a CBC editor corrected it.
Maybe. And I'm not really holding MM's feet to the fire over it. But if that's the case then please, CBC, can we all have back whatever tax dollars (or cents, or tiny fractions of cents) went to whatever person wrote the original?
And again, not that it's a big thing, but the CBC piece is timestamped 7am ET.
a CBC editor corrected it.Maybe. And I'm not really holding MM's feet to the fire over it. But if that's the case then please, CBC, can we all have back whatever tax dollars (or cents, or tiny fractions of cents) went to whatever person wrote the original?
And again, not that it's a big thing, but the CBC piece is timestamped 7am ET.
Why? The volume of articles is very high and people make mistakes. It is a known thing that people will make errors when typing including errors of grammar that they actually know better.
Most writers know well the value of proofreading and that it cannot catch everything. We also know that proofreading on screen is not as effective. I see typos everywhere and I make them as well. I think the content is far more important and that efforts to reduce them are important but to suggest discipline and wage reduction seems much. Also, such a suggestion opens people to accept more spelling flames here.
In case people are interested in why these errors occur here is an article about what is going on in the brain:
https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/why-your-brain-makes-grammar-mistakes
I would like to add to this based on my own experiences and observations.
I think it is not just the brain's cognition that is part of this but also writing patterns across a keyboard. The fingers are trained to perform an auotomatic function. You do not think about each letter you are going to press (whether you are looking at the keyboard or not). You do groups of letters in patterns your brain is familiar with. Writing by hand is a little different. I am more likely to create these kinds of typos typing quickly than in handwriting. Others may be less likely to if they have a stronger association with what the word looks like.
The mistake that MM copied from the CBC looks to me like a pattern error by the writer -- the kind of thing anyone could do and that proofrading routinely captures. The brain is more used to the pattern of the wrong word and while the person probably intended the correct one the fingers filled in the wrong pattern. The reality is that the more a person works in this way, the more likely they will have pattern errors. One person's pattern errors will be different than another as one may write a given word more than another. This is why, many of us understand that another person is a better source for proofreading what we type than ourselves. Proofreading itself is hard as the brain can even correct in perception errors on the page. Proofreaders have to slow down to seeing letter by letter rather than clumps of phrases and whole words as readers generally do.
We also know that this kind of pattern editing is common with memory and perception. People think they see things we know from science they could only see a part of. Our memories look complete to us like pictures even though we know it is not possible. The brain is filling in the blanks. When we rememebr things we also focus on the highlights (from the perception point of view not the importance) and fill in the gaps. As we forget, we do more filling in such that a memory can appear as vivid years later but actually be quite degraded. It would have been compromised from the start due to this happenigng in perception. this is one reason why multiple witnesses have different experiences and observations from each other.
Sorry for sidetrack but I find this a very interesting area and we might want to think about it when we are disagreeing since data is not quite as neutral and objective as we might imagine.
Jagmeet Singh was just on CP24 and he said he was the new young kid on the block and Trudeau is the 'old man'. Sort of like when Mulcair said Trudeau was on the "oldies" tour when he campaigned with former PM Harper & Chretien.
From Sean in Ottawa:
-the kind of thing anyone could do and that proofrading routinely captures.
Well, perhaps not all that routinely... :>)
From Sean in Ottawa:
-the kind of thing anyone could do and that proofrading routinely captures.
Well, perhaps not all that routinely... :>)
Do we all proofread our posts -- particularly by getting others to do it for us?
I sure don't and the above is proof.
Does a CBC article merit a higher standard than posts here? Perhaps, but we can expect some to make it through.
Jagmeet Singh was just on CP24 and he said he was the new young kid on the block and Trudeau is the 'old man'. Sort of like when Mulcair said Trudeau was on the "oldies" tour when he campaigned with former PM Harper & Chretien.
Yes, humour. You know that right? Mulcair was not calling himself old any more than Singh was calling Trudeau old.
OK
OK
I think Trudeau and Singh recognize each other as being of the same generation.
It will be interesting to see if Singh and the NDP support the Liberal government in increasing the Child Benefit program. Canada has benefited from the Liberal government increasing the Child Benefit and that alone has made in worthwhile that the Liberals replaced the Conservatives.
Sean in Ottawa:
Do we all proofread our posts -- particularly by getting others to do it for us?
I sure don't and the above is proof.
Does a CBC article merit a higher standard than posts here? Perhaps, but we can expect some to make it through.
Please don't take anything I said about this as a criticism. It was merely the humour of having the word 'proofreading' unproofed.
This sort of writing is done on the fly, and the best of us couldn't possibly remove all typos, etc. I agree with what you said about proofreading, and the reasons everyone needs an editor (which of course is not possible in this situation).
When one writes something down, one usually has the idea more or less fully formed in the mind. So if there are errors or omissions in the actual writing, the writers mind kind of makes up the difference, just as the eye fills in where necessary to overcome the blind spot we all have.
Then of course there are the typos to which we are all heir to. Try as I might, I fall into typographical error from time to time. Sometimes in re-reading an existing post I'll spot the error, and if no 0ne has quoted it, I'll correct it. Once it's been quoted (if that's the case), then it's stuck for all time. Leaving me with some embarrassment and the determination to do better next time.
Sean in Ottawa:
Do we all proofread our posts -- particularly by getting others to do it for us?
I sure don't and the above is proof.
Does a CBC article merit a higher standard than posts here? Perhaps, but we can expect some to make it through.
Please don't take anything I said about this as a criticism. It was merely the humour of having the word 'proofreading' unproofed.
This sort of writing is done on the fly, and the best of us couldn't possibly remove all typos, etc. I agree with what you said about proofreading, and the reasons everyone needs an editor (which of course is not possible in this situation).
When one writes something down, one usually has the idea more or less fully formed in the mind. So if there are errors or omissions in the actual writing, the writers mind kind of makes up the difference, just as the eye fills in where necessary to overcome the blind spot we all have.
Then of course there are the typos to which we are all heir to. Try as I might, I fall into typographical error from time to time. Sometimes in re-reading an existing post I'll spot the error, and if no 0ne has quoted it, I'll correct it. Once it's been quoted (if that's the case), then it's stuck for all time. Leaving me with some embarrassment and the determination to do better next time.
Certainly -- and letters reversed or missing tend to be keyboarding errors where the fingers did not come down hard enough or came down in the wrong order. These are particularly common for me.
This just in - widow of MP Arnold Chan has decided to run for his vacant seat. Since it will be a landslide for her (running against the widow) it would make no sense for Jagmeet to run there.
Jagmeet Singh interview in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, Oct 27, 2017:
Q: How would you smooth relations with the provincial government and solve the problem created by differing views on a carbon tax?
A: Each province is very different in terms of their economies, and some provinces are more resource extraction-based. And we have to acknowledge that as a reality.
I think everyone agrees that we need to take care of our environment; everyone believes that we have to reduce emissions if we want to tackle climate change. People are on the same page. We just have to make sure that our policies don’t target everyday working people and don’t put too much of a burden on everyday people.
Q: What would that look like, a policy that protects the environment and a resource-based economy?
A: When you look at the economy we’ve developed as a nation, if we’re only going to rely on resource extraction, what’s going to happen is we have the bust and boom eras. To me that’s not what people want. People want an economy that’s sustainable. So let’s invest in a diversified economy that is more stable.
With respect to hydroelectricity, Manitoba and Quebec, they produce a surplus. Let’s build a network that actually connects people together, connects provinces together. That network would be thousands of jobs at the federal level … and then we’ll have access to affordable energy, which would only boost our economy.
I understand that politicians seldom want to say anything meaningful, for fear of having to defend their statements later on, but this has to rate pretty high on the 'Bland Scale'.
To say nothing of the fact that when Newfoundlanders find out Singh is unaware of Churchill Falls they're likely to spew their coffee across the breakfast table.
Still, the NDP has moved forward with the times. Ed Broadbent's 'ordinary Canadians' has become Singh's 'everyday people'. That's progress, isn't it?
Still, the NDP has moved forward with the times. Ed Broadbent's 'ordinary Canadians' has become Singh's 'everyday people'. That's progress, isn't it?
Sure, as long as he can accept the blue one for living with the green one who doesn't like the fat one...
And so on and so on.
I understand that politicians seldom want to say anything meaningful, for fear of having to defend their statements later on, but this has to rate pretty high on the 'Bland Scale'.
All this time as NDP leader and he nor the party have set policy on everything yet! He'd better get busy and get that done over the weekend.
As you noted yourself, he probably shouldn't have mentioned Hydro. The most inoculous opinion can offend.
All this time as NDP leader and he nor the party have set policy on everything yet! He'd better get busy and get that done over the weekend.
As you noted yourself, he probably shouldn't have mentioned Hydro. The most inoculous opinion can offend.
Trudeau had no policy (except Pot) for two years until just before the 2015 election. And the NDP relentlessly criticised him for having no policy to talk about. But if Jagmeet plans to lift the Liberal playbook, he doesn't need to have anything in the window until 2019. Just like Justin.
I said it was a stupid criticism when the NDP was harping on Trudeau's lack of policy. I said it would mean nothing the moment the Liberal platform came out and I was right. Pointed at Justin or Jagmeet it remains an ineffectual and silly criticism.All this time as NDP leader and he nor the party have set policy on everything yet! He'd better get busy and get that done over the weekend.
As you noted yourself, he probably shouldn't have mentioned Hydro. The most inoculous opinion can offend.
Trudeau had no policy (except Pot) for two years until just before the 2015 election. And the NDP relentlessly criticised him for having no policy to talk about. But if Jagmeet plans to lift the Liberal playbook, he doesn't need to have anything in the window until 2019. Just like Justin.
From Pondering:
As you noted yourself, he probably shouldn't have mentioned Hydro. The most inoculous opinion can offend.
It wasn't the innocuousness of this statement that will offend. It was the comment about Quebec producing a surplus of electricity. The reason for that surplus is Churchill Falls, a Newfoundland hydro project which production was sold to Quebec at an extremely low rate, and a contract that had an automatic 25 year renewal after the first 25 years were up. Newfoundland is currently (pun intended) supplying Quebec hydro with electricity at $2 per megawatt hour. The deal runs until 2041, when presumably it will be safe to bring it up in polite conversation.
Quebec makes roughly $1.7 billion per year from the resale of this electricity, while Labrador makes about $63 million. The Newfoundland government has mounted a number of court actions, all to no avail. It's probably not a good thing to remind Newfoundlanders of that deal, especially within the context of a 'gee isn't it great Quebec has all this power for sale'.
With respect to hydroelectricity, Manitoba and Quebec, they produce a surplus. Let’s build a network that actually connects people together, connects provinces together.
In other words, he wants to tell Manitoba and Quebec where to sell their electricity and presumably at what price. Sort of a 21st century NEP and it would have the same result politically. He had better get the message that this is the sort of thing Quebec voters actually care about, not the Sherbrooke declaration.
It wasn't the innocuousness of this statement that will offend. It was the comment about Quebec producing a surplus of electricity. The reason for that surplus is Churchill Falls, a Newfoundland hydro project which production was sold to Quebec at an extremely low rate, and a contract that had an automatic 25 year renewal after the first 25 years were up. Newfoundland is currently (pun intended) supplying Quebec hydro with electricity at $2 per megawatt hour. The deal runs until 2041, when presumably it will be safe to bring it up in polite conversation.
Quebec makes roughly $1.7 billion per year from the resale of this electricity, while Labrador makes about $63 million. The Newfoundland government has mounted a number of court actions, all to no avail. It's probably not a good thing to remind Newfoundlanders of that deal, especially within the context of a 'gee isn't it great Quebec has all this power for sale'.
To quote myself from the Leap Manifesto thread:
Churchill Falls is 5,428 MW out of Hydro-Québec's 36,912. Three times as much power comes from the James Bay dams.
From cco:
Churchill Falls is 5,428 MW out of Hydro-Québec's 36,912. Three times as much power comes from the James Bay dams.
Be that as it may, it's still true that Newfoundland has tried numerous times to get out of that Quebec contract. It's also true that Quebec exports electricity to the USA, at much higher rates than they're paying for the Churchill Falls imports.
In other words, as I said, in Newfoundland the prospect of further exports of Quebec electricity is not likely to be met with the same kind of 'gee whiz' enthusiasm evinced by Singh.
This just in - widow of MP Arnold Chan has decided to run for his vacant seat. Since it will be a landslide for her (running against the widow) it would make no sense for Jagmeet to run there.
Jean Yip isn't necessarily guaranteed to win Scarborough—Agincourt in a landslide.
She will probably have the edge, but remember that the Conservatives finished a respectable 2nd in 2015 with 38% of the vote to Chan's 52%.
Since that time, Liberal numbers have dropped in Ontario, so it will be possible for the Conservatives to close the gap.
The United Conservative Party of Alberta's approach to a new leader:
A United Conservative Party MLA in Calgary is resigning his seat Nov. 1 to allow new party leader Jason Kenney to run for a seat in the Alberta legislature.
Dave Rodney, the MLA for Calgary-Lougheed, made the announcement with Kenney by his side in Calgary Sunday...
...Rodney said it was important to get Kenney into the legislature.
"It's an opportunity for our friends and neighbours to witness Mr. Kenney in action in the legislature as he brings his incredible vision as the intrepid leader of our exciting new United Conservative movement," he said.
Opinions vary, but mine is that this is a good way to introduce a new leader.
Having Singh roaming around making anodyne statements when he could be in the Commons attacking the Liberals is a poor strategy in my opinion.
Opinions vary, but mine is that this is a good way to introduce a new leader.
Yes, well.
1. fun for all, if it backfires and they lose the seat!
2. so much for all those constituents who chose Rodney. He serves a different master.
3. nothing like an unnecessary byelection to show that you're the fiscally responsible choice.
4. what's for everyone to "witness"? -- didn't everyone see Kenney in the halls of government already?
Opinions vary, but mine is that this is a good way to introduce a new leader.Yes, well.
1. fun for all, if it backfires and they lose the seat!
2. so much for all those constituents who chose Rodney. He serves a different master.
3. nothing like an unnecessary byelection to show that you're the fiscally responsible choice.
4. what's for everyone to "witness"? -- didn't everyone see Kenney in the halls of government already?
Magoo:
Well, I think this is the standard way for party leaders to get into the legislature when they didn't run in the last general. I can understand some of your objections, but I think for the most part, they're pretty academic, in terms of how much backlash is likely to be prompted from the electorate.
If the voters in Calgary Whatever think it's a betrayal of the UCP fiscal ethos to run an "unneccesary" by-election, they're free to vote against Kenney and in favour of whatever party they think is more fiscally responsible. As for everyone having already seen Kenney in action federally, well, you can't neccessarily extrapolate one tier of goveremnt to another. In Edmonton as opposition leader, Kenney would be dealing with a lot of different issues and personalities than he was in Ottawa as Minister of Immigration(I think it was).
Well, I think this is the standard way for party leaders to get into the legislature when they didn't run in the last general.
Perhaps! And if so, second only to "running in the next general".
If the voters in Calgary Whatever think it's a betrayal of the UCP fiscal ethos to run an "unneccesary" by-election, they're free to vote against Kenney and in favour of whatever party they think is more fiscally responsible.
I agree. In general, I tend to think of "let the voters decide" to be the least of all evils in most contexts. But I should think it's already a strike against. If the federal Liberal government were to talk about banning homosexuality then we could similarly wait for the electorate to punish them at the polls the next time they could, but I think it's still fair to point out that they wouldn't really be living their (espoused) principles, regardless of how many voters say "no worries".
Opinions vary, but mine is that this is a good way to introduce a new leader.
Having Singh roaming around making anodyne statements when he could be in the Commons attacking the Liberals is a poor strategy in my opinion.
Again since those around Jagmeet Singh plans on lifting Trudeau strategy from 2013, JT wasn't in the HOC that much. And instead toured the country building up the base. And he won a majority.
The CTV Sunday panel discussed the Lac Saint Jean byelection and suggested that Singh is getting overshadowed by Trudeau & Scheer:
From Mighty Middle:
Again since those around Jagmeet Singh plans on lifting Trudeau strategy from 2013, JT wasn't in the HOC that much. And instead toured the country building up the base. And he won a majority.
Trudeau had been an MP for five years before he ran for the Liberal leadership. So when he was out there 'building up the base', he was doing it from a seat in parliament. And 'not that much' is more than 'none'.
From Mr. Magoo:
Yes, well.
1. fun for all, if it backfires and they lose the seat!
2. so much for all those constituents who chose Rodney. He serves a different master.
3. nothing like an unnecessary byelection to show that you're the fiscally responsible choice.
4. what's for everyone to "witness"? -- didn't everyone see Kenney in the halls of government already?
Reply to #1: This is a genuine problem. There's not that many safe NDP seats, and those who have them probably don't want to step down. Amongst possible future governments it's a bit easier in that the MP who retires can be promised some sort of position later on.
Reply to #2: One assumes the voters who chose a member of a particular party would be happy to be the home of that parties leader. That has been more or less the response in the past.
Reply to #3: Byelections happen all the time. In the overall scheme of things it's not a large expense. There are a lot of things that are much more indicative of fiscal irresponsibility.
Reply to #4: What you say is true of Jason Kenny, but it's not true of Jagmeet Singh. Singh was an Ontario MPP, which may make him familiar to Ontarians, but his fame as a legislator wouldn't travel beyond the Ontario borders.
I'll add one thing. The time before the next election. I think if the next election was 6 months down the road, getting right to campaigning, and foregoing a legislative seat is fine. There is a much longer stretch to the next federal election, and having Singh running around the country in campaign mode for such a period will begin to look ridiculous.
However, as the saying goes, a week in politics is a long time, so who knows?
Trudeau had been an MP for five years before he ran for the Liberal leadership. So when he was out there 'building up the base', he was doing it from a seat in parliament. And 'not that much' is more than 'none'.
But Nathan Cullen said
"We were incredibly strong in the House of Commons during the last Parliament, yet not so much out of the bubble," Cullen said. "Our presence on the ground was not as strong as it should have been. And when the election finally came around, that became evident."
Cullen noted that New Democrats were sharply critical of Trudeau, then leader of the third place party, for not "being as present or as strong in the House" as they thought he should have been.
"Voters in the end determined that they had a relationship and understood his policies better than they did ours. So, he's prime minister," Cullen said.
Meanwhile the latest from Jagmeet is that he attended the Bernie Sanders speech on Sunday and posed for selfies
From Mighty Middle:
Cullen noted that New Democrats were sharply critical of Trudeau, then leader of the third place party, for not "being as present or as strong in the House" as they thought he should have been.
If the NDP were critical of Trudeau for not being 'as present or as strong in the House' as he should have been, where are they now with Singh?
If the NDP were critical of Trudeau for not being 'as present or as strong in the House' as he should have been, where are they now with Singh?
Was Trudeau a sitting MP at the time? Was he maybe even PAID to be in the House?
From Mighty Middle:
Cullen noted that New Democrats were sharply critical of Trudeau, then leader of the third place party, for not "being as present or as strong in the House" as they thought he should have been.
If the NDP were critical of Trudeau for not being 'as present or as strong in the House' as he should have been, where are they now with Singh?
Babblers here respond to that by essentially saying "That was then (under Mulcair) this is now (under Singh). We've moved on"
From Mighty Middle:
Cullen noted that New Democrats were sharply critical of Trudeau, then leader of the third place party, for not "being as present or as strong in the House" as they thought he should have been.
If the NDP were critical of Trudeau for not being 'as present or as strong in the House' as he should have been, where are they now with Singh?
Babblers here respond to that by essentially saying "That was then (under Mulcair) this is now (under Singh). We've moved on"
I can see you are being obtuse on purpose here. Since I am one of those you are criticizing, you can at least in your disagreement note that the difference is between a person who had a seat and a constituency expecting him to be there and a person not elected yet.
Since you are not a political guru but instead some partisan pushing your party for online forum, your opinion does not mean anymore than anyone else's -- if that.
So a good strategy may also be for him to fire up the the NDP partisans, fix the NDP internal issue, help put the finances back in order and not get over-exposed for the public until close to the election and be the fresh face then. This period does not matter much. He might be better off putting on a sprint closer to the election -- it may gather some self sustaining momentum that could lead the party to better success than a push now would.
Anyway -- one good bit of advice for the NDP -- listen to the advice from Liberal partisans like Mighty Middle and consider seriously going as fast as you can in the opposite direction.
I can see you are being obtuse on purpose here. Since I am one of those you are criticizing, you can at least in your disagreement note that the difference is between a person who had a seat and a constituency expecting him to be there and a person not elected yet.
Can you show me where I wrote critically of Jagmeet of having a seat vs not having a seat TODAY?
note that the difference is between a person who had a seat and a constituency expecting him to be there and a person not elected yet.
+1
This whole business about how Singh needs to find a riding, convince the NDP MP to step down, and win that seat is what gamers would call a "side quest". A diversion from the real quest, basically.
And I might consider it all differently if my "Spidey-sense" told me there was even a tiny bit of good faith in this, but there's not.
I can see you are being obtuse on purpose here. Since I am one of those you are criticizing, you can at least in your disagreement note that the difference is between a person who had a seat and a constituency expecting him to be there and a person not elected yet.
Can you show me where I wrote critically of Jagmeet of having a seat vs not having a seat TODAY?
You didn't -- you just ignore every person that points out that your comparison of him and Trudeau is invalid as Trudeau was not attending in the House he was elected as MP in, is not the same as Singh not being in the House he is not elected to be in.
your comparison of him and Trudeau is invalid as Trudeau was not attending in the House he was elected as MP in, is not the same as Singh not being in the House he is not elected to be in.
Where did I say that TODAY?
Can you show me where I wrote critically of Jagmeet of having a seat vs not having a seat TODAY?
Should I put a big red "X" on my calendar for TODAY because you're going to stop posting in bad faith TODAY?
Red marker out, cap off....
Can you show me where I wrote critically of Jagmeet of having a seat vs not having a seat TODAY?Should I put a big red "X" on my calendar for TODAY because you're going to stop posting in bad faith TODAY?
Red marker out, cap off....
No I'd just like Sean to show me where he says I was making an invalid comparison (Today) between Trudeau & Jagmeet.
Can you show me where I wrote critically of Jagmeet of having a seat vs not having a seat TODAY?Should I put a big red "X" on my calendar for TODAY because you're going to stop posting in bad faith TODAY?
Red marker out, cap off....
No I'd just like Sean to show me where he says I was making an invalid comparison (Today) between Trudeau & Jagmeet.
Hey, show me where I said you were making an invalid comparison-- in the last five minutes. I know I said that more than 5 minutes ago.
And your invalid comparison was more than a day ago -- although you have a habit of flogging that horse often.
And your invalid comparison was more than a day ago -- although you have a habit of flogging that horse often.
So you are basically attacking me for something I didn't write today, but something I might have written previously. Like last week.
Do I have that right?
And you are saying I'm the one that is flogging a horse?
So if that is the case please show me where I made an invalid comparison between Trudeau and Jagmeet anywhere & anytime. Remember you are the one that came after me first.
And your invalid comparison was more than a day ago -- although you have a habit of flogging that horse often.
So you are basically attacking me for something I didn't write today, but something I might have written previously. Like last week.
Do I have that right?
And you are saying I'm the one that is flogging a horse?
So if that is the case please show me where I made an invalid comparison between Trudeau and Jagmeet anywhere & anytime. Remember you are the one that came after me first.
I don't even watch good movies a second time.
I don't even watch good movies a second time.
But you are the one that came after me and I didn't even write anything today that would warrant that. And according to your logic just because I wrote something last week, that justifies you to come after me for a week's old post!
So again what did I wrote today that would warrant you taking me to task. Or is it that all past statements from all posters are fair game?
I was responding to your post #236 which was written today. Or to put it your way: "TODAY."
Which was a continuation of you beating that dead horse which has long since decomposed and the bones are now dust -- and yet you rattle on about it. Here you are being Mr. Annoying Man trying to draw some kind of distinction between what was said today -- and yet you kept this going only 5 hours ago.
So you are saying I was "asking" for it, ok got it.
I think the discussion is getting a bit off track when people compare what Trudeau did in the House several years ago compared to what Singh is doing now.
The main issue facing Singh is to decide whether having a seat before 2019 would be an advantage and whether it is a disadvantage to be left out of some of the debates happening in Parliament between Trudeau & Scheer.
As I posted above, the CTV Sunday panel thinks Singh is getting left out right now because he doesn't have a seat in the House.
As I posted above, the CTV Sunday panel thinks Singh is getting left out right now because he doesn't have a seat in the House.
But there have been other politcal panels I've seen where the majority have said it is a better use of Jagmeet's time to tour the country and engage with the grassroots.
