17-05-2016: another tuesday lost partially to primary nerdery (and some rants...)

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

j reacts to the kentucky primary

the votes are still coming in, but it seems likely that clinton will win kentucky on the strength of her urban dominance.

so, which is right: did her obvious demographic advantage with southern white christians get her the win, or does the unexpected closeness of the race suggest she's caving in key constituencies?

both.

forget about the east of the state. that's the jackass vote that's been brainwashed by talk radio into irrational clinton-hating. i mean, there's lots of reasons to not like clinton and everything, don't get me wrong here. but, none of those reasons suggest you support sanders if you're a rural, conservative kentuckian. that area will vote overwhelmingly for trump. it means nothing to sanders, his campaign or his chances as an independent - nor does it mean anything to clinton and whether she's holding her voters.

but, she should have won in the south by large numbers. she carried whites in tennessee by a substantial margin. and, she should have won in the suburbs around cinci, lexington and louisville; that's not coal country, it's basically ohio. also, note that kentucky is a closed primary, so she didn't get flooded with independents. she for real here got beat in one of her core demographics.

she did well enough in the cities that she can avoid going into crisis mode, but the results should nonetheless be very concerning to her campaign. all evidence suggests that if this vote was on super tuesday, she would have probably got close to 65%. what happens if you let them vote in july?

these studies often lack a discussion of any kind of mechanism - it's just straight correlations with no attempts at explanation. as such, you don't actually learn anything.

what are potatoes? they're highly concentrated sugar. so one should expect that high potato consumption with low exercise would certainly lead to excess weight and high blood pressure. one would also expect that high potato consumption with high activity levels would lead to increased muscle mass, as your body converts the excess sugar into muscle.

you should neither be shocked nor particularly enlightened by any this.

www.cbc.ca/news/health/potato-consumption-hypertension-1.3586370

PshyeahV2.0
Didn't they already have equal rights?

jessica amber murray
it's actually a contentious point. the previous government made the argument that gender identity came under sexual orientation, but that was actually obviously wrong. however, i've long argued that it should be covered under 'analogous grounds' - the issue has apparently never been tested in court. now it's explicit, anyways.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-transgender-rights-1.3584482

j reacts to the canadian transgender human rights code amendment

this is an interesting juxtaposition when contrasted to us coverage, isn't it? watch the video at the bottom, where a conservative senator explains why he's going to vote in favour of trans rights and a second conservative talking head gets emotional describing the absurdity of the debates that she knows are going to come up at the convention (the conservatives will choose a replacement for stephen harper in 2017).

the first guest on the panel suggests there's a political aspect to this, and i entirely agree. but, note in itself what that implies. it's a very different context than in the states, where obama is just finishing out his term and can basically do whatever he wants without fearing any consequences. trudeau is standing up in favour of trans rights because he thinks it's a political winner. and, he's actually probably right, too.

what about the legislation?

these bills have come and gone and they never really excite me. do i think that gender expression should be protected under canadian human rights law and barred as a legal means of discrimination? do i think that violence against trans people is a hate crime? sure. and, so i do certainly support the bill in the literal sense. but, do i think that the solution to discrimination and marginalization is for the parliament to amend the human rights code? i don't.

this isn't a political issue in any way except as a vehicle for opportunism and a way to push identity politics. it's entirely a social issue. and, the work that needs to be done is at a social outreach level.

the comparison to gay marriage is consequently badly misplaced. letting gay people get married is a positive right that can be enacted with the stroke of a pen. ensuring that trans people are safe from violence and allowed to participate in society without discrimination is a negative right that has many decades worth of fighting before it comes to fruition.

but, sure: it's nice to have the prime minister in your corner, anyways.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-transgender-rights-1.3584482

dear america,

again: let's get this straight.

jill stein is a liberal.
bernie sanders is a conservative democrat.
elizabeth warren is a moderate republican.
hillary clinton is a right-wing extremist.

you're just confused because you've been pulled right by a system that is structurally designed to constantly nudge you in that direction.

you've had the carpet shifted under your feet.

regards,
canadian leftist