Recovering backpacker, Cornwallite at heart, political enthusiast, catalyst, writer, husband, father, community volunteer, unabashedly proud Canadian.
Every hyperlink connects to something related directly or thematically to that which is highlighted.
Trump's clearly seeing that the tea leaves aren't reading in his favour. Despite all his talk about winning so much, he could very well be about to lose big.
So, he's framing. If he loses, it won't be that the American people rejected him, but that the election was rigged. How else could he lose when he's clearly the best, smartest, longest-fingered dude with the most sacrifice/success/hot women on the planet?
It's his victory, period - and if he doesn't win, well, someone had to have taken that victory from him, right?
So here's the big concern that has to be on Homeland Security's mind. Let's say Trump tells his supporters that the election was stolen from him using some of the rhetoric he's used in the past. Maybe he doesn't tell them to fight back against the system and put him in power - but maybe he just says some things that, when each word is connected to the next, kind of insinuate that.
Trump has a lot of angry, gun-owning people in his base. There are white supremacists and other bigots who see this as their moment and might be just as angry to see it taken from them.
How many people care or think at all about "what kind of person they want to be" vs what they want to have?
The number one piece of advice given to people looking for work or starting a new business or whatever is "find your value proposition, target market and sell, sell, sell." I see this all the time - people develop their narrative, build brand, and then spend the rest of their work lives selling the same thing over and over, with as little variance as possible so as to minimize effort/maximize profit.
The goal is to get - money, property, status, position, etc. The "kind of person they want to be" is the one that has enough of that stuff, or more than the next person.
And so we fight change. We fight changes to the social models that help us get what we want - or, if we're in the growing "can't access" column, we fight against that status quo with increasing tenacity and aggressive tactics.
When it's at the societal level, though, it's about more than just discomfort and "being what we want to be" - it's about sustainability.
Nobody wants to look at this picture from a systems level, though. It's too hard and too boring to weigh multiple factors, perspectives and temporal pieces all together.
Complexity makes us uncomfortable, don't you know.
Why on earth would swim times matter? Why would anything about the rapist matter?
Swim times are a measurement of performance, of individual, competitive success. This is what we judge people by - their ability to perform, to compete, to get ahead of others.
This is the kind of success we say matters. It's the kind of success we encourage. Work hard, train hard, fight hard, know what you want and get it. Get to yes, always be closing. If you're not tough enough, aggressive enough, then you are a failure. No one wants to hire you. No one wants to care about you.
It's the lesson everyone who puts people before profit gets told, again and again and again. You don't make money because you don't demand it. You're not selling yourself enough, you're not pushing hard enough.
Your swimming times aren't fast enough for anyone to care about you, and that's all they care about - not what you do, what you're willing and able to do to succeed.
Of course, this doesn't mean rape. Apples and oranges, right? Rape might be about power and dominance, about aggressively asserting yourself over someone else and taking what you want, but that's not the self-first, sell-hard, always-be-closing lessons meant to be about.
Yet the swim times get mentioned, don't they? They always do.
It's a bit like getting mad about war, but selling weapons anyway. Clearly, the provision of weapons is in no way shape or form connected to the use of weapons, right?
Settlement services in Canada are great. Just ask them. The policy and plans that guide them are equally perfect - just ask the government.
The risk of this happening is clearly not evident in this. That's stretching things.
Besides, everyone is doing research - the lay of the land is clear, thank you very much. Methodologies aren't broken, or people wouldn't keep using them.
To this point Mark expressed
concern that CIC lacked transparency in these decisions and implemented the caps on
sponsorship with little consultation with the individuals and groups the decisions would impact.