Bernie Hendriks
@berniehendriks.bsky.social
Husband, dad, tax lawyer, Canadian, big football fan. Not my real name, opinions my own.
Not sure if it counts, but I loved The Splendid and the Vile.
November 20, 2025 at 4:37 PM
Not sure if it counts, but I loved The Splendid and the Vile.
and having worked in (Canadian) government there really is a lot of byzantine regulation that doesn't come from industry but instead from well meaning regulations (in my experience, privacy and corruption were the big ones) that don't really prioritize getting things actually done.
November 19, 2025 at 4:26 PM
and having worked in (Canadian) government there really is a lot of byzantine regulation that doesn't come from industry but instead from well meaning regulations (in my experience, privacy and corruption were the big ones) that don't really prioritize getting things actually done.
I don't want to pick a fight, but I think a more charitable read would be "if you want people to believe that government can solve problems, people need to see that it". I think that's fair. When I talk to apolitical normie people, the sense that government are hapless boobs is ubiquitous.
November 19, 2025 at 4:25 PM
I don't want to pick a fight, but I think a more charitable read would be "if you want people to believe that government can solve problems, people need to see that it". I think that's fair. When I talk to apolitical normie people, the sense that government are hapless boobs is ubiquitous.
It's Pilgrim Kobe, no contest:
November 18, 2025 at 4:55 PM
It's Pilgrim Kobe, no contest:
The economic logic of comparative advantage (it's efficient if the best people at x do x) and the moral logic of meritocracy (you reap what you sow) get blended into a moral sludge where dessert and efficiency get combined. If anybody divides the two, very inconvenient structures become obvious.
November 15, 2025 at 5:58 PM
The economic logic of comparative advantage (it's efficient if the best people at x do x) and the moral logic of meritocracy (you reap what you sow) get blended into a moral sludge where dessert and efficiency get combined. If anybody divides the two, very inconvenient structures become obvious.
With Kill Tony, it feels like they're in this cloying cringey pleading position.
"What if people thought we were smart and funny, wouldn't that rule? Would lots of money make it so?"
Obviously, actual smart and funny people react instinctively negatively (Gillis, Maron, Jeselnik).
"What if people thought we were smart and funny, wouldn't that rule? Would lots of money make it so?"
Obviously, actual smart and funny people react instinctively negatively (Gillis, Maron, Jeselnik).
November 14, 2025 at 3:56 PM
With Kill Tony, it feels like they're in this cloying cringey pleading position.
"What if people thought we were smart and funny, wouldn't that rule? Would lots of money make it so?"
Obviously, actual smart and funny people react instinctively negatively (Gillis, Maron, Jeselnik).
"What if people thought we were smart and funny, wouldn't that rule? Would lots of money make it so?"
Obviously, actual smart and funny people react instinctively negatively (Gillis, Maron, Jeselnik).
Like, Nanette is way better than Kill Tony, but it seems like there was a similar push towards "this is important, and we ought to support it" that went beyond the quality (it was good).
Like "Gutfeld" is ass, but it succeeds due to a distinct urge for something like it to come about and be good.
Like "Gutfeld" is ass, but it succeeds due to a distinct urge for something like it to come about and be good.
November 14, 2025 at 3:45 PM
Like, Nanette is way better than Kill Tony, but it seems like there was a similar push towards "this is important, and we ought to support it" that went beyond the quality (it was good).
Like "Gutfeld" is ass, but it succeeds due to a distinct urge for something like it to come about and be good.
Like "Gutfeld" is ass, but it succeeds due to a distinct urge for something like it to come about and be good.
This isn't a fully formed thought, but I think there's a funny similarity between reactionary attempts at art/academics (Christian movies, the Roseanne show, Kill Tony, Jordan Peterson), and indie media produced by marginalized communities.
The actual quality seems kind of secondary to the attaboys
The actual quality seems kind of secondary to the attaboys
November 14, 2025 at 3:42 PM
This isn't a fully formed thought, but I think there's a funny similarity between reactionary attempts at art/academics (Christian movies, the Roseanne show, Kill Tony, Jordan Peterson), and indie media produced by marginalized communities.
The actual quality seems kind of secondary to the attaboys
The actual quality seems kind of secondary to the attaboys
Just wait till you see 500 internet randos breathlessly break down that email using a dozen layers of esoteric symbolism, numerology and the original ENIAC to decode it, to find out that it actually says "World's most famous pedo here, the president diddles kids".
November 13, 2025 at 6:44 PM
Just wait till you see 500 internet randos breathlessly break down that email using a dozen layers of esoteric symbolism, numerology and the original ENIAC to decode it, to find out that it actually says "World's most famous pedo here, the president diddles kids".
The article was pretty sleazy. It leads with a headline that blends two subjects to make an inappropriate connection (Fairer would be "It's up to US Courts to determine if the US Military violated international law"), and it includes weird details like the menu at a winery to paint a malign picture
November 13, 2025 at 6:11 PM
The article was pretty sleazy. It leads with a headline that blends two subjects to make an inappropriate connection (Fairer would be "It's up to US Courts to determine if the US Military violated international law"), and it includes weird details like the menu at a winery to paint a malign picture
I mean, I suspect the best she could have done here was to seriously harm Canadians by provoking some kind of petulant tariff retaliation, and it wouldn't have saved a single person. She's correct that the only potential check on this lawlessness is going to come from US courts. Cynical? Sure.
November 13, 2025 at 6:07 PM
I mean, I suspect the best she could have done here was to seriously harm Canadians by provoking some kind of petulant tariff retaliation, and it wouldn't have saved a single person. She's correct that the only potential check on this lawlessness is going to come from US courts. Cynical? Sure.
Why does this article have a full (long) paragraph description of the menu at some winery? Just a bizarre choice that lends the whole piece a conspiratorial air.
November 13, 2025 at 5:57 PM
Why does this article have a full (long) paragraph description of the menu at some winery? Just a bizarre choice that lends the whole piece a conspiratorial air.
I agree. IMO the party is the deciding factor for the vast majority of voters, but that logic leads to PR, and under PR the CPC would never win and the LPC would always have to negotiate, so neither wants to pull on that thread.
I also agree that the existing system has mostly worked fine.
I also agree that the existing system has mostly worked fine.
November 12, 2025 at 3:10 PM
I agree. IMO the party is the deciding factor for the vast majority of voters, but that logic leads to PR, and under PR the CPC would never win and the LPC would always have to negotiate, so neither wants to pull on that thread.
I also agree that the existing system has mostly worked fine.
I also agree that the existing system has mostly worked fine.
Same goes for the LPC, who would rather have near total power around half the time than have to constantly negotiate with lefties who they view as almost exactly as annoying as the Conservatives.
November 12, 2025 at 2:55 PM
Same goes for the LPC, who would rather have near total power around half the time than have to constantly negotiate with lefties who they view as almost exactly as annoying as the Conservatives.
I think the CPC would never oppose this in practice because the logic underlying floor crossing ("we vote for people not parties") is also the key plank that supports the FPTP electoral system, and without that system they'd never hold any serious power in a country as progressive as Canada.
November 12, 2025 at 2:48 PM
I think the CPC would never oppose this in practice because the logic underlying floor crossing ("we vote for people not parties") is also the key plank that supports the FPTP electoral system, and without that system they'd never hold any serious power in a country as progressive as Canada.
I got into an argument with a couple prominent Can. politics commentators on this point, and IMO the FPTP system requires either floor crossings or against- party-votes to be rhetorically justified. If we're going to maintain this system, the individual rep has to matter.
November 12, 2025 at 3:00 AM
I got into an argument with a couple prominent Can. politics commentators on this point, and IMO the FPTP system requires either floor crossings or against- party-votes to be rhetorically justified. If we're going to maintain this system, the individual rep has to matter.
Not for nothing, he also plainly doesn't parent any of his numerous children. It is bizarre to me that this isn't more of a public source of shame. We would absolutely shame almost any other man who showed that degree of open negligence to his fatherhood responsibilities.
November 11, 2025 at 3:05 PM
Not for nothing, he also plainly doesn't parent any of his numerous children. It is bizarre to me that this isn't more of a public source of shame. We would absolutely shame almost any other man who showed that degree of open negligence to his fatherhood responsibilities.
The opposition to this point is broadly an argument that overt Nazism is more palatable than social democracy to American primary voters, and if you believe that, sheesh that is bleak.
November 10, 2025 at 8:55 PM
The opposition to this point is broadly an argument that overt Nazism is more palatable than social democracy to American primary voters, and if you believe that, sheesh that is bleak.
And like, you are trying to hold them accountable here, but the dudes with the microphones have a very small group of people whose opinions they care about, and those people own TV networks and like low taxes a lot.
November 10, 2025 at 3:03 PM
And like, you are trying to hold them accountable here, but the dudes with the microphones have a very small group of people whose opinions they care about, and those people own TV networks and like low taxes a lot.
I think the central question is which of the following seems more likely:
1) Anybody holds these organizations materially accountable for fluffing this dude, or;
2) This dude becomes a dictator and having publicly criticized him on TV becomes materially dangerous.
1) Anybody holds these organizations materially accountable for fluffing this dude, or;
2) This dude becomes a dictator and having publicly criticized him on TV becomes materially dangerous.
November 10, 2025 at 3:01 PM
I think the central question is which of the following seems more likely:
1) Anybody holds these organizations materially accountable for fluffing this dude, or;
2) This dude becomes a dictator and having publicly criticized him on TV becomes materially dangerous.
1) Anybody holds these organizations materially accountable for fluffing this dude, or;
2) This dude becomes a dictator and having publicly criticized him on TV becomes materially dangerous.
You compare most trades to Herschel Walker, you compare that one to the Louisiana Purchase.
November 6, 2025 at 10:17 PM
You compare most trades to Herschel Walker, you compare that one to the Louisiana Purchase.