it's not about how big the armies are...
the difference is this:
- the russians actually want to be our friends. they always have.
- the chinese want us wiped off of the face of the earth.
Monday, February 26, 2018
i'll bite tonight on north korea, but i usually don't pay a lot of attention.
the reason is that north korea is an absolute stalemate. mathemtically, tactically, strategically - there is no move on either side that is possible. and, the truth is that the nuclear deterrent doesn't really alter anything at all.
so, nobody makes any moves, because there aren't any to make.
....except the guy that doesn't understand anything about tactics, strategy or mathematics. that guy thinks he can solve the problem nobody else can, because, by the sheer magnitude of his ignorance, he is the only one smart enough to do it. over confidence is a dangerous trait for a world leader.
in this sense, trump is more jong-il than they are, themselves.
but, that doesn't mean that anybody is going to let trump actually do anything substantive. i'm going to put this down starkly: trump is more likely to get assassinated than he is to succeed in launching any kind of an attack on north korea. so, we just have to be patient about this, and hope that the chinese are wise enough (sorry....) to see the situation for what it is and wait it out.
but, let's suppose that, somehow, trump wins this argument, and the generals let him put the army guys in korea, so he can do his little tour, and pretend he's avenging the other mccarthy - no, the other other mccarthy*. then what?
i honestly don't think the chinese react, or at least not immediately. there's that river. that's the red line. and, if a more competent leader were to do this, they might have to. but, trump? no...
what the chinese are going to do is look at what happened in iraq, and try to emulate it. iran could have never removed saddam hussein on it's own. but, once he was gone, they walked into the power vacuum and have converted an enemy into an ally.
likewise, what the chinese are going to do is lay low for a little while and then take advantage of the situation on the ground. that will include taking advantage of angst from countries like south korea and potentially japan about american recklessness.
ten years after the american invasion, the korean problem will be solved - by annexation.
....and, there may be aspects of the chinese leadership that are consequently hoping he does it....
....but i don't expect this stalemate to break any time soon, because there really isn't a way to break it. so, on to other matters.
*the mccarthier one.
the reason is that north korea is an absolute stalemate. mathemtically, tactically, strategically - there is no move on either side that is possible. and, the truth is that the nuclear deterrent doesn't really alter anything at all.
so, nobody makes any moves, because there aren't any to make.
....except the guy that doesn't understand anything about tactics, strategy or mathematics. that guy thinks he can solve the problem nobody else can, because, by the sheer magnitude of his ignorance, he is the only one smart enough to do it. over confidence is a dangerous trait for a world leader.
in this sense, trump is more jong-il than they are, themselves.
but, that doesn't mean that anybody is going to let trump actually do anything substantive. i'm going to put this down starkly: trump is more likely to get assassinated than he is to succeed in launching any kind of an attack on north korea. so, we just have to be patient about this, and hope that the chinese are wise enough (sorry....) to see the situation for what it is and wait it out.
but, let's suppose that, somehow, trump wins this argument, and the generals let him put the army guys in korea, so he can do his little tour, and pretend he's avenging the other mccarthy - no, the other other mccarthy*. then what?
i honestly don't think the chinese react, or at least not immediately. there's that river. that's the red line. and, if a more competent leader were to do this, they might have to. but, trump? no...
what the chinese are going to do is look at what happened in iraq, and try to emulate it. iran could have never removed saddam hussein on it's own. but, once he was gone, they walked into the power vacuum and have converted an enemy into an ally.
likewise, what the chinese are going to do is lay low for a little while and then take advantage of the situation on the ground. that will include taking advantage of angst from countries like south korea and potentially japan about american recklessness.
ten years after the american invasion, the korean problem will be solved - by annexation.
....and, there may be aspects of the chinese leadership that are consequently hoping he does it....
....but i don't expect this stalemate to break any time soon, because there really isn't a way to break it. so, on to other matters.
*the mccarthier one.
at
22:02
fuck this, we should seize it back.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/02/26/real-estate-canada-anbang_a_23371224/
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/02/26/real-estate-canada-anbang_a_23371224/
at
20:47
on being beautiful, once
perhaps what this intends to illustrate is the connection between religious fundamentalism, mental illness and irrational behaviour?
i don't understand how you can relate with the male character here, at all. this is is just insane behaviour, all around. and, this man needs to speak with a mental health professional.
you seem to be mostly coming from jewish or christian backgrounds. but, this story is more important in the muslim tradition, where it informs one of the eid festivals. the narrative in the muslim tradition is a little different as well: in the muslim tradition, this is meant to celebrate abraham's faith - which, in context, presents the idea that he might actually do it as the most supreme act of righteousness possible. abraham is presented as a hero, here, and his faith as something to emulate.
i've never been able to interpret this as anything more or less than simple crazy talk. and, the only lesson i get from the story or ever did get from it when i read it as a child is about the dangers of faith, and how it can lead to poor decision making.
when i first heard the song, it reminded me of trump's campaign slogan: make america great again. but, i remember thinking that the irony wasn't cognizant in his mind. he didn't realize he was making the exact same error, or that that kind of thinking would have the exact same outcome. this is common in people of faith, that can't see through this two-way mirror, and often don't realize it's there.
after watching the video, i'm not so sure anymore. because, this can be seen as an indictment as easily as it can be seen as anything else. and, i guess that kind of ambiguity is what defines a lot of art as what it is.
i don't understand how you can relate with the male character here, at all. this is is just insane behaviour, all around. and, this man needs to speak with a mental health professional.
you seem to be mostly coming from jewish or christian backgrounds. but, this story is more important in the muslim tradition, where it informs one of the eid festivals. the narrative in the muslim tradition is a little different as well: in the muslim tradition, this is meant to celebrate abraham's faith - which, in context, presents the idea that he might actually do it as the most supreme act of righteousness possible. abraham is presented as a hero, here, and his faith as something to emulate.
i've never been able to interpret this as anything more or less than simple crazy talk. and, the only lesson i get from the story or ever did get from it when i read it as a child is about the dangers of faith, and how it can lead to poor decision making.
when i first heard the song, it reminded me of trump's campaign slogan: make america great again. but, i remember thinking that the irony wasn't cognizant in his mind. he didn't realize he was making the exact same error, or that that kind of thinking would have the exact same outcome. this is common in people of faith, that can't see through this two-way mirror, and often don't realize it's there.
after watching the video, i'm not so sure anymore. because, this can be seen as an indictment as easily as it can be seen as anything else. and, i guess that kind of ambiguity is what defines a lot of art as what it is.
at
20:27
i mean, you could say the same thing about not eating pork.
if you lived in the desert before the invention of refrigeration, pork was probably going to make you really sick. so, that's a good rule for bronze age nomads.
but, nowadays, you can just throw the bacon in the fridge.
well, if you have electricity, anyways.
if you lived in the desert before the invention of refrigeration, pork was probably going to make you really sick. so, that's a good rule for bronze age nomads.
but, nowadays, you can just throw the bacon in the fridge.
well, if you have electricity, anyways.
at
20:13
fwiw, what is my take on the origin of the story?
well, there's this interesting idea running through roman history that the carthaginians practiced child sacrifice as a part of their religious rituals. the carthaginians were a semitic people that colonized the coasts of north africa and southern spain, from home bases in modern day lebanon. the romans successfully wiped them off the face of the earth like jagmeet singh's beard must eventually be wiped off of the face of the earth, leaving nothing much at all but scattered traces and broken latin translations of their science, but it is well understood that they were the most advanced civilization of their period.
both the phoenicians and the hebrews came from cultural canaanite origins. and, it may be that this ritual of sacrifice was widespread in the areas that judaism eventually evolved in.
the timelines are very rough, but fit with a broad hypothesis that this story was meant to end an endemic practice of child sacrifice in society. the important part of the story may consequently not have had much to do with faith at all, but been more about the ram that was presented instead - the lesson being to kill the ram, not the kids.
(and, what do we call young goats?)
some caution is required, as i'm basically arguing that the ancient jews were baby eaters, and i'm aware of the path i'm walking down. but, i'm going to flip this over: the accusations are as old as history is. and, we do actually have archaeological evidence that does seem to suggest that child sacrifice is something that happened in pre-roman canaanite civilization. as far as we can tell, this is something that happened in the mists of history, even if there isn't any evidence that it has happened since.
as is the case regarding much of the bible, if that is true then it was an important lesson in the bronze age, wasn't it? how many children's lives did the story save?
but, it would also follow that the lesson we are to learn today is one of distancing ourselves from faith.
well, there's this interesting idea running through roman history that the carthaginians practiced child sacrifice as a part of their religious rituals. the carthaginians were a semitic people that colonized the coasts of north africa and southern spain, from home bases in modern day lebanon. the romans successfully wiped them off the face of the earth like jagmeet singh's beard must eventually be wiped off of the face of the earth, leaving nothing much at all but scattered traces and broken latin translations of their science, but it is well understood that they were the most advanced civilization of their period.
both the phoenicians and the hebrews came from cultural canaanite origins. and, it may be that this ritual of sacrifice was widespread in the areas that judaism eventually evolved in.
the timelines are very rough, but fit with a broad hypothesis that this story was meant to end an endemic practice of child sacrifice in society. the important part of the story may consequently not have had much to do with faith at all, but been more about the ram that was presented instead - the lesson being to kill the ram, not the kids.
(and, what do we call young goats?)
some caution is required, as i'm basically arguing that the ancient jews were baby eaters, and i'm aware of the path i'm walking down. but, i'm going to flip this over: the accusations are as old as history is. and, we do actually have archaeological evidence that does seem to suggest that child sacrifice is something that happened in pre-roman canaanite civilization. as far as we can tell, this is something that happened in the mists of history, even if there isn't any evidence that it has happened since.
as is the case regarding much of the bible, if that is true then it was an important lesson in the bronze age, wasn't it? how many children's lives did the story save?
but, it would also follow that the lesson we are to learn today is one of distancing ourselves from faith.
at
19:54
my official take on the existential literature is that i haven't spent the time exploring it for the reason that it would feel like i'm reading my own thoughts.
i know that i have an exceedingly deep connection to this - to the point that i don't feel i'd learn anything from reading it.
it's basically innate to who i am; instinct, almost.
so, i'm aware that i sound like i've read mountains of camus and kierkegaard and the rest. in truth, i've only explored it at a very cursory level.
my brain is just wired to make the same deductions, independently.
i will get to it, eventually.
i know that i have an exceedingly deep connection to this - to the point that i don't feel i'd learn anything from reading it.
it's basically innate to who i am; instinct, almost.
so, i'm aware that i sound like i've read mountains of camus and kierkegaard and the rest. in truth, i've only explored it at a very cursory level.
my brain is just wired to make the same deductions, independently.
i will get to it, eventually.
at
18:39
i mean, maybe that's a tactic we should be more aware of, and maybe this is one of the ways that we defeat religion, in the end. it's their own tactic. christmas, as we celebrate it, is more pagan than jewish; that's no accident, it's what the church did to convert people.
so, why don't we take their stories and turn them back around on them?
this particular story really is a powerful parable, and it really does have an important lesson about the irrationality and dangers of uncritical faith. so, let's get that lesson across to our kids.
so, why don't we take their stories and turn them back around on them?
this particular story really is a powerful parable, and it really does have an important lesson about the irrationality and dangers of uncritical faith. so, let's get that lesson across to our kids.
at
17:58
there is an excellent parable in this story. i remember learning a lot from it - it was one of the stories that made me question the value of faith, and taught me that faith can lead to poor decision making....
so, i don't think this story should be forgotten, or that it's pages should be burned.
but, none of the religions draw the right conclusions.
the way that religion teaches this story is really a good example of the blind leading the blind.
so, i don't think this story should be forgotten, or that it's pages should be burned.
but, none of the religions draw the right conclusions.
the way that religion teaches this story is really a good example of the blind leading the blind.
at
17:54
the idea that abraham was some kind of role model is psychotic.
and, there's serious rational grounds to fear people who would suggest otherwise.
and, there's serious rational grounds to fear people who would suggest otherwise.
at
17:49
as i've said before: if somebody told me they were hearing voices, and god had ordered them to kill their child, but reversed those orders at the last minute, my reaction is going to be to call the police in hopes of medical intervention, not to throw a feast to celebrate their faith.
sorry.
sorry.
at
17:44
i think, in the long run, we're going to realize that the big bang theory is a way to "scientize" religion, rather than truly objective or truly correct science.
as i said a few years ago, it's not a question of if an explosion happened. we can be absolutely certain that the explosion happened....
...but, it requires a leap of faith to conclude that this explosion was special, or even that it resulted in the creation of anything.
as mentioned, i tend towards this idea in m-theory that new universes are created all of the time. but, it could have very well just been something exploding.
as i said a few years ago, it's not a question of if an explosion happened. we can be absolutely certain that the explosion happened....
...but, it requires a leap of faith to conclude that this explosion was special, or even that it resulted in the creation of anything.
as mentioned, i tend towards this idea in m-theory that new universes are created all of the time. but, it could have very well just been something exploding.
at
08:11
i want to temper criticism by pointing out that the policy of coming down harder on opiate dealers is not meant as deterrence; i agree that it's not likely to reduce use, and that separate educational programs (for kids....) are required for that.
....although, i'd broadly advocate non-interference for adults. there's a point where you can't do anything for somebody besides locking them up for detox, because they've lost anything resembling free will.
no. this is about retribution.
it's about punishment.
....although, i'd broadly advocate non-interference for adults. there's a point where you can't do anything for somebody besides locking them up for detox, because they've lost anything resembling free will.
no. this is about retribution.
it's about punishment.
at
06:36
i'd compromise on making the sale or prescription of opiates punishable equivalently to second-degree murder, and a prosecutorial shift to seeking punishment to the full extent of the law.
at
06:17
it depends on the drug. but, i don't think i ever suggested killing them.
a death sentence is always a problem, because we can never be sure.
but, i'll reiterate my claim that public castration is a good idea, when it comes to heroin dealers.
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-telling-people-he-wants-start-executing-drug-dealers
a death sentence is always a problem, because we can never be sure.
but, i'll reiterate my claim that public castration is a good idea, when it comes to heroin dealers.
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-telling-people-he-wants-start-executing-drug-dealers
at
06:00
i've said before many times that preliminary data suggests that i may end up liking the aggregate views of the next generation far more than those of millennials (which i despise) or gen x (which i prefer, but only loosely identify with).
as it is, i find myself most broadly in agreement with the children of the depression. this is my grandparents' generation. i can hardly identify as belonging to it, but these are the views i'm more likely to hold to.
and, likewise, i won't be able to identify as a child of a recession i spent my late 20s and early 30s in. but, it appears to be where my moral support is going to end up falling....
it means i have several more cycles in the wilderness. and, that's ok.
as it is, i find myself most broadly in agreement with the children of the depression. this is my grandparents' generation. i can hardly identify as belonging to it, but these are the views i'm more likely to hold to.
and, likewise, i won't be able to identify as a child of a recession i spent my late 20s and early 30s in. but, it appears to be where my moral support is going to end up falling....
it means i have several more cycles in the wilderness. and, that's ok.
at
04:45
we have to guide the demographics properly, though.
a lot of my pushback is based in the idea that we're throwing away the youth vote to appeal to an unattainable fantasy (not my fantasy) - that the mainstream left is going to wake up one day and realize it's lost the younger generation by pushing this outdated burkean hippie vision of a religiously fluid & harmonious multicultural society, while young people don't even accept the reality of race any more and just don't want to talk about religion at all.
you have to get them while they're young. and, the mainstream left is in danger of permanently losing the culture war by refusing to burst it's own bubble, opening up a space in the spectrum for this reactionary "secular right".
young people may very well prefer what i'm saying to what breitbart is pushing. but, in the end, the bannonesque vision may prove more appealing than some politicized hipsterism fantasizing about a return to the 60s.
so, let's avoid this spectrum where the choice is between bannon and trudeau....
identity politics is cancer.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-bet-on-the-emergence-of-a-religious-left/
a lot of my pushback is based in the idea that we're throwing away the youth vote to appeal to an unattainable fantasy (not my fantasy) - that the mainstream left is going to wake up one day and realize it's lost the younger generation by pushing this outdated burkean hippie vision of a religiously fluid & harmonious multicultural society, while young people don't even accept the reality of race any more and just don't want to talk about religion at all.
you have to get them while they're young. and, the mainstream left is in danger of permanently losing the culture war by refusing to burst it's own bubble, opening up a space in the spectrum for this reactionary "secular right".
young people may very well prefer what i'm saying to what breitbart is pushing. but, in the end, the bannonesque vision may prove more appealing than some politicized hipsterism fantasizing about a return to the 60s.
so, let's avoid this spectrum where the choice is between bannon and trudeau....
identity politics is cancer.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-bet-on-the-emergence-of-a-religious-left/
at
04:30
i'm a canadian and everything, but i would almost certainly vote third party - or not at all - in a biden-trump race.
i can't think of a single issue where biden offers an improvement in policy.
i can't think of a single issue where biden offers an improvement in policy.
at
04:12
i mean, you can call me an 'uncle tom' for standing up for science if you want, but don't be shocked when i call you an ignorant nigger, in response.
this conflict is unavoidable.
secularism must reclaim the left.
this conflict is unavoidable.
secularism must reclaim the left.
at
03:40
conversely, if i was going to articulate an argument against the existing liberal status quo, it would be about privatizing public resources - this is my big complaint about the sitting government - and not about immigration or race.
i mean, they could fuck that up by supporting sharia courts, or something.
but, kathleen wynne & her party have been absolutely correct in their stances on this, up to now: one law for everyone...
i mean, they could fuck that up by supporting sharia courts, or something.
but, kathleen wynne & her party have been absolutely correct in their stances on this, up to now: one law for everyone...
at
03:22
i'm vocal about immigration - because the left needs a course correction - but it's hardly going to be something that's going to decide how or if i vote.
nor would the right present me with an opinion on immigration that i'd support, anyways. i don't think christians are better than muslims, or have some preference for white people.
race does not exist.
...& i'm both a godless liberal & secular humanist and, as i keep saying, very brown.
so, i could name 20 or 30 things off of the top of my head that are more important to me, and will have a bigger effect on how i vote, than that.
sorry.
nor would the right present me with an opinion on immigration that i'd support, anyways. i don't think christians are better than muslims, or have some preference for white people.
race does not exist.
...& i'm both a godless liberal & secular humanist and, as i keep saying, very brown.
so, i could name 20 or 30 things off of the top of my head that are more important to me, and will have a bigger effect on how i vote, than that.
sorry.
at
03:17
but, this is a consequence of nafta being flawed.
again: wynne is right. i'm going to sound like a broken record over the next several months.
free trade with the united states, or 'reciprocity', was always a good idea. but, nafta isn't a free trade agreement, as we see happening here.
(this was not only the position of protestors, but also of the liberal party, who got this perfectly right at the time)
under an actual free trade agreement, which is what interlinked economies with comparable labour standards should strive for, none of this would be legal. and, we wouldn't be threatening retaliation, but merely upholding the law.
what nafta always was was an investors rights agreement, designed to benefit the highest levels of capital at the exclusion of workers. and, i would like to see it replaced with or superseded by an actual free trade agreement that either excludes mexico or puts conditions on it that are so onerous that it is forced to rapidly modernize.
in the mean time, we have to retaliate. it's not a choice....
https://www.thestar.com/business/economy/2018/02/21/ontario-will-not-blink-in-face-of-buy-america-policies-says-wynne.html
again: wynne is right. i'm going to sound like a broken record over the next several months.
free trade with the united states, or 'reciprocity', was always a good idea. but, nafta isn't a free trade agreement, as we see happening here.
(this was not only the position of protestors, but also of the liberal party, who got this perfectly right at the time)
under an actual free trade agreement, which is what interlinked economies with comparable labour standards should strive for, none of this would be legal. and, we wouldn't be threatening retaliation, but merely upholding the law.
what nafta always was was an investors rights agreement, designed to benefit the highest levels of capital at the exclusion of workers. and, i would like to see it replaced with or superseded by an actual free trade agreement that either excludes mexico or puts conditions on it that are so onerous that it is forced to rapidly modernize.
in the mean time, we have to retaliate. it's not a choice....
https://www.thestar.com/business/economy/2018/02/21/ontario-will-not-blink-in-face-of-buy-america-policies-says-wynne.html
at
02:50
i guess we'll find out if 30 days is enough time for the russians to consolidate the situation on the ground, and prepare for the next round.
at
02:39
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)