Calling Mark Carney a banker is like calling a brain surgeon a man with a knife: A Second Sort Through The Most Outrageous Things Seemingly Sensible People Are Repeating About Mark Carney
A really brilliant and insightful piece. Thank you for this. In an era when trusting the opinions of our fellow humans is difficult at best (and trusting political and public figures is nearly impossible) this is a great argument for showing patience and compassion for the actions of others and taking the time to try to understand their intentions.
Its disaster management time where Canadians have no real choice. Carney may be a disaster, but Poilievre is a replete disaster. Politicians on both sides of the border have reduced themselves to declasse parasitic morons.
What a fatuous collection of pro-Carney, anti-Conservative propaganda, doing your best to excuse Carney's fraudulence: from lying about his involvement in the movement of the corporate offices of the investment firm Brookfield Management from Canada to the USA, to his long-time support for consumer carbon taxes that he now denies, to his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that he refuses to discuss (https://x.com/Additives_ca/status/1904182946925621465), to his refusal to tell Canadians what his personal wealth is invested in so that we'd know where there could be conflicts of interest with him as Prime Minister (https://x.com/MikeBarrettON/status/1904322723267989604).
I don’t know, man. I’ve never once been accused of being anti-conservative—unless ‘anti-conservative’ now means questioning any individual Conservative. I’m a lifelong Progressive Conservative, and probably getting more so every year. Few would question my bona fides on this count.
I’ve written extensively, with sources, on most of what you mention here—so either you didn’t read it, or you’re not really here for a discussion.
But let me say this: I think people follow The Bee because they’re tired of propaganda—left or right. They want reason, not rage. They want facts, not fealty.
If Mark Carney has real skeletons in the closet, I’ll be the first to help open the door. But shouting ‘traitor’ doesn’t make someone guilty, and partisan loyalty isn’t a substitute for proof.
So I’ll keep asking questions, expecting better answers—from every party—and treating readers like grown-ups who are here for disinterested and convivial conversation, not to have bombs dropped on them.
I hope you continue to read and follow along. I'm positive that even looking over my MANY pro-Progressive Conservative posts, you would take a more broad view of this. I you do.
After reading your very well written and thought provoking post, I am wondering if perhaps I have seen too many anti-PP memes and commercials to make a sound judgement for or against him.
Nah, just kidding. Elbows Up and Mark Carney all the way!
Thanks, I have been thinking about this today. I wonder if I took the time and care to find a more careful reading of some of the "Pierre Polievre is the worst person ever" claims on Reddit if folks would take the time to read and be as supportive. I probably should give it a try to see what happens.
I mean, we now live in a world where fake pictures and even fake (short) movies can be made almost perfectly in seconds, and this is considered a feature!? Even our shiny new brains (AI) confabulate (lie) to us based on what they think we want to hear. Never mind the bad actors, sometimes other countries, sometimes just good old fashioned spin doctors living here who pollute the media in order to advance an agenda.
The problem with democracy is that it requires the people participating in it to have at least good information in order for them to choose good paths forward (or 'least bad' paths anyway). It doesn't work very well when the information you have is just marketing. It's even worse when it's all fake. Case in point, the whole Brexit fiasco. It was sold on the basis of bad information that the sellers KNEW was bad for the UK as whole, but probably good for them personally.
Bring back the public stockade and allow people to throw rotten cabbage at the miscreants! (Given the price I don't think they deserve eggs).
Well, I certainly don't feel as dispairing or as punitive as this note. But I do think that the crucial skill for the coming age — much like it was for the advertising age 100 years ago — is to have some sort of critical method to decide who and what to believe and to what degree, with abandoning belief altogether.
Yes, I know all that. The point is, it's now very easy to make a very convincing photo. It used to take skill, time and often some sort of proprietary software (or in the olden days a light table or something like that). No it's included on your phone for free and all you need is a few voice prompts. That's not "fake news" it fake "reality." I actually have 3 friends now with either their heads or their bodies swapped in with porn stars on various apps or social media masquerading as someone else. On one of them you can tell, on the other two, not so much! It's disconcerting, to say the least, when one of your friends shares "your" new profile with you.
Anyway, my point is: how do you decide what's real when you literally can't depend on certain previous bedrocks of reality?The sand has shifted under our feet and today's "news" stands on an avalanche of fake.
Fair, but even people who try and teach these skills (like my Sister in her university classes) run into kids who a) never learned them in grade school or high school and b) the level of skill that exists in today's fakes (ChatGPT written essays to photos) is so good it's nearly impossible to tell without specialized software and even then it's often a toss up. There are programs that will "watermark" content but it's unclear if that can be removed or not. Almost half of my Sis's students tried to pass off a fully or partially AI written paper this year. I assume this is true of other schools. The other part is that kids are so fearful of interaction now that they don't want to ask questions. This is a common trend after Covid so it remains to be seen if that is just unprocessed trauma or if it's a new trend.
The only reason I'm punitive is that punishment also played a role in calling people liars. It used to be a social punishment when a community (or even just a single family) figured out they were being lied to and ostracized the person or just tut-tutted in their hearing. Social stigma plays a big role in shaping social behaviour, not just social approval. Online sources are by and large anonymous or easily spoofed. What mechanism would you recommend to produce both a reward for good information and a punishment for bad information?
John Wesley, again you have nailed the truth to the wall. Thank you for addressing this disease. I am still waiting for someone to threaten and pursue lawsuit. I think of how many of us could have our personal and business reputations destroyed if we were attcked in these ways. There is a medication available and it's called the truth but some patients just refuse to take their meds.
I like your grandmother! Very topical on the day, March 24, the raging grannies will be protesting the foxes outside every US consulate in Canada - including Halifax. 4-8 pm.
I grew up in a world of strong women who ran tight households. It's a life I would highly recommend for all boys and young men. ... old men too! No confusion about where things stood or what was expected of you. Makes for a good life.
Ive done my research, Mark Carney warned the UK about Brexit and everyone got pissed at him and smeared him in the media, but guess what? He was right.
No, he wasn't. He was completely wrong. He predicted that if Britain were to leave the EU that it would be a disaster for Britain; that the enormous financial services industry in the City of London would leave for the continent. Neither of these predictions came true. The UK has serious economic issues, but then so does the EU, which is a sinking ship from which the UK was wise to leave while it still could. Carney was either lying in order to convince the Brits to vote against Brexit, or his much vaunted banking expertise is far more fallible than he (and his fans) would like to admit.
A really brilliant and insightful piece. Thank you for this. In an era when trusting the opinions of our fellow humans is difficult at best (and trusting political and public figures is nearly impossible) this is a great argument for showing patience and compassion for the actions of others and taking the time to try to understand their intentions.
Its disaster management time where Canadians have no real choice. Carney may be a disaster, but Poilievre is a replete disaster. Politicians on both sides of the border have reduced themselves to declasse parasitic morons.
What a fatuous collection of pro-Carney, anti-Conservative propaganda, doing your best to excuse Carney's fraudulence: from lying about his involvement in the movement of the corporate offices of the investment firm Brookfield Management from Canada to the USA, to his long-time support for consumer carbon taxes that he now denies, to his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that he refuses to discuss (https://x.com/Additives_ca/status/1904182946925621465), to his refusal to tell Canadians what his personal wealth is invested in so that we'd know where there could be conflicts of interest with him as Prime Minister (https://x.com/MikeBarrettON/status/1904322723267989604).
I don’t know, man. I’ve never once been accused of being anti-conservative—unless ‘anti-conservative’ now means questioning any individual Conservative. I’m a lifelong Progressive Conservative, and probably getting more so every year. Few would question my bona fides on this count.
I’ve written extensively, with sources, on most of what you mention here—so either you didn’t read it, or you’re not really here for a discussion.
But let me say this: I think people follow The Bee because they’re tired of propaganda—left or right. They want reason, not rage. They want facts, not fealty.
If Mark Carney has real skeletons in the closet, I’ll be the first to help open the door. But shouting ‘traitor’ doesn’t make someone guilty, and partisan loyalty isn’t a substitute for proof.
So I’ll keep asking questions, expecting better answers—from every party—and treating readers like grown-ups who are here for disinterested and convivial conversation, not to have bombs dropped on them.
I hope you continue to read and follow along. I'm positive that even looking over my MANY pro-Progressive Conservative posts, you would take a more broad view of this. I you do.
After reading your very well written and thought provoking post, I am wondering if perhaps I have seen too many anti-PP memes and commercials to make a sound judgement for or against him.
Nah, just kidding. Elbows Up and Mark Carney all the way!
Thanks, I have been thinking about this today. I wonder if I took the time and care to find a more careful reading of some of the "Pierre Polievre is the worst person ever" claims on Reddit if folks would take the time to read and be as supportive. I probably should give it a try to see what happens.
I mean, we now live in a world where fake pictures and even fake (short) movies can be made almost perfectly in seconds, and this is considered a feature!? Even our shiny new brains (AI) confabulate (lie) to us based on what they think we want to hear. Never mind the bad actors, sometimes other countries, sometimes just good old fashioned spin doctors living here who pollute the media in order to advance an agenda.
The problem with democracy is that it requires the people participating in it to have at least good information in order for them to choose good paths forward (or 'least bad' paths anyway). It doesn't work very well when the information you have is just marketing. It's even worse when it's all fake. Case in point, the whole Brexit fiasco. It was sold on the basis of bad information that the sellers KNEW was bad for the UK as whole, but probably good for them personally.
Bring back the public stockade and allow people to throw rotten cabbage at the miscreants! (Given the price I don't think they deserve eggs).
Well, I certainly don't feel as dispairing or as punitive as this note. But I do think that the crucial skill for the coming age — much like it was for the advertising age 100 years ago — is to have some sort of critical method to decide who and what to believe and to what degree, with abandoning belief altogether.
Here's an article from a few months ago by photography/imaging specialists.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/22/24225972/ai-photo-era-what-is-reality-google-pixel-9
Forget fake news. Fake photos started the same day photography was invented and were central to photography's early era and development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph_manipulation
Yes, I know all that. The point is, it's now very easy to make a very convincing photo. It used to take skill, time and often some sort of proprietary software (or in the olden days a light table or something like that). No it's included on your phone for free and all you need is a few voice prompts. That's not "fake news" it fake "reality." I actually have 3 friends now with either their heads or their bodies swapped in with porn stars on various apps or social media masquerading as someone else. On one of them you can tell, on the other two, not so much! It's disconcerting, to say the least, when one of your friends shares "your" new profile with you.
Anyway, my point is: how do you decide what's real when you literally can't depend on certain previous bedrocks of reality?The sand has shifted under our feet and today's "news" stands on an avalanche of fake.
Fair, but even people who try and teach these skills (like my Sister in her university classes) run into kids who a) never learned them in grade school or high school and b) the level of skill that exists in today's fakes (ChatGPT written essays to photos) is so good it's nearly impossible to tell without specialized software and even then it's often a toss up. There are programs that will "watermark" content but it's unclear if that can be removed or not. Almost half of my Sis's students tried to pass off a fully or partially AI written paper this year. I assume this is true of other schools. The other part is that kids are so fearful of interaction now that they don't want to ask questions. This is a common trend after Covid so it remains to be seen if that is just unprocessed trauma or if it's a new trend.
The only reason I'm punitive is that punishment also played a role in calling people liars. It used to be a social punishment when a community (or even just a single family) figured out they were being lied to and ostracized the person or just tut-tutted in their hearing. Social stigma plays a big role in shaping social behaviour, not just social approval. Online sources are by and large anonymous or easily spoofed. What mechanism would you recommend to produce both a reward for good information and a punishment for bad information?
John Wesley, again you have nailed the truth to the wall. Thank you for addressing this disease. I am still waiting for someone to threaten and pursue lawsuit. I think of how many of us could have our personal and business reputations destroyed if we were attcked in these ways. There is a medication available and it's called the truth but some patients just refuse to take their meds.
I like your grandmother! Very topical on the day, March 24, the raging grannies will be protesting the foxes outside every US consulate in Canada - including Halifax. 4-8 pm.
I grew up in a world of strong women who ran tight households. It's a life I would highly recommend for all boys and young men. ... old men too! No confusion about where things stood or what was expected of you. Makes for a good life.
Ive done my research, Mark Carney warned the UK about Brexit and everyone got pissed at him and smeared him in the media, but guess what? He was right.
No, he wasn't. He was completely wrong. He predicted that if Britain were to leave the EU that it would be a disaster for Britain; that the enormous financial services industry in the City of London would leave for the continent. Neither of these predictions came true. The UK has serious economic issues, but then so does the EU, which is a sinking ship from which the UK was wise to leave while it still could. Carney was either lying in order to convince the Brits to vote against Brexit, or his much vaunted banking expertise is far more fallible than he (and his fans) would like to admit.