ok, so i've finally got those typos i told you about on tuesday afternoon updated.

- i removed a "/p>" from the html frontend for inri002 and inri015.
- i removed an extra "</p>" from the html frontend for inri015.
- i unscratched out a track from the html frontend for inri015.

that's it. but, it means reuploading the 7z.txt package and redownloading the end point in flac for archiving.

inri002:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inricycled

inri015:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-3

the (hopefully) final update (for now) for inri021 should be up soon, i hope.

and, i may have to make some pasta in the wee hours of the morning because it's -30 out for the first and hopefully last time this year.

if the demographics in new hampshire preferred klobuchar over warren, cheating or not, it's hard for me to think that the demographics in nevada would reverse that.

warren is more white, older & a little less socially conservative. they ought to prefer klobuchar.

but, black churchies in south carolina ought to like buttigieg, too.

should i post about nevada? i have an hour and a half to blow before i turn the pc on, which i turned off early this morning to go to sleep. i have slept most of the day....

i suggested a little earlier that i basically think this "diversity" line is just an excuse and that, notwithstanding the clear reality that southern blacks are neither going to vote for a jew nor a gay male in any kind of substantive numbers, i don't really think that nevada is going to be as different from the first two states as is often surmised.

the polls that exist are ancient, now - early january. but, the trendline is actually more or less the same as we've seen elsewhere - biden & warren are falling, while sanders is stable and buttigieg is climbing, by capitalizing on support wandering from biden & warren. is there some kind of accompanying klobuchar bounce? we'd need fresh polling to conclude that, but, frankly, i'd expect something or other.

the only thing that really looks like it might be different in nevada is that steyer may be polling substantively higher, presumably cutting into the same voter pool as warren, biden, buttigieg & klobuchar. if you start with new hampshire results and you take 2% from each of those candidates and give it to steyer, you end up with:

sanders - 26%
buttigieg - 22%
klobuchar - 18%
steyer - 12%
warren - 7%
biden - 6%

and, if i was to take a guess, a priori, which is a terrible idea, that's probably not far from what you'd end up with - on the first ballot. the only tweak i'd make would be to move some of klobuchar's vote to warren.

sanders - 26%
buttigieg - 22%
klobuchar - 15%
steyer - 12%
warren - 10%
biden - 6%

what that means is that you're probably actually looking at the same three candidates in nevada - maybe. steyer is probably just going to kill off biden, without getting over the threshold, himself. and, klobuchar and warren may destroy each other.

the last thing that i want to take note of is yang, whose suspended campaign doesn't have an obvious beneficiary in nevada but who could potentially help a candidate become viable if they move together. warren is a curious possibility and maybe the best fit, but i don't know if it's enough. yang himself has suggested sanders, but sanders has not responded favourably to yang's proposals, and frankly seems to be a bit of a productionist. on the other hand, if turnout just comes down by a few points, it will have the effect of inflating totals by any candidates right on the bubble.

if we get some polling, great, and i'll change my analysis to react to it. but, maybe this is better read as how i'm expecting any polling to come up.

south carolina may be a very different story. but, i don't actually expect nevada to come in that different than the first two states, which will hopefully undercut this goofy narrative about "diversity" helping biden. his numbers were already falling there; i think he's going to do terribly, and i think warren is going to tank, too.

the real question mark is if klobuchar and steyer can get viable or not.

so, splitting yang's three between warren & sanders, my tentative first ballot hypothesis in nevada is going to be something like:

sanders - 27%
buttigieg - 22%
klobuchar - 15%
steyer - 12%
warren - 12%
biden - 6%
rest - 6%

if klobuchar clears the hurdle, she's going to split support from warren & biden voters.

what about steyer? his selling point appears to be openly supporting reparations, something klobuchar has rejected, sanders has been dismissive about and buttigieg has been most supportive of. i don't know, so let's split it equally.

and, you get something like:

sanders - 27 + 4 (steyer) + 2 (warren) + 2 (rest) = 35%
buttigieg -  22 + 4 (steyer) + 5(waren) + 3 (biden) + 2 (rest) = 36%
klobuchar - 15 + 4 (steyer) + 5 (warren) + 3 (biden) + 2 (rest) = 29%

i understand that i made a mistake in completely redistributing second votes, and that a lot of people just won't vote a second time. so, you should take everybody down 5-6%, probably.

regardless, i'm basically suggesting that the results will be essentially the same as in new hampshire, after the second vote - that sanders & buttigieg will be in a toss-up for first, with klobuchar a ways behind.

...if she's viable.

if she isn't? well, most of that 29% goes to buttigieg, and you could see him pull off his first consolidation of moderate forces, something bernie is going to not want to see happen again.

so, if the other candidates split the moderate vote badly enough that only buttigieg ends up viable, expect massive recombining in the second round, and a potential landslide victory on the order of 55% to 30%.

we simply don't have the polling to make predictions, though. i'm just thinking out loud.

if that result were to happen in a primary state, it would benefit sanders, as all of the unviable centrists would just get crossed out. so, the fact that nevada is a caucus could end up costing him, if the results end up a specific way.

but, if klobuchar is viable more often than not, and the other middle three eek out some district wins, i think you're looking at a tie between the same players as previously, and some hard decisions for warren, particularly.

now, let's hope we get some polling...

chances are that you wouldn't last very long under a system of traditional indigenous law, and i wouldn't condemn anybody to an existence i couldn't tolerate myself - i will stand with those agitating for overthrow, revolution and change. because i'm on the left, and that's what we do...

but, these colonial band councils aren't the right answer, either.

so, to summarize:

- our courts should require a treaty to define who has jurisdiction before they even try to interpret a contract.
- we should not be enforcing the indian act on groups that have never signed treaties.
- aboriginal title in canada is not allodial in scope.
- the right type of law here is international law, not canadian constitutional law.
- i generally stand with those seeking to overthrow tradition, not those seeking to uphold it, but
- pipelines are always evil and must always be stopped.

it's important to avoid treating indigenous legal traditions as a monolith, so i don't want to fall into either stereotype. the stereotype of the commie indian is largely inapplicable to the remnants of indigenous law as they exist today; what's left is more conservative in scope and leans more towards religion as a guiding force in society, and i have to strenuously reject that and support anybody seeking to fight against it.

but, there are ideas kind of buried in indigenous history that i would stand more strongly with, if elements in the society would dust them off and bring them back.

but, i don't stand with creators or spiritualism or tradition for the sake of it - i stand with science and change and secularism, and i assign these people their rights based on my own axioms, not theirs.

the indian act should not be enforced on groups that have not signed any treaties.

think of it like this: i may find myself on the same side as these conservative indigenous groups on the specific issue of pipelines, but i'm going to support those that are agitating to overthrow them in pretty much any other context. it's a question of temporary allies. 

it's not unusual, though, for a contemporary leftist to end up stuck like this. what are my choices, here? i can stand with the liberal capitalists or i can stand with the traditionalist conservatives. in truth, i'm a socialistic anarchist, and i don't actually stand with either side. the side i stand with is the one that is fighting to overthrow both the traditional aristocracy and the enforced colonial system, and introduce a system of egalitarian self-government and distributive justice. i'm a communist everywhere, and i'm not interested in these relativist arguments.

i'm aware that the perspectives of these people are often comically ignorant. a lot of them seem to think that if they sit together and pray then god will take the capitalists away. if you've read any marx, you realize how vicious he was on people like this. i don't see the point.

so, my solidarity with these traditionalist groups is really very narrow. i'm broadly more interested in standing with agents of change within the society, but not the ones that would argue for things like property rights or capitalist expropriation.

but, i'm not a conservative, and i don't stand with tradition or aristocracy.

i'm an anarchist, and i stand with egalitarianism and the acceptance of change.

i want to be clear on a point, though.

while i would stand with the rights of indigenous groups to self-determination, i would not stand with the traditionalist elements within their society, and would rather stand with the groups advocating for change within the society. and, if you can present me with situations where indigenous groups are oppressing minorities within their ranks, like happens routinely in iran, then i would support intervening with the use of force, because my solidarity is always with the oppressed and never with the oppressors.

there is this kind of tendency to define the issue in ethnic terms, nowadays, and i will reject this idea on it's face. i'm not interested in even contemplating the idea of siding with the indians against the white people - that's not the way i'm going to approach the issue, and i'll reject those terms of framing it. what i'm interested in is standing with specific elements within the indigenous community against other elements within that same community.

so, i will stand with the rights of queer indigenous people in the face of the views of their religious traditions, and i will stand with the scientific over the spiritual, and i will stand with the socialistic over the capitalistic & etc.

so, in the sense that this is about indigenous rights, i'm going to define those a little bit differently than you frequently see on the fake left, nowadays. the fake left is essentially what we used to call toryism. it wants to preserve tradition in the face of change. i'm having none of that. rather, i'm interested in solidarity with those that would stand against the band councils and against the traditional leadership, and seek to liberalize and socialize the society - as i stand with those that reject the state, everywhere else.

at the end of the day, these matriarchs are just statists and should be torn down and replaced with a council.

but, so long as they aren't giving us good reasons to dismantle their society by force, they need to sign a treaty before we can take it upon ourselves to apply our laws on their lands. we can't just show up and start legislating - not by our own legal standards.

ok, so i am getting a funny item in my device manager - "unknown device". i'd never seen that before, and i've looked.

i installed it and it came up as "motherboard resource".

i'm quite uncomfortable with this, but i don't know where it is, physically, on the board. 

i'm going to reimage the machine and disable it when it comes back up. but i'll need to keep an eye on what's going on underneath the hood. i think they plugged something into the board...

i know this all sounds insane, but i'm empirically driven and i have to react to the facts as they appear in front of me.

and, i really wish that cop would stop fucking smoking up there. yuck.

we're not looking at a 30% chance, which is not bad, really. one in three.

we're looking at a 0.01% chance - one in ten thousand, or perhaps as small as one in a million.

i've been critical of his work.

but, somebody ask nate silver what the probability of klobuchar running at 19.8% was, according to his data.

you're going to be looking at something like 0.01%. 

rare events happen; there are better fishes out there for this than jesus'. but, some events are so rare that they just don't happen.

we didn't run ten million elections in new hampshire on tuesday, we ran one.

the common law is not a set of rules that were created by the king like the civil codes were, but is rather a set of conventions and traditions that has changed dramatically over time based on the input of the people that live with it.

as a legal system, it is actually uniquely positioned to integrate indigenous legal concepts. they could not be faced with a better system to deal with. really.

if they were dealing with islamic or judaic or ecclesiastical law, there would be no compromise, at all - the book says it, and that's it. any kind of civil code coming from the roman tradition is likewise entirely inflexible.

only the common law will integrate outside traditions, and, if you look around the world, the fact is that it really has.

but, they have to participate. and, i wish they would...

again: british imperial law is actually on their side here, they just don't realize it. if the judge had somebody make the right arguments, she'd have to concede the point, and she might even just have never thought about it properly - that happens sometimes. a good lawyer would win this case for them.

this isn't the first time that trudeau has used the phrase "rule of law" in this manner, and it's frankly rather dubyaesque - he clearly doesn't understand what he's saying. he thinks that "rule of law" just means "law and order".

and, it's deeply ironic, because the issue at hand is indeed centered around the rule of law, and whether the police have the jurisdiction here to act - an issue i claim the court is incorrect about.

this particular group of natives is frustrating, though. they don't want to sign a treaty on any terms, apparently. they won't launch legal action, even when they're likely to win, because they don't want to legitimize the common law - a tragic error, on their behalf.

i want to actually enforce the rule of law, which means respecting that they're not under treaty, and abstaining from enforcing treaty rules on groups that never signed any. but, they only seem to show up in court when they're summoned, and they seem to be badly misinformed about what their options are.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trudeau-coastal-gaslink-protests_ca_5e4437e6c5b61f8ad4e2d43e

alright, i'm back up. 

let's hope i can get this done before the debussy show.

your delusional thinking is rooted in calvinism.

and, it's bullshit.

so, when i see somebody beat their polling numbers by 10-15%, and i can't explain it using turnout, i'm going to forcefully argue that they cheated. every time.

their gender is not a meaningful factor in deducing that.

in the world of homo mathematicus, underdogs always lose, and only stupid people place bets on them.

the caveats are that streaks always end, and that sometimes underdogs cheat and get away with it.

hard work is meaningless in the face of hard math; the universe is a cold, dour, fascistic place.

i know that capitalists won't like my narrative, which is something along the lines of that nobody ever beats the odds and stories of perseverance are just bullshit; she didn't succeed with hard work, the american dream is bullshit, etc.

but, that's homo mathematicus for you.

we don't care much for human interest stories; chances are you didn't beat the odds, chances are you just cheated.

i mean, maybe it's worth reflecting a little on how polling firms get those numbers.

they don't just take a flat survey, although i often prefer to see them give me that data. they ask you questions about your age, income, etc and then they fit the data to the census results.

so, the polls you saw would have assumed roughly 20% youth turnout and roughly 60% adult turnout, with roughly 20% turnout in between. if you actually get 15% youth turnout and 65% adult turnout, and 20% in between, then that discrepancy will affect the accuracy of your projections.

but, this is what margins of error are for, and you don't expect something like that to mess with your results more than a few points. so, the low youth turnout will explain why sanders is 2-3% lower than the averages, and why buttigieg is 2-3% higher than the averages. but, it won't explain why klobuchar beat the polls by 10% - you would need lower turnout overall to pull that out, and it's not there.

instead, what you see on it's face is that very high turnout inflated her numbers. but, that just suggests that she cheated.

just an update on the turnout question.

In New Hampshire's Democratic primary, people 45 and older made up 63 percent of voters, according to the exit polls. People aged 18 to 29 made up just 14 percent.

that would mean that voters 30-44 made up 100-63-14=23%.

recent data suggests that voting demographics in new hampshire are:

18-29 - 19.4%
30-44 - 21.3%
45+ - 59.3% (45-64 - 38.5%, 65+ - 20.8%)

so, my initial perception was correct - turnout amongst young people was lower than the models would have pegged it at, while turnout amongst older people was higher. that's the basic factor underlying the results, and explains the basic shape of the data, with sanders underperforming & buttigieg & klobuchar overperforming.

but, turnout overall was not low, so you need more than this observation to explain klobuchar's dramatic overshoot of the polling, and it's just not consistent with the data.

https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2016/comm/citizen_voting_age_population/cb16-tps18_nh.html