions be involved in administration of those business accounts. Regular consumers could either be left as read only, or could potentially have accounts setup for more engagement – perhaps with some method of checking the person’s general geo location to root out some malicious sorts / potential foreign influences.

I don’t think we have anything like this, but… I’d love to see it pushed by some politicians, personally.