the air conditioner upstairs is starting to break. i can hear it wheezing. finally.
i'm trying to overload it.
it's literally 35 degrees out today - pre-humidity. i have the windows open. and i have the heat on - set to 28. it's actually on, too. i tried to turn it down, but i don't want to feel the slightest bit of refrigeration on my skin...i want to sit in my own sweat...
i don't think i'm being unreasonable. rather, i think there's absolutely no way to justify installing an air conditioner in your unit that affects the units around you. i don't care what he wants it set at; i don't want to know it exists. if it's 35 degrees outside, and the air conditioner is preventing it from being 35 degrees inside, i feel i have every right to set the heat to 35 degrees - and that the guy running the air conditioner is liable for the costs of returning the air in my room to ambient conditions.
i mean, ideally, i'd just open the window and let the heat come up and down with the temperature outside. yes - i really do want it to be 35 degrees in here. we only get a few weeks a year of nice, hot, humid weather like this. i'm not about to let him suck all the heat out of here.
he's going to wake up to a really nasty hydro bill. but, he earned it. i only wish that i could see his face.
Saturday, June 11, 2016
j reacts to the mess with the senate over euthanasia (blame trudeau....)
ok.
listen.
i happen to agree with the senate on this particular issue. there should not be restrictions on euthanasia. there should be oversight, but not restrictions. the law needs to be about putting in place the contractual requirements to carry it out, not about dictating terms or conditions. this is the kind of normative tinkering that the liberals are supposed to be opposed to. i know americans are reading this - you want to think of canadian liberals as social libertarians, and pretty literal and pretty strict ones.
so, this is actually an unexpectedly strict piece of legislation from that party. i've criticized it, and i think rightly.
but, the fact that i agree with the senate on this issue is less important to me than the premise of picking a side between the senate and the house in the first place. i would rather see the house pass a bill i think is too restrictive than set a precedent for the senate to interfere with the house.
i neither favour abolishment (i think some check on power is a good idea, as an emergency mechanism) nor an elected senate (i don't want to see the kind of gridlock that exists in the united states). what i actually favour is the status quo, as it previously existed. i don't care about the costs. and, i interpreted trudeau's talk as just that - talk. i didn't, for a moment, think he'd be insane enough to give an unelected body a mandate to modify legislation by an elected body.
the thing is that it wasn't broken. it really wasn't. i don't agree with those that claim that it was. so, why fix something that isn't broken?
should the senate start interfering with the business of the house, then the system will actually all of a sudden become broken. they have no mandate for this. i will all of a sudden need to switch my position to abolition, but with a caveat - there needs to be a suitable replacement that can act as an emergency block on power, but not interfere in the day-to-day business of the elected house.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-senate-takes-on-the-house-over-assisted-dying/
the house should reject the amendments.
and, if trudeau wishes to block the rejection, there should be an immediate confidence vote that removes him from power.
it's really unprecedented. there was no referendum. and, it's a serious enough abuse of power for the canadian equivalent of impeachment.
yes: i voted for him. i support most of his platform. but, this is something that can't even be entertained.
listen.
i happen to agree with the senate on this particular issue. there should not be restrictions on euthanasia. there should be oversight, but not restrictions. the law needs to be about putting in place the contractual requirements to carry it out, not about dictating terms or conditions. this is the kind of normative tinkering that the liberals are supposed to be opposed to. i know americans are reading this - you want to think of canadian liberals as social libertarians, and pretty literal and pretty strict ones.
so, this is actually an unexpectedly strict piece of legislation from that party. i've criticized it, and i think rightly.
but, the fact that i agree with the senate on this issue is less important to me than the premise of picking a side between the senate and the house in the first place. i would rather see the house pass a bill i think is too restrictive than set a precedent for the senate to interfere with the house.
i neither favour abolishment (i think some check on power is a good idea, as an emergency mechanism) nor an elected senate (i don't want to see the kind of gridlock that exists in the united states). what i actually favour is the status quo, as it previously existed. i don't care about the costs. and, i interpreted trudeau's talk as just that - talk. i didn't, for a moment, think he'd be insane enough to give an unelected body a mandate to modify legislation by an elected body.
the thing is that it wasn't broken. it really wasn't. i don't agree with those that claim that it was. so, why fix something that isn't broken?
should the senate start interfering with the business of the house, then the system will actually all of a sudden become broken. they have no mandate for this. i will all of a sudden need to switch my position to abolition, but with a caveat - there needs to be a suitable replacement that can act as an emergency block on power, but not interfere in the day-to-day business of the elected house.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-senate-takes-on-the-house-over-assisted-dying/
the house should reject the amendments.
and, if trudeau wishes to block the rejection, there should be an immediate confidence vote that removes him from power.
it's really unprecedented. there was no referendum. and, it's a serious enough abuse of power for the canadian equivalent of impeachment.
yes: i voted for him. i support most of his platform. but, this is something that can't even be entertained.
j reacts to elizabeth warren as vp & the politics of regulatory capture in 2016
once again: the error is that you've placed warren in a category she was never really in. just like you did with obama.
warren's choice to wait until the primaries were done and then pick the winner was really rank opportunism. you expect that from the president. elizabeth warren is not the president. what it suggests is a lack of ideological conviction.
this is somebody that was a republican into her 40s, and switched parties because she thought democrats were better protectors of the "free market". she's then spent basically her entire career trying to turn the clocks back a hundred years, to a time before market theory was discredited across the spectrum. she's a fish out of water - the economic equivalent of a creationist looking for a university that hasn't drunk the kool-aid of evolutionary biology.
she's anything but progressive. she's lost in lala-land. clinton has her defects, but she's not going to appoint somebody lost in a bunch of long debunked, naive nineteenth century nonsense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMCFYzSOwhQ
the reality is that she's widely seen as a crackpot.
--
warren's ideas about banks are something akin to resurrecting beta max and hd-dvd: they failed the first time, so let's try them again.
i know she has a big email list. but, there's a reason she's broadly seen as a fringe idiot in washington.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/18/how-naive-is-elizabeth-warren.html
warren's choice to wait until the primaries were done and then pick the winner was really rank opportunism. you expect that from the president. elizabeth warren is not the president. what it suggests is a lack of ideological conviction.
this is somebody that was a republican into her 40s, and switched parties because she thought democrats were better protectors of the "free market". she's then spent basically her entire career trying to turn the clocks back a hundred years, to a time before market theory was discredited across the spectrum. she's a fish out of water - the economic equivalent of a creationist looking for a university that hasn't drunk the kool-aid of evolutionary biology.
she's anything but progressive. she's lost in lala-land. clinton has her defects, but she's not going to appoint somebody lost in a bunch of long debunked, naive nineteenth century nonsense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMCFYzSOwhQ
the reality is that she's widely seen as a crackpot.
--
warren's ideas about banks are something akin to resurrecting beta max and hd-dvd: they failed the first time, so let's try them again.
i know she has a big email list. but, there's a reason she's broadly seen as a fringe idiot in washington.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/18/how-naive-is-elizabeth-warren.html
will the british exit the eu?
i dunno. i'm more interested in whether the germans are going to declare independence from washington, in which case the british association with the eu becomes a rather stark problem.
the pound is an anachronism. but, washington doesn't want london under the euro. in the end, they may end up under the dollar.
say goodbye to eurasia and hello to oceania, britain.
i dunno. i'm more interested in whether the germans are going to declare independence from washington, in which case the british association with the eu becomes a rather stark problem.
the pound is an anachronism. but, washington doesn't want london under the euro. in the end, they may end up under the dollar.
say goodbye to eurasia and hello to oceania, britain.
it's indeed too early and nobody should get excited about anything. but, the averages are useless and should not be consulted. this is a useful way to measure responses to advertising, but it is a very, very poor methodology for political polling.
the general election is a snapshot that will reflect very short-term opinions, not the cumulative response of weeks of measurements. the polls you get on any specific day are, in fact, likely an accurate reflection of what people are thinking on that specific day. the error is in deducing that people will therefore think that same thing tommorrow.
voting choices are going to be especially volatile when there are very few policy differences of substance between the candidates, as is going to be the case in 2016. worse, they're both widely despised. who is less reviled this week?
that holds today as much as it will in november. all the averages can do is create inaccuracies by blurring together the margins. again: the error is in the model. elections are not market research surveys. snapshots are better measures than averages, you just have to know that they're volatile when you're reading them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-polls_us_575adbcbe4b0e39a28ad606c
the general election is a snapshot that will reflect very short-term opinions, not the cumulative response of weeks of measurements. the polls you get on any specific day are, in fact, likely an accurate reflection of what people are thinking on that specific day. the error is in deducing that people will therefore think that same thing tommorrow.
voting choices are going to be especially volatile when there are very few policy differences of substance between the candidates, as is going to be the case in 2016. worse, they're both widely despised. who is less reviled this week?
that holds today as much as it will in november. all the averages can do is create inaccuracies by blurring together the margins. again: the error is in the model. elections are not market research surveys. snapshots are better measures than averages, you just have to know that they're volatile when you're reading them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-polls_us_575adbcbe4b0e39a28ad606c
warren was a republican until the second bush administration, when she switched to the democrats because she thought that republicans had lost respect for free markets. she'd be better off on a ticket with ron paul.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-republicans_us_57586d0de4b0ced23ca6c42f
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-republicans_us_57586d0de4b0ced23ca6c42f
i put a graphic up on my google+ profile. i'm an exaggeration. but, using harper as a baseline - and being very familiar with both harper and clinton - you have to put clinton to harper's right. challenge the spectrum, if you want. but spectrums are relative. in that spectrum, that's the right place to put her: just an inch to harper's right in both directions. and, i simply don't know where to put trump.
i'm a caricature, as i point out. but, you can see the distance.
i'm a caricature, as i point out. but, you can see the distance.
i've never played many video games. i remember sitting and watching friends play. kind of like the bitch in the room. turned out literally. but, my understanding is that this is the kind of thing that happens when a character dies - you're looking at a respawning somewhere, often randomly. then the plot regenerates itself. it kind of seems like that's what you're getting here...
just a reminder as to why we'll probably eventually get in a huge fight and never talk.
you're probably either in the blue, or very close to the origin point. it's the nature of living most of your life in a harshly neo-liberal society. you might not realize it. a lot of it is subconscious. it's reached the point of social norm. but, it's true nonetheless.
somebody asked me the other day why i'm on disability. the truth is that the answer is this chart. i can't even make myself breakfast without collapsing in a mess of contradictions.
it's cliched, but i have to remind you that i think i'm the one that's sane. there's probably not a meaningful answer as to who is crazy or who isn't. but, the current arrangement is the only possible one.
you're probably either in the blue, or very close to the origin point. it's the nature of living most of your life in a harshly neo-liberal society. you might not realize it. a lot of it is subconscious. it's reached the point of social norm. but, it's true nonetheless.
somebody asked me the other day why i'm on disability. the truth is that the answer is this chart. i can't even make myself breakfast without collapsing in a mess of contradictions.
it's cliched, but i have to remind you that i think i'm the one that's sane. there's probably not a meaningful answer as to who is crazy or who isn't. but, the current arrangement is the only possible one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)