Pondering

I never ever write introductory posts when I join new sites. I never know what to say.  This can't be an introductory post because I've been here far too long for that. We've already had spats. You've already formed your impressions of me for better or for worse.  I feel like I can be open with you. :)

Threads here always get my thoughts going in a dozen completely off-topic  directions one of which turned into why do I post? One clue resides in my name. I hate choosing names for websites so I often just take the first one that pops into my head. I had recently been on the Ponder site and it seemed as good a name as any. So Pondering I became.  Turns out very apropos as this is a place to ponder all kinds of stuff.

http://ponder.mcgill.ca/

The P.O.N.D.E.R project is a free program aimed at preventing Neurodegenerative Diseases such as Dementia, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

The main objectives of P.O.N.D.E.R are to:

• Establish research that allows identifying variables that determine what can prevent age-related disease.

• Document and characterize what is now referred to as successful or healthy normal aging.

• Identify among the elderly those that are at risk of becoming ill from age-related disease.
• Prevent the onset of age-related disease in those elderly where it can be prevented through an extensive cognitive training program.

Pasted from <http://ponder.mcgill.ca/project.php>

It's a bunch of games you play and periodically there are games that are "tests".  They are tracking thousands of people to identify cognitive changes.

When I joined babble I didn't really think about why I was joining, I wanted to so I did. No soul-searching required.  Recently the thought popped into my head "Why am I posting?"  (I am an endlessly fascinating topic to myself, and apparently sometimes to others as well.) Anyway, part of the reason is to stretch my mind. Defending my perspective on issues forces me to think more deeply.  I learn new things about myself , others and the world as I go off googling names and what not. I am here to invade your minds. (just joking)

Debating, especially in just one thread, is unlikely to change my mind about anything, especially an issue I feel strongly about, but it does give me food for thought. I am more likely to see the grey rather than black and white. I don't see any need to "come to agreement". I have changed my mind on many topics over the years but it has always been over a span of time not one conversation.

I'm not an activist.  I always have to look up words like neoliberalism to double check their meaning before using them. I'm not all that familiar with Marxism or Communism or even different forms of democracy.  I'm not that interested in studying them either. I came to these topics late in life and it's not necessary, or shouldn't be, for everyone to know about all that stuff. It's possible to recognize injustice and solutions without ideology. If everyone has to be as informed as dedicated activist types for the war to be won then it will have to wait another few centuries.

I think coming to all of these ideas later in life  gives me a unique perspective on the disconnect between activists and the people they fight on behalf of.  That so many disadvantaged people support Rob Ford shows that there is a deep disconnect between activists and the people they purport to be working on behalf of.  I may not speak activist very well but activists don't always speak people very well either. If they did, they would have a lot more support.

Canada is the best country in the world to live in. We have a huge territory with a small population and an abundance of every natural resource necessary to human life and more. We have all the necessary institutions and an educated population. Canada can have a spectacular future of plenty.

I believe we are in a moment of history where transformative change can happen through a (comparatively) non-violent revolution but that the opportunity can be lost. Occupy may have wound down but the dissatisfaction that spawned it is still waiting to be reignited. Neoliberalism was a stealth revolution led by the oligarchy.  Defeating it will take another revolution in the form of deprogramming. (Easier said than done.)

 I don't believe that modern political parties can lead to the revolutionary rupture in awareness needed for transformative reinvention of civilization.  Neoliberalism has made people fear that only economic hardship can follow from environmental protection and social justice when really these things generate wealth. It is environmental degradation and social injustice that cause poverty.

We need a new age of enlightenment that will not be delivered through existing institutions vying amongst one another for power and control.

I have been amused and flattered by some descriptions of myself that I think were intended to be insulting, or at least to express exasperation. I am an idealistic cynic so I am a contradiction. I believe the world Legatta paints is possible within my lifetime.

 I recently read the following:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/08/26/the_ideological_roots_of_stephen_harpers_vendetta_against_sociology.html

So what does Harper have against sociology? First, Harper is clearly trumpeting a standard component of neo-liberal ideology: that there are no social phenomena, only individual incidents. (This ideology traces back to Margaret Thatcher’s famous claim that “there is no such thing as society.”) Neo-liberalism paints all social problems as individual problems. The benefit of this for those who share Harper’s agenda, of course, is that if there are no social problems or solutions, then there is little need for government. Individuals are solely responsible for the problems they face.

This ideology is so seductive not only because it radically simplifies our world, but also because it mirrors the two social institutions neo-liberals actually believe in — the “free” market and law and order. Everything is reduced to either a simplistic market transaction or a criminal case. In the former, you either have the money to buy stuff, or you don’t and it’s up to you to get more. In the latter, a lone individual is personally responsible for a crime and is punished for it. Easy peasy. No sociology needed.….

The payoff in all this for Harper and other neo-liberals is that the kinds of injustices this ideology is particularly good at creating are precisely structural injustices. Indeed, one of neo-liberalism’s greatest capacities is to generate systemic inequalities that are not easily identifiable, in fact are rather difficult to discern, on the level of personal interactions and isolated cases. Harper’s attack on sociology, then, should be viewed not only as an attempt to further his ideology, but to cover the social damage that is left in its wake.

Our society does worship at the alter of individual rights and freedoms with the collective portrayed as a machine that only encroaches on those rights. Money is not seen as at all coercive. Corporations also have a right to freedom from regulation which only impedes their ability to succeed. The default state is individual freedom with everything else an encroachment therefore harmful and to be minimized unless absolutely necessary.

A seismic shift in awareness has to happen to force transformative change. I would say that some dramatic world event could happen that will shock people into getting "it" but the crash of 2008 hasn't done it nor the dire straits of many countries like Greece that were pillaged by the oligarchy. The march of ISIS across the middle east caused by the foolhardy invasion of Iraq hasn't unduly alarmed people. The military industrial complex is in full swing. No military atrocity is too great to rationalize. Vanishing coastlines have startled people but they aren't marching on governments in the millions insisting on accelerated change. Collectively we are like First Nations Christians, worshipping at the altar of our destruction.

Electoral politics tweaks the system here and there it doesn't challenge it so I don't feel a person must vote a particular way in order to have progressive ideals. 

Reserved because it's my thread so I can and I want to keep the first few posts positive.  Eventually I will fill them in on my views on Trudeau and the NDP and anything else I feel called upon to repeat ad infinitum.

This way when someone asks me "how can you support the Liberals when------" I can just point them here. :)

Post 60 from http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/current-mess-and-addition-new-f...

In my moral code attacking someone is wrong, self-defence is not. I suppose I should have said obnoxious instead but no, I don't find it to be "juvenile bullying" to call a bully a bully or a jerk a jerk.  Jacob started in on me again in post 36 and Baccus confirmed it in the next post.

I caught on that I am getting baited and attacked in almost every thread I participate in always bringing the topic back to my support for Trudeau and my disenchantment with the NDP.  Eventually I decided to call people out the minute they attack me rather than defending myself from the specific accusations. If someone lies about my views I will call them a liar. If they are trolling or being a jerk I will say so to make it clear where the conflict began.

This thread is part 2 of my solution. From now on I will point out I am being attacked and link to this thread to respond.

Hopefully that will prevent the derailing of threads.

Is simply stating the obvious - that the Liberals are a bourgeois party intent on defending the ruling class - bullying?

I hate bullying, but it usually targets the underdog, the downtrodden, the oppressed class, sex, race, nationality or sexual orientation. Not to mention the homely, the scrawny and the fat.

Not pretty boys (and girls, like Mélanie Joli) who grew up with the proverbial silver spoon. Not their fault; from Robert Owen and Freidrich Engels on, there have been scions of capitalists and aristocrats who have betrayed their class to support the less fortunate.

Trudeau is not one of them. He never stops nattering on about the "middle class" when there is dire poverty, poor infrastructure and systemic discrimination endured by people in his riding, a riding I know well. I lived there for years, now I live a few blocks south of Jean-Talon.

I certainly don't hate Trudeau the way I hate Harper, but he is the other team for the same class.

Except the myths ended up being true.

There was no reason to "call me out".  I said I thought it was immaterial to the 2015 election but that it is what I personally remembered from that time period. It would continue to colour my personal view of the NDP but I wouldn't be using the argument and didn't intend to defend it.

Sean didn't think that was good enough and attacked my character.

Since then I came across two articles that make it crystal clear the chain of events that led to the final vote was instigated by Layton.

Anyone who lived through that time period knows that many people believed that much progressive legislation, not just the Kelowna accord, was riding on the timing of the election. Even if they concluded that it was still all Martin's fault, they would still remember that it was controversial.

To attack me for trusting my own memory of events, however vague, was completely uncalled for. I went on a fact finding mission and found the facts that backed up my opinion but Sean refused to acknowledge them. He contined to pretend only the non-confidence vote mattered.

I want to point out I did not call Sean a jerk and reiterate that I see nothing wrong in calling a jerk a jerk or a bully a bully. These are behavioral accusations. Attacking people is being a jerk and a bully.

Sadly,the NDP natters on about the 'middle class' as well.

I'm not sure about Mulcair's upbringing but I'm sure he wasn't as priviledged as Justin.

BTW,I hate nobody...But I do hate Harper and his brand of conservatism (corporatist SoCon fascism)

When the Conservatives are defeated it will truly be a happy day.

I support having a police force, a fire department and a military. I am grateful there are people willing and able to do these jobs. Our gratitude should be shown in generosity towards the injured, killed, and their families. I am all the more grateful because I would be extremely ill suited to any of those professions.

I would not urge anyone to sign up because I think  whether or not to serve in such professions is a very personal decision and not one to be made lightly.

That does not disentitle me from having an opinion on where our military is or isn't active. In a democracy it is citizens not the military that decides it's activities.

While I am grateful for your service (assuming you are telling the truth) it does not give you licence to address me abusively.

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/harper-joins-us-iraq-support-liberals-and-ndp?page=18  post 186

[emphasis most definitely added]

That is, perhaps, one of the most novel takes I have seen on the actual nature of the threads here on babble. I was unaware that the site had morphed into one that housed mini-blogs. When one owns a thread, do moderation rights come along with it? I know that individual postings are essentially owned by the individual - hence the abilitity to go back into them and edit them - but an entire thread?

Even Justin Trudeau isn't bringing up 2005-6 to attack the NDP, as he understands he has to move forward and present a vision rather than blaming someone else for his party's failing.

This is not a stupid pundit:

http://rabble.ca/taxonomy/term/309

James Laxer is regularly asked to comment on current national and global issues by the Canadian media and frequently writes columns in major newspapers and periodicals. In 1969, he was one of the founders of the Waffle Group, Canada’s largest New Left political movement. In 1971, at the age of 29, he ran second for the national leadership of the New Democratic Party. In the mid 1970s, James Laxer was a leading crusader against the power of multi national petroleum companies. His books, speeches and television appearances helped lead to the creation of a nationally owned oil company, Petro Canada, established to counter the power of companies like Exxon in Canada. In 1981, Laxer was appointed research director of the federal New Democratic Party. At the end of his two year term, he wrote a controversial, book length critique of the party’s economic policies, charging that they were seriously dated. The report was front page news in Canada and was debated for months in the national media. In 1984, the National Film Board of Canada hired Laxer to be host narrator, for a series of documentaries on the changing global economy and Canada’s place in it. In preparing the series, Laxer travelled extensively in Japan, Europe and the United States. The series, entitled Reckoning, was denied broadcast by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation because it was seen as too controversial. Instead it was broadcast by a hook up of all the English language educational networks in the country. The series was also broadcast in the United States, as well, by a large number of PBS stations.

This is a history not just an article http://thewalrus.ca/2006-05-politics/

I don't expect it to be a campaign issue and I have said so, but given the The Star's recent article I could be wrong about that. Memories might be fresher than I imagined.

All I ever said is that it affects my own opinion of the NDP.  I was then told I was being dishonest to allow it to continue swaying me because my memories were wrong. The non-confidence vote was trotted out as "proof".

I trust my memories so I went looking for proof that my memories were real and I did find it. While I can certainly accept that some people feel Martin was more to blame than Layton (or even solely to blame) to maintain that the non-confidence vote was the sum-total of what happened is intellectually dishonest.

The article proves that my opinion was shared by many progressives at the time who felt betrayed by the NDP.

Since Sean's attack I have been persistently berated by multiple posters in multiple threads still insisting that I am lying. (as evidenced by Jacob Two Two's comment quoted above)

Sean owes me an apology and confirmation that there was a series of events that justified my memory of events and opinion even if he doesn't agree with my conclusion about who bears responsibility.

Basically, if he really does care about this site, he should call off the dogs.

Not okay to open a personal thread and call out someone by name who has not been in that thread and stopped posting here.

I don't owe you an apology for disagreeing with you. I only went after your argument. You have made up in volume for what you could not in logic. It seems nobody can keep up with you as you bury other posters in repeats of the same illogical stuffing while seemingly write full time here. I even wondered at times if you were a moderator sock puppet or paid to do this. You did give a clue in one thread where you said you were speaking as a campaigner.

You established that there are people who wanted to deny responsibility for the Liberal 2006 loss and there have been shoddy opinion pieces (poorly researched or outright propaganda). But there is a difference between facts like voting numbers and opinions written by writers to sell stories. Indeed, some in the NDP or supporters exaggerated the party’s position back in 2005-6. I don't run the NDP or its supporters. But I don't blame the Liberal party for stuff you serve up either.

Interesting that you try to guilt me on caring about babble after gleefully rubbing it in when a moderator came in swearing with a broad personal attack on “veterans”? Why should I care about a site whose moderators would be so rude across the board to any veterans who are concerned about the direction of the place? (And why bother speculating why people leave?) Why should I provide loyalty after getting that as reward for investing time writing for over a decade? It was not the first time that the nastiest stuff in a thread actually came from a mod or that a moderator made a situation worse by reducing a difficult tone into outright swearing. They show through their own participation and attacks what they think of concepts like restraint, respect and moderation.

Note to mods: if you offer any respect or appreciation rather than abuse for the efforts of people who invested in this place you might not lose so many people.

Back to you: I obviously and abruptly stopped posting after that post from a Mod. I would not be back if you had not brought me into this thread. But you "own a thread" and call out by name whomever you want to pick fights with. That is the stuff that could get "veterans" banned.

So, continue your project of turning this space into a Trudeau shrine through your volume of repeated posts (look like trolling to me) if you want. Get applauded for this from the mods. But leave my name out of threads I am not participating in and stop fighting with people who have been driven off the board. I don’t actually care if you ruin it. I have other places I can write including Twitter.

And don't presume I have dogs to call off. My only connection to this place is I invested a lot of time writing here for over more than ten years. I have taken a couple long breaks due to nastiness from the moderators here – no secret they don’t like me. What relationship you think I have with this site I don't know since every time I am involved in a conflict they come in on the opposite side -- no matter what the issue.

At least have the manners to stop talking about me when I am not here. And don’t wait up for that apology.

ETA I see your latest post is even more interesting calling another person names and haivng this thread as a place to pick fights with people. And anyone who responds to you can get called a problem and banned by the moderators.

The following is truly breathtaking. I am so glad the moderators appreciate your dominance so much that you will now proclaim what has been obvious.

You know exactly what type of 'Vets' the mod was refering to. The forum Vets that think they are above the Babble policy and who think that their lenghtly time on the forum gives them special privilages.  The post was nothing more than stating no one gets special treatment and everyone should treat each other more respectfully, you're trying to twist it out of context.

Lester Pearson was a prime organizer of the first UN peacekeeping mission in Egypt. He won the Nobel Prize for it.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/suez-crisis/

Peacekeeping soldiers might have two arms and two legs like other soldiers, but the purpose of the mission is very different, and more importantly, it takes its direction from the UN. It's not just a euphemism.

For all the current talk of peacekeeping Canada only has a few dozen peacekeepers in Africa. Haiti was the last large one in 2004.The decline came as Canada became more and more involved in NATO-led military actions rather than UN ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_peacekeeping_missions

No, by all means continue. I have no problem with reading intelligent informed opinions on topics of interest to me. It gives me food for thought.

So, I declare the conversation on topic because a thread about me includes whatever interests me. That's how people can get to know me which is the purpose of an introductory thread.

Don't worry everyone, I plan to write more answers they will just take longer than this one.