https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
there's actually no reason that you couldn't have a 20th note, you just couldn't express it in terms of quarter notes because you get an infinite series. it's convergent. but it doesn't help the notation.
you couldn't count it, but you could feel it.
i flipped my fraction over and thought i had an answer (i do this, flip the fraction over, to myself all the time), because i'm actually used to dealing with these kinds of weird conversions as a relic of writing drum sequences in a scorewriter. there's lots of ways to convert weird signatures. the series just has to terminate. it doesn't here, but that's just bad luck.
if you split the bar into five equal temporal spaces, each one will be four fifths of a quarter note. .8/4 = 0.2. so, a 20th note would be 20% of a quarter note - which is 40% of an eighth note and 80% of a sixteenth note. indeed, .8*(1/16) = 1/20. you can't notate this using western music theory (because the series happens not to terminate....), but that doesn't mean it's undefined or unplayable
80%(1/16th) =
160% (1/32nd) =
1/32nd + 60%(32nd) =
1/32nd + 1.2(64th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + .2(64th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + .4(128th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + .8(256th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + epsilon =
3/64th + epsilon
you simply couldn't hear 80% of a 256th note. that's indistiguishable from human error.
so, a 20th note would be indistinguishable from a triplet of 64th notes. that means that 4/20 would be four triplets of 64th notes.
....which is a blast beat.
http://thehardtimes.net/2016/08/29/stoner-tech-metal-band-trying-really-hard-write-song-420-time/?fb_comment_id=1161463340592034_1163796750358693
you couldn't count it, but you could feel it.
i flipped my fraction over and thought i had an answer (i do this, flip the fraction over, to myself all the time), because i'm actually used to dealing with these kinds of weird conversions as a relic of writing drum sequences in a scorewriter. there's lots of ways to convert weird signatures. the series just has to terminate. it doesn't here, but that's just bad luck.
if you split the bar into five equal temporal spaces, each one will be four fifths of a quarter note. .8/4 = 0.2. so, a 20th note would be 20% of a quarter note - which is 40% of an eighth note and 80% of a sixteenth note. indeed, .8*(1/16) = 1/20. you can't notate this using western music theory (because the series happens not to terminate....), but that doesn't mean it's undefined or unplayable
80%(1/16th) =
160% (1/32nd) =
1/32nd + 60%(32nd) =
1/32nd + 1.2(64th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + .2(64th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + .4(128th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + .8(256th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + epsilon =
3/64th + epsilon
you simply couldn't hear 80% of a 256th note. that's indistiguishable from human error.
so, a 20th note would be indistinguishable from a triplet of 64th notes. that means that 4/20 would be four triplets of 64th notes.
....which is a blast beat.
http://thehardtimes.net/2016/08/29/stoner-tech-metal-band-trying-really-hard-write-song-420-time/?fb_comment_id=1161463340592034_1163796750358693
you know, i walk around with headphones on all of the time and it doesn't mean "leave me alone" so much as it means "i like to listen to music when i'm transiting by myself.". the idea that my headphones may or may not act as a disincentive to approach me has truly never even crossed my mind. not everything i do is meant to be interpreted in the filter of whether it is or is not ok to hit on me. i mean, does it logically imply that if i'm not wearing headphones then i'm inviting a conversation? this is a stupid discussion all around....
http://www.upworthy.com/advice-for-talking-to-women-wearing-headphones-ignores-why-women-wear-headphones
http://www.upworthy.com/advice-for-talking-to-women-wearing-headphones-ignores-why-women-wear-headphones
j reacts to how interpolating undecideds for '16 leads to a choice between '92 and '96
i'm going to do something i consistently criticize people for. but, we do not currently have data that contradicts it.
in the last election in canada, we had consistent polling that undecideds were substantial and they would not pick stephen harper. this created polls that exaggerated his position through most of the race, until the undecideds came down. i don't see any polling like that right now - both candidates are very unpopular.
you can read that two ways.
1) all of the undecideds will vote for johnson. it's a lot harder to assign all of the undecideds to a third party candidate in a two-party system than it is to assign them to the natural governing party (the liberals) in a multi-party system. it could happen. bad assumption.
2) the undecideds might distribute.
now, i hate this. you do this when you don't have any other data. it's a vanilla assumption - usually wrong. i'm going to do it anyways...
the rcp average is pinning 9% undecided. distributing...
clinton: 42.2/91 = 46.3.
trump: 37.8/91 = 41.5
johnson: 7.9/91 = 8.6
stein: 3.1/91 = 3.4
this most closely matches the 1996 results for johnson/perot...
clinton - 49.2
dole - 40.7
perot - 8.4
so, if you assume that the undecideds will distribute then the wild card in using 1996 to predict 2016 is stein. if you deliver stein to clinton, it's very close to 1992. if you don't, it could hinder her in close races.
but, what if they all go third party? then the adjusted rcp average is:
clinton: 42.2
trump: 37.8
other: 20
look at 1992:
clinton: 43.0
bush: 37.4
perot + other: 18.9 + .7 = 19.6
whether you're looking at '92 or '96 as the better predictor is going to depend on how you interpolate undecideds. so, go get me more data on undecideds.
this is not yet predictive though, either. there's too much volatility, which is very different than the last election in canada, where the conservatives had flatlined for months and nothing moved them. clinton's graph could still careen out of control, producing a landslide.
but, it's what we've got right now.
as mentioned previously, you also have to make some smart adjustments. these are national polls. so you have to distribute them, too.
but it should give an idea about which states are in play and which aren't.
1996..
States where the margin of victory was under 7% :
Kentucky, 0.96%
Nevada, 1.02%
Georgia, 1.17%
Arizona, 2.22%
Tennessee, 2.41%
Montana, 2.88%
South Dakota, 3.46%
North Carolina, 4.69%
Texas, 4.93%
Mississippi, 5.13%
Indiana, 5.58%
Florida, 5.70%
South Carolina, 6.04%
Missouri, 6.30%
Ohio, 6.36%
North Dakota, 6.81%
Alabama, 6.96%
1992...
States with margin of victory less than 7%
Georgia – 0.59%
North Carolina – 0.79%
Ohio – 1.83%
Florida – 1.89%
Arizona – 1.95%
Montana – 2.51%
Nevada – 2.63%
Kentucky – 3.21%
Texas – 3.48%
South Dakota – 3.52%
Louisiana – 4.61%
Tennessee – 4.65%
Kansas – 5.14%
Iowa – 6.02%
Indiana – 6.12%
Alabama – 6.77%
in the last election in canada, we had consistent polling that undecideds were substantial and they would not pick stephen harper. this created polls that exaggerated his position through most of the race, until the undecideds came down. i don't see any polling like that right now - both candidates are very unpopular.
you can read that two ways.
1) all of the undecideds will vote for johnson. it's a lot harder to assign all of the undecideds to a third party candidate in a two-party system than it is to assign them to the natural governing party (the liberals) in a multi-party system. it could happen. bad assumption.
2) the undecideds might distribute.
now, i hate this. you do this when you don't have any other data. it's a vanilla assumption - usually wrong. i'm going to do it anyways...
the rcp average is pinning 9% undecided. distributing...
clinton: 42.2/91 = 46.3.
trump: 37.8/91 = 41.5
johnson: 7.9/91 = 8.6
stein: 3.1/91 = 3.4
this most closely matches the 1996 results for johnson/perot...
clinton - 49.2
dole - 40.7
perot - 8.4
so, if you assume that the undecideds will distribute then the wild card in using 1996 to predict 2016 is stein. if you deliver stein to clinton, it's very close to 1992. if you don't, it could hinder her in close races.
but, what if they all go third party? then the adjusted rcp average is:
clinton: 42.2
trump: 37.8
other: 20
look at 1992:
clinton: 43.0
bush: 37.4
perot + other: 18.9 + .7 = 19.6
whether you're looking at '92 or '96 as the better predictor is going to depend on how you interpolate undecideds. so, go get me more data on undecideds.
this is not yet predictive though, either. there's too much volatility, which is very different than the last election in canada, where the conservatives had flatlined for months and nothing moved them. clinton's graph could still careen out of control, producing a landslide.
but, it's what we've got right now.
as mentioned previously, you also have to make some smart adjustments. these are national polls. so you have to distribute them, too.
but it should give an idea about which states are in play and which aren't.
1996..
States where the margin of victory was under 7% :
Kentucky, 0.96%
Nevada, 1.02%
Georgia, 1.17%
Arizona, 2.22%
Tennessee, 2.41%
Montana, 2.88%
South Dakota, 3.46%
North Carolina, 4.69%
Texas, 4.93%
Mississippi, 5.13%
Indiana, 5.58%
Florida, 5.70%
South Carolina, 6.04%
Missouri, 6.30%
Ohio, 6.36%
North Dakota, 6.81%
Alabama, 6.96%
1992...
States with margin of victory less than 7%
Georgia – 0.59%
North Carolina – 0.79%
Ohio – 1.83%
Florida – 1.89%
Arizona – 1.95%
Montana – 2.51%
Nevada – 2.63%
Kentucky – 3.21%
Texas – 3.48%
South Dakota – 3.52%
Louisiana – 4.61%
Tennessee – 4.65%
Kansas – 5.14%
Iowa – 6.02%
Indiana – 6.12%
Alabama – 6.77%
if you want to watch or take part in pornography, go ahead. what do i care? and, you don't need my permission, either. just don't insult my intelligence by referring to your pornography as 'art'.
if you want to go to a strip club, go ahead. just don't pretend that you're going to a 'concert'.
...and if you want to let your kids watch strippers on tv, that's your choice. well, at least it is in the sense that you own the tv. your kids aren't your property. just, stop fooling yourself into thinking it's a 'music video'. it's not. they're strippers. and it's porn.
if you want to go to a strip club, go ahead. just don't pretend that you're going to a 'concert'.
...and if you want to let your kids watch strippers on tv, that's your choice. well, at least it is in the sense that you own the tv. your kids aren't your property. just, stop fooling yourself into thinking it's a 'music video'. it's not. they're strippers. and it's porn.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
if you're curious, i think tattoos are gross. nothing moralizing about it. it's your body; i don't care. i just find them very unattractive. small piercings can range from meh to hot, but they have to be very subtle to accomplish that. i don't like implants, either. or even make-up, really. i'm just really not into body modification at all. i'm kind of more into naturalism. and, as such, i kind of more have a thing for stuff like body odour and body hair...
except pits. i don't care what your gender is. shave your pits.
i have zero tattoos, and i don't want any.
i had a belly button ring for a while, but it's been out for around ten years, now.
no plastic surgery...
except pits. i don't care what your gender is. shave your pits.
i have zero tattoos, and i don't want any.
i had a belly button ring for a while, but it's been out for around ten years, now.
no plastic surgery...
canada needs to strike a balance in terms of it's relationships with china and the united states. this is a very dangerous game that all of the recent prime ministers have had to play. i'm going to shut up about this for now, until he gets back. but the game is about playing them off against each other and winning concessions.
harper tried to use oil exports as leverage and got burned by it. he lacked the subtlety required to play this game at this level. the dauphin, here, had better rely on his advisers in order to avoid something worse.
the premise here is absurd. but, joining that bank is curious. we haven't heard anything about the tpp in a while, either.
the liberal party will not automatically fall in line with the washington consensus. it will seek compromise and concessions. but it won't take orders.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-china-day-1-1.3741070
harper tried to use oil exports as leverage and got burned by it. he lacked the subtlety required to play this game at this level. the dauphin, here, had better rely on his advisers in order to avoid something worse.
the premise here is absurd. but, joining that bank is curious. we haven't heard anything about the tpp in a while, either.
the liberal party will not automatically fall in line with the washington consensus. it will seek compromise and concessions. but it won't take orders.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-china-day-1-1.3741070
my view on this is that the opposition to the changes merely demonstrate their necessity. we need to be teaching these kids secular values over the opposition of their parents - and the more the parents yell that it offends their religious values, the more necessary it is to teach their kids secular values. this should really be made clear in the immigration process, so that people are not settling here under false pretenses.
tripartisan consensus on the topic is appropriate.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-sex-ed-mistake-1.3740877
tripartisan consensus on the topic is appropriate.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-sex-ed-mistake-1.3740877
growing up in a niners fan household, i actually know a thing or two about jerry rice. confused by what he said? don't be. over on the left, we've been telling you this all along. it's not about race. it's about class.
and, of course that's the left. it's the definition of the left: the world is defined by perpetual class warfare. no leftist would argue otherwise. they couldn't possibly be a leftist.
the perspective on the left about race is that it's an imaginary construct invented by the ruling class to keep the proletariat in conflict with itself and distract from revolutionary politics.
this is the left, kids. notice the focus on class? that's what the left is about.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/21/the-invention-of-the-white-race/
and, of course that's the left. it's the definition of the left: the world is defined by perpetual class warfare. no leftist would argue otherwise. they couldn't possibly be a leftist.
the perspective on the left about race is that it's an imaginary construct invented by the ruling class to keep the proletariat in conflict with itself and distract from revolutionary politics.
this is the left, kids. notice the focus on class? that's what the left is about.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/21/the-invention-of-the-white-race/
my view on this is that the opposition to the changes merely demonstrate their necessity. we need to be teaching these kids secular values over the opposition of their parents - and the more the parents yell that it offends their religious values, the more necessary it is to teach their kids secular values. this should really be made clear in the immigration process, so that people are not settling here under false pretenses.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-sex-ed-mistake-1.3740877
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-sex-ed-mistake-1.3740877
Monday, August 29, 2016
j reacts to trump getting desperate about the black vote
it's not wrong.
...and i said they had to get creative...
....but this will backfire. that clinton landslide is getting clearer and clearer.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrC2_dLWYAEuAvg.jpg
...and i said they had to get creative...
....but this will backfire. that clinton landslide is getting clearer and clearer.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrC2_dLWYAEuAvg.jpg
j reacts to the contradiction between trust and self-interest
you can't trust anybody in a capitalist society. it's not "human nature", but it's an unavoidable consequence of the economy we live in. to trust somebody is, by definition, to ask them to act against their self-interest. this is only feasible in a union of fools.
the only way that a relationship can function in a market economy is through the certainty of mutually assured destruction upon dissolution.
any imbalance is exploitation. and, hence any weakness is prostitution.
love is impossible in the presence of currency.
<----single.
but, this is the best reason to abolish capitalism: to reclaim the possibility of love.
the only way that a relationship can function in a market economy is through the certainty of mutually assured destruction upon dissolution.
any imbalance is exploitation. and, hence any weakness is prostitution.
love is impossible in the presence of currency.
<----single.
but, this is the best reason to abolish capitalism: to reclaim the possibility of love.
j reacts to the internet's perversion of the protestant work ethic into pure narcissism
i think we're starting to see the development of a new phenomenon: people that are actually convinced that their appearance entitles them to wealth. all you have to do is get beautiful, and the dollars will start rolling in.
where to start? i don't know, i need some more mental ordering. yoga. hip-hop culture. instagram. fucking evangelical christianity. it's all swirling together into this mess of hyper-capitalist narcissism.
this may be a developing theme here, as i encounter further examples and can unravel it in more detail.
but, expect to encounter this, i think: a hierarchy based on appearance (instagram followers?), and people that expect to be treated preferentially based solely on their looks.
i don't want to say it's a rejection of merit altogether, so much as it's a perversion of it. in their minds, looking good is hard work. that's really the basis of their thinking. they worked hard at the gym and expect some kind of reward.
it's more of a rejection of market exchange in favour of...god? i mean, who or what is doling out the rewards, here? the universe?
the actual truth is that i'm not sure you'd get a coherent answer if you tried. all you're going to get is the idea that hard work should be rewarded.
it doesn't matter if that work has any social purpose or greater good.
so, it's also a perversion of calvinism.
it's almost more like the idea of sacrificing something to the gods. the gym (or the yoga studio) is the new temple. the workout bench is the new altar. in return for hard work in the gym, they expect the gods to look favourably upon them.
like sacrificing a fucking goat...
i'm an atheist. don't misunderstand me, this isn't a moralistic rant - it's a sociological observation. i'm just describing shit. i'm not judging. if i am judging a little (we can't help it...), it's from a communist slant. but i just for the first time understood the social utility of monotheistic attacks upon paganism. this behaviour is anti-social.
like i say: expect this to probably develop more over time.
where to start? i don't know, i need some more mental ordering. yoga. hip-hop culture. instagram. fucking evangelical christianity. it's all swirling together into this mess of hyper-capitalist narcissism.
this may be a developing theme here, as i encounter further examples and can unravel it in more detail.
but, expect to encounter this, i think: a hierarchy based on appearance (instagram followers?), and people that expect to be treated preferentially based solely on their looks.
i don't want to say it's a rejection of merit altogether, so much as it's a perversion of it. in their minds, looking good is hard work. that's really the basis of their thinking. they worked hard at the gym and expect some kind of reward.
it's more of a rejection of market exchange in favour of...god? i mean, who or what is doling out the rewards, here? the universe?
the actual truth is that i'm not sure you'd get a coherent answer if you tried. all you're going to get is the idea that hard work should be rewarded.
it doesn't matter if that work has any social purpose or greater good.
so, it's also a perversion of calvinism.
it's almost more like the idea of sacrificing something to the gods. the gym (or the yoga studio) is the new temple. the workout bench is the new altar. in return for hard work in the gym, they expect the gods to look favourably upon them.
like sacrificing a fucking goat...
i'm an atheist. don't misunderstand me, this isn't a moralistic rant - it's a sociological observation. i'm just describing shit. i'm not judging. if i am judging a little (we can't help it...), it's from a communist slant. but i just for the first time understood the social utility of monotheistic attacks upon paganism. this behaviour is anti-social.
like i say: expect this to probably develop more over time.
j reacts to the benefits of a clinton landslide for the real left
i want to push my point.
liberal democrats are not going to be granted an audience in a clinton administration. the bigger the majority, the more room the party has to fracture.
the best scenario here in this very dour circumstance is to try and work towards a situation where clinton's opposition is on the left. that can happen if the caucus grows large enough that the size of the progressive wing challenges what's left of the republicans in congress.
it's a hard, long slog one way or another. and, trump is a historically bad candidate that could destroy the party's future. so, i really think the left is better off taking the opportunity to try and get rid of the republicans once and for all than pouting about the lack of options.
the best way to help the greens this election is to get the biggest democratic party majority possible, then try and splinter the party once it's in place.
go for the kill.
they would show no mercy to you.
but, it's still early, bob. if the groupthink sets in strong enough (like it did in '08), that supermajority is possible. the house is possible. and, i think the mississippi delta (possibly including texas) is possible, too.
i'm wearing my poli sci hat right now, not my data analyst hat. granted. and i'm talking in possibilities, rather than certainties. but, if those fluctuations you see on those graphs spin out...
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/08/29/if-you-want-celebrate-landslide-clinton-victory-dont-call-me
you want to tell me there's a trend line there?
what you have to do is focus solely on the last two days of the polling, ignore everything else and then project that into the future. it's preposterous.
rather, if i were to guess, i'd suggest that the end result will be closer to the numbers you saw in april. so long as we're cherry picking...
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/57bf1c8ab996ebef008b479e-850/screenshot%202016-08-25%2012.27.33.png
when i talk about the republicans being wiped out, of course i don't mean that literally. but if the democrats play this right, they could be pushed down into the twenties and then the teens and then slowly fade away...
the spectrum is fucked. there's nothing resembling a left. that needs to be corrected.
http://time.com/4466108/donald-trump-democracy/
liberal democrats are not going to be granted an audience in a clinton administration. the bigger the majority, the more room the party has to fracture.
the best scenario here in this very dour circumstance is to try and work towards a situation where clinton's opposition is on the left. that can happen if the caucus grows large enough that the size of the progressive wing challenges what's left of the republicans in congress.
it's a hard, long slog one way or another. and, trump is a historically bad candidate that could destroy the party's future. so, i really think the left is better off taking the opportunity to try and get rid of the republicans once and for all than pouting about the lack of options.
the best way to help the greens this election is to get the biggest democratic party majority possible, then try and splinter the party once it's in place.
go for the kill.
they would show no mercy to you.
but, it's still early, bob. if the groupthink sets in strong enough (like it did in '08), that supermajority is possible. the house is possible. and, i think the mississippi delta (possibly including texas) is possible, too.
i'm wearing my poli sci hat right now, not my data analyst hat. granted. and i'm talking in possibilities, rather than certainties. but, if those fluctuations you see on those graphs spin out...
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/08/29/if-you-want-celebrate-landslide-clinton-victory-dont-call-me
you want to tell me there's a trend line there?
what you have to do is focus solely on the last two days of the polling, ignore everything else and then project that into the future. it's preposterous.
rather, if i were to guess, i'd suggest that the end result will be closer to the numbers you saw in april. so long as we're cherry picking...
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/57bf1c8ab996ebef008b479e-850/screenshot%202016-08-25%2012.27.33.png
when i talk about the republicans being wiped out, of course i don't mean that literally. but if the democrats play this right, they could be pushed down into the twenties and then the teens and then slowly fade away...
the spectrum is fucked. there's nothing resembling a left. that needs to be corrected.
http://time.com/4466108/donald-trump-democracy/
Sunday, August 28, 2016
j reacts to the error of using a regression analysis to try and predict elections
1) the polls he's using are garbage. garbage in, garbage out.
2) you just simply don't model elections using regression analysis and a line of best fit. elections are not natural phenomena. a trendline in a graph is absolutely meaningless. smoothing things out is backwards. you want to amplify the noise, not quiet it down.
one should expect that election polling will fly around all over the place, not follow a defined curve. it may be true that a constant rate of change from now into infinity will give trump 100% of the vote. it's ridiculous to apply it as predictive at all. even over a few months.
but, that's my point. you can't do elections like you do physics. it's just wrong.
that said, i agree that he's right in pointing out that there's a lot of volatility right now. i'd just be more likely to argue that this volatility is careening towards a possible clinton landslide...
as to the point: is it too early to run out the clock? broadly, yes. on the emails, specifically (the point of the article)? no. there's lots of outreach she can continue to do, but i agree that she's better off keeping her mouth shut about that specific topic.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-its-too-soon-for-clinton-to-run-out-the-clock/
2) you just simply don't model elections using regression analysis and a line of best fit. elections are not natural phenomena. a trendline in a graph is absolutely meaningless. smoothing things out is backwards. you want to amplify the noise, not quiet it down.
one should expect that election polling will fly around all over the place, not follow a defined curve. it may be true that a constant rate of change from now into infinity will give trump 100% of the vote. it's ridiculous to apply it as predictive at all. even over a few months.
but, that's my point. you can't do elections like you do physics. it's just wrong.
that said, i agree that he's right in pointing out that there's a lot of volatility right now. i'd just be more likely to argue that this volatility is careening towards a possible clinton landslide...
as to the point: is it too early to run out the clock? broadly, yes. on the emails, specifically (the point of the article)? no. there's lots of outreach she can continue to do, but i agree that she's better off keeping her mouth shut about that specific topic.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-its-too-soon-for-clinton-to-run-out-the-clock/
j reacts to the social value of yoga as just another excuse for capitalist assholery
yoga is a cult, and it turns people into shallow, mindless idiots.
the aerobics may be healthy. so, drop the bullshit and go to aerobics class.
the aerobics may be healthy. so, drop the bullshit and go to aerobics class.
i've never stated, in public or private, anything other than that my only regret was that i put my transition on hold way back when. i don't regret anything else that happened. and, i wouldn't do anything else differently. but i do very, very much wish that i would have dealt with this properly back in 2002.
the intent was to stop for a few months. that turned into a few years. and, it became financially difficult to pick up where i was.
it was a huge mistake....
....but i mean the choice to suspend was a mistake. x > y. sure. but, it's only that part that i'd reverse, if i could. then, we'd have to see what would happen from there....
yes: a lot of the things that happened would not have happened had i not paused. that is true. but, given that i did pause, i don't regret what i did. what i regret is only that i paused.
i simply can't know what the alternate path would have been, or how similar it would be to what actually happened. so, i can't say anything else. i can only look at the choices i actually made. and, there's really only one i'd reverse.
i'm sorry if that's not what you think, but i need to reiterate: i've never stated anything else. anything else is just in your head.
the intent was to stop for a few months. that turned into a few years. and, it became financially difficult to pick up where i was.
it was a huge mistake....
....but i mean the choice to suspend was a mistake. x > y. sure. but, it's only that part that i'd reverse, if i could. then, we'd have to see what would happen from there....
yes: a lot of the things that happened would not have happened had i not paused. that is true. but, given that i did pause, i don't regret what i did. what i regret is only that i paused.
i simply can't know what the alternate path would have been, or how similar it would be to what actually happened. so, i can't say anything else. i can only look at the choices i actually made. and, there's really only one i'd reverse.
i'm sorry if that's not what you think, but i need to reiterate: i've never stated anything else. anything else is just in your head.
j reacts to the mississippi floods and ignoring first nations regarding how to live here
that's one way to do it.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjTXGrMuJ078ocxiknyxZiCjFgR89cKFUICd2MXluT0Dt2zlECBJp2d4yHJ7g9Zx7hR0RTG_TMC6o_xi_LgNKkOXOe5LSHTdxElBUxBdeyEhjYIzbI16-7JV3CV-qa3XB5DsScJRlwSTfP/?imgmax=800
kind of makes this seem more obvious, though, doesn't it?
https://news.illinois.edu/blog/files/6367/205015/40716.jpg
americans living around the mississippi get up and evacuate every couple of years due to the flood waters, but they wait until it floods until they do it. the previous inhabitants of the region got out of the way every year, expecting the worse and no doubt preventing a lot of destruction in the process. that migration is ongoing. people just don't realize it.
less false dichotomies and more synthesis, please.
let me be a little presumptuous in suggesting that whatever is rebuilt in the region will be flooded again within a few years. you sure that's the best idea?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNaXdLWt17A
the mounds are a good idea. really.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjTXGrMuJ078ocxiknyxZiCjFgR89cKFUICd2MXluT0Dt2zlECBJp2d4yHJ7g9Zx7hR0RTG_TMC6o_xi_LgNKkOXOe5LSHTdxElBUxBdeyEhjYIzbI16-7JV3CV-qa3XB5DsScJRlwSTfP/?imgmax=800
kind of makes this seem more obvious, though, doesn't it?
https://news.illinois.edu/blog/files/6367/205015/40716.jpg
americans living around the mississippi get up and evacuate every couple of years due to the flood waters, but they wait until it floods until they do it. the previous inhabitants of the region got out of the way every year, expecting the worse and no doubt preventing a lot of destruction in the process. that migration is ongoing. people just don't realize it.
less false dichotomies and more synthesis, please.
let me be a little presumptuous in suggesting that whatever is rebuilt in the region will be flooded again within a few years. you sure that's the best idea?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNaXdLWt17A
the mounds are a good idea. really.
j reacts to the importance of the historic opportunity to permanently annihilate the gop
when this
election cycle started, a lot of people were talking about how trump was
a clown but he could maybe break open the two-party system. then, you
had the bernie or bust types that argued that a trump presidency may be
preferable because it will create a bigger backlash, and a part of me
agrees, but then what? another democrat?
how do we break this cycle?
the way the election has unfolded suggests that this may be the last election with a serious republican candidate. clinton is poaching the brains out of the republicans. all that's left is koch money, and it will be gone in eight years due to natural causes. the next election could feature the democrats as the conservative party on the right, with a sanders-inspired liberal party challenger. greens? somebody else? i don't know.
i think the tactic ought to be to worry less about who is the lesser of two evils (they're both flat out satanic) and focus more on taking the opportunity to help destroy the republican party.
if the democrats can pull off a full sweep in addition to their poaching of the intelligentsia, the republican party will be left without any hope of a future and the left can transcend the fear-mongering.
that's going to require a bit of a social movement. the seeds of this exist. you don't have to support clinton to attack trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSDm62Hmbf4
how do we break this cycle?
the way the election has unfolded suggests that this may be the last election with a serious republican candidate. clinton is poaching the brains out of the republicans. all that's left is koch money, and it will be gone in eight years due to natural causes. the next election could feature the democrats as the conservative party on the right, with a sanders-inspired liberal party challenger. greens? somebody else? i don't know.
i think the tactic ought to be to worry less about who is the lesser of two evils (they're both flat out satanic) and focus more on taking the opportunity to help destroy the republican party.
if the democrats can pull off a full sweep in addition to their poaching of the intelligentsia, the republican party will be left without any hope of a future and the left can transcend the fear-mongering.
that's going to require a bit of a social movement. the seeds of this exist. you don't have to support clinton to attack trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSDm62Hmbf4
j reacts to the looming canada post strike
i'm actually really not that concerned about the mail and whether it exists or not. i get two kinds of mail: stuff from the government, and fliers. almost everything i get from the government could be digitized, and i don't care at all about fliers.
the mail system absolutely needs to adjust to the digital world. what these people do is an anachronism. my criticism of the previous government on the mail issue was that they weren't going far enough, and they were botching the implementation. i don't even need to look at the accounting to know ahead of time that building community mailboxes is actually just going to increase costs.
so, i'm not going to get upset if this shuts down. rather, i'd request that they hurry up in digitizing. lots of people don't recycle.
i'd also support bylaws that outlaw flyering.
the mail system absolutely needs to adjust to the digital world. what these people do is an anachronism. my criticism of the previous government on the mail issue was that they weren't going far enough, and they were botching the implementation. i don't even need to look at the accounting to know ahead of time that building community mailboxes is actually just going to increase costs.
so, i'm not going to get upset if this shuts down. rather, i'd request that they hurry up in digitizing. lots of people don't recycle.
i'd also support bylaws that outlaw flyering.
again: quality v quantity misunderstands what i'm doing. the question is whether i'm being thorough in documentation, or haphazard about it. this is not a film production, it's a vlog. how detailed am i being?
another way to put it is that i don't really have control over the viewing quality of my life, nor am i particularly concerned by it. what i have control over is how meticulous i am in building a historical document.
i went from not being able to sleep to crashing really, really hard. we had some rain move in. it does that to me. i haven't been able to stay awake for more than a few hours at a time the last few days. i feel awake, but we'll see.
another way to put it is that i don't really have control over the viewing quality of my life, nor am i particularly concerned by it. what i have control over is how meticulous i am in building a historical document.
i went from not being able to sleep to crashing really, really hard. we had some rain move in. it does that to me. i haven't been able to stay awake for more than a few hours at a time the last few days. i feel awake, but we'll see.
Saturday, August 27, 2016
j reacts to a dream about genetic factors in gender identity
i've been over this a few times: i really don't think that gender is genetic in the sense that there's a gene for liking skirts or a gene for liking cars. rather, i think it's partly hormonal and partly experiential. the only serious genetic determinant going into somebody's gender identity is consequently the way that their bodies regulate hormones.
that means that there actually might be an observable physical trait that i demonstrate that has something to do with things, which is the fact that i've never grown a single hair on my chest in my life. this is actually very rare. the categorization of "apilose" means "less than 6%".
...and i'm not exaggerating. nary a hair. ever. in my entire life.
(i'll remind you that i'm nearly 36. it's never going to happen.)
how does that happen? well, here's the truth: this is androgenic hair. that is, it's presence is triggered by the release of testosterone during puberty. humans demonstrate lots of variation, as a species. so, some dudes release huge amounts of testosterone and end up looking like hairy man-apes. others release a lot less and just end up with a little baby fuzz. and, yes: some women release enough testosterone to end up with hair on their chests and faces, too.
the fact that i've never grown any chest on my hair at all ever means that i didn't go through that testosterone flush. i can't tell you why not with any real certainty, but it's almost certainly genetic. note that my dad was a typical hairy italian jew.
and, hence this is where one needs to look at the genetic basis of things, for me. as mentioned: i think this is overly facile. it's not that easy. it's at most one of multiple factors. but, if i was a geneticist, that's where i'd be looking: the genes that regulate hormone release during puberty.
as an aside, that makes the issue reducible to a "hormonal imbalance" and the treatment of hormone therapy rational. but, it also means that the ultimate truth here is that i very much had a choice in correcting the imbalance: that i could have equally well chosen to pop testosterone pills. the ultimate choice here, at the end, has to be experiential, when seen that way.
that means that there actually might be an observable physical trait that i demonstrate that has something to do with things, which is the fact that i've never grown a single hair on my chest in my life. this is actually very rare. the categorization of "apilose" means "less than 6%".
...and i'm not exaggerating. nary a hair. ever. in my entire life.
(i'll remind you that i'm nearly 36. it's never going to happen.)
how does that happen? well, here's the truth: this is androgenic hair. that is, it's presence is triggered by the release of testosterone during puberty. humans demonstrate lots of variation, as a species. so, some dudes release huge amounts of testosterone and end up looking like hairy man-apes. others release a lot less and just end up with a little baby fuzz. and, yes: some women release enough testosterone to end up with hair on their chests and faces, too.
the fact that i've never grown any chest on my hair at all ever means that i didn't go through that testosterone flush. i can't tell you why not with any real certainty, but it's almost certainly genetic. note that my dad was a typical hairy italian jew.
and, hence this is where one needs to look at the genetic basis of things, for me. as mentioned: i think this is overly facile. it's not that easy. it's at most one of multiple factors. but, if i was a geneticist, that's where i'd be looking: the genes that regulate hormone release during puberty.
as an aside, that makes the issue reducible to a "hormonal imbalance" and the treatment of hormone therapy rational. but, it also means that the ultimate truth here is that i very much had a choice in correcting the imbalance: that i could have equally well chosen to pop testosterone pills. the ultimate choice here, at the end, has to be experiential, when seen that way.
Connor_Phillipz
love how he completely forgets to discuss the libertarian platform of fiscal issues... why? because that's where the progressive agenda is weak. Libertarians are okay with welfare if the government can pay for it without going into debt. In a progressive society, the government would go bankrupt because the government would spend without limits.
jessica
if the government can spend without limits, what does it mean to go bankrupt?
robert h
if the gov is small and there is less corruption, the rich will pay more equal percent! witch should make billions of tax revenue! BUT at this point only the middle class pay for the poor and then pay to bail out the rich!!
jessica
what does the size of government have to do with tax fairness?
robert h
have you went to a forest but couldn`t see it `cuz all the other trees were in the way?
That is how our government is now!
For get just politicians , think of everyone who is part of the system, from the cops to the welfare people, everyone is part of government, so it will protecting its self...
~see Nazi Germany , not everyone agreed with the idea of Hitler, but then you can't bite the hand that feeds you, if you did you could be killed or made you into a known spy/terrorist, & all your family...
jessica
??
robert h
? that is mostly it, it is only part of a idea, not written in stone, I think it needs a little dash of communism...
Right now the Middle class pays for the poor and the rich!?(government protects its sefl)
We middle class, could pay for the poor for ever, but we can not bail out the rich & pay for the poor too?
Why & how did the middle class get the chance to protect the rich, it should never happen!!
Now the governments only chance is to import cheaper workers that will vote, to support...
jessica
if i'm able to piece together your thinking, what you appear to be suggesting is that reducing the size of government will reduce the amount of revenue required for government to operate, which will increase the percentage of expenditure attributed to the wealthy because the net expenditure will decrease. but, this is not a reduction of inequality, it's the institutionalization of it.
there's no causal relationship between tax fairness and the size of government.
why don't we just tax the rich?
robert h
google it!
jessica
i really think that google is more likely to provide me with reasons why we should tax the rich.
more broadly speaking - and language of trees and forests is truly ironic, here - this is a good example of the kind of demagogic argument that frequently pops up on the libertarian right. they consistently twist around concepts into these incoherent messes. i'm a message board veteran - i've been doing this for very close to twenty years, now. more than 19. i started on usenet. i can disassemble this nonsense pretty quickly. a lot of people can't.
casual observers/readers just need to know to be very, very wary of their arguments. most of what they throw at you is disingenuous at the source - worse is that a good percentage of them don't realize it, themselves.
there's a kind of honest conservative that i enjoy debating with. but, right libertarians are more often than not of the same mindset regarding the truth as the hosts on fox news.
they just don't care. they'll twist anything and everything in any and every direction....
robert h
I`m not sure if you are doing any good, after 19 +years? you are to confusing to read!
then you ask silly questions, that you already have the answer too, and like!... that is not debating, that is playing with people!?
No wonder you have to try so hard for so long...
on a side note~ Use caution with google that is the place to get the same answers everyone else got!
google ~ Mediocrity & equality @ its best...soon everyone will have the same FREEDUMB!
jessica
well, no - that's my point. i'm not intending to debate with you. i know better than to debate with people that are dishonest.
robert h
feeding off of others is why we are here, greed and personal power...
feed away if you are that hungry!
jessica
it's not a waste of time to debunk you. i'm simply clarifying the difference between debating and debunking. hey, man, you tied your own rope, i just gave it to you.
(deleted)
jessica
well, no. i don't accept any concept of property rights, so the term "take something away from others" is incoherent to me. rather, i would reject the idea of hoarding things from the common good. taxation is not theft. property is theft.
love how he completely forgets to discuss the libertarian platform of fiscal issues... why? because that's where the progressive agenda is weak. Libertarians are okay with welfare if the government can pay for it without going into debt. In a progressive society, the government would go bankrupt because the government would spend without limits.
jessica
if the government can spend without limits, what does it mean to go bankrupt?
robert h
if the gov is small and there is less corruption, the rich will pay more equal percent! witch should make billions of tax revenue! BUT at this point only the middle class pay for the poor and then pay to bail out the rich!!
jessica
what does the size of government have to do with tax fairness?
robert h
have you went to a forest but couldn`t see it `cuz all the other trees were in the way?
That is how our government is now!
For get just politicians , think of everyone who is part of the system, from the cops to the welfare people, everyone is part of government, so it will protecting its self...
~see Nazi Germany , not everyone agreed with the idea of Hitler, but then you can't bite the hand that feeds you, if you did you could be killed or made you into a known spy/terrorist, & all your family...
jessica
??
robert h
? that is mostly it, it is only part of a idea, not written in stone, I think it needs a little dash of communism...
Right now the Middle class pays for the poor and the rich!?(government protects its sefl)
We middle class, could pay for the poor for ever, but we can not bail out the rich & pay for the poor too?
Why & how did the middle class get the chance to protect the rich, it should never happen!!
Now the governments only chance is to import cheaper workers that will vote, to support...
jessica
if i'm able to piece together your thinking, what you appear to be suggesting is that reducing the size of government will reduce the amount of revenue required for government to operate, which will increase the percentage of expenditure attributed to the wealthy because the net expenditure will decrease. but, this is not a reduction of inequality, it's the institutionalization of it.
there's no causal relationship between tax fairness and the size of government.
why don't we just tax the rich?
robert h
google it!
jessica
i really think that google is more likely to provide me with reasons why we should tax the rich.
more broadly speaking - and language of trees and forests is truly ironic, here - this is a good example of the kind of demagogic argument that frequently pops up on the libertarian right. they consistently twist around concepts into these incoherent messes. i'm a message board veteran - i've been doing this for very close to twenty years, now. more than 19. i started on usenet. i can disassemble this nonsense pretty quickly. a lot of people can't.
casual observers/readers just need to know to be very, very wary of their arguments. most of what they throw at you is disingenuous at the source - worse is that a good percentage of them don't realize it, themselves.
there's a kind of honest conservative that i enjoy debating with. but, right libertarians are more often than not of the same mindset regarding the truth as the hosts on fox news.
they just don't care. they'll twist anything and everything in any and every direction....
robert h
I`m not sure if you are doing any good, after 19 +years? you are to confusing to read!
then you ask silly questions, that you already have the answer too, and like!... that is not debating, that is playing with people!?
No wonder you have to try so hard for so long...
on a side note~ Use caution with google that is the place to get the same answers everyone else got!
google ~ Mediocrity & equality @ its best...soon everyone will have the same FREEDUMB!
jessica
well, no - that's my point. i'm not intending to debate with you. i know better than to debate with people that are dishonest.
robert h
feeding off of others is why we are here, greed and personal power...
feed away if you are that hungry!
jessica
it's not a waste of time to debunk you. i'm simply clarifying the difference between debating and debunking. hey, man, you tied your own rope, i just gave it to you.
(deleted)
jessica
well, no. i don't accept any concept of property rights, so the term "take something away from others" is incoherent to me. rather, i would reject the idea of hoarding things from the common good. taxation is not theft. property is theft.
no, i'm a fan of drama.
i don't watch films, like, ever. but, when i did i always went right to the drama section.
the best are the hybrid comedy-drama films. jim carrey was always the best at that. robin williams. bill murray. steve martin. that's the good shit....
coen brothers.
tarantino, to an extent.
spacey...
i used to watch a lot of films with my dad & step-mother & sister. it was kind of a weekly thing. and, i'm not at all exaggerating when i say i always went right to the drama section. then, i'd more often than not end up watching the films by myself.
the other three would always go for action films. sci fi. military. murder/mystery. blockbuster type films. the only way i could get them to watch something at a slower pace was if it had certain actors in it. so, my step-mother liked nicholas cage. and my dad like kevin spacey. otherwise, the same thing would always happen - they'd watch the first twenty minutes, decide the film was boring and walk out.
i saw some classic films under those conditions. pi was one that i specifically remember everybody walking out on. pleasantville was another that nobody could get through. even my dad couldn't get through american beauty, despite the spacey...
by the time i got to my late teens, it was pretty much a routine. they'd watch their boring shoot 'em up thing, while i sat in my bedroom recording. when they were done, dad would (sometimes) come in and say he picked something up that he thought i'd like and try to get through it with me. they were actually often good films. he rarely made it through half. he tried, though :)
but, yeah. drama? i'm not opposed to it. i'm all about it.
i don't watch films, like, ever. but, when i did i always went right to the drama section.
the best are the hybrid comedy-drama films. jim carrey was always the best at that. robin williams. bill murray. steve martin. that's the good shit....
coen brothers.
tarantino, to an extent.
spacey...
i used to watch a lot of films with my dad & step-mother & sister. it was kind of a weekly thing. and, i'm not at all exaggerating when i say i always went right to the drama section. then, i'd more often than not end up watching the films by myself.
the other three would always go for action films. sci fi. military. murder/mystery. blockbuster type films. the only way i could get them to watch something at a slower pace was if it had certain actors in it. so, my step-mother liked nicholas cage. and my dad like kevin spacey. otherwise, the same thing would always happen - they'd watch the first twenty minutes, decide the film was boring and walk out.
i saw some classic films under those conditions. pi was one that i specifically remember everybody walking out on. pleasantville was another that nobody could get through. even my dad couldn't get through american beauty, despite the spacey...
by the time i got to my late teens, it was pretty much a routine. they'd watch their boring shoot 'em up thing, while i sat in my bedroom recording. when they were done, dad would (sometimes) come in and say he picked something up that he thought i'd like and try to get through it with me. they were actually often good films. he rarely made it through half. he tried, though :)
but, yeah. drama? i'm not opposed to it. i'm all about it.
j reacts to trump's obvious turn on immigration being obvious
i said from the start that trump seemed to be unaware that the major benefactor of the current immigration status quo in the southern part of the united states is the corporate interests that control the american right, and he'd have no choice but to modify his stance once he won the nomination. if he were to actually follow through on his proposals, you'd end up with hyperinflation in the price of food. this immigration rhetoric is a useful control mechanism, sure. but, don't be confused by it. the republican party will never do anything to restrict the flow of cheap labour into the united states. ann coulter knows that, too. she's just a troll.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvMA0r3esw8&lc=z12synpzoqffwrvfm23zstup5ye3gtsyy04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvMA0r3esw8&lc=z12synpzoqffwrvfm23zstup5ye3gtsyy04
actually, i think that proper polling would uphold the hypothesis that trump's supporters are people that have never heard of brexit, think angela merkel is the lady from murder, she wrote and answer "american" when asked what language they speak. the association between clinton and merkel is just based on gender. it's that crude.
ppp could have some fun with these questions. you could probably get a sizeable number to answer murder she wrote. and, a vast majority would not be able to name who the chancellor is...
ppp could have some fun with these questions. you could probably get a sizeable number to answer murder she wrote. and, a vast majority would not be able to name who the chancellor is...
Friday, August 26, 2016
i don't have any patience for this kind of thing. if she wins, i hope she gets boycotted. you want a market? there you go.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/maple-syrup-goes-to-supreme-court-1.3736127
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/maple-syrup-goes-to-supreme-court-1.3736127
j reacts to the cult of success
those who seek "success" are merely slaves to the banking class. true emancipation from capital only lies in the glorification of failure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJQK6DExtIg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJQK6DExtIg
j reacts to canada's anachronistic, but encouraging, return to peacekeeping
in theory, i would prefer to be involved in international peacekeeping than nato interventionism. but, this is complicated.
this is largely pr for the pmo. but, it's international pr with a functional purpose. i don't want to pretend that there's a monolithic canadian, but our general perspective for decades has been that we'd rather create goodwill than build a military. you often hear americans ask the question: why do they hate us? canadians tend to take it a step further in advocating a foreign policy that ensures they have no reason to hate us. we legitimately want mutual respect. the thinking is that we don't need a conventional force, that way - and that we can utilize our allies for nuclear deterrence.
on first glance, this is even more rational in a world where war is defined by terrorism than it was in the cold war. but, the only reason it was really possible in the first place was due to the alliances within the cold war. america may have been content to allow canada to kind of drag our feet on nato, so long as we were a useful diplomatic ally. that's not the way things are anymore.
so, what trudeau is no doubt thinking is that we can squirm out of these onerous demands to buy american weapons that they expect us to use to bomb syria by sending peacekeeping troops to africa, instead. he thinks that because it worked in the 60s and 70s. it kept us out of vietnam. it's just that it's not the 70s anymore.
i'm honestly not sure how the americans are going to react to this.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-peacekeeping-announcement-1.3736593
canada always has and always will contribute to legitimate defensive war efforts. but, as a people, we're just not committed to the idea of empire.
we want real multipolarity, not unilateralism and hegemony.
there have been times when we've even described ourselves as 'non-aligned'.
this is longstanding liberal party policy, and widely populist, here. i'm just not sure how to make sense of it in 2016. post-history. post 9/11.
i guess we'll have to check the details.
i mean, this was one of the big questions in the last election: what is the party going to do to adjust it's peacekeeping policies to make sense in today's world, where the president doesn't even consult congress anymore, let alone care about international law?
we never really got a good answer. i guess we'll see how it unfolds.
just to be clear...
canada contributed to the mission in afghanistan, but not the invasion of iraq. it wasn't arbitrary. it was just a question of international law.
chretien was widely quoted at the time explaining that canada would have gladly taken part in iraq if it wasn't illegal. more or less verbatim. that's been the liberal party's policy forever.
but, how do you put the wars that exist today in that kind of context? iraq blew the whole system up. the americans don't care about the un anymore. yet, we remain aligned with them. that's a huge problem for the party, which is up against a glaring contradiction.
if this is a way out, great. let's hope it works. but, i....
...i don't know how the americans are going to react because it's a decision that's made with flawed information. all of the models and simulations that the americans use are based on rational people. i would expect that they don't have a plan for this, because no foreign policy expert would consider it coherent. like i say - it's the return to canada's "way to escape the cold war" policy without any rational, meaningful context.
first, it's going to confuse the fuck out of them. then, they're going to have to figure out what to do. it could be anything from shrugging it off to taking him out.
like i say: if you're a canadian, this is highly populist. it's been liberal party policy since wwII. it's a part of our national identity. but, if you're an american foreign policy analyst operating in the context of contemporary conflicts in the middle east? it's just coming from absolutely nowhere, and is no doubt going to be hard to make sense of. so, it's hard to predict that response.
i really expected that the policy would need to be tweaked, rather than taken off the shelf and dusted off. we'll see what happens.
this is largely pr for the pmo. but, it's international pr with a functional purpose. i don't want to pretend that there's a monolithic canadian, but our general perspective for decades has been that we'd rather create goodwill than build a military. you often hear americans ask the question: why do they hate us? canadians tend to take it a step further in advocating a foreign policy that ensures they have no reason to hate us. we legitimately want mutual respect. the thinking is that we don't need a conventional force, that way - and that we can utilize our allies for nuclear deterrence.
on first glance, this is even more rational in a world where war is defined by terrorism than it was in the cold war. but, the only reason it was really possible in the first place was due to the alliances within the cold war. america may have been content to allow canada to kind of drag our feet on nato, so long as we were a useful diplomatic ally. that's not the way things are anymore.
so, what trudeau is no doubt thinking is that we can squirm out of these onerous demands to buy american weapons that they expect us to use to bomb syria by sending peacekeeping troops to africa, instead. he thinks that because it worked in the 60s and 70s. it kept us out of vietnam. it's just that it's not the 70s anymore.
i'm honestly not sure how the americans are going to react to this.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-peacekeeping-announcement-1.3736593
canada always has and always will contribute to legitimate defensive war efforts. but, as a people, we're just not committed to the idea of empire.
we want real multipolarity, not unilateralism and hegemony.
there have been times when we've even described ourselves as 'non-aligned'.
this is longstanding liberal party policy, and widely populist, here. i'm just not sure how to make sense of it in 2016. post-history. post 9/11.
i guess we'll have to check the details.
i mean, this was one of the big questions in the last election: what is the party going to do to adjust it's peacekeeping policies to make sense in today's world, where the president doesn't even consult congress anymore, let alone care about international law?
we never really got a good answer. i guess we'll see how it unfolds.
just to be clear...
canada contributed to the mission in afghanistan, but not the invasion of iraq. it wasn't arbitrary. it was just a question of international law.
chretien was widely quoted at the time explaining that canada would have gladly taken part in iraq if it wasn't illegal. more or less verbatim. that's been the liberal party's policy forever.
but, how do you put the wars that exist today in that kind of context? iraq blew the whole system up. the americans don't care about the un anymore. yet, we remain aligned with them. that's a huge problem for the party, which is up against a glaring contradiction.
if this is a way out, great. let's hope it works. but, i....
...i don't know how the americans are going to react because it's a decision that's made with flawed information. all of the models and simulations that the americans use are based on rational people. i would expect that they don't have a plan for this, because no foreign policy expert would consider it coherent. like i say - it's the return to canada's "way to escape the cold war" policy without any rational, meaningful context.
first, it's going to confuse the fuck out of them. then, they're going to have to figure out what to do. it could be anything from shrugging it off to taking him out.
like i say: if you're a canadian, this is highly populist. it's been liberal party policy since wwII. it's a part of our national identity. but, if you're an american foreign policy analyst operating in the context of contemporary conflicts in the middle east? it's just coming from absolutely nowhere, and is no doubt going to be hard to make sense of. so, it's hard to predict that response.
i really expected that the policy would need to be tweaked, rather than taken off the shelf and dusted off. we'll see what happens.
Thursday, August 25, 2016
j reacts to clinton and trump calling each other racists
both of the major candidates are racists.
clinton's rhetoric is over the top, but i'm not going to deny the crux of her claim. it's just that it's a little rich to hear it from her.
i mean, his history of racism is rhetorical. her history of racism is at the center of her policies.
in the end, clinton will be able to get away with more than trump will - both in her racism towards latinos and in her racism towards blacks.
clinton's rhetoric is over the top, but i'm not going to deny the crux of her claim. it's just that it's a little rich to hear it from her.
i mean, his history of racism is rhetorical. her history of racism is at the center of her policies.
in the end, clinton will be able to get away with more than trump will - both in her racism towards latinos and in her racism towards blacks.
nobody cares about $500. please report on substantive issues.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-caucus-fall-session-1.3735744
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-caucus-fall-session-1.3735744
j reacts to the idea that ethnic diversity trumps regional representation
there's some people arguing that regional representation is a relic of the past, and ethnic diversity is the wave of the future. but, that itself is an argument that elevates the primarily urban provinces (bc & ontario especially) over the primarily rural ones. so, the argument against regional representation as a relic is actually a demonstration of it's necessity.
i slept through the rain - you could tell it was coming down, certainly. and, i'm a bit north of it's path. enough that i don't expect to see any damage.
it's a little unnerving, though.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/tornado-windsor-lasalle-1.3734826
you guys are such fucking hosers. take off from the side of the window, eh?
it's a little unnerving, though.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/tornado-windsor-lasalle-1.3734826
you guys are such fucking hosers. take off from the side of the window, eh?
listening is moving slower than i'd like (as always....story of my life....), but i just want to update that i am 100% certain at this point about what is happening with the distorted audio. there's no longer any ambiguity at all whatsoever.
for some reason, the cord in this specific pair of headphones is picking up a charge. it's very easily grounded - all i have to do is touch the tips. but, it's audible, too. because i'm just that type of audio nerd...
the issue, of course, is not persistent. it will sometimes stop, which is why i had so many false positives. i'm still going to need to do a lot of testing to figure out exactly what it is that is creating the field and whether certain pieces of equipment are acting as catalysts or not.
but, the basic reality that i'm living in some kind of magnet is now beyond question. what i'm going to do about it is a little less clear.
i'm opting strongly for building a tent to place around the recording space.
for some reason, the cord in this specific pair of headphones is picking up a charge. it's very easily grounded - all i have to do is touch the tips. but, it's audible, too. because i'm just that type of audio nerd...
the issue, of course, is not persistent. it will sometimes stop, which is why i had so many false positives. i'm still going to need to do a lot of testing to figure out exactly what it is that is creating the field and whether certain pieces of equipment are acting as catalysts or not.
but, the basic reality that i'm living in some kind of magnet is now beyond question. what i'm going to do about it is a little less clear.
i'm opting strongly for building a tent to place around the recording space.
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
j reacts to clinton's apparent rejection of the concept of a conflict of interest
so, apparently a conflict of interest is only an issue after proof of wrongdoing.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12630586/ap-response-clinton-foundation
i've never seen anybody make this argument that there's nothing wrong with having a conflict of interest, so long as you don't act on it. i don't really know how to react to it. i mean, it's obviously disingenuous. but, it's audacity is befuddling. this is trump level bullshit, really.
i guess what you have to take away from it is that she thinks she's above the law.
....and she thinks we should agree that the law doesn't apply to her.....?
it's just astounding to hear this from a serious candidate at this point in the cycle.
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/25/why-did-the-saudi-regime-and-other-gulf-tyrannies-donate-millions-to-the-clinton-foundation/
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12630586/ap-response-clinton-foundation
i've never seen anybody make this argument that there's nothing wrong with having a conflict of interest, so long as you don't act on it. i don't really know how to react to it. i mean, it's obviously disingenuous. but, it's audacity is befuddling. this is trump level bullshit, really.
i guess what you have to take away from it is that she thinks she's above the law.
....and she thinks we should agree that the law doesn't apply to her.....?
it's just astounding to hear this from a serious candidate at this point in the cycle.
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/25/why-did-the-saudi-regime-and-other-gulf-tyrannies-donate-millions-to-the-clinton-foundation/
j reacts to 'stop white people'
"stop white people" is obviously completely moronic.
but, then you look at the racist reactions.
and, then you realize that that's the point: divide and conquer.
there's no use in bothering until people are cognizant of how they're being manipulated. so long as people continue to push back and forth with emotions driven entirely by identity, we will continue to get the conflict that's desired.
i'm just uneducated, i guess.
it's all that reading up on marxist histories. it's left me a hopelessly unread buffoon.
get this, guys: the second amendment. they wanted y'all to shoot each other. really. it's documented, even.
you can imagine these upper class land owners (farmers....slave owners....) trying to figure out how to stop the masses from realizing that - wait a second - there's this class of people that get everything and don't do anything...
"what if we convince them to quarrel amongst each other, instead of quarreling with us?"
"well, that's brilliant."
"it's the oldest trick in the book, actually. but how do we do it?"
"well, what if we gave them all guns? surely, they wouldn't be able to control their emotions. they would fight over their women, their horses - they'd never even get to thinking about us, they'd be so occupied."
"yes! yes! let's get this written into the document. this will be a system that will last into perpetuity, i can tell already!"
"oh, don't get too cocky, now."
and, as things developed, you start to see them using race as a dividing tactic, and then setting the fucking idiots off against each other. it develops very naturally out of the economic system: slavery, then abolition. there's two kinds of slaves: white ones and black ones. how to get them to fight each other, instead of the bourgeoisie? you divide them by race, of course!
there's a rich literature on the topic, actually. but, only the uneducated have read up on it.
so, when you see these minority groups on campus go after the white kids with a lot of overgeneralized nonsense, and the white kids reacting with flat out racist hyperbole, remember: there's a banker at the top of his tower counting his bills and thinking about a slave owner laughing in his grave.
but, then you look at the racist reactions.
and, then you realize that that's the point: divide and conquer.
there's no use in bothering until people are cognizant of how they're being manipulated. so long as people continue to push back and forth with emotions driven entirely by identity, we will continue to get the conflict that's desired.
i'm just uneducated, i guess.
it's all that reading up on marxist histories. it's left me a hopelessly unread buffoon.
get this, guys: the second amendment. they wanted y'all to shoot each other. really. it's documented, even.
you can imagine these upper class land owners (farmers....slave owners....) trying to figure out how to stop the masses from realizing that - wait a second - there's this class of people that get everything and don't do anything...
"what if we convince them to quarrel amongst each other, instead of quarreling with us?"
"well, that's brilliant."
"it's the oldest trick in the book, actually. but how do we do it?"
"well, what if we gave them all guns? surely, they wouldn't be able to control their emotions. they would fight over their women, their horses - they'd never even get to thinking about us, they'd be so occupied."
"yes! yes! let's get this written into the document. this will be a system that will last into perpetuity, i can tell already!"
"oh, don't get too cocky, now."
and, as things developed, you start to see them using race as a dividing tactic, and then setting the fucking idiots off against each other. it develops very naturally out of the economic system: slavery, then abolition. there's two kinds of slaves: white ones and black ones. how to get them to fight each other, instead of the bourgeoisie? you divide them by race, of course!
there's a rich literature on the topic, actually. but, only the uneducated have read up on it.
so, when you see these minority groups on campus go after the white kids with a lot of overgeneralized nonsense, and the white kids reacting with flat out racist hyperbole, remember: there's a banker at the top of his tower counting his bills and thinking about a slave owner laughing in his grave.
i think there's a lot of confusion about cocaine. is it in the pile of drugs to try, or the pile to avoid?
it may be the only one in the "depends" pile. really. nothing else is "depends". everything else is binary.
marijuana: harmless
lsd: not harmless, but go ahead, if you're in a safe space.
e: make sure it's actually e. but it's just serotonin. it can't actually hurt you - if it's e.
heroin: evil.
meth: evil.
crack: evil.
cocaine: meh....?
see, and here's the reason why: it's the underlying conditions. you could use it socially for years and never have it hurt you, or you could destroy your whole life in the space of a week. what cocaine is is a catalyst, in ways that those other drugs aren't.
so, no - you can't really blame it on the drugs. you have to blame it on depression, or loneliness or some chemical imbalance. fucking your life up on a cocaine binge is always a symptom and never a cause. but, it's also a fucking violent catalyst under the right (wrong?) conditions. careful thinking aside, it doesn't make the outcome any less horrific.
i've avoided it. but i've seen it, too. i don't need to prove to anybody i can handle it. i'm comfortable in the realization that i probably couldn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJyQpAiMXkg
it may be the only one in the "depends" pile. really. nothing else is "depends". everything else is binary.
marijuana: harmless
lsd: not harmless, but go ahead, if you're in a safe space.
e: make sure it's actually e. but it's just serotonin. it can't actually hurt you - if it's e.
heroin: evil.
meth: evil.
crack: evil.
cocaine: meh....?
see, and here's the reason why: it's the underlying conditions. you could use it socially for years and never have it hurt you, or you could destroy your whole life in the space of a week. what cocaine is is a catalyst, in ways that those other drugs aren't.
so, no - you can't really blame it on the drugs. you have to blame it on depression, or loneliness or some chemical imbalance. fucking your life up on a cocaine binge is always a symptom and never a cause. but, it's also a fucking violent catalyst under the right (wrong?) conditions. careful thinking aside, it doesn't make the outcome any less horrific.
i've avoided it. but i've seen it, too. i don't need to prove to anybody i can handle it. i'm comfortable in the realization that i probably couldn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJyQpAiMXkg
j reacts to obama's lack of any discernible legacy
so, what is barack obama's legacy? i might hazard a guess that he won't have one at all.
it's foolish to predict the future, but his foreign policy is likely to bleed in between the stasis constructed by bush and clinton. this is exaggerated by the reality that clinton was an active secretary of state. a good history will need to say a word about how john kerry tried (and failed) to change directions on a number of issues, but the consensus is likely going to see a broad continuum in policy from bush through to clinton and more or less ignore that a president named barack obama existed at all.
if the tpp passes, clinton will get credit for it as a part of her asia pivot. the narrative will be how she set this - as well as syria and libya - in motion and then followed through on it, perhaps overcoming dissent from kerry. so, where is obama? just a name on a list...
on domestic policy, his major initiative has been obamacare. does anybody think this will survive very long? the future may be single payer, or it may be a reversal to the previous state of affairs. but the system he set up is doomed to failure and likely prompt replacement. rather than being a good compromise, it's been a failure from all angles - people are losing coverage amidst falling revenues. worse, it's a simple market failure that anybody that isn't a market fundamentalist should have and in fact did see coming.
his attempt to push bipartisan legislation has led to six years of impossible gridlock. i say six, and not eight, because he had the opportunity to plow things through quickly - but he instead opted for compromise and consensus. some histories may say nothing at all about president obama besides the clear stupidity of this tactic.
so, what's left?
nothing.
just a name in a list...
it's foolish to predict the future, but his foreign policy is likely to bleed in between the stasis constructed by bush and clinton. this is exaggerated by the reality that clinton was an active secretary of state. a good history will need to say a word about how john kerry tried (and failed) to change directions on a number of issues, but the consensus is likely going to see a broad continuum in policy from bush through to clinton and more or less ignore that a president named barack obama existed at all.
if the tpp passes, clinton will get credit for it as a part of her asia pivot. the narrative will be how she set this - as well as syria and libya - in motion and then followed through on it, perhaps overcoming dissent from kerry. so, where is obama? just a name on a list...
on domestic policy, his major initiative has been obamacare. does anybody think this will survive very long? the future may be single payer, or it may be a reversal to the previous state of affairs. but the system he set up is doomed to failure and likely prompt replacement. rather than being a good compromise, it's been a failure from all angles - people are losing coverage amidst falling revenues. worse, it's a simple market failure that anybody that isn't a market fundamentalist should have and in fact did see coming.
his attempt to push bipartisan legislation has led to six years of impossible gridlock. i say six, and not eight, because he had the opportunity to plow things through quickly - but he instead opted for compromise and consensus. some histories may say nothing at all about president obama besides the clear stupidity of this tactic.
so, what's left?
nothing.
just a name in a list...
j reacts to trump's appeal to inner city voters (he's half right...)
see, this is another issue where the reality is that trump is right in his analysis: decades of one-party rule has failed, in some cases disastrously. but, he doesn't have any good answers. does urban america need to ditch the democrats? sure. but, it needs to move left, and not right. it needs more socialism and less cronyism. in the sense that trump is right, he's also the exact embodiment of the problem.
i don't know. i haven't looked it up. but, has he ever built a subsidized rental unit to compensate for the low rent housing he's displaced with his casinos? i doubt it. has he ever put money into gambling addiction facilities that is more than a tax write-off? i doubt it.
he's right to point to the democrats as enablers. he's wrong to point to himself as the solution.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/22/trump_democrats_have_run_cities_for_decades_and_have_produced_only_poverty_failing_schools_and_broken_homes.html
i don't know. i haven't looked it up. but, has he ever built a subsidized rental unit to compensate for the low rent housing he's displaced with his casinos? i doubt it. has he ever put money into gambling addiction facilities that is more than a tax write-off? i doubt it.
he's right to point to the democrats as enablers. he's wrong to point to himself as the solution.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/22/trump_democrats_have_run_cities_for_decades_and_have_produced_only_poverty_failing_schools_and_broken_homes.html
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
j reacts to trudeau's curious decision to emulate obama, and why it empowers the right
i just want to point out that nobody - no academic, no civil servant, no politician - really thinks that this is sufficient stimulus for meaningful job creation. they'd have to spend way more to get any kind of measurable result.
....but, the infrastructure spending is necessary because we're behind on it. we need the work done. and, it's what a government does.
the government should probably be aligning it's messaging with it's actual analysis, so as to create a proper set of expectations. and, fwiw, this isn't actually a partisan issue up here in canada, either.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/infrastructure-ontario-1.3731947
again: the media in canada is very right-wing. all they want to talk about is the budget, and they want to frame every issue in terms of budget expenses. there was an important infrastructure announcement today, but all the media wants to talk about is how much it cost for the ministers to travel and do promotional work.
i frankly don't care how much these things cost. but, if i did, i'd hardly even find what's been reported upsetting. it's just this constant dull narrative of expense accounting. and, it's directed at baby boomers.
i really think that he needs to do everything he can to not just reject this narrative but make moving past it an issue of generational overturn.
the minister needs to get around. no, she's not going to take the bus. get over it.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-not-ruling-out-changes-to-reporting-expenses-1.3040094?autoPlay=false
....but, the infrastructure spending is necessary because we're behind on it. we need the work done. and, it's what a government does.
the government should probably be aligning it's messaging with it's actual analysis, so as to create a proper set of expectations. and, fwiw, this isn't actually a partisan issue up here in canada, either.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/infrastructure-ontario-1.3731947
again: the media in canada is very right-wing. all they want to talk about is the budget, and they want to frame every issue in terms of budget expenses. there was an important infrastructure announcement today, but all the media wants to talk about is how much it cost for the ministers to travel and do promotional work.
i frankly don't care how much these things cost. but, if i did, i'd hardly even find what's been reported upsetting. it's just this constant dull narrative of expense accounting. and, it's directed at baby boomers.
i really think that he needs to do everything he can to not just reject this narrative but make moving past it an issue of generational overturn.
the minister needs to get around. no, she's not going to take the bus. get over it.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-not-ruling-out-changes-to-reporting-expenses-1.3040094?autoPlay=false
j reacts to the long term consequences of virginia becoming a blue state
if those kinds of numbers from virginia hold up (clinton +15? that's absurd. it's virginia.), then there is essentially nothing trump can do to win the election. and, if virginia has truly flipped entirely from red to blue over one cycle, the republicans are going to need to implode before they can grow. they'll lose every election for the foreseeable future. there's just no way to make the map work that doesn't involve reclaiming virginia for the south. they're going to have to start doing crazy things like rebranding themselves as libertarians in oregon.
the democrats could be in charge of the white house for the next fifty years.
honestly. not exaggerating.
it'd be nice to pull them a little back to the left...
but, thanks dubya?
==
i don't expect it to be this close. but, this is pretty much the best map that trump can possibly hope for - and probably the best map that any republican can hope for for a generation, at least.
so, again: if he doesn't win virginia, what else is he going to do? he's going to have to get creative. but, it doesn't currently look competitive.
the democrats could be in charge of the white house for the next fifty years.
honestly. not exaggerating.
it'd be nice to pull them a little back to the left...
but, thanks dubya?
==
i don't expect it to be this close. but, this is pretty much the best map that trump can possibly hope for - and probably the best map that any republican can hope for for a generation, at least.
so, again: if he doesn't win virginia, what else is he going to do? he's going to have to get creative. but, it doesn't currently look competitive.
Monday, August 22, 2016
very briefly
"Owing to variations in humidity and likely clothing, recommendations for summer and winter may vary; a suggested typical range for summer is 23 °C (73 °F) to 25.5 °C (78 °F), with that for winter being 20 °C (68 °F) to 23.5 °C (74 °F)."
https://books.google.ca/books?id=KBbHmp2yisEC&lpg=PA149&ots=yTqUP4xIOx&dq=%2BASHRAE+%2B%22recommended+temperatures%22&pg=PA149&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%20ASHRAE%20%20%22recommended%20temperatures%22&f=false
my personal preference would be in the higher end of that range - and actually even higher than that, if the external temperature allows for it.
j
https://books.google.ca/books?id=KBbHmp2yisEC&lpg=PA149&ots=yTqUP4xIOx&dq=%2BASHRAE+%2B%22recommended+temperatures%22&pg=PA149&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%20ASHRAE%20%20%22recommended%20temperatures%22&f=false
my personal preference would be in the higher end of that range - and actually even higher than that, if the external temperature allows for it.
j
fwiw, i am in the midst of some massive insomnia in what is now a three day and may become a four day vlog. i've had several two-three hour naps
over the last three days, but every time it seems like i'm going to actually sleep i end up jolted awake....
i haven't been as productive as i'd have liked. there have been some annoying issues that have had to be tended to, and a little bit of time wasting,
although i am finally a good ways of the way through the final sansa listen. that is: mp3--sansa--440-IIs. it sounds great, so far. but, these are the
unshielded cables that are prone to interference.
thankfully, the temperature has come down. the a/c is off, so the heat is off.
....but i'm getting the feeling that things are 'back to normal' for me, meaning that these multi-day vlogs will be the new normal and sleeping more than
three hours at a time will only happen when my body just refuses to co-operate any further.
what that also means is that the vlogs may start to come up two-three times a week, but in extra long installments. i simply don't know how much
longer i'll be awake for. but, this at least three day vlog is currently over two hours.
i've stated repeatedly that this is documentation. i split the chunks of time up the way i do for a reason. and, if i can't sleep for a week then the vlog
will be 8 hours and you'll just have to accept it as it is.
over the last three days, but every time it seems like i'm going to actually sleep i end up jolted awake....
i haven't been as productive as i'd have liked. there have been some annoying issues that have had to be tended to, and a little bit of time wasting,
although i am finally a good ways of the way through the final sansa listen. that is: mp3--sansa--440-IIs. it sounds great, so far. but, these are the
unshielded cables that are prone to interference.
thankfully, the temperature has come down. the a/c is off, so the heat is off.
....but i'm getting the feeling that things are 'back to normal' for me, meaning that these multi-day vlogs will be the new normal and sleeping more than
three hours at a time will only happen when my body just refuses to co-operate any further.
what that also means is that the vlogs may start to come up two-three times a week, but in extra long installments. i simply don't know how much
longer i'll be awake for. but, this at least three day vlog is currently over two hours.
i've stated repeatedly that this is documentation. i split the chunks of time up the way i do for a reason. and, if i can't sleep for a week then the vlog
will be 8 hours and you'll just have to accept it as it is.
the device is unfrozen
i don't know when it unfroze. i know the heat was on full blast most of the morning. i just checked now because i felt it cooling down in here and it was working again.
i guess it will happen again at some point, but it's useful to know that the situation is recoverable and it's up to you whether or not it's worth swapping out.
j
i guess it will happen again at some point, but it's useful to know that the situation is recoverable and it's up to you whether or not it's worth swapping out.
j
j reacts to the media's curious focus on 'debunking conspiracies' about clinton's health
if the accusations about clinton's health were as frivolous as are being claimed, the media would just ignore them. they don't dedicate that kind of air time to the clinton body count, or the theories of david icke or any other idea that is firmly in the realm of the absurd (although it's almost impossible to argue that all of those dead bodies are a consequence of coincidence).
i'm not going to dwell on this, but let's be clear.
1) there's clearly an issue of some sort. i see no evidence of any specific diagnosis, like parkinson's. but, the clinton campaign has not provided a good explanation for any of the unusual images or videos that have surfaced. while we should all realize that we are not doctors and should not diagnose at a distance, we should also realize that the evidence before us requires some explanation that has not surfaced.
2) clinton cannot rely on 'trust us'. she's a known liar. only the very core of her base will accept this. the left will not. the right will not. the swing in the middle will not.
she may have dug herself into a hole. the clintons are experts at hole-digging, after all. but, she needs to be more clear about what's happening. if it turns out that all that's happening is that she's a 70 year old woman in terrible shape, so be it. but, she'll have to own up to it rather than continue to deny it.
it could be a real factor in terms of creating voter apathy. but, what can i say? she's obviously not very healthy....
i'm not going to dwell on this, but let's be clear.
1) there's clearly an issue of some sort. i see no evidence of any specific diagnosis, like parkinson's. but, the clinton campaign has not provided a good explanation for any of the unusual images or videos that have surfaced. while we should all realize that we are not doctors and should not diagnose at a distance, we should also realize that the evidence before us requires some explanation that has not surfaced.
2) clinton cannot rely on 'trust us'. she's a known liar. only the very core of her base will accept this. the left will not. the right will not. the swing in the middle will not.
she may have dug herself into a hole. the clintons are experts at hole-digging, after all. but, she needs to be more clear about what's happening. if it turns out that all that's happening is that she's a 70 year old woman in terrible shape, so be it. but, she'll have to own up to it rather than continue to deny it.
it could be a real factor in terms of creating voter apathy. but, what can i say? she's obviously not very healthy....
Sunday, August 21, 2016
j reacts to the inexcusable use of textspeak on youtube
there is not a single fucking word in the dictionary that ends with the character '8', you pretentious piece of shit wankers.
i'm a grammar anti-authoritarian, granted. but i nonetheless insist upon the use of letters when constructing words into sentences.
i have no patience for your retard speak.
....and the gr8 b8 shit really pisses me off, particularly.
you know, i was pretty close to becoming a teacher, at one point. i probably would have been teaching math & science, not english. i say probably because i could see myself getting a real BA one day (i got a good ways through a sociology/law program last session). you can imagine what i'd be like....
not strict, mind you. i'm not hitting anybody with any rulers. it's more apathetic, and almost taking pleasure in watching students fail.
"you got an F in grade 9 math, you stupid piece of shit. no, i don't give a fuck. you deserved it. i'd give you a fucking G if i could. maybe try putting down your goddamned space invaders and taking the time to learn how to distribute? it's not that fucking complicated.
i bet you can't even spell FOIL.
no. shut up. stop your fucking whining. i don't give a fuck if i have to fail you three times before you can figure this out. although, i'm not sure you ever will figure this out.
you're the reason why the school-to-prison pipeline makes sense.
get out of my fucking classroom, you clown."
i actually have a very vivid memory of something sort of like that happening in elementary school, but it was between two students, neither of whom i was friends with. it was the very first day of school in grade....2? it would have to be grade 2. yeah. there's reasons. i just remember over-hearing this conversation:
kid one: are you in my class this year?
kid two: no. i failed.
k1: you failed?
k2: yeah.
pause
k1: how the fuck do you fail grade one?
pause
k1: you failed grade one? you fucking idiot. you goddamned retard.
(now, while running off...)
k1: this idiot failed grade one!
even the teacher was laughing.
i'm a grammar anti-authoritarian, granted. but i nonetheless insist upon the use of letters when constructing words into sentences.
i have no patience for your retard speak.
....and the gr8 b8 shit really pisses me off, particularly.
you know, i was pretty close to becoming a teacher, at one point. i probably would have been teaching math & science, not english. i say probably because i could see myself getting a real BA one day (i got a good ways through a sociology/law program last session). you can imagine what i'd be like....
not strict, mind you. i'm not hitting anybody with any rulers. it's more apathetic, and almost taking pleasure in watching students fail.
"you got an F in grade 9 math, you stupid piece of shit. no, i don't give a fuck. you deserved it. i'd give you a fucking G if i could. maybe try putting down your goddamned space invaders and taking the time to learn how to distribute? it's not that fucking complicated.
i bet you can't even spell FOIL.
no. shut up. stop your fucking whining. i don't give a fuck if i have to fail you three times before you can figure this out. although, i'm not sure you ever will figure this out.
you're the reason why the school-to-prison pipeline makes sense.
get out of my fucking classroom, you clown."
i actually have a very vivid memory of something sort of like that happening in elementary school, but it was between two students, neither of whom i was friends with. it was the very first day of school in grade....2? it would have to be grade 2. yeah. there's reasons. i just remember over-hearing this conversation:
kid one: are you in my class this year?
kid two: no. i failed.
k1: you failed?
k2: yeah.
pause
k1: how the fuck do you fail grade one?
pause
k1: you failed grade one? you fucking idiot. you goddamned retard.
(now, while running off...)
k1: this idiot failed grade one!
even the teacher was laughing.
& there's no excuse for water falling through the ceiling
i haven't heard from anybody about the electrical yet.
but i'll tell you that if that happens one more time, i'm going to caulk over the wood panelling and you can deal with the water damage upstairs.
j
but i'll tell you that if that happens one more time, i'm going to caulk over the wood panelling and you can deal with the water damage upstairs.
j
j reacts to the daily show's cyclical stunt (they never do this for democrats, but...)
i don't doubt that this is your average trump supporter. what you're missing is that the average clinton supporter is just as clueless (and there are similar films floating around that demonstrate this). and, so the proper conclusion is not that republicans are morons, although they are, so much as it is that americans are morons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBbGkVIiT_M&lc=z13tebpgfxuwsxxpj04cjz3beortchnb3vs0k
the united states already has a deportation force, and it was expanded and given extra powers by the current administration. it's called ICE. and, in the end, it may be obama's most enduring legacy.
this is why the immigration rhetoric from trump doesn't really phase me. yeah, it sounds awful. but, he's often describing what already exists and that you don't know already exists.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/21/trump_campaign_manager_kellyanne_conway_a_deportation_force_for_illegal_immigrants_may_not_be_needed_to_be_determined.html
https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/22/part_2_us_citizen_sent_to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBbGkVIiT_M&lc=z13tebpgfxuwsxxpj04cjz3beortchnb3vs0k
the united states already has a deportation force, and it was expanded and given extra powers by the current administration. it's called ICE. and, in the end, it may be obama's most enduring legacy.
this is why the immigration rhetoric from trump doesn't really phase me. yeah, it sounds awful. but, he's often describing what already exists and that you don't know already exists.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/21/trump_campaign_manager_kellyanne_conway_a_deportation_force_for_illegal_immigrants_may_not_be_needed_to_be_determined.html
https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/22/part_2_us_citizen_sent_to
Saturday, August 20, 2016
j reacts to the tragically hip (trigger warning....)
i'm going to wait a little bit before i post my thoughts on the tragically hip; for right now, i'm opting for "nothing at all".
they are overrated in a way that needs to be measured on the richter scale.
i don't know how many records they released, but a greatest hits cd of value would have difficulty getting to 80 minutes.
such a greatest hits record would have been worthwhile in the cd era, but only in the sense of it sitting on your shelf, unplayed. so that you can say it's there.
i don't think they're as influential as some would claim, either. if you look around the country, you don't see a real legacy. rather, it's better to measure them as a relic of the past.
they showed up at the very moment when the boomers were fading away and mostly picked up an older audience that was starting to lose touch with reality. they were kind of the last gasp of a dying era. the last great boomer rock band.
they existed in the 90s, but they sound of the 70s.
greatest canadian rock band? no. sorry. they're not even in my top 20. unless that list is most overrated canadian rock bands.
but, hey. grab your pack of molson and cheat death on a dui through the back roads while blaring them out of your pick-up truck, if you must. if you want to call that 'canadian', good for you. i'll pass, thanks.
they are overrated in a way that needs to be measured on the richter scale.
i don't know how many records they released, but a greatest hits cd of value would have difficulty getting to 80 minutes.
such a greatest hits record would have been worthwhile in the cd era, but only in the sense of it sitting on your shelf, unplayed. so that you can say it's there.
i don't think they're as influential as some would claim, either. if you look around the country, you don't see a real legacy. rather, it's better to measure them as a relic of the past.
they showed up at the very moment when the boomers were fading away and mostly picked up an older audience that was starting to lose touch with reality. they were kind of the last gasp of a dying era. the last great boomer rock band.
they existed in the 90s, but they sound of the 70s.
greatest canadian rock band? no. sorry. they're not even in my top 20. unless that list is most overrated canadian rock bands.
but, hey. grab your pack of molson and cheat death on a dui through the back roads while blaring them out of your pick-up truck, if you must. if you want to call that 'canadian', good for you. i'll pass, thanks.
j reacts to the importance of the past, and the fools that deny it
only a fool would reject the past as meaningless. it's literally a rejection of causality - it's magical thinking. the past is everything.
there's no secret wisdom. you're just an asshole.
there's no secret wisdom. you're just an asshole.
that same electrical box blew again..
hi.
the one on top of the couch. i think this is the third time, now.
i just want to clarify that i really require the heat on because of the a/c upstairs. i understand that the upstairs tenant has weight problems and needs for it to be unreasonably cool, but that absolutely requires me to turn the heat on to compensate. otherwise, the conditions down here would be equivalent to a meat locker. even opening the window has no effect. i've tried reducing the heat on multiple occasions and i've found myself in really dangerous situations. i've woken up shivering, for example. clammy skin. it's like living inside a fridge. yes, it's unpleasant. but, it's worse - it's dangerous.
you have to keep in mind that the listed temperature on the thermostat becomes somewhat meaningless in the face of the refrigeration. it's like the wind chill effect, or the humidity effect. they'll say it's 27 degrees, but feels like 40 with the humidity. if i turn the heat off, the thermostat will say 27 degrees but it will feel like 18 with the a/c.
it's the summer. i like it in the mid to high 20s. i feel i have every right to enjoy that and that if he needs the a/c on so high that it overpowers it then he's liable to compensate that through electrical costs.
so, i'm sorry - but i need that device replaced yet again. i'm going to go ask paul, but i know he'll need to call you anyways. and, so i again need to suggest that something be done about the electrical, which probably includes finding a way to either turn his a/c down or put it on a separate circuit.
(pause)
it just came back, but now it's frozen on full blast at 43 degrees celsius, which is obviously unsafe....
(pause)
it's back off again. i've explained to paul that it is probably a fire hazard, but he said he'll wait to call ryan in the morning.
(pause)
i don't know if it will come on and off or not, but at least it seems to be shutting itself off when it overloads
(pause)
.....and now it's back on again, so that's what's happening. it's in a loop. it comes on, it overloads, it shuts off, it comes on, it overloads, it shuts off - and it's frozen, i can't do anything.
j
the one on top of the couch. i think this is the third time, now.
i just want to clarify that i really require the heat on because of the a/c upstairs. i understand that the upstairs tenant has weight problems and needs for it to be unreasonably cool, but that absolutely requires me to turn the heat on to compensate. otherwise, the conditions down here would be equivalent to a meat locker. even opening the window has no effect. i've tried reducing the heat on multiple occasions and i've found myself in really dangerous situations. i've woken up shivering, for example. clammy skin. it's like living inside a fridge. yes, it's unpleasant. but, it's worse - it's dangerous.
you have to keep in mind that the listed temperature on the thermostat becomes somewhat meaningless in the face of the refrigeration. it's like the wind chill effect, or the humidity effect. they'll say it's 27 degrees, but feels like 40 with the humidity. if i turn the heat off, the thermostat will say 27 degrees but it will feel like 18 with the a/c.
it's the summer. i like it in the mid to high 20s. i feel i have every right to enjoy that and that if he needs the a/c on so high that it overpowers it then he's liable to compensate that through electrical costs.
so, i'm sorry - but i need that device replaced yet again. i'm going to go ask paul, but i know he'll need to call you anyways. and, so i again need to suggest that something be done about the electrical, which probably includes finding a way to either turn his a/c down or put it on a separate circuit.
(pause)
it just came back, but now it's frozen on full blast at 43 degrees celsius, which is obviously unsafe....
(pause)
it's back off again. i've explained to paul that it is probably a fire hazard, but he said he'll wait to call ryan in the morning.
(pause)
i don't know if it will come on and off or not, but at least it seems to be shutting itself off when it overloads
(pause)
.....and now it's back on again, so that's what's happening. it's in a loop. it comes on, it overloads, it shuts off, it comes on, it overloads, it shuts off - and it's frozen, i can't do anything.
j
i still haven't slept, fwiw. that's coming up on two full days, awake -
excluding a short nap yesterday afternoon that i can't consider
delineating. this could be a three day vlog. even if i crash soon, if i
crash long...
i've spoken at length on my tendency to be awake for long periods, but i don't have a lot of evidence to show for it to this point. i think it's because i was still getting over the physical effects of nicotine withdrawal, which i found to be very powerful. i was also still smoking, if infrequently, meaning i kept pushing myself back off and into reset. it's been a month cold turkey, now - although this is not really intentional and after a long period of barely smoking. so, it's not the same as quitting cold turkey. it's more like a detox.
what i'm getting at is that it kind of feels like i tripped a wire or something. i've been doing something the last 36 hours that i actually rarely do: putting myself to bed. more characteristic is that i tend to wait until i just fall over. the result is that this very long day has not been productive.
but, it could be a sign of things to come. i could be back to my normal self, which is routine 45+ hour days. we'll see....
right now, i'm very hungry. we'll see how long i'm awake for after i get the blood sugar back up. long enough to finally finish with the 449s?
i've spoken at length on my tendency to be awake for long periods, but i don't have a lot of evidence to show for it to this point. i think it's because i was still getting over the physical effects of nicotine withdrawal, which i found to be very powerful. i was also still smoking, if infrequently, meaning i kept pushing myself back off and into reset. it's been a month cold turkey, now - although this is not really intentional and after a long period of barely smoking. so, it's not the same as quitting cold turkey. it's more like a detox.
what i'm getting at is that it kind of feels like i tripped a wire or something. i've been doing something the last 36 hours that i actually rarely do: putting myself to bed. more characteristic is that i tend to wait until i just fall over. the result is that this very long day has not been productive.
but, it could be a sign of things to come. i could be back to my normal self, which is routine 45+ hour days. we'll see....
right now, i'm very hungry. we'll see how long i'm awake for after i get the blood sugar back up. long enough to finally finish with the 449s?
this program should not exist at all. if there's a shortage of labour in alberta, they should be looking to other provinces to make up the difference - not importing slaves from the third world.
drop the bullshit language. this is legalized slavery, and should be immediately abolished.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/temporary-foreign-worker-report-coming-1.3729002
drop the bullshit language. this is legalized slavery, and should be immediately abolished.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/temporary-foreign-worker-report-coming-1.3729002
he's still in the grace period for some of this stuff, but if the upcoming sitting is not productive then expect a huge backlash from the substantive players on the left. we've been more than generous.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/james-di-fiore/justin-trudeau-transparency_b_11594200.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/james-di-fiore/justin-trudeau-transparency_b_11594200.html
Friday, August 19, 2016
i have to point this out every now again...
i'm not even sure which sex i like better. well, i'm 35. nearly 36. shouldn't i have that figured out? so, perhaps what that indicates is that i really don't like either.
there was a time where i reasoned that women were lesser douchebags, but i no longer think that that is true - women are just as douchey as men. that language is difficult, but i don't think it's confusing. but, i've discarded this thinking that women are emotionally superior, or something. we all have layers of hierarchy to disentangle. but, that means that i've discarded both sex and gender, preferentially. it's down entirely to individuality.
...and i hate everybody, as individuals. as people. as collections of character traits. almost everybody is a horrific asshole.
i don't even pretend to try.
yet, is it the case that i'm disinterested in others or the case that i'm obsessed with myself? there's a synthesis, no doubt.
if you cross out sex and gender as irrelevant altogether, and ignore that nobody agrees with this, what i've learned is that the biggest obstacle to a purely emotional relationship is that people want children. they say they don't, but they actually do.
therefore, i've concluded that i'm simply too young for a relationship.
there is some possibility that i may end up dating when i'm older, but my tinder profile will specify that i'm only interested in people that have adult children and that have minimal relationships with those adult children. that is my true sexual orientation: i'm only attracted to people that have a 0% interest in wanting to raise kids.
for now, file me under hyper-individualist asexual loner.
i'm not even sure which sex i like better. well, i'm 35. nearly 36. shouldn't i have that figured out? so, perhaps what that indicates is that i really don't like either.
there was a time where i reasoned that women were lesser douchebags, but i no longer think that that is true - women are just as douchey as men. that language is difficult, but i don't think it's confusing. but, i've discarded this thinking that women are emotionally superior, or something. we all have layers of hierarchy to disentangle. but, that means that i've discarded both sex and gender, preferentially. it's down entirely to individuality.
...and i hate everybody, as individuals. as people. as collections of character traits. almost everybody is a horrific asshole.
i don't even pretend to try.
yet, is it the case that i'm disinterested in others or the case that i'm obsessed with myself? there's a synthesis, no doubt.
if you cross out sex and gender as irrelevant altogether, and ignore that nobody agrees with this, what i've learned is that the biggest obstacle to a purely emotional relationship is that people want children. they say they don't, but they actually do.
therefore, i've concluded that i'm simply too young for a relationship.
there is some possibility that i may end up dating when i'm older, but my tinder profile will specify that i'm only interested in people that have adult children and that have minimal relationships with those adult children. that is my true sexual orientation: i'm only attracted to people that have a 0% interest in wanting to raise kids.
for now, file me under hyper-individualist asexual loner.
it's noon, but i've been up all night and should be tired. as it is, i can't sleep.
so, i want to make some distant comments on the roman-britney-fousey triangle, if you want to call it that. i don't know the precise details, other than that it's obvious at this point that britney & fousey are openly fucking & roman is basically in shock as to how to deal with it.
i know these are real people. vlogging this kind of thing in real time must be horrific. but, they've chosen this lifestyle and the trauma that comes with it. and, from my perspective it's actually hard to even see them as real people, even though i'm aware that this is exactly what they are. i have to interpret them as characters...
certain details are important if you want to get into the granular details. like i say: i don't know what happened. did an initial threesome lead to roman watching his girlfriend orgasm for the first time in her life, and then that lead to repeat encounters without him? did behind-his-back frolicking get to the point where everybody knew except him? did anybody bother to actually tell him? these are all gutwrenching scenarios for the guy, and if you have any empathy at all you should recoil. but, watch the last week's worth of vlogs from fousey and the last week of vlogs from roman - where they weren't aborted. there should be little doubt about the basic narrative. the mysteries are in the precise details.
but, those precise details don't matter for what i'm about to say.
the obvious takeaway is that:
1) fousey is a piece of shit.
2) britney is a slut.
3) roman is a moron.
the point that i want to make is that this is a backwards analysis. i don't want to attack our nature as deprived. i want to suggest that we're unrealistic about who and what we are.
how did the three of them find themselves in a situation in the first place where two of them wanted to fuck and the third is somehow an interested party? see, that is the problem, here. it's not that a relationship was broken, it's that a relationship existed. what is the use in erecting these arbitrary concepts of monogamy, glorifying them as desirable ends and then attacking each other for failing to live up to them? in a real sense, it's a tempest in a teapot.
i know that doesn't make the situation any easier to watch. roman is a likeable guy. he only has himself to blame, here. how many times did she broadcast to him that he needs to take better care of himself, only for him to ignore it over and over? and, if you watch the vlogs, you can see that he has control issues. he routinely uploads footage of his girlfriend rejecting his advances. why does he need to put him hitting on her on youtube in the first place? the reason is to broadcast that control. so, he has nobody to blame but himself when she makes a scene about undoing it.
i don't know how much of this will end up on the internet. fousey doesn't seem to want to date her - he just wants to fuck her. she may have been misled, intentionally or not. roman may be fool enough to look the other way. if that happens, it will manifest itself elsewhere. they're done.
but, if this does explode as it is and you take the time to analyze the situation carefully rather than through kneejerk emotional responses, i think there's a lot to learn from the situation as a microcosm of human behaviour. i don't have interest in their vlogs, but the dynamics of this is a long-running plot line going back a good ways and it has captured me. so, just try to approach what unfolds through the lens of cause and effect rather than pass judgement based on arbitrary and largely deprecated concepts of morals.
so, i want to make some distant comments on the roman-britney-fousey triangle, if you want to call it that. i don't know the precise details, other than that it's obvious at this point that britney & fousey are openly fucking & roman is basically in shock as to how to deal with it.
i know these are real people. vlogging this kind of thing in real time must be horrific. but, they've chosen this lifestyle and the trauma that comes with it. and, from my perspective it's actually hard to even see them as real people, even though i'm aware that this is exactly what they are. i have to interpret them as characters...
certain details are important if you want to get into the granular details. like i say: i don't know what happened. did an initial threesome lead to roman watching his girlfriend orgasm for the first time in her life, and then that lead to repeat encounters without him? did behind-his-back frolicking get to the point where everybody knew except him? did anybody bother to actually tell him? these are all gutwrenching scenarios for the guy, and if you have any empathy at all you should recoil. but, watch the last week's worth of vlogs from fousey and the last week of vlogs from roman - where they weren't aborted. there should be little doubt about the basic narrative. the mysteries are in the precise details.
but, those precise details don't matter for what i'm about to say.
the obvious takeaway is that:
1) fousey is a piece of shit.
2) britney is a slut.
3) roman is a moron.
the point that i want to make is that this is a backwards analysis. i don't want to attack our nature as deprived. i want to suggest that we're unrealistic about who and what we are.
how did the three of them find themselves in a situation in the first place where two of them wanted to fuck and the third is somehow an interested party? see, that is the problem, here. it's not that a relationship was broken, it's that a relationship existed. what is the use in erecting these arbitrary concepts of monogamy, glorifying them as desirable ends and then attacking each other for failing to live up to them? in a real sense, it's a tempest in a teapot.
i know that doesn't make the situation any easier to watch. roman is a likeable guy. he only has himself to blame, here. how many times did she broadcast to him that he needs to take better care of himself, only for him to ignore it over and over? and, if you watch the vlogs, you can see that he has control issues. he routinely uploads footage of his girlfriend rejecting his advances. why does he need to put him hitting on her on youtube in the first place? the reason is to broadcast that control. so, he has nobody to blame but himself when she makes a scene about undoing it.
i don't know how much of this will end up on the internet. fousey doesn't seem to want to date her - he just wants to fuck her. she may have been misled, intentionally or not. roman may be fool enough to look the other way. if that happens, it will manifest itself elsewhere. they're done.
but, if this does explode as it is and you take the time to analyze the situation carefully rather than through kneejerk emotional responses, i think there's a lot to learn from the situation as a microcosm of human behaviour. i don't have interest in their vlogs, but the dynamics of this is a long-running plot line going back a good ways and it has captured me. so, just try to approach what unfolds through the lens of cause and effect rather than pass judgement based on arbitrary and largely deprecated concepts of morals.
j reacts to an example of how trudeau is opening a clean system to rampant corruption
but, this is exactly what i was saying about these "independent, non-partisan" bodies.
as usual, the tories are clueless, or at least pretending to be. the issue here isn't the independence of the board. that's just typical right-wing bloviating. the problem here is the independence of the board. if we had less independence, we would have more oversight, and what's happening would be essentially impossible.
the whole point of setting up an independent advisory board like this is so that you can put a lobbyist on it. if you left the process inside of government, you'd have to put a public servant in charge that is either elected or promoted. "independence" means removing oversight and making corruption easier.
it's not even the money that's the problem, it's the fact that they're selling off the seat at the table. what concerns me is the consequences of that influence peddling. when you put a lawyer on an environmental board, they themselves are doing the work of their clients. and, you don't have to read the article to know who that would be.
you can argue this is how government works, and i'm actually going to agree with you to an extent. but, there's lines. they're doing this for the fucking supreme court. and, that must be fought against.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environmental-assessment-panel-liberal-donors-1.3726695
in order to minimize corruption, the board should be run by career civil servants. says who? pierre elliot trudeau.
that was the major thrust of his government, and it's been undone in months by his idiot son.
you cannot blame a fool for being a fool. i again call on the party to send him on vacation...
the system of government that pierre trudeau set up in canada was designed explicitly to prevent this from happening. it was a kind of a twist on the marxist concept of the state withering away. and, so when justin trudeau talks about removing the partisanship from government, there is some ideological continuity - in theory. it's just that in the name of non-partisanship, justin trudeau is doing exactly what his father tried to prevent from happening.
think about it for a second. what is less partisan: the civil service, which exists independent of parliament, or an "independent advisory board" that is picked by the prime minister?
but, again, i don't want to throw orwell at you. i really don't. ok - maybe somewhere in his staff of advisers, there's somebody with a warped sense of humour and a lot of bad intentions. but, i think his intentions are actually extremely pure. i really don't think he's corrupt. i just think he's really fucking stupid.
what pierre trudeau imagined was that by this point in time we would have a civil service that was dominant in society and operated largely independently from parliamentary oversight, with it's primary check on power coming from the judiciary. that would reduce the parliament to a kind of minarchist distraction, responsible for setting the direction of policy but not the policy itself.
he wanted a government run by social scientists, not politicians. again: it's basically marxist in concept. and, ironically, what we're seeing from his son is exactly the reason why...
if you listen to justin, you can hear that he sat at the dinner table and listened to his dad talk quite a bit. the same broad themes are present. it's just that he demonstrates essentially no understanding of what he's saying - and his policies uphold the accusation.
tersely: if you set up an "independent body" to overrule the civil service, which is actually already independent of parliament by design, then what you are doing is abolishing the independence of the decision making process and concentrating power in the pmo.
what "independent" means in context is "independent of the independent body", which by definition means dependent on the party.
it's literally a direct undoing of his father's legacy. but, i really think it's legitimately unintentional.
what he knows are the buzz words. he doesn't know the details. and, apparently, neither do his advisers.
that's not justin, it's his little brother michel.
http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/margaret-trudeau-fidel-castro.jpg?quality=65&strip=all
that's the elder trudeau.
it's not hyperbole. trudeauism is legitimately a branch of marxism. it's a mixed economy. and, it seeks to have the state wither away on the path to communism.
it was very popular, here. and i'm an advocate of it as an excellent compromise.
it's sad to see what's happening. but, there's no reason to think it's irreversible.
https://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/pierre-trudeau-fidel-castro.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=940&h=705
as usual, the tories are clueless, or at least pretending to be. the issue here isn't the independence of the board. that's just typical right-wing bloviating. the problem here is the independence of the board. if we had less independence, we would have more oversight, and what's happening would be essentially impossible.
the whole point of setting up an independent advisory board like this is so that you can put a lobbyist on it. if you left the process inside of government, you'd have to put a public servant in charge that is either elected or promoted. "independence" means removing oversight and making corruption easier.
it's not even the money that's the problem, it's the fact that they're selling off the seat at the table. what concerns me is the consequences of that influence peddling. when you put a lawyer on an environmental board, they themselves are doing the work of their clients. and, you don't have to read the article to know who that would be.
you can argue this is how government works, and i'm actually going to agree with you to an extent. but, there's lines. they're doing this for the fucking supreme court. and, that must be fought against.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environmental-assessment-panel-liberal-donors-1.3726695
in order to minimize corruption, the board should be run by career civil servants. says who? pierre elliot trudeau.
that was the major thrust of his government, and it's been undone in months by his idiot son.
you cannot blame a fool for being a fool. i again call on the party to send him on vacation...
the system of government that pierre trudeau set up in canada was designed explicitly to prevent this from happening. it was a kind of a twist on the marxist concept of the state withering away. and, so when justin trudeau talks about removing the partisanship from government, there is some ideological continuity - in theory. it's just that in the name of non-partisanship, justin trudeau is doing exactly what his father tried to prevent from happening.
think about it for a second. what is less partisan: the civil service, which exists independent of parliament, or an "independent advisory board" that is picked by the prime minister?
but, again, i don't want to throw orwell at you. i really don't. ok - maybe somewhere in his staff of advisers, there's somebody with a warped sense of humour and a lot of bad intentions. but, i think his intentions are actually extremely pure. i really don't think he's corrupt. i just think he's really fucking stupid.
what pierre trudeau imagined was that by this point in time we would have a civil service that was dominant in society and operated largely independently from parliamentary oversight, with it's primary check on power coming from the judiciary. that would reduce the parliament to a kind of minarchist distraction, responsible for setting the direction of policy but not the policy itself.
he wanted a government run by social scientists, not politicians. again: it's basically marxist in concept. and, ironically, what we're seeing from his son is exactly the reason why...
if you listen to justin, you can hear that he sat at the dinner table and listened to his dad talk quite a bit. the same broad themes are present. it's just that he demonstrates essentially no understanding of what he's saying - and his policies uphold the accusation.
tersely: if you set up an "independent body" to overrule the civil service, which is actually already independent of parliament by design, then what you are doing is abolishing the independence of the decision making process and concentrating power in the pmo.
what "independent" means in context is "independent of the independent body", which by definition means dependent on the party.
it's literally a direct undoing of his father's legacy. but, i really think it's legitimately unintentional.
what he knows are the buzz words. he doesn't know the details. and, apparently, neither do his advisers.
that's not justin, it's his little brother michel.
http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/margaret-trudeau-fidel-castro.jpg?quality=65&strip=all
that's the elder trudeau.
it's not hyperbole. trudeauism is legitimately a branch of marxism. it's a mixed economy. and, it seeks to have the state wither away on the path to communism.
it was very popular, here. and i'm an advocate of it as an excellent compromise.
it's sad to see what's happening. but, there's no reason to think it's irreversible.
https://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/pierre-trudeau-fidel-castro.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=940&h=705
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)