HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Bernardo de La Paz » Journal
Page: 1

Bernardo de La Paz

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Jul 16, 2004, 11:36 PM
Number of posts: 34,749

About Me

Canadian who lived for many years in Northern California and left a bit of my heart there.

Journal Archives

Trump better watch out. He'll end up like Senator Brazeau who got PULPED

Six years ago, March 2012, Justin Trudeau handily defeated Senator Brazeau in a boxing match.

Five Years Ago Today, Justin Trudeau Beat the Shit Out of a Senator
March 31, 2017

That's right, non-Canadian readership, five years ago today, then-Liberal MP Justin Trudeau clobbered Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau in a charity boxing match that put the victor on the path to the prime minister's office and left the loser's career in tatters.

At the time, the perception of Trudeau, the eldest son of Canada's most charismatic but divisive prime minister, was that he was a bit of a lightweight. OK, that perception still largely exists in some circles, but dude was really just a famous mid-level player in Canada's third-ranking political party in early 2012. Compared to the solidly entrenched then-prime minister Stephen Harper or the recently-deceased Jack Layton, Trudeau was neither nationally beloved nor taken seriously as a political player.


Trudeau, basically a 6'2 beanpole, wasn't given much of a puncher's shot at beating Brazeau, who was a couple inches shorter, but heavier, barrel-chested and as the Sun News commentary team pointed out, more "tatted."

"I think he's been in more fights in a month than Trudeau has been in a life," future Rebel Commander Ezra Levant (who draws heavily from the Jerry Lawler school of commentary) said as Brazeau made his way to the ring. (Surely, I don't need to make mention that there's a problematic assumption there from Mr. Levant, whose co-commenter also adds the Algonquin senator comes from a "tougher neighbourhood" than Trudeau.)


The fight ended moments later, with the ref calling it as Brazeau—nose bleeding/legs weak/mom's spaghetti—was completely unable to defend himself any longer. "Not even close," a clearly bummed out Levant said.

So, that's the time Justin Trudeau beat the shit out of a senator. Six months later, Trudeau announced he was running for Liberal leadership, and three and-a-half years later, he beat the shit out of Stephen Harper at the polls, took over the prime minister's office, and stole the world's heart with his mighty handshake.


The car door opens. This is it. It's go time. Trudeau steps out of the car and glides into Trump's outstretched hand. He quickly braces himself on the president's shoulder, establishing an indomitable centre of gravity. He is going fucking Super Saiyan on this handshake. But Trump will not be deterred. He ratchets up the pressure and tries to pull this punk kid in. There is a tug of war. Trudeau is not moving. His hand is too strong. Their forearms are jerking around with electrical power and neither of them were ready for this to happen.

He can barely believe it himself and he has to look down at his own hands to make sure that this is really happening that, yes, he is not broken. He raises his head again to meet Trump's gaze with blazing eyes that scream SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS but also AINSI TOUJOURS AUX TYRANS because bilingualism. Utterly destroyed but wanting to be cool about it, Trump gestures at the cameras before leading Justin into his den of lies. He cannot hide the look of absolute mystification on his face.


Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Thu Mar 22, 2018, 08:15 AM (2 replies)

Wrong wrong wrong.

The most charitable view of your statement is that it suffers from binary thinking tunnel vision.

It is a narrow-minded fallacy to think that capitalism can only be parasitical. Robber baron capitalism is parasitical. The tremendous wealth & income inequality we have in the US and some other countries now (getting worse) is parasitical and unsustainable. The US system is not the only system of capitalism in the world.

Capitalism is very efficient at creating jobs and employing people and advancing many aspects of society. Capitalism is very efficient at distributing goods and resources to where they are needed. Command economies fail. Communism fails since "from each according to ability and to each according to need" fails to provide adequate incentives for advancement.

DU is capitalist (private and owned) and employs several people. It is good.

The problem with capitalism-on-steroids is that it over-rewards the top 1% and 0.01%, people who don't need extra incentive, at the expense of the bottom 47% who are people who need support and incentives. Therefore capitalism must be well-regulated, well-monitored, subject to progressive social goals, and operating under progressive tax regimes. Byzantine tax systems need to be truly simplified by turning amorphous invisible tax breaks into publicly visible subsidies.

On the side of socialism, more and more studies are showing that if you provide people with guaranteed housing, guaranteed basic income, and guaranteed health care, then the outcome actually saves money and makes the society much more productive and harmonious. People with an address (not homeless) are much more likely to find work. People use less emergency services. There is a reduction in the cost of policy and a reduction in crime (poor/homeless people are also likely to be victims of crime). People have better health and that means there is less drag on the economy for health care and they are more productive and more able to help each other (the elderly and disabled for example). Note: guaranteed basic income subsumes social security and welfare.

Pure systems of any kind are bad, be it capitalism (robber baron capitalism), socialism (communism when purest), fascism (corporate-statist-bureaucratic elitism), dictatorship (of despots or proletariat or peasants or monarchs or whatever) or anarchism (dog eat dog).

A hybrid of capitalism and socialism is the only way to go. At least until humanity is so highly developed that something approaching nearly pure enlightened self-interest is feasible (community and socially and globally connected).

When all is said, Stephen Hawking's point about the distribution of benefits is very much correct.
Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Fri Mar 16, 2018, 10:09 AM (1 replies)

Wilbur Ross used deceitful deceptive argument to defend Trump Tariff

CommSec Ross said there are 2/10 cent steel in a soup can and 3/10 cent aluminum in a coke can.

“All this hysteria is a lot to do about nothing,” he said. The cost of items such as Campbell’s Soup cans and Coke cans will increase by less than a cent, he added.

The cost of the can won't change much, but the PRICE on the shelf will go up noticeably.

The machinery that makes the cans and fills them will cost more. The machinery that prints the labels will cost more.

The farm machinery that plants and harvests the food materials will cost more.

The trucks that move the cans will cost more because of steel costs.

The tools that fix all that machinery will cost more.

The steel shelves will cost more.

The steel in the construction of the packing houses, the food factories, the distribution warehouses, and the supermarkets will cost more.

By time you dial in all the costs going into the products and getting them through the manufacturing and supply chains, the PRICE will add up because it is multiplicative, not merely additive. When the food is more expensive to produce, the food cost goes up which raises the cost from the food factory to the distributor by a percentage because it costs and prices and profits are calculated on dollar volumes, not unit counts. The cost to the retailer goes up when the distributor raises prices.

Until proven otherwise, we have to take the position that Ross knows this and was deceiving the public and using the taxpayers' dimes to do so while being paid salary.

Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Fri Mar 2, 2018, 10:44 PM (1 replies)
Go to Page: 1