Saturday, January 14, 2017
and, yes - trump's framing is racist as racist can be. but, let's be real, here.
you want to pick a side in a debate between a racist and a sellout?
no. a pox on both their houses.
this is exactly the narrative that democrats need to resist in opposing trump, in order to prevent themselves from being co-opted.
you want to pick a side in a debate between a racist and a sellout?
no. a pox on both their houses.
this is exactly the narrative that democrats need to resist in opposing trump, in order to prevent themselves from being co-opted.
at
21:17
actually, john lewis should focus on pleasing the multinationals that keep him in place as a figurehead in a corporate district. he's one of the most egregious corporate democrats in congress; his history doesn't absolve him of being a tool for big money.
he doesn't represent his constituents, and he doesn't represent civil rights. he represents capital.
he supported clinton over sanders. what does that tell you about who he really represents?
he's a sell-out.
he doesn't represent his constituents, and he doesn't represent civil rights. he represents capital.
he supported clinton over sanders. what does that tell you about who he really represents?
he's a sell-out.
at
20:53
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Sunday, July 13, 2014
if you throw the liberal philosophy and rhetoric about property rights
out the window (and this is especially necessary in canada, where
property rights are only weakly recognized by common law, and have no
standing whatsoever at a constitutional level, being explicitly rejected
by parliament (perhaps for political reasons, but nonetheless)
repeatedly), the way "buying" property works in reality is something
that is basically still feudal in nature.
the proposed constitutional amendment (which the conservatives actually voted down, afraid it was going to create social rights) was itself more or less useless. it said something like "nobody should be deprived of property, unless we say so - in which case we agree to compensate them for it". it was never worded in a way that allowed for real property rights, it was more of a right of compensation for state infringement on property. and, in truth that's what already exists in case law. the proposed, and defeated, amendment was not really meaningful, except to legislate existing case law.
the legal owner of every inch of property in canada (including virtually all native land reserves and virtually everything we refer to as "private property") is the crown, which in canada since 1981 (at the latest possible interpretation date) is legally considered to mean the federal government, to the chagrin of certain groups, but legally so nonetheless. the crown has split this giant area of land up into a very large number of fiefs, which it retains ownership of but passes certain privileges off in the form of various titles. the most common type of fief in the former british empire is the fee simple. fee simple is a title that allows the owner of the title (not the owner of the land) to develop the land in certain ways in exchange for a yearly rental fee, which we refer to as a property tax. actual ownership of land in canada is called allodial title, which is unheard of - it only exists in theory, as an abstract possibility.
see, this is where the liberal literature about property gets really confusing, which reduces to an educational fail. i mean, it's what they teach us in schools, so it's what people think is accurate. there's this widespread misunderstanding that property owners (note the language, which is suggestive) ultimately allodially own a piece of property, and that taxes and regulations on that property are consequently some kind of invasion of freedom. but this interpretation is purely projective. it's what liberals WANT to be true, but it has essentially no legal or traditional basis of any kind whatsoever in canada. it is really just simply *wrong* to try and understand property like this. if it's what you want, then get a gun and start a militia, because it's the only way you're going to get it. personally, i'm not much of a fan of understanding property like this. i'd rather talk about social ownership than private ownership.
but, neither of these things exist in canada. in reality, the crown owns the land, and the taxes paid are a yearly type of rent to use it, subject to the conditions laid out in laws (which are the rental agreements, and dictated by the state).
the truth is that this is the general form of rights in canada, and it may actually be the smarter way to do it, despite appearing weaker.
our rights are all of the form:
"all canadians have this right, unless we take it away, in which case we agree to compensate for it."
rather than american rights which are just generally of the form:
"all americans have this right."
...which *actually means*
"all americans have this right, unless we decide otherwise, in which case you're fucked."
the rule of law is another liberal fantasy that comes off as particularly hilarious when you look at the actual historical record.
but this isn't yet another anarchist rant....
at
18:46
the proposed constitutional amendment (which the conservatives actually voted down, afraid it was going to create social rights) was itself more or less useless. it said something like "nobody should be deprived of property, unless we say so - in which case we agree to compensate them for it". it was never worded in a way that allowed for real property rights, it was more of a right of compensation for state infringement on property. and, in truth that's what already exists in case law. the proposed, and defeated, amendment was not really meaningful, except to legislate existing case law.
the legal owner of every inch of property in canada (including virtually all native land reserves and virtually everything we refer to as "private property") is the crown, which in canada since 1981 (at the latest possible interpretation date) is legally considered to mean the federal government, to the chagrin of certain groups, but legally so nonetheless. the crown has split this giant area of land up into a very large number of fiefs, which it retains ownership of but passes certain privileges off in the form of various titles. the most common type of fief in the former british empire is the fee simple. fee simple is a title that allows the owner of the title (not the owner of the land) to develop the land in certain ways in exchange for a yearly rental fee, which we refer to as a property tax. actual ownership of land in canada is called allodial title, which is unheard of - it only exists in theory, as an abstract possibility.
see, this is where the liberal literature about property gets really confusing, which reduces to an educational fail. i mean, it's what they teach us in schools, so it's what people think is accurate. there's this widespread misunderstanding that property owners (note the language, which is suggestive) ultimately allodially own a piece of property, and that taxes and regulations on that property are consequently some kind of invasion of freedom. but this interpretation is purely projective. it's what liberals WANT to be true, but it has essentially no legal or traditional basis of any kind whatsoever in canada. it is really just simply *wrong* to try and understand property like this. if it's what you want, then get a gun and start a militia, because it's the only way you're going to get it. personally, i'm not much of a fan of understanding property like this. i'd rather talk about social ownership than private ownership.
but, neither of these things exist in canada. in reality, the crown owns the land, and the taxes paid are a yearly type of rent to use it, subject to the conditions laid out in laws (which are the rental agreements, and dictated by the state).
the truth is that this is the general form of rights in canada, and it may actually be the smarter way to do it, despite appearing weaker.
our rights are all of the form:
"all canadians have this right, unless we take it away, in which case we agree to compensate for it."
rather than american rights which are just generally of the form:
"all americans have this right."
...which *actually means*
"all americans have this right, unless we decide otherwise, in which case you're fucked."
the rule of law is another liberal fantasy that comes off as particularly hilarious when you look at the actual historical record.
but this isn't yet another anarchist rant....
at
18:37
i told you from the start that you'll never get co-operation from alberta. in the great game of life, they constantly play D. when you try and cut a deal with them, they just want to take advantage of you. they're bullies; they want to fight. and, you have to take the fight right to them.
they'll complain and whine and cry about it, but the reality is that they thrive on the confrontation. it's what they want.
they'll complain and whine and cry about it, but the reality is that they thrive on the confrontation. it's what they want.
this is a fundamental point of tension in the country, east v west. it's
never going to resolve. it is consequently not the task of eastern
politicians to try and play nice, but to try and use the conflict to
their advantage.
of course, you need to be
careful. as is the case with quebecois nationalism, the ultimate fear is
that the americans may swoop in. but, both sides can use this as
leverage.
if you hand them a fig leaf, they will take it out of your hand and stomp on it. so, we need to stop doing it.
at
15:22
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
to be clear: it's arms-length.
and, harper made it a priority to take control of it. it's become a
swarming hive of right-wing hacks.
cbc: conservative broadcasting corporation.
somebody needs to get the
importance of removing these people across to the liberal party. i don't
think this is clear enough to them.
at
13:17
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
sitting and watching cbc comments change in real-time is always fun, because you can actually see the upvotes decrease in front of you.
this is the statement:
"phasing out the tar sands *is* a populist position."
the upvotes go up....and then they come down, because this is a statement that cannot be upvoted.
to be clear: the ups and downs are independent. clicking down shouldn't decrease the ups. it's just being manipulated. and, like i say, you can watch it happen if you sit and wait.
this is the statement:
"phasing out the tar sands *is* a populist position."
the upvotes go up....and then they come down, because this is a statement that cannot be upvoted.
to be clear: the ups and downs are independent. clicking down shouldn't decrease the ups. it's just being manipulated. and, like i say, you can watch it happen if you sit and wait.
at
13:13
a parliamentary system is not set up to send a figurehead around to take
questions from audiences. the only people that can vote for or against
the prime minister are in his riding. the people that are tasked to talk
to their constituents and bring their concerns back to ottawa are the
sitting members in the house. that is how the data that they want should
be collected.
so, the media narrative of "he should say this...he should say
that..."....no. he should leave the job of local representation to local
representatives and go back to ottawa and govern.
when i go in to the voting area, i'm not going to remember the answers he gave at a town hall meeting. what i'm going to remember is the choices he made when governing. and, right now, he hasn't made very many choices at all - he's just answered a lot of questions.
if i have a concern, i'm not
going to call the prime minister. i'm going to call my mp. and, that's
who should be doing these town halls.
when i go in to the voting area, i'm not going to remember the answers he gave at a town hall meeting. what i'm going to remember is the choices he made when governing. and, right now, he hasn't made very many choices at all - he's just answered a lot of questions.
at
12:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
no, you don't...
i actually don't care how he answers the questions; i care what he does when he goes back to ottawa. and, i actually think he should have stayed there in the first place, because it doesn't actually matter how he answers the questions.
the greatest, most carefully crafted responses in the world will not overshadow policy decisions. the most beautiful platitudes imaginable will not alter the contents of the budget. and, the most vociferous claims of a change of direction in government mean little, when they are not backed up by meaningful legislation.
we've heard trudeau talk enough. i know what he has to say. what i want is more action.
i actually don't care how he answers the questions; i care what he does when he goes back to ottawa. and, i actually think he should have stayed there in the first place, because it doesn't actually matter how he answers the questions.
the greatest, most carefully crafted responses in the world will not overshadow policy decisions. the most beautiful platitudes imaginable will not alter the contents of the budget. and, the most vociferous claims of a change of direction in government mean little, when they are not backed up by meaningful legislation.
we've heard trudeau talk enough. i know what he has to say. what i want is more action.
at
12:24
july 12, 2014
it's all the same cultural themes as at the end of the clinton administration. techno. emo. ufos. these things actually have something in common. if you don't think the economy is planned, you're not paying attention. but note that the planners do not believe in democracy; the social engineering is being pushed down from above, and it's not a utopian vision. this future has a new religion in it, with new value systems, but it's designed to uphold the status quo rather than abolish it.
it's the type of thing people fear the republicans are scheming up. but, that's the democratic plan, which seems to have just been rebooted with obama without so much as a thought. it's absolute clinton redux. the republicans don't even care anymore, the democrats do everything the business class wants anyways, so they're just happy to hold the office every few years to cut their own taxes.
one of the more surreal conversations i've stumbled upon in relation to this was actually from peter gabriel, who very coyly suggested that the social and political messaging behind his art was to create a globalized culture, and there was some kind of structure underlying it. well, if the nwo sounds like passion, i must say that, i, for one, welcome our new kosmische overlords.
not to drag the nwo scare tactics out. we may end up ruled by computerized aliens, but no intelligent person is going to actually believe it's anything more than a front. these guys aren't marxists; they're not even on the left side of capitalism. it's fascists across the board, right now. and global bodies like the un remain the only way to stop them.
if you want to stop them. it's a hard road from a to b, but we may require a long period of horrific global governance to reach a state of communism.
i mean, things aren't working out so well at the moment.
it's all the same cultural themes as at the end of the clinton administration. techno. emo. ufos. these things actually have something in common. if you don't think the economy is planned, you're not paying attention. but note that the planners do not believe in democracy; the social engineering is being pushed down from above, and it's not a utopian vision. this future has a new religion in it, with new value systems, but it's designed to uphold the status quo rather than abolish it.
it's the type of thing people fear the republicans are scheming up. but, that's the democratic plan, which seems to have just been rebooted with obama without so much as a thought. it's absolute clinton redux. the republicans don't even care anymore, the democrats do everything the business class wants anyways, so they're just happy to hold the office every few years to cut their own taxes.
one of the more surreal conversations i've stumbled upon in relation to this was actually from peter gabriel, who very coyly suggested that the social and political messaging behind his art was to create a globalized culture, and there was some kind of structure underlying it. well, if the nwo sounds like passion, i must say that, i, for one, welcome our new kosmische overlords.
not to drag the nwo scare tactics out. we may end up ruled by computerized aliens, but no intelligent person is going to actually believe it's anything more than a front. these guys aren't marxists; they're not even on the left side of capitalism. it's fascists across the board, right now. and global bodies like the un remain the only way to stop them.
if you want to stop them. it's a hard road from a to b, but we may require a long period of horrific global governance to reach a state of communism.
i mean, things aren't working out so well at the moment.
at
04:45
put another way..
it's well known that, when forced with the choice, canada picks democrats over republicans by at least a 3-1 margin. there were polls around the iraq invasion that had george w. bush running under 5% in canada - even as he was running high in the polls in the united states.
the flip side of that that is much less realized is that americans are going to pick the conservatives over the liberals by similar margins. they just don't realize it, because they don't really know the parties. they know the words, but they don't realize how they apply, here. all kinds of people that identify as liberal democrats in the united states would very quickly become card-carrying conservatives as soon as they crossed the border and realized what was actually in front of them.
it's well known that, when forced with the choice, canada picks democrats over republicans by at least a 3-1 margin. there were polls around the iraq invasion that had george w. bush running under 5% in canada - even as he was running high in the polls in the united states.
the flip side of that that is much less realized is that americans are going to pick the conservatives over the liberals by similar margins. they just don't realize it, because they don't really know the parties. they know the words, but they don't realize how they apply, here. all kinds of people that identify as liberal democrats in the united states would very quickly become card-carrying conservatives as soon as they crossed the border and realized what was actually in front of them.
at
02:15
the great irony is that so many self-identifying american progressives that want to move to canada would quickly find themselves marginalized on the right, if they were to actually do so.
our conservative party supports single-payer health care, and refuses to discuss abortion. with the single exception of energy policy, it is monolithically to the left of the democratic party.
our "natural governing party", the liberals, is roughly in the same space on the spectrum as the american green party.
and, we have a socialist party that actually succeeded in nationalizing the oil industry for most of the 70s and part of the 80s (with a strong assist from the liberals).
to get an idea of where you'd exist in our spectrum, let's map a few well known personalities:
1) hillary clinton ----> old tory.
2) barack obama ----> old tory.
3) elizabeth warren ----> red tory, or right-wing liberal.
4) jill stein ----> centrist liberal: closest match to the prime minister.
5) ted cruz ----> reform party (albertan conservative).
6) marco rubio ----> reform party (albertan conservative).
7) donald trump ----> oldskool social credit.
8) john kerry ---> right-wing liberal.
9) bernie sanders ----> right-leaning ndp, or left-leaning liberal.
10) naomi klein ----> centrist ndp.
11) noam chomsky ---->left-leaning ndp.
you sure you think this is a good idea?
actually, it's kind of neat to put them together to really solidify the culture shock.
socreds: {trump}
tories: {clinton, obama, rubio, cruz, warren....stephen harper}
liberals: {kerry, stein.....justin trudeau}
ndp: {sanders, klein, chomsky}
our conservative party supports single-payer health care, and refuses to discuss abortion. with the single exception of energy policy, it is monolithically to the left of the democratic party.
our "natural governing party", the liberals, is roughly in the same space on the spectrum as the american green party.
and, we have a socialist party that actually succeeded in nationalizing the oil industry for most of the 70s and part of the 80s (with a strong assist from the liberals).
to get an idea of where you'd exist in our spectrum, let's map a few well known personalities:
1) hillary clinton ----> old tory.
2) barack obama ----> old tory.
3) elizabeth warren ----> red tory, or right-wing liberal.
4) jill stein ----> centrist liberal: closest match to the prime minister.
5) ted cruz ----> reform party (albertan conservative).
6) marco rubio ----> reform party (albertan conservative).
7) donald trump ----> oldskool social credit.
8) john kerry ---> right-wing liberal.
9) bernie sanders ----> right-leaning ndp, or left-leaning liberal.
10) naomi klein ----> centrist ndp.
11) noam chomsky ---->left-leaning ndp.
you sure you think this is a good idea?
actually, it's kind of neat to put them together to really solidify the culture shock.
socreds: {trump}
tories: {clinton, obama, rubio, cruz, warren....stephen harper}
liberals: {kerry, stein.....justin trudeau}
ndp: {sanders, klein, chomsky}
at
01:46
another way to understand what's happening is to use the analogy of a cell phone contract, because it's actually fairly precise and something a lot of people have experience with.
let's say you get a new job that requires you to use a lot of minutes. you look at the plans and pick a plan that gives you unlimited minutes for a considerably higher price. it's expensive in absolute terms, but you know you will use the minutes, so you expect to save money. then, you sign the contract for five years, because you're optimistic about the job.
now, imagine that you get hit by a car the day after you sign the cell contract and it puts you in permanent disability, so that you're not going to work at all for at least five years. now, you have no expectation of needing all of these minutes that you bought - but you're locked into a five year plan.
so, every month when the bill comes in, you're paying for a service you're not using. but, because you're under contract, you can't get out.
what the province of ontario did was sign 20 year contracts with private electricity suppliers that guaranteed them a minimum revenue stream, then figuratively get hit by a car and find itself unable to use all of this electricity that it locked itself into paying for.
you can't buy a cell tower. but, the state could have paid for the wind farm. the problem is that they were afraid that the debt would become a political liability. so, they made what they thought was a great deal, instead. and it backfired very badly....
i've been clear that i'd just pass a law. but, the fastest and easiest solution would be to take on the debt.
let's say you get a new job that requires you to use a lot of minutes. you look at the plans and pick a plan that gives you unlimited minutes for a considerably higher price. it's expensive in absolute terms, but you know you will use the minutes, so you expect to save money. then, you sign the contract for five years, because you're optimistic about the job.
now, imagine that you get hit by a car the day after you sign the cell contract and it puts you in permanent disability, so that you're not going to work at all for at least five years. now, you have no expectation of needing all of these minutes that you bought - but you're locked into a five year plan.
so, every month when the bill comes in, you're paying for a service you're not using. but, because you're under contract, you can't get out.
what the province of ontario did was sign 20 year contracts with private electricity suppliers that guaranteed them a minimum revenue stream, then figuratively get hit by a car and find itself unable to use all of this electricity that it locked itself into paying for.
you can't buy a cell tower. but, the state could have paid for the wind farm. the problem is that they were afraid that the debt would become a political liability. so, they made what they thought was a great deal, instead. and it backfired very badly....
i've been clear that i'd just pass a law. but, the fastest and easiest solution would be to take on the debt.
at
00:35
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)