a central focus in the film is the role of poor nutrition on the lifestyles of the future, and the dominant effect of fast food on our diets.
it is both the case that the flynn effect (which is what he's talking about) is usually explained primarily via increases in nutrition in our diets (as a result of oil) and that poor diets, especially diets high in fast food, lead to lower iq scores.
so, if he's projecting a future where people have been eating garbage for centuries, we would expect the flynn effect to have undone and reversed itself quite some time before the film takes place.
https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/relationship-between-fast-food-brain-12203.html
Wednesday, August 19, 2020
i think the film is rather brilliant, and that while projective science of the sort is tentative at best, it's at least an educated guess.
a more useful criticism, from my perspective, would be to point out that they don't talk about things like energy sources, or address the consequences of climate change. further, they treat america as though it exists on this world by itself. if america were to ever stagnate to such an absurd extreme, it would run out of energy before it ran out of food, and end up subsumed by the ocean in the process. further, some other culture would no doubt come in and wipe us out, as easy prey.
so, in that sense, this kind of future is unlikely, for the reason that we'd end up extinct before it happened.
but, in theory?
i have little criticism of the premise of the film, as it exists. it's not inevitable, surely. but, it's a reasonable projection of existing trends.
obviously, it won't be quite that bad 20 years from now.
a more useful criticism, from my perspective, would be to point out that they don't talk about things like energy sources, or address the consequences of climate change. further, they treat america as though it exists on this world by itself. if america were to ever stagnate to such an absurd extreme, it would run out of energy before it ran out of food, and end up subsumed by the ocean in the process. further, some other culture would no doubt come in and wipe us out, as easy prey.
so, in that sense, this kind of future is unlikely, for the reason that we'd end up extinct before it happened.
but, in theory?
i have little criticism of the premise of the film, as it exists. it's not inevitable, surely. but, it's a reasonable projection of existing trends.
obviously, it won't be quite that bad 20 years from now.
further, the idea that intelligence has been going up recently and therefore will go up forever is a basic logical fallacy. it's the same error that led us to taking the philips curve seriously.
the reasons we saw increasing intelligence in the 20th century had mostly to do with increasing levels of nutrition, something that started to undo itself in the onset of neoliberalism around 1970 or so. so, i'm not buying the idea that we should project all of the progress we had up to 1970 indefinitely into the future, especially when the point of the film is to viciously criticize the revolutionary economic changes that set in with the embrace of corporatism and neoliberalism. we don't know what our intelligence levels will be like in 500 years, but we can certainly state with clarity that we won't have infinite growth in intelligence levels, that some kind of limit is inevitable, and that decline is just as likely as anything else.
so, again, that's a dumb criticism.
the reasons we saw increasing intelligence in the 20th century had mostly to do with increasing levels of nutrition, something that started to undo itself in the onset of neoliberalism around 1970 or so. so, i'm not buying the idea that we should project all of the progress we had up to 1970 indefinitely into the future, especially when the point of the film is to viciously criticize the revolutionary economic changes that set in with the embrace of corporatism and neoliberalism. we don't know what our intelligence levels will be like in 500 years, but we can certainly state with clarity that we won't have infinite growth in intelligence levels, that some kind of limit is inevitable, and that decline is just as likely as anything else.
so, again, that's a dumb criticism.
i just want to react to the genetic criticism, because this guy isn't really understanding what the film is getting at.
it's well understood at this point that the genetic contributions to intelligence are minimal to non-existent, and the exception more than the rule. intelligence does not exist entirely independently from genetics, but it is shaped dominantly by the environment.
but, that's kind of actually the point that's really being made, here - the film isn't arguing for the genetic basis of stupidity, so much as it's arguing for the environmental effects on it. it may be the case that there is no particular genetic reason why two very stupid people could not produce intelligent offspring, but because the factors in intelligence are so intertwined with environment, it does stand to reason that people that are raised by stupid people are going to end up just as stupid as their parents.
rather than cite very old and debunked studies and present them as a strawman argument around the intent of the film's creators, i'd rather direct you to studies regarding public v private schools. up until recently, private school advocates would point to higher grades as evidence of superior schooling, and it even led to support for voucher programs. but, over time, greater study led to the conclusion that the differences in grades had to do with class and upbringing rather than instruction.
that is to say that the modern science is actually pretty clear that how you raise your child is a dominant factor in how intelligent they end up.
he'd have realized that if he wasn't.....an idiot.
regarding the pseudo v anti intellectual section, i'm just going to say no and leave it at that. pseudo-intellectualism is a thing, surely. but, we live in anti-intellectualism more than pseudo-intellectualism, and i'll point to your decision to present the argument without any sort of backing as evidence of that. i realize i'm doing the same thing, but i don't have the burden of proof, here, and i don't know of any studies that analyze the question and attempt to come to a meaningful deduction.
it's well understood at this point that the genetic contributions to intelligence are minimal to non-existent, and the exception more than the rule. intelligence does not exist entirely independently from genetics, but it is shaped dominantly by the environment.
but, that's kind of actually the point that's really being made, here - the film isn't arguing for the genetic basis of stupidity, so much as it's arguing for the environmental effects on it. it may be the case that there is no particular genetic reason why two very stupid people could not produce intelligent offspring, but because the factors in intelligence are so intertwined with environment, it does stand to reason that people that are raised by stupid people are going to end up just as stupid as their parents.
rather than cite very old and debunked studies and present them as a strawman argument around the intent of the film's creators, i'd rather direct you to studies regarding public v private schools. up until recently, private school advocates would point to higher grades as evidence of superior schooling, and it even led to support for voucher programs. but, over time, greater study led to the conclusion that the differences in grades had to do with class and upbringing rather than instruction.
that is to say that the modern science is actually pretty clear that how you raise your child is a dominant factor in how intelligent they end up.
he'd have realized that if he wasn't.....an idiot.
regarding the pseudo v anti intellectual section, i'm just going to say no and leave it at that. pseudo-intellectualism is a thing, surely. but, we live in anti-intellectualism more than pseudo-intellectualism, and i'll point to your decision to present the argument without any sort of backing as evidence of that. i realize i'm doing the same thing, but i don't have the burden of proof, here, and i don't know of any studies that analyze the question and attempt to come to a meaningful deduction.
there's a lot of criticism of the film out there and...
it's all very ironic. truly.
i get the most kids are raised with these things called parents, who set rules and boundaries and otherwise shape their existence from a position of authority. this helps them transition into school, into the workforce and what not, where there is always somebody around that is ahead of them in the hierarchy, and has the role to tell them what to do. when hierarchy is normalized at home, it makes sense outside of it, too. ok.
but, when hierarchy and authority is not normalized at home, or does not exist at all, those kids will grow up and walk into classrooms and workplaces and just look at people trying to tell them what to do as though they're from another planet.
you....think...you..can...tell....me...what...to....wait...what?
(blank stare)
your average millennial may even seek guidance as they age via whatever source of authority they define - they don't just accept it, they crave it, they want it.
but, when somebody tries to tell me what to do, my general reaction is woah. who the fuck do you think you are? you can't tell me what to do. why would that even cross your mind as acceptable? i'm going to ignore you now, and if you don't stop yelling, i'm outta here.
being squeezed is an interesting way to exist, because the people older and younger than us were both raised with such structured existences (in aggregate). if the world doesn't make sense to us, maybe there's some good reasons for it.
but, our time is nearing - and we will not have much of it.
so, this is a call to gen x to make the best of what's coming, even as we watch our parents die in front of us in order to get there.
the next 20 years are ours.
let's fix this broken, piece of shit world as best we can, while we can.
but, when hierarchy and authority is not normalized at home, or does not exist at all, those kids will grow up and walk into classrooms and workplaces and just look at people trying to tell them what to do as though they're from another planet.
you....think...you..can...tell....me...what...to....wait...what?
(blank stare)
your average millennial may even seek guidance as they age via whatever source of authority they define - they don't just accept it, they crave it, they want it.
but, when somebody tries to tell me what to do, my general reaction is woah. who the fuck do you think you are? you can't tell me what to do. why would that even cross your mind as acceptable? i'm going to ignore you now, and if you don't stop yelling, i'm outta here.
being squeezed is an interesting way to exist, because the people older and younger than us were both raised with such structured existences (in aggregate). if the world doesn't make sense to us, maybe there's some good reasons for it.
but, our time is nearing - and we will not have much of it.
so, this is a call to gen x to make the best of what's coming, even as we watch our parents die in front of us in order to get there.
the next 20 years are ours.
let's fix this broken, piece of shit world as best we can, while we can.
so, is it partly the case that i really, really don't like being told what to do because i'm just not used to being told what to do? that authority is a weird, foreign concept that i've never experienced and don't understand?
there's probably something to do that, yeah.
but, i'd argue it's a more desirable way to organize society than one where we whip our children into shape by treating them like property or slaves.
there's some benefits of living in a society where people dislike being told what to do.
there's probably something to do that, yeah.
but, i'd argue it's a more desirable way to organize society than one where we whip our children into shape by treating them like property or slaves.
there's some benefits of living in a society where people dislike being told what to do.
people don't want to let me be a gen xer. but, it's kind of not fair to give gen x 15 years and every other generation 20-25; gen x should really be more like 1965-1985. as it is, you usually get 65-80, so i'm stuck at the edge - thirteen days into january, 1981.
and i sort of like being the last one, ever, which is kind of intrinsically gen x, itself.
but, look at this:
that is a picture of me on the right with the hat turned up a little to see the hair. and what is that around my neck?
it's a latch-key.
qed.
and i sort of like being the last one, ever, which is kind of intrinsically gen x, itself.
but, look at this:
that is a picture of me on the right with the hat turned up a little to see the hair. and what is that around my neck?
it's a latch-key.
qed.
i'll state this tersely.
i'm not running for office, and i don't want to join your party. so, i don't care if you want my endorsement or not, and your opinion of me or what i type here is not of any concern to me.
so, you can hate me to my core if you want; i don't care, i'll vote for you and analyze your policies and post here about them, anyways. you can send me an email if you'd like to have a debate about it, but expect me to post your responses here, in the long run.
politicians don't elect voters; voters elect politicians. it's my opinion of your policies that is relevant, not your opinion of my writing.
so, don't like this site? don't want my endorsement?
too fucking bad; i don't give a fuck.
i'm not running for office, and i don't want to join your party. so, i don't care if you want my endorsement or not, and your opinion of me or what i type here is not of any concern to me.
so, you can hate me to my core if you want; i don't care, i'll vote for you and analyze your policies and post here about them, anyways. you can send me an email if you'd like to have a debate about it, but expect me to post your responses here, in the long run.
politicians don't elect voters; voters elect politicians. it's my opinion of your policies that is relevant, not your opinion of my writing.
so, don't like this site? don't want my endorsement?
too fucking bad; i don't give a fuck.
i've never heard of her and have no comment.
except to remind you that twitter is not a reflection of reality; it's a circle jerk for liberal elitists.
which i will need to do over and over, i know that.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-primary-loomer-1.5691796
except to remind you that twitter is not a reflection of reality; it's a circle jerk for liberal elitists.
which i will need to do over and over, i know that.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-primary-loomer-1.5691796
i'm just trying to imagine where to put john kasich on the political spectrum, in canada.
you might pretend he's a moderate, and i might disagree, but he was a relatively mainstream republican, at one point. he's in the spectrum, down there.
i'm not even sure that the populist party in canada, what we call a far-right fringe group, would be able to deal with a john kasich. this is somebody that left the conservative party because he thought it was too liberal, and still calls himself pro-choice (although he supports the kind of restrictions that clinton does on late term abortions).
so, our far right party has roughly the same position that hillary clinton had; in our spectrum, she would be considered an anti-abortion extremist. so, where do you put kasich?
he's certainly not a libertarian.
the grassroots of the reform party had a strong anti-abortion component, but the leadership of the party just used it as an excuse to string along donors. there is little evidence that they ever had any real intent on banning anything, and they never did, despite repeated opportunities. in the end, the donors started dying off, and the issue seems to have largely receded from the conservative party's discourse.
in canada, john kasich would really have to join something like the christian heritage party, which is a crypto-fascist group, just like kasich is, himself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Heritage_Party_of_Canada
this is a party that gets a few thousand votes per riding at most and has never won a seat at any level. but, it's the only party that would come close to representing his views on abortion.
he may have been a socred, back before they disappeared in the early 80s. the socreds were legitimately anti-abortion, along with being anti-semitic and absolutely vehemently opposed to the metric system. i wonder if i could measure the length of my middle finger for them, and set it to the standard of measurement.
canada is not as liberal as europe, either, in general.
so, america, you really need to look at yourself in the mirror a little. this guy kasich, who the center-left party just brought in to appeal to supposed moderates, would be unwelcome in any party in canada. he would be so far to the right that he's out of the spectrum.
and, he claims the party left him, in some kind of twisted reagan reference.
most of the world would have considered him unelectable - in fact unnominatable - from the start.
you might pretend he's a moderate, and i might disagree, but he was a relatively mainstream republican, at one point. he's in the spectrum, down there.
i'm not even sure that the populist party in canada, what we call a far-right fringe group, would be able to deal with a john kasich. this is somebody that left the conservative party because he thought it was too liberal, and still calls himself pro-choice (although he supports the kind of restrictions that clinton does on late term abortions).
so, our far right party has roughly the same position that hillary clinton had; in our spectrum, she would be considered an anti-abortion extremist. so, where do you put kasich?
he's certainly not a libertarian.
the grassroots of the reform party had a strong anti-abortion component, but the leadership of the party just used it as an excuse to string along donors. there is little evidence that they ever had any real intent on banning anything, and they never did, despite repeated opportunities. in the end, the donors started dying off, and the issue seems to have largely receded from the conservative party's discourse.
in canada, john kasich would really have to join something like the christian heritage party, which is a crypto-fascist group, just like kasich is, himself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Heritage_Party_of_Canada
this is a party that gets a few thousand votes per riding at most and has never won a seat at any level. but, it's the only party that would come close to representing his views on abortion.
he may have been a socred, back before they disappeared in the early 80s. the socreds were legitimately anti-abortion, along with being anti-semitic and absolutely vehemently opposed to the metric system. i wonder if i could measure the length of my middle finger for them, and set it to the standard of measurement.
canada is not as liberal as europe, either, in general.
so, america, you really need to look at yourself in the mirror a little. this guy kasich, who the center-left party just brought in to appeal to supposed moderates, would be unwelcome in any party in canada. he would be so far to the right that he's out of the spectrum.
and, he claims the party left him, in some kind of twisted reagan reference.
most of the world would have considered him unelectable - in fact unnominatable - from the start.
i warned against this in 2016, and it was part of my calculus in weakly endorsing clinton in the end; there was the jimmy dore faction that suggested that a trump victory may create a left-wing backlash, and i said to them "you're all fucking daft. if you elect trump, you'll create the biggest tent the democrats have ever seen, and end up with the most right-wing democrat since andrew jackson".
and, here we are.
and, now?
this election can't be about defeating trump, not anymore, not with the way the democrats are going; america, you need to send a message to the democrats that the direction they're moving is not acceptable, and grit your teeth and cry and vote for a third party, instead.
now is the time to abandon the democrats.
i encourage you to follow my lead.
and, here we are.
and, now?
this election can't be about defeating trump, not anymore, not with the way the democrats are going; america, you need to send a message to the democrats that the direction they're moving is not acceptable, and grit your teeth and cry and vote for a third party, instead.
now is the time to abandon the democrats.
i encourage you to follow my lead.
it's also a reminder that we should be careful with words, and i'm as guilty as anybody else of this.
when we routinely throw around words like "fascist" and "nazi" in imprecise ways, we lose their meanings, and we have a hard time seeing true fascism when it actually appears in front of us.
trump is not smart enough to be a fascist. it's a scary truth, but he just isn't.
but, kasich is the real deal.
and, the dnc is on the wrong side of history in allowing him to speak, and needs to apologize for it.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
when we routinely throw around words like "fascist" and "nazi" in imprecise ways, we lose their meanings, and we have a hard time seeing true fascism when it actually appears in front of us.
trump is not smart enough to be a fascist. it's a scary truth, but he just isn't.
but, kasich is the real deal.
and, the dnc is on the wrong side of history in allowing him to speak, and needs to apologize for it.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
this is the article that the msm should be running, but won't, because they're invested in swinging the democrats as far right as possible.
the americans used to have a choice between the right and the far right; that's increasingly dissolving into a one-party state that embraces the far right and rejects dissent.
https://www.indy100.com/article/john-kasich-dnc-speech-video-aoc-democrat-national-convention-9675766
the americans used to have a choice between the right and the far right; that's increasingly dissolving into a one-party state that embraces the far right and rejects dissent.
https://www.indy100.com/article/john-kasich-dnc-speech-video-aoc-democrat-national-convention-9675766
they should absolutely be distancing themselves from both sarsour and omar, who are going to lose more votes than they gain, in the most important swing groups. in canada, muslims actually do form a meaningful voting bloc. they simply don't in the united states.
it's not the bds movement, exactly - i follow chomsky's deconstruction, which is that pushing these kinds of tactics are more likely to get you labeled a nazi than actually work. that is, chomsky has been skeptical (albeit vaguely supportive) of these tactics, under the argument that they aren't just not going to work but are likely to lead to a backlash that makes it harder to get people substantive rights. i think that's the right analysis.
but, i mean, i don't support two states; that's a 20th century solution. the palestinians need full civil rights in a single state where everybody is treated as an equal. no solidarity with ethnic nationalism - they need to adjust and learn to be citizens of israel, and israel needs to let them be citizens, too.
the problem with sarsour & omar is the comments they've produced, which are unambiguously racist, and the associations they're bringing in, but, even more so, the liability around projecting those associations to actual swing voters, which are mostly white people in the midwest.
that said, this is too little, too late. i will be continuing to support the green ticket until i hear an explicit denunciation of john kasich, meg whitman and the lot as fascists that are unwanted in the party - because if i don't get that denunciation, i'll have to assume that they are wanted in the party, in which case it's a party i can't support.
https://forward.com/fast-forward/452889/biden-campaign-disavows-linda-sarsour-after-her-convention-appearance/
it's not the bds movement, exactly - i follow chomsky's deconstruction, which is that pushing these kinds of tactics are more likely to get you labeled a nazi than actually work. that is, chomsky has been skeptical (albeit vaguely supportive) of these tactics, under the argument that they aren't just not going to work but are likely to lead to a backlash that makes it harder to get people substantive rights. i think that's the right analysis.
but, i mean, i don't support two states; that's a 20th century solution. the palestinians need full civil rights in a single state where everybody is treated as an equal. no solidarity with ethnic nationalism - they need to adjust and learn to be citizens of israel, and israel needs to let them be citizens, too.
the problem with sarsour & omar is the comments they've produced, which are unambiguously racist, and the associations they're bringing in, but, even more so, the liability around projecting those associations to actual swing voters, which are mostly white people in the midwest.
that said, this is too little, too late. i will be continuing to support the green ticket until i hear an explicit denunciation of john kasich, meg whitman and the lot as fascists that are unwanted in the party - because if i don't get that denunciation, i'll have to assume that they are wanted in the party, in which case it's a party i can't support.
https://forward.com/fast-forward/452889/biden-campaign-disavows-linda-sarsour-after-her-convention-appearance/
must have been all of that unemployment that pushed inflation down to negative levels.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-inflation-july-1.5691748
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-inflation-july-1.5691748
The Embassy of Latvia in Canada has also pushed back against criticism of members of the Latvian SS units and the annual parade. It recently labelled a Ottawa Citizen commentary describing the participation of Latvians in the SS division and the Holocaust as a “threat to democracy in the world.”
“One must study history in order to understand the truth,” the embassy added in a tweet.
that's official holocaust denial from the latvian state.
The Latvian government also has on its website a 14-page document that argues Russian “disinformation” is behind efforts to paint the gathering in an unfavourable light.
just like goebbels would have!
“One must study history in order to understand the truth,” the embassy added in a tweet.
that's official holocaust denial from the latvian state.
The Latvian government also has on its website a 14-page document that argues Russian “disinformation” is behind efforts to paint the gathering in an unfavourable light.
just like goebbels would have!
umm....yes, he does.
that would be a very nice surprise, especially given the fascist rhetoric from clinton around it.
i'll believe it when i see it, but i would strongly support pardoning both snowden and assange, as well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/18/edward-snowden-deserves-trial-not-pardon/
that would be a very nice surprise, especially given the fascist rhetoric from clinton around it.
i'll believe it when i see it, but i would strongly support pardoning both snowden and assange, as well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/18/edward-snowden-deserves-trial-not-pardon/
well, we got this right, at least.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-condemns-annual-latvian-parade-that-honours-nazi-ss-unit
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-condemns-annual-latvian-parade-that-honours-nazi-ss-unit
hey, listen.
i wasn't alive yet, but i would have supported the russians in their struggle against fascism in the past, and i'll support them in the fight against fascism, again.
but, it would help if they'd drop their own support for it, and be more proactive in removing dictators where they prop them up.
i wasn't alive yet, but i would have supported the russians in their struggle against fascism in the past, and i'll support them in the fight against fascism, again.
but, it would help if they'd drop their own support for it, and be more proactive in removing dictators where they prop them up.
what history do we have in the baltics? where and when have we fought together? in what way are we allies?
these were some of the most nazi corners of europe, and they willingly aligned with the fascists against the communists. they were not on our side; they were not on the right side. and, they never even truly recanted. poland was a victim in the war, but, to this day, latvia & lithuania maintain vibrant white supremacist communities, and little shame about their collaboration with nazis. they don't deserve any protection at all.
moving further back in history, the region is actually just extremely remote. the region didn't really exist in history as anything besides a transit point for varangians moving south until the german crusaders moved in looking for lebensraum around the year 900, but the indigenous inhabitants would have been fully in the sphere of the norse-slavic states (like kiev). riga was founded in the 13th century. this area was just outside of what we call civilization. so, there's no shared history, here, until they had to fight off the mongols, which didn't end until a city called moscow decided to refuse payment, and united an indigenous revolt against them. the region only then emerges in history as a satellite of the russians, although they had to fight some wars against the swedes and others around it.
we don't need the details of baltic history, here; the point i'm making is that there's no point of shared history, no overlapping culture, nothing to tie us together with them. the region is not strategic, either; there's nothing to save, nothing to protect.
we have never fought side-to-side with these people, and to suggest they are some kind of allies is consequently an abuse of language and an abuse of history.
if anything, they're taking advantage of the west to use us as leverage in an independence struggle that is not based on any meaningful concept of difference.
we should give them back; they don't belong to us.
these were some of the most nazi corners of europe, and they willingly aligned with the fascists against the communists. they were not on our side; they were not on the right side. and, they never even truly recanted. poland was a victim in the war, but, to this day, latvia & lithuania maintain vibrant white supremacist communities, and little shame about their collaboration with nazis. they don't deserve any protection at all.
moving further back in history, the region is actually just extremely remote. the region didn't really exist in history as anything besides a transit point for varangians moving south until the german crusaders moved in looking for lebensraum around the year 900, but the indigenous inhabitants would have been fully in the sphere of the norse-slavic states (like kiev). riga was founded in the 13th century. this area was just outside of what we call civilization. so, there's no shared history, here, until they had to fight off the mongols, which didn't end until a city called moscow decided to refuse payment, and united an indigenous revolt against them. the region only then emerges in history as a satellite of the russians, although they had to fight some wars against the swedes and others around it.
we don't need the details of baltic history, here; the point i'm making is that there's no point of shared history, no overlapping culture, nothing to tie us together with them. the region is not strategic, either; there's nothing to save, nothing to protect.
we have never fought side-to-side with these people, and to suggest they are some kind of allies is consequently an abuse of language and an abuse of history.
if anything, they're taking advantage of the west to use us as leverage in an independence struggle that is not based on any meaningful concept of difference.
we should give them back; they don't belong to us.
the way that nato should be thinking about the baltics is this: the alliance overextended itself to a region it can't and shouldn't want to protect. so, what can it get in return for handing them over without a fight?
maybe, the russians could pull back a little somewhere else, in exchange for a nato withdrawal.
maybe, the russians could pull back a little somewhere else, in exchange for a nato withdrawal.
this is the most ridiculous nonsense...
if the russians move in in any serious way, and i do actually think they should, it's not going to be as simple as removing a dictator (and lukashenko is legitimately a dictator) and putting in a foreign-backed puppet. the discourse is so far removed from reality, that it's not even worth debunking.
rather, if the russians get triggered, they are likely to bring in the kind of strategic and structural changes that they brought to syria.
so, that would mean:
1) closer military cooperation between minsk and moscow (if that's possible)
2) replacing lukashenko with somebody around him as a temporary leader. i don't know the situation well enough to make suggestions, but it would probably be a military leader.
3) stabilizing the region from foreign influence
4) fresh elections
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/18/lukashenko-putin-russia-belarus-tsar/
if the russians move in in any serious way, and i do actually think they should, it's not going to be as simple as removing a dictator (and lukashenko is legitimately a dictator) and putting in a foreign-backed puppet. the discourse is so far removed from reality, that it's not even worth debunking.
rather, if the russians get triggered, they are likely to bring in the kind of strategic and structural changes that they brought to syria.
so, that would mean:
1) closer military cooperation between minsk and moscow (if that's possible)
2) replacing lukashenko with somebody around him as a temporary leader. i don't know the situation well enough to make suggestions, but it would probably be a military leader.
3) stabilizing the region from foreign influence
4) fresh elections
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/18/lukashenko-putin-russia-belarus-tsar/
and, let this be a warning to nato - if you continue to mess around in the russian sphere of influence, don't start crying when they start destabilizing poland or the baltics; you will have brought that on yourself, and the russian reaction will be justified and correct.
i think they should have retaliated years ago, and that they didn't is a reflection of putin's delusional insistence on working with a hostile west that doesn't respect him or russia in general.
as before, the russians would be smart to shift the conflict out of belarus by starting a hot war somewhere like venezuela, instead. and, america will only have itself to blame for it.
i think they should have retaliated years ago, and that they didn't is a reflection of putin's delusional insistence on working with a hostile west that doesn't respect him or russia in general.
as before, the russians would be smart to shift the conflict out of belarus by starting a hot war somewhere like venezuela, instead. and, america will only have itself to blame for it.
i would support calls for lukashenko to quit. while not on the same level as the fascists in the middle east, he is an anachronism in europe that should not exist. unlike many of the countries in the region that are often labeled incorrectly, belarus is legitimately long overdue for a transition to democracy.
that said, belarus is in the russian sphere of influence, and i would oppose any sort of intervention for that explicit reason. the potential consequences of such a thing are far too destabilizing to even contemplate. the russians would be justified in intervening and escalating, and i would morally support them in doing so.
the eu may have a valid role to play in negotiation, but it should avoid the kinds of destabilizing actions that it took in ukraine.
we should, broadly, step back and let the russians deal with it - and they have every right to retaliate if we don't.
that said, belarus is in the russian sphere of influence, and i would oppose any sort of intervention for that explicit reason. the potential consequences of such a thing are far too destabilizing to even contemplate. the russians would be justified in intervening and escalating, and i would morally support them in doing so.
the eu may have a valid role to play in negotiation, but it should avoid the kinds of destabilizing actions that it took in ukraine.
we should, broadly, step back and let the russians deal with it - and they have every right to retaliate if we don't.
this is probably a better forecast:
(note that the initial post mistakenly had nevada red. oops.)
...meaning trump needs any two of the top three, or iowa + michigan, or iowa + minnesota + wisconsin, to win; biden must win michigan, and two out of the other three.
(note that the initial post mistakenly had nevada red. oops.)
...meaning trump needs any two of the top three, or iowa + michigan, or iowa + minnesota + wisconsin, to win; biden must win michigan, and two out of the other three.
i remember back in 2016 i did this with these maps and said "trump doesn't have a path", and then he won three states that he had no business winning.
trump seems to have the advantage on paper right now, but we'll see how that works out.
if i were to project right now (which is silly), it would be this:
Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com
Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com
so, biden wins back pennsylvania and michigan and potentially even iowa, but loses minnesota (due to the george floyd riots) and can't swing wisconsin back.
ohio is a red state and not in play. they'd have a better chance in kansas.
another question to ask, though, is if the swing to trump amongst gen xers has anything to do with these lockdowns.
if you're a senior, you want people to stay in, because you could legit die from this, and if you're younger you may actually enjoy the disruption, or otherwise be easily persuaded by government pseudoscience designed to control you.
but, middle aged people need to go to work to pay bills, and to feed their freeloading kids and their freeloading parents. they may be rightly pissed off that the democrats want to tell them to stay home.
i wondered about this a few months ago, but it seemed like it wasn't happening on the ground. maybe i had my age groups off a little; maybe the people most irked by this are more likely to vote the bums out than stomp their feet in the park.
if that is the case - if trump's support amongst gen xers is a reaction to restrictive democratic measures to contain the virus - the democrats could be in for a very, very nasty surprise, downballot.
if you're a senior, you want people to stay in, because you could legit die from this, and if you're younger you may actually enjoy the disruption, or otherwise be easily persuaded by government pseudoscience designed to control you.
but, middle aged people need to go to work to pay bills, and to feed their freeloading kids and their freeloading parents. they may be rightly pissed off that the democrats want to tell them to stay home.
i wondered about this a few months ago, but it seemed like it wasn't happening on the ground. maybe i had my age groups off a little; maybe the people most irked by this are more likely to vote the bums out than stomp their feet in the park.
if that is the case - if trump's support amongst gen xers is a reaction to restrictive democratic measures to contain the virus - the democrats could be in for a very, very nasty surprise, downballot.
if you take the outcome of that poll - biden 50, trump 46 - and you adjust it to account for low turnout amongst young people, who were the only group that decisively picked biden, and the potentiality of some weakening support for biden due to the harris pick in older white voters, you see how trump mounts another unexpected win.
as a gen xer, how might i explain this?
it seems counter-intuitive. i wouldn't have predicted that. but, if you just sort through this page, you'll see that i don't like either of them. in fact, i can state fairly tersely that i legitimately hate both candidates, and that my disdain for biden is much greater than it is for clinton.
it might be that simple. very young people don't like trump, but every poll for the last 100 years has the democrats winning people under 30, and (1) that always seems to change as they age and (2) they don't vote, anyways. i wouldn't draw too much from that, given that we've seen the same development over the last four years that we've seen for decades; the millenials and gen x are apparently republicanizing, just like the boomers and the generations before them did.
and, older people just seem to like biden better, maybe because they're still having problems with seeing women in leadership roles.
but, gen xers seem to have liked clinton better than either biden or trump, and biden even less than trump; in my own age category, what's developing is something like clinton > trump > biden, and i have to admit that that's becoming my own view, as well.
we just seem to dislike biden more than we dislike trump.
it seems counter-intuitive. i wouldn't have predicted that. but, if you just sort through this page, you'll see that i don't like either of them. in fact, i can state fairly tersely that i legitimately hate both candidates, and that my disdain for biden is much greater than it is for clinton.
it might be that simple. very young people don't like trump, but every poll for the last 100 years has the democrats winning people under 30, and (1) that always seems to change as they age and (2) they don't vote, anyways. i wouldn't draw too much from that, given that we've seen the same development over the last four years that we've seen for decades; the millenials and gen x are apparently republicanizing, just like the boomers and the generations before them did.
and, older people just seem to like biden better, maybe because they're still having problems with seeing women in leadership roles.
but, gen xers seem to have liked clinton better than either biden or trump, and biden even less than trump; in my own age category, what's developing is something like clinton > trump > biden, and i have to admit that that's becoming my own view, as well.
we just seem to dislike biden more than we dislike trump.
the error bars are quite large, so the results might be wrong, but these are still very different numbers than we saw in 2016.
A total of 1,108 adults, including an oversample of 305 adults living in 15 battleground states (Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin) were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers calling both landline and cell phones. Oversampled states have been weighted to represent their proper share of the adult population. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Among the entire sample, 31% described themselves as Democrats, 27% described themselves as Republicans, and 42% described themselves as independents or members of another party.
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/08/16/rel8a.-.2020.pdf
what we're seeing here is more like the dreaded squeeze that i've been hearing about my whole life; the idea that gen x is going to get flattened between the milennials and boomers, who are broadly more similar to each other than either is to gen x.
A total of 1,108 adults, including an oversample of 305 adults living in 15 battleground states (Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin) were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers calling both landline and cell phones. Oversampled states have been weighted to represent their proper share of the adult population. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Among the entire sample, 31% described themselves as Democrats, 27% described themselves as Republicans, and 42% described themselves as independents or members of another party.
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/08/16/rel8a.-.2020.pdf
what we're seeing here is more like the dreaded squeeze that i've been hearing about my whole life; the idea that gen x is going to get flattened between the milennials and boomers, who are broadly more similar to each other than either is to gen x.
there is one other wildcard i want to point out regarding the pandemic, and that's the death rate. in 2016, trump did much better with older voters than clinton.
this is the graphic i need right now:
(https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/)
55% of the population in 2016 was over 50, and it's the demographic he won; he lost the 45% of the population under 50.
you could be looking at over 200,000 dead people by election day, almost all of them over 50. it's easy to make the obvious conclusion that the virus could push trump out in a different way than is currently being contemplated.
i think you need to be careful with that for two reasons, though. first, i'd expect biden to do better with older folk, and we don't really know the breakdown of these deaths. if it splits evenly, it's a wash; if it actually hurts biden more, and it might given that the polling i've seen actually has biden ahead in the 55+ group, then it could even reverse the key swing demographic biden needs.
the second thing is that biden seems to be polling worse than clinton amongst gen xers, which is the group i'd consider myself a part of (although i'm the last gen xer, being born in 1981). in 2016, we saw a millenial/x coalition against the boomers. in 2020, the boomers actually seem to have swung to biden, but at the expense of potentially losing gen x. that could be important to trump, if gen x ends up voting at the highest proportions, even as we realize that the population numbers for gen x are much smaller, something that is not unforeseeable given the virus.
i don't have this data; this is a speculative post, i'm thinking out loud. but, in a close election, 200,000-250,000 dead seniors could be a deciding factor.
this is the graphic i need right now:
(https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/)
55% of the population in 2016 was over 50, and it's the demographic he won; he lost the 45% of the population under 50.
you could be looking at over 200,000 dead people by election day, almost all of them over 50. it's easy to make the obvious conclusion that the virus could push trump out in a different way than is currently being contemplated.
i think you need to be careful with that for two reasons, though. first, i'd expect biden to do better with older folk, and we don't really know the breakdown of these deaths. if it splits evenly, it's a wash; if it actually hurts biden more, and it might given that the polling i've seen actually has biden ahead in the 55+ group, then it could even reverse the key swing demographic biden needs.
the second thing is that biden seems to be polling worse than clinton amongst gen xers, which is the group i'd consider myself a part of (although i'm the last gen xer, being born in 1981). in 2016, we saw a millenial/x coalition against the boomers. in 2020, the boomers actually seem to have swung to biden, but at the expense of potentially losing gen x. that could be important to trump, if gen x ends up voting at the highest proportions, even as we realize that the population numbers for gen x are much smaller, something that is not unforeseeable given the virus.
i don't have this data; this is a speculative post, i'm thinking out loud. but, in a close election, 200,000-250,000 dead seniors could be a deciding factor.
let's take a step back.
my prediction in 2016 was a trump victory, but i based it on a media analysis, rather than a polling analysis. i'll say this again...this is what i said...i'm paraphrasing....the posts will be up sooner than later....
while the data seems to point to a clear clinton victory so long as the election is fair, it is increasingly clear from the media coverage that the election has already been decided for trump.
so, when i put my mathematician's hat on, i predicted a clinton victory. but, i knew better than to wear a mathematician's hat when analyzing american elections; my media analyst hat told me that it was obvious that trump would win.
i'm not going to look this up now and i don't remember if i've already done it, but the polls in pennsylvania & wisconsin were really not as close as some people have pretended they were. i understand what error is, and i'm quick to point out a bad analysis of error when i see it. but, you have to also look at what the polls actually say and the reality is that all of the polls had clinton ahead in all of the states that she lost, by surprise. people arguing that the data was there really aren't being honest. what was there was the possibility of an error in the data, which is what the analysis is for. but, it's not correct to argue that the result was predictable because you got a 25% chance of trump winning, when you crunched the numbers; we don't run 100,000 elections, we run one, and the entire concept of a probability gets blurry and weird when you start dropping it into theoretical scenarios like that.
when all of the polls point to the same result, it's not a leap of logic to make the obvious conclusion. the reality that they might be wrong is always there, but nobody looking at the data saw this coming (although there were other people studying media that picked out clear warning signs), and anybody pretending they did is being disingenuous - what they saw coming, correctly, was the possibility that the polls were wrong, which is always there. and, that is the truth of it, if you take it at face value - that the polling was wrong, and more wrong than you can assign to statistical randomness.
so, i'll make a clear statement regarding the polling i've seen before i back off.
the race is currently actually very tight, where it matters, which is different than in 2016. four years ago, the polling that we had in the three key blue states that flipped - michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania - universally had clinton ahead, even if by small margins, sometimes. today, those numbers are quite a bit closer than they were, then, even if the national polling doesn't look much different.
it consequently seems as though the data is suggesting that trump is going to get completely destroyed by much larger margins in states like california and new york (which he was going to lose anyways.) but is actually outpolling himself relative to four years ago in the important states.
many, many things could change in the next few months and weeks, and if the election is mostly mail then we're dealing with a situation that....we don't know if telephone sampling is useful for predicting mail voting or not. it's unprecedented.
but, all things equal, it would seem to me, right now, that my polling analysis is that trump is actually set to pull off a repeat victory via more or less the same path, even if the states are switched up a little bit.
the simple statement is this: in order for the democrats to win the election, they will need to improve their standing in specific states. right now, it's hard to see which states they hope to win in 2020 that they didn't win in 2016, given that biden's polling is essentially the same as clinton's, but slightly weaker across the board.
i don't expect to post frequent updates, but my caveat is that my media analyst hat was more useful than my polling analysis hat was, four years ago, and it's way too early to even put that hat on, right now.
my prediction in 2016 was a trump victory, but i based it on a media analysis, rather than a polling analysis. i'll say this again...this is what i said...i'm paraphrasing....the posts will be up sooner than later....
while the data seems to point to a clear clinton victory so long as the election is fair, it is increasingly clear from the media coverage that the election has already been decided for trump.
so, when i put my mathematician's hat on, i predicted a clinton victory. but, i knew better than to wear a mathematician's hat when analyzing american elections; my media analyst hat told me that it was obvious that trump would win.
i'm not going to look this up now and i don't remember if i've already done it, but the polls in pennsylvania & wisconsin were really not as close as some people have pretended they were. i understand what error is, and i'm quick to point out a bad analysis of error when i see it. but, you have to also look at what the polls actually say and the reality is that all of the polls had clinton ahead in all of the states that she lost, by surprise. people arguing that the data was there really aren't being honest. what was there was the possibility of an error in the data, which is what the analysis is for. but, it's not correct to argue that the result was predictable because you got a 25% chance of trump winning, when you crunched the numbers; we don't run 100,000 elections, we run one, and the entire concept of a probability gets blurry and weird when you start dropping it into theoretical scenarios like that.
when all of the polls point to the same result, it's not a leap of logic to make the obvious conclusion. the reality that they might be wrong is always there, but nobody looking at the data saw this coming (although there were other people studying media that picked out clear warning signs), and anybody pretending they did is being disingenuous - what they saw coming, correctly, was the possibility that the polls were wrong, which is always there. and, that is the truth of it, if you take it at face value - that the polling was wrong, and more wrong than you can assign to statistical randomness.
so, i'll make a clear statement regarding the polling i've seen before i back off.
the race is currently actually very tight, where it matters, which is different than in 2016. four years ago, the polling that we had in the three key blue states that flipped - michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania - universally had clinton ahead, even if by small margins, sometimes. today, those numbers are quite a bit closer than they were, then, even if the national polling doesn't look much different.
it consequently seems as though the data is suggesting that trump is going to get completely destroyed by much larger margins in states like california and new york (which he was going to lose anyways.) but is actually outpolling himself relative to four years ago in the important states.
many, many things could change in the next few months and weeks, and if the election is mostly mail then we're dealing with a situation that....we don't know if telephone sampling is useful for predicting mail voting or not. it's unprecedented.
but, all things equal, it would seem to me, right now, that my polling analysis is that trump is actually set to pull off a repeat victory via more or less the same path, even if the states are switched up a little bit.
the simple statement is this: in order for the democrats to win the election, they will need to improve their standing in specific states. right now, it's hard to see which states they hope to win in 2020 that they didn't win in 2016, given that biden's polling is essentially the same as clinton's, but slightly weaker across the board.
i don't expect to post frequent updates, but my caveat is that my media analyst hat was more useful than my polling analysis hat was, four years ago, and it's way too early to even put that hat on, right now.
:(.
this is terrible news for the climate.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/baby-boom-ahead-as-covid-19-kept-millions-of-women-from-care-1.5070053
this is terrible news for the climate.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/baby-boom-ahead-as-covid-19-kept-millions-of-women-from-care-1.5070053
i think what they're really suggesting is that most of what they sell you over the counter is really just a placebo.
i'm not surprised. i find that aspirin works pretty well and the rest of it doesn't at all.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/aug/19/honey-better-treatment-for-coughs-and-colds-than-antibiotics-study-clams
i'm not surprised. i find that aspirin works pretty well and the rest of it doesn't at all.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/aug/19/honey-better-treatment-for-coughs-and-colds-than-antibiotics-study-clams
i'm not surprised that i'm not the only person that reacted to the dnc with disgust and dismay.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/08/john-kasichs-dnc-speech-angered-progressives/615361/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/08/john-kasichs-dnc-speech-angered-progressives/615361/
regarding downballot issues, i'd advise you to look at the candidates very closely. there may be house & senate democrats worth supporting in your district. please do the research.
but, i am now officially opposed to the biden-harris ticket and officially in support of the green party ticket (which is howie hawkins & angela walker).
so, yeah...
i guess you never really know where the red lines in politics are until they get crossed, do you?
i can't support the democrats this cycle, and the reason is that they did not seem to have a problem giving john kasich, who is basically walking human excrement, a choice spot at their convention. that's a line i can't tolerate.
they have an opportunity to apologize. i don't expect to get one.
it would appear that that settles the issue, then - i am officially supporting the greens, this cycle.
i guess you never really know where the red lines in politics are until they get crossed, do you?
i can't support the democrats this cycle, and the reason is that they did not seem to have a problem giving john kasich, who is basically walking human excrement, a choice spot at their convention. that's a line i can't tolerate.
they have an opportunity to apologize. i don't expect to get one.
it would appear that that settles the issue, then - i am officially supporting the greens, this cycle.
this man passed a law removing licenses for doctors that provide information about abortion access to rape victims - not even abortion providers, but just doctors that have the basic decency to tell a woman where to go to get treatment, and he's rewarded with a prime time speaking slot at the dnc, and gets plaudits and praise about how much of a leader he is? i am disgusted. i am revolted. i am appalled.
and, what kind of message are you sending to ohio voters when you tell them "this monster john kasich is on our side, now.".
i can only imagine how frightening, confusing, maddening, saddening and angering that message must be, to ohio democrats.
how many women turned their tvs off and went into the bathroom to cry when they saw his horrible face flash across their screen?
i can only imagine how frightening, confusing, maddening, saddening and angering that message must be, to ohio democrats.
how many women turned their tvs off and went into the bathroom to cry when they saw his horrible face flash across their screen?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)