Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
VanemadUuemad
It appears that Allan Meiusi has joined forces with Maxim de la Trine.
One directs our attention to some risible b.s. and the other erases rebuttal.
One directs our attention to some risible b.s. and the other erases rebuttal.
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: Overlooked is full of it! (09:03)
“this book’s more unappealing aspects, of which there are several.
One of those is Mr. Harper’s generous treatment of Mr. Trump. While assuring that he considers the U.S. President distasteful and "not really a conservative,” he is largely sympathetic toward his "America First” nationalism, arguing that it reflects the reasonable frustrations of voters poorly served by "globalist” consensus around free trade or immigration. That leads him to draw on fairly narrow evidence to make broad assertions about economic motive, including that most voters supportive of Mr. Trump’s border policies have directly suffered from migration of low-skilled workers, and blame media for dwelling on "a few” bigots in his support base.
Another is the cartoonish way Mr. Harper portrays the other side of the ideological spectrum, to raise fears about what looms if conservatives don’t meet voters’ needs. At one point he equates Bernie Sanders’s socialism with Soviet-style communism; at another he accuses "the modern left” of treating conservatives as "intellectually childish,” then immediately accuses the left of being "intellectually adolescent.”
There is also a bit of amateur psychology involving the "non-empirical mind” of the typical leftist. The effect is to undermine his seriousness when more thoughtfully critiquing the right.
And when it comes to his own record, Mr. Harper is guilty of enough omission to not be an entirely reliable narrator. Boasting about maintaining strong support from immigrants while undertaking immigration reform, he cites his government’s inclusion of "barbaric cultural practices” in Canada’s citizenship guide, without mentioning that pushing further on that issue backfired in his last election. Presenting himself as a champion of empiricism, he skips over the whole bit about scrapping the long-form census.”
Do we understand the significance of the latter? Not to mention:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
https://www.theatlantic.com/sc...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com...
https://www.nature.com/news/ni...
For Naelapea, in a moment of cognitive dissonance par excellence, to ignore all this is especially disheartening, casting doubt on the editorialist’s ability and will to think clearly.
*https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books/reviews/article-stephen-harper-discusses-the-reasons-for-modern-populism-in-new-book/
One of those is Mr. Harper’s generous treatment of Mr. Trump. While assuring that he considers the U.S. President distasteful and "not really a conservative,” he is largely sympathetic toward his "America First” nationalism, arguing that it reflects the reasonable frustrations of voters poorly served by "globalist” consensus around free trade or immigration. That leads him to draw on fairly narrow evidence to make broad assertions about economic motive, including that most voters supportive of Mr. Trump’s border policies have directly suffered from migration of low-skilled workers, and blame media for dwelling on "a few” bigots in his support base.
Another is the cartoonish way Mr. Harper portrays the other side of the ideological spectrum, to raise fears about what looms if conservatives don’t meet voters’ needs. At one point he equates Bernie Sanders’s socialism with Soviet-style communism; at another he accuses "the modern left” of treating conservatives as "intellectually childish,” then immediately accuses the left of being "intellectually adolescent.”
There is also a bit of amateur psychology involving the "non-empirical mind” of the typical leftist. The effect is to undermine his seriousness when more thoughtfully critiquing the right.
And when it comes to his own record, Mr. Harper is guilty of enough omission to not be an entirely reliable narrator. Boasting about maintaining strong support from immigrants while undertaking immigration reform, he cites his government’s inclusion of "barbaric cultural practices” in Canada’s citizenship guide, without mentioning that pushing further on that issue backfired in his last election. Presenting himself as a champion of empiricism, he skips over the whole bit about scrapping the long-form census.”
Do we understand the significance of the latter? Not to mention:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
https://www.theatlantic.com/sc...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com...
https://www.nature.com/news/ni...
For Naelapea, in a moment of cognitive dissonance par excellence, to ignore all this is especially disheartening, casting doubt on the editorialist’s ability and will to think clearly.
*https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books/reviews/article-stephen-harper-discusses-the-reasons-for-modern-populism-in-new-book/
Seda "kommentaari" tuleks kustutada.
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: Overlooked (09:34)
Mis puutub Kanadasse, interest- free loans, ja Stephen Harperi valitsusse, huvitav intervjuu "The case against the Bank of Canada", ja elulugu "The lawyer who challenged the Harper government and won":
https://www.cbc.ca/news/busine...
https://www.theglobeandmail.co...
"They were so arrogant in assuming that an argument from me couldn't win or shouldn't win, because we live in a tribal culture. You're only an expert if you're anglo or francophone."
"On College Street, up until Trudeau rewrote the loitering laws, more than two Italian males could not congregate. They'd get billy-sticked home by the police....
It's a recurrent theme of his – the loss of historical memory."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/busine...
https://www.theglobeandmail.co...
"They were so arrogant in assuming that an argument from me couldn't win or shouldn't win, because we live in a tribal culture. You're only an expert if you're anglo or francophone."
"On College Street, up until Trudeau rewrote the loitering laws, more than two Italian males could not congregate. They'd get billy-sticked home by the police....
It's a recurrent theme of his – the loss of historical memory."
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: Overlooked (09:34), vaenu õhutamine (13:22)
re John's
I had to chuckle as I read this fine example of the manner in which tacit assumptions, ambiguity and innuendo obscures communication.
For example, "Presenting himself as a champion of empiricism, he skips over the whole bit about scrapping the long-form census."
What's one got to do with the other?
"Empiricism" gives us knowledge via combining observations with common sense, in contrast to learning from crystal balls, and the like. How is that connected to "scrapping the the long-form census"?
For example, "Presenting himself as a champion of empiricism, he skips over the whole bit about scrapping the long-form census."
What's one got to do with the other?
"Empiricism" gives us knowledge via combining observations with common sense, in contrast to learning from crystal balls, and the like. How is that connected to "scrapping the the long-form census"?
Kommentaarid sellele artiklile on suletud.
This comment has been deleted by EWR