oh, and hey republicans.
here's your easy trick to sink biden: he's yesterday's man. and, it's a perfect pivot from maga, too.
Saturday, July 18, 2020
well?
if you present to me the hypothesis that structural sexism and structural racism both exist in the united states, with solutions to the racism lagging behind solutions to the sexism, then i would expect you to tell me afterwards that that structural oppression has led to less opportunities for people in that intersection.
if you were to tell me that all of this structural oppression exists, and then argue that there's a plethora of black female vp candidates to choose from, you'd be kind of contradicting yourself, wouldn't you?
the slim pickings in the field are just evidence that the hypothesis is right.
but, this isn't a vanity post. it's an important job, and it needs to go to somebody that has had those opportunities to build that experience.
if we want to make things more fair, the way to do it is to continue to ensure that opportunities are not restricted for those with specific identifiable characteristics, so they have the opportunity to build that experience for future opportunities.
the only halfways qualified candidate i've seen is susan rice, and she's terrible.
if you present to me the hypothesis that structural sexism and structural racism both exist in the united states, with solutions to the racism lagging behind solutions to the sexism, then i would expect you to tell me afterwards that that structural oppression has led to less opportunities for people in that intersection.
if you were to tell me that all of this structural oppression exists, and then argue that there's a plethora of black female vp candidates to choose from, you'd be kind of contradicting yourself, wouldn't you?
the slim pickings in the field are just evidence that the hypothesis is right.
but, this isn't a vanity post. it's an important job, and it needs to go to somebody that has had those opportunities to build that experience.
if we want to make things more fair, the way to do it is to continue to ensure that opportunities are not restricted for those with specific identifiable characteristics, so they have the opportunity to build that experience for future opportunities.
the only halfways qualified candidate i've seen is susan rice, and she's terrible.
i've stated previously that harris is toxic.
but, you'd might as well be voting for a scatter plot. you don't have the slightest idea where she stands on anything. it's just not an informed choice.
if there was an experienced black female legislator with a progressive streak to consider, i'd be happy to, but there kind of isn't anybody so he's looking at mayors and shit. the argument i made when this issue came up with supreme court judges in canada (they were looking for an indigenous candidate and couldn't find one) was that the best thing to do is look at promoting qualified people from the lower courts and wait it out, don't just promote an unqualified law prof to the highest court because of their ethnic background. the justice system is kind of important. i understand the identity politics, but you want to make sure that competency is the priority. in another generation, if more attention is paid to diversity in the lower courts, it should provide for better candidates, when the issue comes up at that time.
let's be real: it takes time for an emancipated population to develop. it was always hard to argue with a straight-face that obama was qualified for the job, even if he often sounded so very inspiring, and i'd bet biden knows better than most what the actual truth was when he first walked in there. whether picking obama over clinton ends up going down in history as a mistake or not (mccain was always a loose cannon...), it ought to have been a catastrophe, and i'm sure biden is fully cognizant of that, and everything that everybody did to hold things together with an unqualified president.
now, the situation is flipped over, and it's biden that is going to need the help. an effective vice-president is going to need to know how to pass legislation. she's going to have to have serious experience in the house, know who to call, etc. that's what biden could do, it's what cheney could do, it's what gore could do - and what pence can't do, because he doesn't have that experience.
so, i say give it another generation for some black women to work their way through congress and get that experience. as it is, today, right now, the women we have that are qualified are white - which reflects the changing reality of the last several decades, when white women were first in line for so long. that wasn't fair, but it's real, and so many years of being first in line back then means they are first in line, now.
so, let's focus on diversity for congress and all of the smaller offices, for now, and competency for the increasingly central role of vice-president.
but, you'd might as well be voting for a scatter plot. you don't have the slightest idea where she stands on anything. it's just not an informed choice.
if there was an experienced black female legislator with a progressive streak to consider, i'd be happy to, but there kind of isn't anybody so he's looking at mayors and shit. the argument i made when this issue came up with supreme court judges in canada (they were looking for an indigenous candidate and couldn't find one) was that the best thing to do is look at promoting qualified people from the lower courts and wait it out, don't just promote an unqualified law prof to the highest court because of their ethnic background. the justice system is kind of important. i understand the identity politics, but you want to make sure that competency is the priority. in another generation, if more attention is paid to diversity in the lower courts, it should provide for better candidates, when the issue comes up at that time.
let's be real: it takes time for an emancipated population to develop. it was always hard to argue with a straight-face that obama was qualified for the job, even if he often sounded so very inspiring, and i'd bet biden knows better than most what the actual truth was when he first walked in there. whether picking obama over clinton ends up going down in history as a mistake or not (mccain was always a loose cannon...), it ought to have been a catastrophe, and i'm sure biden is fully cognizant of that, and everything that everybody did to hold things together with an unqualified president.
now, the situation is flipped over, and it's biden that is going to need the help. an effective vice-president is going to need to know how to pass legislation. she's going to have to have serious experience in the house, know who to call, etc. that's what biden could do, it's what cheney could do, it's what gore could do - and what pence can't do, because he doesn't have that experience.
so, i say give it another generation for some black women to work their way through congress and get that experience. as it is, today, right now, the women we have that are qualified are white - which reflects the changing reality of the last several decades, when white women were first in line for so long. that wasn't fair, but it's real, and so many years of being first in line back then means they are first in line, now.
so, let's focus on diversity for congress and all of the smaller offices, for now, and competency for the increasingly central role of vice-president.
ok.
if this is what joe is thinking, he needs to pick a senator.
frankly, if this is what he wants, then the most obvious choice is hillary clinton. well, it is isn't it?
what he wants is a diane feinstein or a patty murray.
i don't like the names i've seen floating around, and would actually be more comfortable with an older senator that i understand well than one of these younger candidates that could turn out to be anything at all, in the end.
biden should not underestimate the importance of ensuring that the person he picks is able to take over without a tutor if he gets covid-19, or anything else happens to him. and, frankly, biden's not the luckiest man that's ever lived, either.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/07/joe-bidens-vice-president-powerful-history/614161/
if this is what joe is thinking, he needs to pick a senator.
frankly, if this is what he wants, then the most obvious choice is hillary clinton. well, it is isn't it?
what he wants is a diane feinstein or a patty murray.
i don't like the names i've seen floating around, and would actually be more comfortable with an older senator that i understand well than one of these younger candidates that could turn out to be anything at all, in the end.
biden should not underestimate the importance of ensuring that the person he picks is able to take over without a tutor if he gets covid-19, or anything else happens to him. and, frankly, biden's not the luckiest man that's ever lived, either.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/07/joe-bidens-vice-president-powerful-history/614161/
in canada, this was pretty much the peak of action over the cold war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summit_Series
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summit_Series
how we approach baseball here really is a really big difference between canada and latin america, though.
in cuba, for example, they see baseball as a defining part of their culture, and try to use their baseball skills as some kind of proof that they're just as good as the americans are. in latin america, they like baseball because it's american.
canadians, on the other hand, tend to see baseball as something foreign that they don't actually want. we would rather grasp on to hockey as "our sport", cast out baseball as "their sport" and then define ourselves in opposition to america by pointing out that difference.
because, unlike latin americans, canadians very pointedly don't want to be americans. we really do see it as this defining difference, and really do largely reject the sport as alien. but, we're friendly people - and enough of us still find it exciting enough to watch it.
they're just buying into the concept too much and taking it too far and it's going to massively backfire.
in cuba, for example, they see baseball as a defining part of their culture, and try to use their baseball skills as some kind of proof that they're just as good as the americans are. in latin america, they like baseball because it's american.
canadians, on the other hand, tend to see baseball as something foreign that they don't actually want. we would rather grasp on to hockey as "our sport", cast out baseball as "their sport" and then define ourselves in opposition to america by pointing out that difference.
because, unlike latin americans, canadians very pointedly don't want to be americans. we really do see it as this defining difference, and really do largely reject the sport as alien. but, we're friendly people - and enough of us still find it exciting enough to watch it.
they're just buying into the concept too much and taking it too far and it's going to massively backfire.
canadians like hockey.
baseball, basketball, football? that's yankee bullshit...
and, it's true that this view is widely held in canada, but not to the extent that the government seems to be banking on it. we might mutter under our collective breaths about baseball being a foreign ideology, but nobody wants to ban it. people still like it.
and, baseball fans may not exactly be the party's base within toronto, itself.
but, doug ford just showed us that the toronto is willing to swing hard to the right when pushed to over trivialities.
this is going to piss a lot of people off enough to be a ballot issue. wait for it.
baseball, basketball, football? that's yankee bullshit...
and, it's true that this view is widely held in canada, but not to the extent that the government seems to be banking on it. we might mutter under our collective breaths about baseball being a foreign ideology, but nobody wants to ban it. people still like it.
and, baseball fans may not exactly be the party's base within toronto, itself.
but, doug ford just showed us that the toronto is willing to swing hard to the right when pushed to over trivialities.
this is going to piss a lot of people off enough to be a ballot issue. wait for it.
see, this isn't being driven by health policy. the amount of virus the team could bring in is insignificant, compared to what is already circulating; there's no logic in this.
rather, this is a part of a developing strategy by the federal government to stir up anti-americanism to distract from their own shitty pandemic response. that is, they think this is going to be popular.
i don't care about baseball, but i know a lot of people in toronto do, and i know that they're not likely to buy into some jingoist propaganda designed to try to get them to hate america to distract them from te government's incompetence.
this will backfire, terribly.
toronto is the party's base. it can't come close to winning without these seats,
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-to-reveal-blue-jays-decision-1.5654846
rather, this is a part of a developing strategy by the federal government to stir up anti-americanism to distract from their own shitty pandemic response. that is, they think this is going to be popular.
i don't care about baseball, but i know a lot of people in toronto do, and i know that they're not likely to buy into some jingoist propaganda designed to try to get them to hate america to distract them from te government's incompetence.
this will backfire, terribly.
toronto is the party's base. it can't come close to winning without these seats,
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-to-reveal-blue-jays-decision-1.5654846
it's interesting to compare the outcomes in california v the outcomes in new york, now that a sufficient amount of time has passed to measure the different approaches. this is really setting itself up as the classic comparison to make in the united states.
first, note that the virus appeared in these places at about the same time.
new york was unprepared, dithered on shutting down the economy and suffered a swift and vicious attack by the virus, which rendered large amounts of it's population sick very quickly and threatened to overwhelm the system, although i'm not sure the data backs up that actually happening. today, some areas in new york are reporting upwards of 70% infection rates.
california, on the other hand, was quick to act decisively in locking down the economy and initially featured less of an outbreak, although the reality of persistent community spread was in fact apparent the whole time. while no doubt in reality an order of magnitude greater than discovered through testing, infection rates in california would appear to have been kept relatively low.
over the last few weeks, however, new york has opened with few significant problems, while california has seen the number of cases skyrocket, to the point that california is now only about 40,000 cases behind new york, in total number of discovered cases. but, this is an inexact comparison. so, california has had to extend and reinforce a lockdown that ultimately failed to prevent the outbreak that new york got nailed with, by being hit off guard; new york seems to be in the clear, as far as anybody can see.
while it initially seemed like the death rate in california was much lower, there seems to be little reason to think, at this point, that california will, in the end, avoid a loss of life on the same scale as that suffered in new york. so, all of this extended hardship is unlikely to come with any net benefit attached to it.
today, it seems like new york certainly took the less painful path.
so, i want to draw your attention to the model that i posted here many weeks ago that criticized the "flattening the curve" model:
new york end up being red, california ended up being blue.
this isn't a prediction, it's a model. please realize that.
but, the argument is supposed to be that the same number of people will get the virus anyways, so you'd might as well slow it down. one of the key points i'm trying to get across here is that if you slow the virus down then you reduce the speed of immunity, thereby increasing transmission - and you actually get twice as many cases because it takes twice as long to get to herd immunity. that sounds like it doesn't make sense, but there's a difference between developing antibodies and getting sick.
you can tweak this. maybe it takes 1.5x as long. it's a model, it's not a prediction.
the other thing i'm doing here is arguing that you can't really flatten the curve, exactly, but can rather shift it. and, maybe that shift is valuable if it buys time for a vaccine. but, it's going to come with a slow increase in cases over time until immunity is reached.
don't get lost in this in nitpicking the numbers - it's a model, it's a conceptual thing, it's an idea. and, it's a valid critique.
unfortunately, it seems like much of canada (with the exception of quebec) also followed the blue curve.
first, note that the virus appeared in these places at about the same time.
new york was unprepared, dithered on shutting down the economy and suffered a swift and vicious attack by the virus, which rendered large amounts of it's population sick very quickly and threatened to overwhelm the system, although i'm not sure the data backs up that actually happening. today, some areas in new york are reporting upwards of 70% infection rates.
california, on the other hand, was quick to act decisively in locking down the economy and initially featured less of an outbreak, although the reality of persistent community spread was in fact apparent the whole time. while no doubt in reality an order of magnitude greater than discovered through testing, infection rates in california would appear to have been kept relatively low.
over the last few weeks, however, new york has opened with few significant problems, while california has seen the number of cases skyrocket, to the point that california is now only about 40,000 cases behind new york, in total number of discovered cases. but, this is an inexact comparison. so, california has had to extend and reinforce a lockdown that ultimately failed to prevent the outbreak that new york got nailed with, by being hit off guard; new york seems to be in the clear, as far as anybody can see.
while it initially seemed like the death rate in california was much lower, there seems to be little reason to think, at this point, that california will, in the end, avoid a loss of life on the same scale as that suffered in new york. so, all of this extended hardship is unlikely to come with any net benefit attached to it.
today, it seems like new york certainly took the less painful path.
so, i want to draw your attention to the model that i posted here many weeks ago that criticized the "flattening the curve" model:
new york end up being red, california ended up being blue.
this isn't a prediction, it's a model. please realize that.
but, the argument is supposed to be that the same number of people will get the virus anyways, so you'd might as well slow it down. one of the key points i'm trying to get across here is that if you slow the virus down then you reduce the speed of immunity, thereby increasing transmission - and you actually get twice as many cases because it takes twice as long to get to herd immunity. that sounds like it doesn't make sense, but there's a difference between developing antibodies and getting sick.
you can tweak this. maybe it takes 1.5x as long. it's a model, it's not a prediction.
the other thing i'm doing here is arguing that you can't really flatten the curve, exactly, but can rather shift it. and, maybe that shift is valuable if it buys time for a vaccine. but, it's going to come with a slow increase in cases over time until immunity is reached.
don't get lost in this in nitpicking the numbers - it's a model, it's a conceptual thing, it's an idea. and, it's a valid critique.
unfortunately, it seems like much of canada (with the exception of quebec) also followed the blue curve.
we all know the liberals are corrupt.
it's just that there's degrees of it, you know?
so, you denounce this, because you must. but, you don't expect them to change, or people's expectations to change.
what's going to be more concerning to the liberals is if people's calculus changes. right now, you shrug off the corruption because you don't want to put the conservatives back in, because you don't like what the conservatives want to do. ok. but, if that line between the conservatives and the liberals starts to blur, which in my mind it did ages ago, then the corruption has the potential to piss you off more, and you might be more likely to lean towards a protest party. that is really the game the liberals need to play - not whether they are seen as corrupt, because they perennially just are, both in perception and in truth, but whether that corruption is seen as trivial enough in a trade-off over the prioritization of other policy. they're not going to chase too many people off like this - nobody really expects better, anyways.
it's just that there's degrees of it, you know?
so, you denounce this, because you must. but, you don't expect them to change, or people's expectations to change.
what's going to be more concerning to the liberals is if people's calculus changes. right now, you shrug off the corruption because you don't want to put the conservatives back in, because you don't like what the conservatives want to do. ok. but, if that line between the conservatives and the liberals starts to blur, which in my mind it did ages ago, then the corruption has the potential to piss you off more, and you might be more likely to lean towards a protest party. that is really the game the liberals need to play - not whether they are seen as corrupt, because they perennially just are, both in perception and in truth, but whether that corruption is seen as trivial enough in a trade-off over the prioritization of other policy. they're not going to chase too many people off like this - nobody really expects better, anyways.
ok.
so, i admit the corruption in this we thing is blatant. they're actually restructuring, apparently offshore. like, it's beyond fucking obvious.
but, i insist that that's capitalism and you don't fix that by removing figureheads. so, given that we have so many more pressing issues to deal with...
it's actually rather similar to the impeachment in the united states, and these parallels keep coming up. no, you can't give your family a $100 million speaking contract, or whatever it would have amounted to. yes, you have to go through the motions of making sure the money is repaid and holding them all accountable. but, at the end of the day, voters will speak, and i'm not sure how important they're going to find this.
so, next time don't be so obvious? is that what i'm saying? well, the need to go through the motions, here, is proportional to the level of corruption. you could try to hide it in a slush fund, and not throw around such huge numbers - i mean, it's just absurd greed. some corruption is normal, but something like this has to be denounced.
but, it's just....it's empty, in the end. nobody's going to really care.
so, i admit the corruption in this we thing is blatant. they're actually restructuring, apparently offshore. like, it's beyond fucking obvious.
but, i insist that that's capitalism and you don't fix that by removing figureheads. so, given that we have so many more pressing issues to deal with...
it's actually rather similar to the impeachment in the united states, and these parallels keep coming up. no, you can't give your family a $100 million speaking contract, or whatever it would have amounted to. yes, you have to go through the motions of making sure the money is repaid and holding them all accountable. but, at the end of the day, voters will speak, and i'm not sure how important they're going to find this.
so, next time don't be so obvious? is that what i'm saying? well, the need to go through the motions, here, is proportional to the level of corruption. you could try to hide it in a slush fund, and not throw around such huge numbers - i mean, it's just absurd greed. some corruption is normal, but something like this has to be denounced.
but, it's just....it's empty, in the end. nobody's going to really care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)