Wednesday, August 19, 2020
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?
Tuesday, August 18, 2020
temp post:
john kasich is an uncivilized and bigoted right-wing extremist that the democrats should not be reaching out to, as a temporary ally, however temporary. his views on abortion, queer rights, climate change and a zillion other things should be clearly and thoroughly denounced by the party, and the person responsible for giving him a platform should resign.
unfortunately, as they allowed john kasich to speak at their convention, that means that the democrats must be endorsing his policies on abortion, climate change, queer rights, etc. otherwise, they wouldn't have given a platform to his bigotry.
john kasich is an uncivilized and bigoted right-wing extremist that the democrats should not be reaching out to, as a temporary ally, however temporary. his views on abortion, queer rights, climate change and a zillion other things should be clearly and thoroughly denounced by the party, and the person responsible for giving him a platform should resign.
unfortunately, as they allowed john kasich to speak at their convention, that means that the democrats must be endorsing his policies on abortion, climate change, queer rights, etc. otherwise, they wouldn't have given a platform to his bigotry.
temp post:
john kasich is a vicious bigot and a right-wing extremist. i suppose that, as they allowed john kasich to speak at their convention, that means that the democrats must be endorsing his policies on abortion, climate change, queer rights, etc. otherwise, they wouldn't have given a platform to his bigotry.
john kasich is a vicious bigot and a right-wing extremist. i suppose that, as they allowed john kasich to speak at their convention, that means that the democrats must be endorsing his policies on abortion, climate change, queer rights, etc. otherwise, they wouldn't have given a platform to his bigotry.
i'm actually going to hold off on attacking him on this, a little.
his predecessor, stephen harper, was often accused of using this tactic, in ways that were legitimately designed to shut down dissent, and prevent the institution from operating properly. that may be the actual reason that trudeau has avoided proroguing parliament; i believe this is the first time he's done this, since he was elected in 2015. that's actually an unusually sporadic usage of what is a legitimate procedure.
they just changed finance ministers, and that's a perfectly valid reason to prorogue. the guardian, being in the uk, knows that.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/18/justin-trudeau-scandal-prorogue-parliament
his predecessor, stephen harper, was often accused of using this tactic, in ways that were legitimately designed to shut down dissent, and prevent the institution from operating properly. that may be the actual reason that trudeau has avoided proroguing parliament; i believe this is the first time he's done this, since he was elected in 2015. that's actually an unusually sporadic usage of what is a legitimate procedure.
they just changed finance ministers, and that's a perfectly valid reason to prorogue. the guardian, being in the uk, knows that.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/18/justin-trudeau-scandal-prorogue-parliament
the reason that trump won is that republicans rejected the kind of hard, hard right extremism being pushed by overbearing conservatives like john kasich.
this is a really key wedge issue, too. i pushed back against it (clinton is not technically pro-choice, she's pro-doctor), but one of the best reasons people could come up with to vote for clinton was to stop the republicans from stacking the courts with pro-lifers.
if you take that argument away, you really pull the rug out from under the base of the party in large parts of the country.
as it is, how am i supposed to interpret this?
what is the party's stance on abortion?
this is a really key wedge issue, too. i pushed back against it (clinton is not technically pro-choice, she's pro-doctor), but one of the best reasons people could come up with to vote for clinton was to stop the republicans from stacking the courts with pro-lifers.
if you take that argument away, you really pull the rug out from under the base of the party in large parts of the country.
as it is, how am i supposed to interpret this?
what is the party's stance on abortion?
i mean...
we forget things easily, don't we?
we seem to think everybody was trying to stop trump in 2016.
in fact, the data suggests that people got stuck with trump because he was less extreme than the other options: cruz, rubio and kasich. trump, comparably speaking, was the moderate on the ballot.
we weren't even sure that trump was going to oppose abortion rights, at all. and, there's still little data suggesting that he really cares, much.
so, now it's 2020, and the democrats want to bring the right-wing extremists that republicans felt were too conservative, to the point that they settled for fucking trump instead, into their party?
it's remarkably tone-deaf.
we forget things easily, don't we?
we seem to think everybody was trying to stop trump in 2016.
in fact, the data suggests that people got stuck with trump because he was less extreme than the other options: cruz, rubio and kasich. trump, comparably speaking, was the moderate on the ballot.
we weren't even sure that trump was going to oppose abortion rights, at all. and, there's still little data suggesting that he really cares, much.
so, now it's 2020, and the democrats want to bring the right-wing extremists that republicans felt were too conservative, to the point that they settled for fucking trump instead, into their party?
it's remarkably tone-deaf.
i don't want to be on the same side as any of these people, at all. these are a bunch of corporate suits and nazi thugs.
if i walked into a room and john kasich was speaking, i'd get up and walk right the fuck out.
or maybe come with pro-choice signs and slogans to drown him out.
biden may be wise to try to distance himself from these people.
or maybe come with pro-choice signs and slogans to drown him out.
biden may be wise to try to distance himself from these people.
when i saw spiral beach a handful of times in the mid 00s in ottawa - at the now defunct zaphod's, at the bluesfest opening for the white stripes - i interpreted them as a heavily zappa influenced goof-rock band that wasn't taking itself very seriously, but was having a lot of fun. i had no idea that they would become a kind of document 0 for a solid decade of various stuff that would develop out of it.
the core of the band were two brothers, along with a longterm partner of one of them. when the band broke up around 2010, one of the brothers went to montreal (where he became good friends and massively influential on an eventual pop star named grimes) and the other went to toronto with said partner, and then eventually to detroit, where he emerged under the moniker moon king. the bassist ended up in a pop-opera band called austra that released records under a number of monikers, after morphing in a few different directions.
so, while this record is a little bit unknown, it's existence is actually rather historically important as it formed the central focus of the very small canadian independent music scene that survived the 00s and moved into the 10s.
the core of the band were two brothers, along with a longterm partner of one of them. when the band broke up around 2010, one of the brothers went to montreal (where he became good friends and massively influential on an eventual pop star named grimes) and the other went to toronto with said partner, and then eventually to detroit, where he emerged under the moniker moon king. the bassist ended up in a pop-opera band called austra that released records under a number of monikers, after morphing in a few different directions.
so, while this record is a little bit unknown, it's existence is actually rather historically important as it formed the central focus of the very small canadian independent music scene that survived the 00s and moved into the 10s.
here's some kids having fun making a video:
and, here's some live footage, too:
canadian bands that you've never heard of flood?
ok, you talked me into it.
i saw the ssris (who self-identified as massive cardiacs fans) in 2011 in ottawa, at the now defunct zaphod's. unfortunately, they lost their drummer and had to disband, but they had a bright future as a high-end experimental pop band while they existed
they have some earlier material that's also interesting, but here's the finished record:
and, the time they got back together.
ok, you talked me into it.
i saw the ssris (who self-identified as massive cardiacs fans) in 2011 in ottawa, at the now defunct zaphod's. unfortunately, they lost their drummer and had to disband, but they had a bright future as a high-end experimental pop band while they existed
they have some earlier material that's also interesting, but here's the finished record:
and, the time they got back together.
what's next, do you think?
why don't i listen to more canadian music?
well, i do listen to a fair amount of canadian music, but it's fairly underground. my favourite industrial band is skinny puppy (vancouver), and my favourite post-rock act is a silver mt zion (montreal); together, those are perhaps my two biggest single influences. there were also a number of very interesting alternative rock bands from southern ontario in the 90s that i've listened to a whole lot of.
i think that the canadian music scene, like most music scenes, really went to shit in the late 90s, and it never really recovered. and, i am vehemently opposed to much of what gets labeled "canadian music", because it's mostly just puerile bullshit.
but, i'm actually more broadly opposed to the concept of music as a geographic idea. i find it very unappealing to think of a band as "canadian" or "german"; music is universal, and where a musician is from does not and should not matter. nor should people be coerced into participating in the cultural scenes that exist around them, simply because they're there.
so, i'd actually argue that there have been very, very substantive music scenes in this country, in the past. there just aren't any right now, and haven't been any for essentially my entire adult life.
i'd probably move to new york, if i could. that would be the ideal place for me to live, culturally.
well, i do listen to a fair amount of canadian music, but it's fairly underground. my favourite industrial band is skinny puppy (vancouver), and my favourite post-rock act is a silver mt zion (montreal); together, those are perhaps my two biggest single influences. there were also a number of very interesting alternative rock bands from southern ontario in the 90s that i've listened to a whole lot of.
i think that the canadian music scene, like most music scenes, really went to shit in the late 90s, and it never really recovered. and, i am vehemently opposed to much of what gets labeled "canadian music", because it's mostly just puerile bullshit.
but, i'm actually more broadly opposed to the concept of music as a geographic idea. i find it very unappealing to think of a band as "canadian" or "german"; music is universal, and where a musician is from does not and should not matter. nor should people be coerced into participating in the cultural scenes that exist around them, simply because they're there.
so, i'd actually argue that there have been very, very substantive music scenes in this country, in the past. there just aren't any right now, and haven't been any for essentially my entire adult life.
i'd probably move to new york, if i could. that would be the ideal place for me to live, culturally.
we seem to be developing a kind of cultural cop-out in blaming things on hackers, and we should maybe stop to get a handle on it.
don't like the results of the election? it was hackers.
don't like somebody's opinion online? must be a bot.
don't want to take responsibility for something you posted? claim your account was hacked.
and, now, don't want to get busted for stealing cerb money? it wasn't me, your honour, i was hacked!
i've been clear enough that i don't support prosecuting these people.
but, hackers seem to be the answer to everything nowadays, aren't they?
don't like the results of the election? it was hackers.
don't like somebody's opinion online? must be a bot.
don't want to take responsibility for something you posted? claim your account was hacked.
and, now, don't want to get busted for stealing cerb money? it wasn't me, your honour, i was hacked!
i've been clear enough that i don't support prosecuting these people.
but, hackers seem to be the answer to everything nowadays, aren't they?
there really seems to be a lot of people that claim that it was "hackers" that signed up, and not them.
maybe i should have signed up and blamed it on hackers, too.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/victim-of-cra-breach-says-someone-applied-for-cerb-with-her-account-1.5067986
maybe i should have signed up and blamed it on hackers, too.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/victim-of-cra-breach-says-someone-applied-for-cerb-with-her-account-1.5067986
what politicians need to do when they hear things from economists is ask a simple question:
do you have any actual data?
if you're a policy maker at any level, please heed this critique from a self-described failed mathematician: the theory is useless. if it hasn't been proven wrong yet, it's a matter of time.
when they tell you there are trade-offs, correlations or relationships, be skeptical.
ask for and look exclusively at data - when they make claims, tell them you want empirical proof, not a mathematical one.
and, if they get iffy, or tell you they can't do the experiment, take it for what it actually is: a wild, speculative guess.
do you have any actual data?
if you're a policy maker at any level, please heed this critique from a self-described failed mathematician: the theory is useless. if it hasn't been proven wrong yet, it's a matter of time.
when they tell you there are trade-offs, correlations or relationships, be skeptical.
ask for and look exclusively at data - when they make claims, tell them you want empirical proof, not a mathematical one.
and, if they get iffy, or tell you they can't do the experiment, take it for what it actually is: a wild, speculative guess.
economics is at the point of development that physics was at before newton - it's a lot of badly formed ideas, it's full of contradictions, and it doesn't have a rigorous presentation.
we have more data now than we did 200 years ago, so we should be able to look at things more analytically than we could in the past. we need to essentially throw it all in the trash and start all over again, in building a rigourous system based on evidence, rather than an axiomatic system based on opinions.
who knows when that happens, but the result will be unlikely to resemble classical liberal economics very much, when it does.
for now, you need to look at economists as charlatans. they can be very confident, it is true; they don't actually really know what they're talking about, because the science is too undeveloped for them to be able to.
we have more data now than we did 200 years ago, so we should be able to look at things more analytically than we could in the past. we need to essentially throw it all in the trash and start all over again, in building a rigourous system based on evidence, rather than an axiomatic system based on opinions.
who knows when that happens, but the result will be unlikely to resemble classical liberal economics very much, when it does.
for now, you need to look at economists as charlatans. they can be very confident, it is true; they don't actually really know what they're talking about, because the science is too undeveloped for them to be able to.
the philips curve is the classic argument against mainstream economics as a science. it came from the right, but the argument isn't ideological, it's about data v theory.
here's the graph:
if you look at just the little bit of it at the front, it looks like a good correlation. now, eyeing correlations from graphs is always bad, but you can at least see it by looking at it.
what economics does over and over again is cherry pick little pieces of graphs like that, build simple mathematical relationships around them and then project them into the future.
but, as we can see, that didn't work with the philips curve, did it?
what you're seeing here is a specific example that generalizes fairly well. these are the types of errors that economists make over and over again, because they don't use the scientific method.
here's the graph:
if you look at just the little bit of it at the front, it looks like a good correlation. now, eyeing correlations from graphs is always bad, but you can at least see it by looking at it.
what economics does over and over again is cherry pick little pieces of graphs like that, build simple mathematical relationships around them and then project them into the future.
but, as we can see, that didn't work with the philips curve, did it?
what you're seeing here is a specific example that generalizes fairly well. these are the types of errors that economists make over and over again, because they don't use the scientific method.
mainstream economics is based on assuming various correlations and then projecting those correlations into the future. but, that's not how you do science; in science, you have to demonstrate the correlation with empirical evidence, and they just don't do it.
they'll tell you they can't do experiments in economics. fine. but, stop calling it a science, then.
in fact, if you look at actual reality, you'll see that the evidence generally collapses most of the correlations. for example, the idea that corporate tax rates effect employment - they simply don't, that's an assumption that the evidence has debunked over and over and over again.
so, they'll tell you it's "bad economics" to push for higher corporate taxes.
in fact, their economics is bad science - the evidence suggests the opposite of what the theory does.
they'll tell you they can't do experiments in economics. fine. but, stop calling it a science, then.
in fact, if you look at actual reality, you'll see that the evidence generally collapses most of the correlations. for example, the idea that corporate tax rates effect employment - they simply don't, that's an assumption that the evidence has debunked over and over and over again.
so, they'll tell you it's "bad economics" to push for higher corporate taxes.
in fact, their economics is bad science - the evidence suggests the opposite of what the theory does.
here's a question.
is it possible that freeland could go down in history as a bigger loser than kim campbell? and, might the liberals follow the progressives into the dustbin of history? well, let's think this through.
in 1993, you had a progressive/conservative (same thing.) government in place. an extremely unpopular prime minister, who had earlier swept into power on the back of a populist movement, was at this point absolutely decimated in the polls. history argues it's because he shifted the manufacturing tax from a hidden tax (on corporations) to an obvious consumption tax, that is he shifted the tax burden from the corporate sector to private individuals, and he got nailed at the box for it. i'm using the word 'shift' because it mirrors the neo-liberal propaganda pushed by the corporate sector; they modeled it as a shift, but it was in truth a tax increase, because corporations will always seek to maximize accumulation at all costs, and they took it as an excuse to price gauge. so, yes - if you work it out with the models, it's a shift. but, the models do not reflect reality - which is a general problem with economics.
mainstream economics is not a science, it's mostly magical thinking with badly designed graphs. and, you can trust me on this - i'm a mathematician, i actually understand what they're doing, and what they're doing is always flatly wrong. you can throw the lot of it in the trash - which we keep doing when it fails, and then forgetting.
that is the history; we have the memories of goldfish. we trumpet orthodoxy in economics over and over, and watch it fail over and over; then the keynesians and krugmanites and mmt people come in and fix it, and within a few years we're back at orthodoxy, which fails again. we don't learn. homo economicus is a fucking idiot, incapable of any sort of cogent thought. they should rename it to homo retardicus economicus.
but, anyways.
mulroney stepped down in 1992 or 1993 (look it up) and was replaced with kim campbell, who had a few months to try and salvage a bad situation, something she was not intellectually or organizationally capable of. she was an elitist that thought she was really, really smart but just simply wasn't, so she went out and ran off a bunch of demeaning statements and got thoroughly rejected for it.
here's one:
an election is no time for serious issues.
you can see this kind of attitude in freeland, and she's not likely to be able to hold in her misguided contempt for very long.
the liberals won the 1993 election in a landslide, but it's not because there was a shift to the left in the conservative base. rather, what happened is that conservatives utterly rejected kim campbell as an airhead idiot (and, she was an airhead idiot), and moved en masse to the reform party, a new party that developed in the west to the right of the conservatives. and, they never really saw it coming.
you know the line about history repeating; i don't want to repeat myself, yet again.
but, there's a huge opening for either the greens or the ndp to walk into, if she falls flat on her face - which she will.
so, will a chrystia freeland led party manage two seats as the base caves in to the left?
stay tuned.
is it possible that freeland could go down in history as a bigger loser than kim campbell? and, might the liberals follow the progressives into the dustbin of history? well, let's think this through.
in 1993, you had a progressive/conservative (same thing.) government in place. an extremely unpopular prime minister, who had earlier swept into power on the back of a populist movement, was at this point absolutely decimated in the polls. history argues it's because he shifted the manufacturing tax from a hidden tax (on corporations) to an obvious consumption tax, that is he shifted the tax burden from the corporate sector to private individuals, and he got nailed at the box for it. i'm using the word 'shift' because it mirrors the neo-liberal propaganda pushed by the corporate sector; they modeled it as a shift, but it was in truth a tax increase, because corporations will always seek to maximize accumulation at all costs, and they took it as an excuse to price gauge. so, yes - if you work it out with the models, it's a shift. but, the models do not reflect reality - which is a general problem with economics.
mainstream economics is not a science, it's mostly magical thinking with badly designed graphs. and, you can trust me on this - i'm a mathematician, i actually understand what they're doing, and what they're doing is always flatly wrong. you can throw the lot of it in the trash - which we keep doing when it fails, and then forgetting.
that is the history; we have the memories of goldfish. we trumpet orthodoxy in economics over and over, and watch it fail over and over; then the keynesians and krugmanites and mmt people come in and fix it, and within a few years we're back at orthodoxy, which fails again. we don't learn. homo economicus is a fucking idiot, incapable of any sort of cogent thought. they should rename it to homo retardicus economicus.
but, anyways.
mulroney stepped down in 1992 or 1993 (look it up) and was replaced with kim campbell, who had a few months to try and salvage a bad situation, something she was not intellectually or organizationally capable of. she was an elitist that thought she was really, really smart but just simply wasn't, so she went out and ran off a bunch of demeaning statements and got thoroughly rejected for it.
here's one:
an election is no time for serious issues.
you can see this kind of attitude in freeland, and she's not likely to be able to hold in her misguided contempt for very long.
the liberals won the 1993 election in a landslide, but it's not because there was a shift to the left in the conservative base. rather, what happened is that conservatives utterly rejected kim campbell as an airhead idiot (and, she was an airhead idiot), and moved en masse to the reform party, a new party that developed in the west to the right of the conservatives. and, they never really saw it coming.
you know the line about history repeating; i don't want to repeat myself, yet again.
but, there's a huge opening for either the greens or the ndp to walk into, if she falls flat on her face - which she will.
so, will a chrystia freeland led party manage two seats as the base caves in to the left?
stay tuned.
ew. gross.
i wouldn't expect much of an improvement - she might actually end up being worse, as she's just about as right-wing as you can get, in this country.
https://www.cp24.com/news/parliament-prorogued-till-sept-23-says-pm-trudeau-1.5068586
i wouldn't expect much of an improvement - she might actually end up being worse, as she's just about as right-wing as you can get, in this country.
https://www.cp24.com/news/parliament-prorogued-till-sept-23-says-pm-trudeau-1.5068586
i'd like to see stricter penalties for this government, for failing to follow the science and giving into magical thinking, instead.
if they want to be fascists, we're going to have to fight about it.
but, i'm not interested in following magical thinking, and he can basically just fuck off.
https://www.richmond-news.com/news/stricter-penalties-on-the-way-for-covid-19-rule-breakers-dix-1.24188331
if they want to be fascists, we're going to have to fight about it.
but, i'm not interested in following magical thinking, and he can basically just fuck off.
https://www.richmond-news.com/news/stricter-penalties-on-the-way-for-covid-19-rule-breakers-dix-1.24188331
it seems like ms. ardern has been patently wrong for months, herself.
she should have let the virus spread, rather than have the masculine arrogance to think she could stop it.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7283303/new-zealand-coronavirus-trump/
she should have let the virus spread, rather than have the masculine arrogance to think she could stop it.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7283303/new-zealand-coronavirus-trump/
something that happened in the nineteenth century is that european pseudo-intellectuals went out looking towards the "oriental" world, in search of "ancient wisdom", under the assumption that the eastern cultures were older & more wise.
thus spoke zarathustra, after all.
in fact, zoroaster was seen as a massive dilettante once they could actually translate him properly.
and, it turns out that what these people were looking for was really right in front of them the whole time - those supposedly oriental & eastern ideas seem to have actually originated in the west, after all.
so, you'll hear people wonder if jesus went to india and brought back ideas, which is just silliness. jesus never existed at all.
but, in terms of it's coherence as an idea, it seems increasingly more likely that the greeks brought their ideas to india than that they found their ideas there.
that said, you can trace this stuff to weird cults in greece that appear to have iranian origins, which is not hard to make sense of. the orphics were apparently a christian-like cult that claimed origin with the scythians, who would have lived in the steppes and spoken an iranian language. you can build a very early model of cultural diffusion across the steppes that would have moved ideas from central asia into both greece and india with indo-iranian speakers, much as the vedas record the movement of indo-aryan peoples into the subcontinent.
but, it's funny what the archaeological record will tell you if you let it, huh?
gotta do those experiments, in the end - because neither racist europeans nor nativist indians would have guessed that buddhism was fundamentally greek, despite the obvious cultural interchanges around it.
thus spoke zarathustra, after all.
in fact, zoroaster was seen as a massive dilettante once they could actually translate him properly.
and, it turns out that what these people were looking for was really right in front of them the whole time - those supposedly oriental & eastern ideas seem to have actually originated in the west, after all.
so, you'll hear people wonder if jesus went to india and brought back ideas, which is just silliness. jesus never existed at all.
but, in terms of it's coherence as an idea, it seems increasingly more likely that the greeks brought their ideas to india than that they found their ideas there.
that said, you can trace this stuff to weird cults in greece that appear to have iranian origins, which is not hard to make sense of. the orphics were apparently a christian-like cult that claimed origin with the scythians, who would have lived in the steppes and spoken an iranian language. you can build a very early model of cultural diffusion across the steppes that would have moved ideas from central asia into both greece and india with indo-iranian speakers, much as the vedas record the movement of indo-aryan peoples into the subcontinent.
but, it's funny what the archaeological record will tell you if you let it, huh?
gotta do those experiments, in the end - because neither racist europeans nor nativist indians would have guessed that buddhism was fundamentally greek, despite the obvious cultural interchanges around it.
well, ok.
maybe, the stoics would accept the change, overall - even if parmenides wouldn't, and zeno would have come to his defense. parmenides was...we don't have the sources, i'm going to stop myself before i start. but, zeno was massively influential on the development of calculus (via archimedes), and the fact that parmenides was so influential on zeno means that, along with pythagoras, he's one of the origin points of western thought, even as he exists in history as a distant, distorted memory.
i wish we had better sources on parmenides...
but, when using the term 'stoic', i should refrain from referring too heavily to parmenides, who was really pre-stoic, even if it is the zeno/parmenides connection that is most interesting to myself as a failed mathematician. i mean, a seneca or a marcus aurelius doesn't really have a lot to say about the history of mathematics, which is where i'm actually coming at this from (if it wasn't obvious).
it's more the inability to affect the world around you that would define the later stoics than the idea that change is impossible, altogether. so, they'd end up just resigning themselves to it, and focusing more on how they feel about it than about how to actually do anything about it.
i suppose my tune, ignorance is bliss, is fairly stoic:
to worry about things you can't change,
is pointless and completely deranged
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/stress
maybe, the stoics would accept the change, overall - even if parmenides wouldn't, and zeno would have come to his defense. parmenides was...we don't have the sources, i'm going to stop myself before i start. but, zeno was massively influential on the development of calculus (via archimedes), and the fact that parmenides was so influential on zeno means that, along with pythagoras, he's one of the origin points of western thought, even as he exists in history as a distant, distorted memory.
i wish we had better sources on parmenides...
but, when using the term 'stoic', i should refrain from referring too heavily to parmenides, who was really pre-stoic, even if it is the zeno/parmenides connection that is most interesting to myself as a failed mathematician. i mean, a seneca or a marcus aurelius doesn't really have a lot to say about the history of mathematics, which is where i'm actually coming at this from (if it wasn't obvious).
it's more the inability to affect the world around you that would define the later stoics than the idea that change is impossible, altogether. so, they'd end up just resigning themselves to it, and focusing more on how they feel about it than about how to actually do anything about it.
i suppose my tune, ignorance is bliss, is fairly stoic:
to worry about things you can't change,
is pointless and completely deranged
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/stress
cynical spreaders.
hrmmn.
cynicism and stoicism are ideas that i sort of like, and sort of don't. i'll admit to having a tendency to romanticize poverty, and i certainly reject wealth, but i don't like the naturalistic fallacy. i also generally find myself weary of people arguing in favour of virtue, even as i try to strive for these things myself, for myself. my single biggest enemies in life are people that think they can tell me how to think correctly.
but, i'd actually imagine that cynics would be poor at spreading viruses due to their disinterest in people. viruses need to find more sociable people to infect, if they want to get around.
stoics would probably end up arguing that the virus is impossible, and only really exists in our minds, anyways. we'd certainly be unable to control it. stoicism is dangerous, but wise; be careful with that, as you can gain much from it, and be led much astray by it, too.
if they want to relate the spread of the virus to a school of greek philosophy, they should probably be more concerned with epicurean spreaders. it would be the epicureans that would be your social butterflies, your heavy drinkers, your pleasure-seekers and your utilitarian hedonists.
stoics may be a threat in theory, but nobody would like them in reality, so they wouldn't actually be. and, cynics would be more likely to go sit inside and read.
this was immediately obvious, as fallout.
biden is a known quantity, but harris is largely undefined, and it's going to be very hard for her to define herself in a pandemic, when everybody's communicating over the interwebs. it's a major advantage for the republicans, especially given the little bit of time that she had to define herself did not work in her favour at all.
these numbers should be scaring the biden campaign, who should be looking at the situation as a crises point. they need these states to win...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/16/politics/cnn-poll-biden-trump-august/index.html
biden is a known quantity, but harris is largely undefined, and it's going to be very hard for her to define herself in a pandemic, when everybody's communicating over the interwebs. it's a major advantage for the republicans, especially given the little bit of time that she had to define herself did not work in her favour at all.
these numbers should be scaring the biden campaign, who should be looking at the situation as a crises point. they need these states to win...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/16/politics/cnn-poll-biden-trump-august/index.html
and, are they going to run michelle obama?
she doesn't have the ambitions that hillary had from day one. like, the punchline was that hillary was running the show back when bill was governor of arkansas. it was clear the whole time that she was going to run, herself.
michelle obama, on the other hand, always seemed to look like she wasn't sure how she got there, what she was doing there or if she wanted to be there at all, and she seemed to literally run out of the place as soon as she could get out.
whereas you had to fight hillary off, you're going to have to drag michelle in.
she's popular, it's true, which is no doubt the depth of the calculus around the situation. but, she's never run for office, has she?
they're going to try to talk her into it, expect it.
she doesn't have the ambitions that hillary had from day one. like, the punchline was that hillary was running the show back when bill was governor of arkansas. it was clear the whole time that she was going to run, herself.
michelle obama, on the other hand, always seemed to look like she wasn't sure how she got there, what she was doing there or if she wanted to be there at all, and she seemed to literally run out of the place as soon as she could get out.
whereas you had to fight hillary off, you're going to have to drag michelle in.
she's popular, it's true, which is no doubt the depth of the calculus around the situation. but, she's never run for office, has she?
they're going to try to talk her into it, expect it.
this is just bizarre and weird.
https://www.vox.com/2020/8/17/21373196/john-kasich-dnc-speech-transcript
https://www.vox.com/2020/8/17/21373196/john-kasich-dnc-speech-transcript
Monday, August 17, 2020
this is the first part of an apparent three cd set to be released slowly over the next several months.
there does seem to be a movement towards a more sporadic, atmospheric sound over the last few records, and it's sort of flipped over, here. there's an increased use of ambience & noise, in addition to the more sombre approach, which is making the first part of this a difficult and rather inaccessible listen.
i'm accustomed to listening to very abstract sound, so when i suggest that i'm going to need a few listens to process this, it really reflects on what i'm listening to.
but, i'm not convinced that this is going to click, in the end. my initial impression is that the record ends up so glacial that it loses it's interest, and that the increased diversity in the soundscaping doesn't salvage it. but, it's hard to tell if that's going to assert itself, or if i'm going to be able to make sense of it.
lyrically, lott is also.....i knew he was a christian from the start, and that was in some ways an asset in his earliest material, but the write-up for the record is a little facile to say the least. we'll see if he gets under my skin, or not.
but, that's my first impression - this is about as abstract as pop music gets; it may have exited the realm of pop music entirely, in truth, and entered a realm of pure sound design, with what is really only surface comparisons to pop structures. while this is not a criticism on it's face, and the record may reveal something i did not hear on first listen in the long run, it doesn't sound to me like they pulled this off.
https://sonlux.bandcamp.com/album/tomorrows-i
there does seem to be a movement towards a more sporadic, atmospheric sound over the last few records, and it's sort of flipped over, here. there's an increased use of ambience & noise, in addition to the more sombre approach, which is making the first part of this a difficult and rather inaccessible listen.
i'm accustomed to listening to very abstract sound, so when i suggest that i'm going to need a few listens to process this, it really reflects on what i'm listening to.
but, i'm not convinced that this is going to click, in the end. my initial impression is that the record ends up so glacial that it loses it's interest, and that the increased diversity in the soundscaping doesn't salvage it. but, it's hard to tell if that's going to assert itself, or if i'm going to be able to make sense of it.
lyrically, lott is also.....i knew he was a christian from the start, and that was in some ways an asset in his earliest material, but the write-up for the record is a little facile to say the least. we'll see if he gets under my skin, or not.
but, that's my first impression - this is about as abstract as pop music gets; it may have exited the realm of pop music entirely, in truth, and entered a realm of pure sound design, with what is really only surface comparisons to pop structures. while this is not a criticism on it's face, and the record may reveal something i did not hear on first listen in the long run, it doesn't sound to me like they pulled this off.
https://sonlux.bandcamp.com/album/tomorrows-i
i know the opposition will point to this as evidence that the government is in collapse, but this is reallly a potential first step in salvaging it.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-morneau-justin-trudeau-decision-1.5689890
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-morneau-justin-trudeau-decision-1.5689890
but, at the end of the day?
i want politicians to clearly broadcast to me that they're going to spend lots and lots and lots of money, and i don't actually care how it gets paid for, because i realize that deficits don't matter.
it's my opposition to austerity that is a vote driver, not anything to do with who pays for it or how.
i want politicians to clearly broadcast to me that they're going to spend lots and lots and lots of money, and i don't actually care how it gets paid for, because i realize that deficits don't matter.
it's my opposition to austerity that is a vote driver, not anything to do with who pays for it or how.
they've done studies on the general population and learned that the only people on the entire fucking planet that give a fuck about economic efficiency are economics students.
homo economicus does not exist, except in the classroom, where it's pushed down from the top.
so, do i think that voters care if corporate taxation is efficient or not? no.
i think that other types of arguments are likely to be more compelling, for most people.
homo economicus does not exist, except in the classroom, where it's pushed down from the top.
so, do i think that voters care if corporate taxation is efficient or not? no.
i think that other types of arguments are likely to be more compelling, for most people.
"but, rich people will just hide their money"
again - the purpose of the government is not to play the role of police officer here in confiscating wealth, it's to make the balance sheets work.
if you can hide your money, and the balance sheet works out, then fine.
but, realize that i'm also proposing very large increases in spending, meaning the state will have some incentive to track you down, to balance that sheet.
but, it's the balancing process that matters, not keeping track of and pulling in every single dollar you can find. the government is not a business. it's not accumulating capital, itself.
again - the purpose of the government is not to play the role of police officer here in confiscating wealth, it's to make the balance sheets work.
if you can hide your money, and the balance sheet works out, then fine.
but, realize that i'm also proposing very large increases in spending, meaning the state will have some incentive to track you down, to balance that sheet.
but, it's the balancing process that matters, not keeping track of and pulling in every single dollar you can find. the government is not a business. it's not accumulating capital, itself.
Raising the corporate income tax rate would reduce economic growth,
no it wouldn't.
and lead to a smaller capital stock,
ok, but nobody cares.
lower wage growth,
bullshit.
and reduced employment.
employment is determined by demand, not by taxation. if you cut taxes on consumers, you increase demand, leading to more employment. corporate tax rates are not a meaningful input variable, here.
Under a higher tax rate, some investments wouldn't be made, which leads to less capital formation, and fewer jobs with lower wages.
that's bullshit. investments are determined by projected returns, and interest rates are 0%. it's just scare mongering nonsense.
the types of arguments that i will accept have to do with waste. you could argue that corporate taxes pull in less per dollar circulated than consumption or income taxes, and be right. but, you're not really embracing mmt, if you're arguing that point, you're still thinking in terms of the gold standard. conceding that corporate taxation is less efficient, you haven't provided a reason that we ought to seek efficiency in taxation. if we prioritize other concerns, we can come up with good arguments to base the tax system on corporate profits, rather than on labour earnings, on property ownership, etc.
no it wouldn't.
and lead to a smaller capital stock,
ok, but nobody cares.
lower wage growth,
bullshit.
and reduced employment.
employment is determined by demand, not by taxation. if you cut taxes on consumers, you increase demand, leading to more employment. corporate tax rates are not a meaningful input variable, here.
Under a higher tax rate, some investments wouldn't be made, which leads to less capital formation, and fewer jobs with lower wages.
that's bullshit. investments are determined by projected returns, and interest rates are 0%. it's just scare mongering nonsense.
the types of arguments that i will accept have to do with waste. you could argue that corporate taxes pull in less per dollar circulated than consumption or income taxes, and be right. but, you're not really embracing mmt, if you're arguing that point, you're still thinking in terms of the gold standard. conceding that corporate taxation is less efficient, you haven't provided a reason that we ought to seek efficiency in taxation. if we prioritize other concerns, we can come up with good arguments to base the tax system on corporate profits, rather than on labour earnings, on property ownership, etc.
and are corporate taxes "bad"?
i don't really care about maximizing accumulation. that's not a big part of my calculation, here. they may be less efficient and create waste, but nobody really cares, except for shareholders. it's not really my problem.
i'm more concerned about determining who ought to be paying for taxes and the answer to that question is that what necessary taxation that does exist ought to come out of accumulation, not out of compensation for labour.
so, i'm not going to try to argue with economists that want to tell you this is inefficient. i don't care about maximizing efficiency in accumulation, but i do think that accumulation ought to be restricted and redistributed.
so, i would propose a system where...i'm not going to make up numbers...but almost all revenue should be coming in from taxation on corporate accumulation, and the rest should be coming from the very rich.
i don't really care about maximizing accumulation. that's not a big part of my calculation, here. they may be less efficient and create waste, but nobody really cares, except for shareholders. it's not really my problem.
i'm more concerned about determining who ought to be paying for taxes and the answer to that question is that what necessary taxation that does exist ought to come out of accumulation, not out of compensation for labour.
so, i'm not going to try to argue with economists that want to tell you this is inefficient. i don't care about maximizing efficiency in accumulation, but i do think that accumulation ought to be restricted and redistributed.
so, i would propose a system where...i'm not going to make up numbers...but almost all revenue should be coming in from taxation on corporate accumulation, and the rest should be coming from the very rich.
i'll flip that around, though - i would argue that you really shouldn't be paying taxes if you're making less than something like $100,000. so, i'd be in big support of almost no taxation fairly high up the wage scale. there's just no reason for most people to pay taxes.
pretty much the only taxation that i will actively, readily support is corporate taxation. virtually all tax revenue into the government ought to be coming from the corporate sector, not from private individuals.
pretty much the only taxation that i will actively, readily support is corporate taxation. virtually all tax revenue into the government ought to be coming from the corporate sector, not from private individuals.
it's the same thing with extending those tax cuts...
from a modern monetary theory standpoint, tax revenue doesn't actually matter. now, that's not to say i'm gung-ho about eliminating taxes, so much as it's to say that it doesn't actually matter if they do or not. the kind of spending programs i'd support will never be funded via taxation; that money has to get printed.
so, what's the point of increasing or decreasing taxes? it's really just virtue signalling...
i consequently don't really care if a politician wants to vote to increase or decrease taxes on the wealthy because it doesn't actually matter, so long as they're not then arguing to choke off the creation of new money; i'd rather support a candidate that wants to print lots of money and cut taxes than a candidate that wants to raise taxes and balance the budget.
it follows that if a politician can gain some leverage by supporting tax cuts that do not matter, structurally, then they should do so.
from a modern monetary theory standpoint, tax revenue doesn't actually matter. now, that's not to say i'm gung-ho about eliminating taxes, so much as it's to say that it doesn't actually matter if they do or not. the kind of spending programs i'd support will never be funded via taxation; that money has to get printed.
so, what's the point of increasing or decreasing taxes? it's really just virtue signalling...
i consequently don't really care if a politician wants to vote to increase or decrease taxes on the wealthy because it doesn't actually matter, so long as they're not then arguing to choke off the creation of new money; i'd rather support a candidate that wants to print lots of money and cut taxes than a candidate that wants to raise taxes and balance the budget.
it follows that if a politician can gain some leverage by supporting tax cuts that do not matter, structurally, then they should do so.
i'll remind you that i was completely cold turkey from mid-2018 to mid-2019. it was ten months....
in those ten months, there was no drinking, no smoking (anything.), nothing.
and, yes, that 26er of vodka is still in there. it's now five months, and it'll sit there for five years if nothing happens.
further, i've been posting about this now for weeks - months. i've broadcast this; you knew it was coming. when i say i have no intention of smoking tobacco ever again, there's a very high chance that i actually, really won't.
i'm not going to smoke the raspberry mixture or the peppermint tea bags in the cupboard on their own, i'm pretty confident of that. i'll get some green tea and throw it in there, and i don't expect to smoke that either (although i'm sure i'll give it a try as a caffeine boost, just to see - and i am a little worried that i'm going to take a hit of the green tea, stay awake for a week and get hooked on it. but, we'll have to experiment.). but, so long as it's in there, there'll be no reason to buy cigarettes.
and, if the edibles work well enough, i won't even need to keep the tea around at all - so i'm going to wait to buy the green tea.
i've been very, very serious about this in the past, and have gone very long periods with zero nicotine, but there's always been some reason...
there's no more reasons.
it's happening. permanently.
in those ten months, there was no drinking, no smoking (anything.), nothing.
and, yes, that 26er of vodka is still in there. it's now five months, and it'll sit there for five years if nothing happens.
further, i've been posting about this now for weeks - months. i've broadcast this; you knew it was coming. when i say i have no intention of smoking tobacco ever again, there's a very high chance that i actually, really won't.
i'm not going to smoke the raspberry mixture or the peppermint tea bags in the cupboard on their own, i'm pretty confident of that. i'll get some green tea and throw it in there, and i don't expect to smoke that either (although i'm sure i'll give it a try as a caffeine boost, just to see - and i am a little worried that i'm going to take a hit of the green tea, stay awake for a week and get hooked on it. but, we'll have to experiment.). but, so long as it's in there, there'll be no reason to buy cigarettes.
and, if the edibles work well enough, i won't even need to keep the tea around at all - so i'm going to wait to buy the green tea.
i've been very, very serious about this in the past, and have gone very long periods with zero nicotine, but there's always been some reason...
there's no more reasons.
it's happening. permanently.
i really need to get to work...i've been sitting here doing nothing for hours, for days....
i need to get back into a flow, is what i need.
i'm feeling better, i think. remember: i just came down from two months of smoking marijuana & nicotine almost every day. marijuana is not addictive, but i've been getting nic pulls, i expected that, and i have no intention of giving in, whatsoever. i'm about 48 hours from a week, cold turkey. as mentioned, things are fundamentally different now, and i'm going to be a lot more strict on myself.
so, a few months ago, i might have bummed a smoke here and there at the store, because i was going to have a few the next time i went out, anyways. that is, i had cut it down to almost nothing but was routinely having a few smokes a week. no more......
i didn't do any calls today. tomorrow.
the smell was better from about 6:00 am to about 6:00 pm, making me wonder if the primary problem is the night shift pig up there, or if the smoker is otherwise gone during the day.
it's too cold to open the window. i'll need to run the shower to try to clear the air out, instead.
i've got a bit more laundry to do tonight, too.
for tonight, i need to do some digital cleaning, and then get back to what i was doing after i eat and shower and get that laundry in. so, expect the volume here to come down a bit as i pry myself away and do something else....
you'll notice over the years that i need to sit in front of one of these devices and just for days at a time sometimes, to clear my head. i'm pulling myself back from this, for a bit. it'll no doubt happen again later...
i need to get back into a flow, is what i need.
i'm feeling better, i think. remember: i just came down from two months of smoking marijuana & nicotine almost every day. marijuana is not addictive, but i've been getting nic pulls, i expected that, and i have no intention of giving in, whatsoever. i'm about 48 hours from a week, cold turkey. as mentioned, things are fundamentally different now, and i'm going to be a lot more strict on myself.
so, a few months ago, i might have bummed a smoke here and there at the store, because i was going to have a few the next time i went out, anyways. that is, i had cut it down to almost nothing but was routinely having a few smokes a week. no more......
i didn't do any calls today. tomorrow.
the smell was better from about 6:00 am to about 6:00 pm, making me wonder if the primary problem is the night shift pig up there, or if the smoker is otherwise gone during the day.
it's too cold to open the window. i'll need to run the shower to try to clear the air out, instead.
i've got a bit more laundry to do tonight, too.
for tonight, i need to do some digital cleaning, and then get back to what i was doing after i eat and shower and get that laundry in. so, expect the volume here to come down a bit as i pry myself away and do something else....
you'll notice over the years that i need to sit in front of one of these devices and just for days at a time sometimes, to clear my head. i'm pulling myself back from this, for a bit. it'll no doubt happen again later...
cockburn's a smart analyst, and very knowledgeable about the region.
let's hope he's right.
somebody has to have the guns; these are the last regimes on the planet that you want to give the wealth to.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/17/the-decline-in-power-of-the-oil-states/
let's hope he's right.
somebody has to have the guns; these are the last regimes on the planet that you want to give the wealth to.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/17/the-decline-in-power-of-the-oil-states/
i haven't been reading a lot of counterpunch recently, but keep an eye on this site.
i think i said basically exactly this five minutes after they announced.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/17/kamala-harris-represents-everything-wrong-with-empty-identity-politics/
i think i said basically exactly this five minutes after they announced.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/17/kamala-harris-represents-everything-wrong-with-empty-identity-politics/
like in canada, the whole point of the politics of the left is to try to get the balance of power, so you can influence the sitting government.
that is what the ndp, the bloc and the greens are all all about - none of them are trying to win, they're all trying to get the balance of votes necessary to pass a budget, to force the government to have to work with them.
currently, the liberals cannot pass a budget without support from both the bloc and the ndp, which gives the ndp, especially, tremendous amounts of leverage.
this is the actual reason we have universal healthcare up here. ok, that's an exaggeration, an oversimplification; the liberals were pushing their own ideas, too. but, the form of what we have is a consequence of the liberals needing the votes from the ndp.
apparently, when independent-minded senators try to gain the balance of power in the united states, they get primaried by their own party.
it's instructive.
that is what the ndp, the bloc and the greens are all all about - none of them are trying to win, they're all trying to get the balance of votes necessary to pass a budget, to force the government to have to work with them.
currently, the liberals cannot pass a budget without support from both the bloc and the ndp, which gives the ndp, especially, tremendous amounts of leverage.
this is the actual reason we have universal healthcare up here. ok, that's an exaggeration, an oversimplification; the liberals were pushing their own ideas, too. but, the form of what we have is a consequence of the liberals needing the votes from the ndp.
apparently, when independent-minded senators try to gain the balance of power in the united states, they get primaried by their own party.
it's instructive.
and, what about these trump nominees?
i'll admit that i wasn't paying particularly close attention to much of the process around nominating somebody like the energy secretary.
however, if you can't stop the executive branch, why not try to gain concessions from them instead?
what i'm getting at is that aimlessly flailing against something you can't actually stop isn't a very intelligent strategy. if she had voted against these nominees, they may have sent somebody worse as replacement. by pretending that you're giving the executive branch a concession (when you're actually powerless to stop them), you're setting the situation up in such a way as to increase your bargaining power in the long run.
so, i don't know if i would have voted for or against any of these nominees, but i know that i would have tried to do something a little less stupid than kneejerking for the cameras, and trying to make a show of it.
i'll admit that i wasn't paying particularly close attention to much of the process around nominating somebody like the energy secretary.
however, if you can't stop the executive branch, why not try to gain concessions from them instead?
what i'm getting at is that aimlessly flailing against something you can't actually stop isn't a very intelligent strategy. if she had voted against these nominees, they may have sent somebody worse as replacement. by pretending that you're giving the executive branch a concession (when you're actually powerless to stop them), you're setting the situation up in such a way as to increase your bargaining power in the long run.
so, i don't know if i would have voted for or against any of these nominees, but i know that i would have tried to do something a little less stupid than kneejerking for the cameras, and trying to make a show of it.
On 1 May 2018 the IAEA reiterated its 2015 report, saying it had found no credible evidence of nuclear weapons activity in Iran after 2009.
so, why do we need an iran deal at all?
we don't, except to bully them into submission.
and, as mentioned, what happened was that the chinese and russians came in and said "enough of that".
so, why do we need an iran deal at all?
we don't, except to bully them into submission.
and, as mentioned, what happened was that the chinese and russians came in and said "enough of that".
would i have voted against the iran deal?
i wouldn't have voted for it. it was essentially a face-saving mechanism for obama, to hide the fact that the chinese and russians came in and saved iran's ass. there was no value in upholding it.
however, i would not have supported trump's proposals for increased sanctions, either.
i'm actually not at all concerned about iran's nuclear program. all evidence suggests that they don't have one, and that the only way they're going to start one is if we scare them into it. so, if we really want iran to not build nuclear weapons, the right way to go about it is to leave them the fuck alone.
that said, i would support anything that would facilitate the overthrow of the tyrannical iranian regime, including targeted strikes on clerical leaders.
so,
1) i don't support the obama period iran deal
2) i don't support trump's replacement
3) i do support broad disengagement, and a shift to things like a nuclear-free zone in the middle east. i'm far more afraid of the saudis than i am of the iranians, when it comes to weapons of mass destruction, or weapons at all.
4) i would support popular liberation movements in iran, and may support targeted intervention, if the situation suggests it is viable.
but, do i think what obama set up was a good idea? do i think it worked?
no.
i wouldn't have voted for it. it was essentially a face-saving mechanism for obama, to hide the fact that the chinese and russians came in and saved iran's ass. there was no value in upholding it.
however, i would not have supported trump's proposals for increased sanctions, either.
i'm actually not at all concerned about iran's nuclear program. all evidence suggests that they don't have one, and that the only way they're going to start one is if we scare them into it. so, if we really want iran to not build nuclear weapons, the right way to go about it is to leave them the fuck alone.
that said, i would support anything that would facilitate the overthrow of the tyrannical iranian regime, including targeted strikes on clerical leaders.
so,
1) i don't support the obama period iran deal
2) i don't support trump's replacement
3) i do support broad disengagement, and a shift to things like a nuclear-free zone in the middle east. i'm far more afraid of the saudis than i am of the iranians, when it comes to weapons of mass destruction, or weapons at all.
4) i would support popular liberation movements in iran, and may support targeted intervention, if the situation suggests it is viable.
but, do i think what obama set up was a good idea? do i think it worked?
no.
interestingly, sinema is the youngest democrat in the senate, and won a seat that hasn't been won by democrats in decades.
i've walked down this path before, and i always find myself wondering: is this as an archetype for the future of the party?
it's a more appealing path than any other i can see, anyways.
i've walked down this path before, and i always find myself wondering: is this as an archetype for the future of the party?
it's a more appealing path than any other i can see, anyways.
if i was her, i'd take the kids out of the country and claim refugee status somewhere.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/09/atheist-mom-forced-into-court-ordered-christian-counseling/
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/09/atheist-mom-forced-into-court-ordered-christian-counseling/
how would i have reacted to the stupid fake "green new deal" vote?
i remember this coming up and scratching my head. sinema votes against climate action? what?
but, she explains here that it was a stand against the stupidity of the situation, and there's actually a little bit of leadership underlying the clear-thinking, no bullshit position she took around it.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2019/03/26/kyrsten-sinema-sides-republicans-vote-against-green-new-deal/3283607002/
she's basically right - the proposal, as presented to congress, was not remotely workable. we're 30 years past the point where we can pretend we can reverse climate change, and she knows that. spending zillions of dollars on largely unrelated social programs without addressing the actual problem isn't a serious solution, or an actual way forward.
so, she voted against the bill and co-sponsored a statement pushing for an actual useful piece of legislation instead.
i probably would have done something similar.
i remember this coming up and scratching my head. sinema votes against climate action? what?
but, she explains here that it was a stand against the stupidity of the situation, and there's actually a little bit of leadership underlying the clear-thinking, no bullshit position she took around it.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2019/03/26/kyrsten-sinema-sides-republicans-vote-against-green-new-deal/3283607002/
she's basically right - the proposal, as presented to congress, was not remotely workable. we're 30 years past the point where we can pretend we can reverse climate change, and she knows that. spending zillions of dollars on largely unrelated social programs without addressing the actual problem isn't a serious solution, or an actual way forward.
so, she voted against the bill and co-sponsored a statement pushing for an actual useful piece of legislation instead.
i probably would have done something similar.
do i agree with kyrsten sinema on the issues?
i live very far away, but she's been around for a while, and she seems kind of refreshingly left-wing, in comparison to the recent rightward movement of the democratic party, as a whole. i understand that she's been controversial, but i agree with almost every position she's taken, and in ways that are actually pretty profound, and because she seems more ideologically aligned with the left, rather than despite it. she's a good representation of where i stand on the spectrum, to the left of the party, as a whole.
you have to keep in mind the weird language that they use in the united states, and the confusing use of terms like 'conservative' and 'liberal'. i'd actually call her a left-libertarian, from what i can tell, in the sense that she's on the left where it really matters and in favour of individual liberty where it really matters, too - which is about where i am, as a whole, as well.
so, i mean, i grasp that a lot of fake leftists are going to look at her and recoil, but, for me, that's exactly the point - she's reacting against a movement that i don't like in broadly the same way that i am.
although i'm sure we could find things to argue about, too.
i live very far away, but she's been around for a while, and she seems kind of refreshingly left-wing, in comparison to the recent rightward movement of the democratic party, as a whole. i understand that she's been controversial, but i agree with almost every position she's taken, and in ways that are actually pretty profound, and because she seems more ideologically aligned with the left, rather than despite it. she's a good representation of where i stand on the spectrum, to the left of the party, as a whole.
you have to keep in mind the weird language that they use in the united states, and the confusing use of terms like 'conservative' and 'liberal'. i'd actually call her a left-libertarian, from what i can tell, in the sense that she's on the left where it really matters and in favour of individual liberty where it really matters, too - which is about where i am, as a whole, as well.
so, i mean, i grasp that a lot of fake leftists are going to look at her and recoil, but, for me, that's exactly the point - she's reacting against a movement that i don't like in broadly the same way that i am.
although i'm sure we could find things to argue about, too.
i think that the only other open atheist in the senate is kyrsten sinema, right?
all girl, all atheist ticket in 2024?
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/08/12/atheist-kelda-roys-wins-democratic-primary-for-wisconsin-senate-seat/
all girl, all atheist ticket in 2024?
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/08/12/atheist-kelda-roys-wins-democratic-primary-for-wisconsin-senate-seat/
i'd suspect that chances are that if i ever ended up in the surreal and unlikely position of raising a religious child to adulthood, they would learn to avoid the debate.
the bigger question is whether i'd be able to drop it or not, and it would probably be very hard for me to do that.
i don't know; i can't say for sure that i could.
the bigger question is whether i'd be able to drop it or not, and it would probably be very hard for me to do that.
i don't know; i can't say for sure that i could.
do i think that a potential partner would be a little more willing to take the kid to church on request? what would i think about that?
frankly, when i imagine these scenarios, i always assume i'm a single parent. the reality is that i have no desire to have children, whatsoever, and don't expect i ever will.
i wouldn't expect i'd get to the point of adopting a child with a partner unless we were compatible on this. so, the right answer from my perspective is that i wouldn't raise a child with somebody that would be interested in taking it to a religious service on request; if i ever got there, it's a fair assumption that there would be no daylight between myself and the person i'm coparenting with.
that said, it's the kind of thing that may lead me to walk out on somebody, not because of the kids, but because i'd lose a lot of respect for the person. i couldn't imagine looking somebody in the eye and trying to be affectionate with them when i know they were at church a few hours ago. it would be a relationship-ending decision, because i'd just get up and walk away.
but, whatever the outcome, i would realize it's not my place to tell people what to do or what to think, even if i choose to avoid them in the future, as a consequence of their belief system.
frankly, when i imagine these scenarios, i always assume i'm a single parent. the reality is that i have no desire to have children, whatsoever, and don't expect i ever will.
i wouldn't expect i'd get to the point of adopting a child with a partner unless we were compatible on this. so, the right answer from my perspective is that i wouldn't raise a child with somebody that would be interested in taking it to a religious service on request; if i ever got there, it's a fair assumption that there would be no daylight between myself and the person i'm coparenting with.
that said, it's the kind of thing that may lead me to walk out on somebody, not because of the kids, but because i'd lose a lot of respect for the person. i couldn't imagine looking somebody in the eye and trying to be affectionate with them when i know they were at church a few hours ago. it would be a relationship-ending decision, because i'd just get up and walk away.
but, whatever the outcome, i would realize it's not my place to tell people what to do or what to think, even if i choose to avoid them in the future, as a consequence of their belief system.
ultimately, i think that if my kids decided that they wanted to go to church, i would take that as a kind of a red flag that i'm doing something wrong. what is missing in their developing epistemology that i haven't plugged in? why are they seeking faith over reason? how do i address this?
are they just curious? well, maybe we can sit down and read a book about religion together, instead.
here's a good one for that:
https://www.amazon.ca/Outgrowing-God-Beginners-Richard-Dawkins/dp/1984853910
but, i mean, you need to listen, first, and your reaction, in the end, should be with the intent to be informative without being controlling - to give them the information they're asking for, but not to try to direct them towards any specific conclusion.
are they just curious? well, maybe we can sit down and read a book about religion together, instead.
here's a good one for that:
https://www.amazon.ca/Outgrowing-God-Beginners-Richard-Dawkins/dp/1984853910
but, i mean, you need to listen, first, and your reaction, in the end, should be with the intent to be informative without being controlling - to give them the information they're asking for, but not to try to direct them towards any specific conclusion.
so, what do you do, then, if your six year old kid comes to you and tells you they want to go to church?
i'd have a talk with them about it.
i would not be willing to bring a child to church on request, but i would allow them to go with a different adult, a friend's family or even by themselves, depending on context. i don't believe in helicopter parenting; i'd have little concern about letting a five or six year old kid go to church on their own, so long as the church doesn't throw them out for being disruptive.
i would make my concerns known to the child, and explain why i don't want to go, myself. but, i wouldn't stop them from going.
i may engage them in debate when they get back, though.
i'd have a talk with them about it.
i would not be willing to bring a child to church on request, but i would allow them to go with a different adult, a friend's family or even by themselves, depending on context. i don't believe in helicopter parenting; i'd have little concern about letting a five or six year old kid go to church on their own, so long as the church doesn't throw them out for being disruptive.
i would make my concerns known to the child, and explain why i don't want to go, myself. but, i wouldn't stop them from going.
i may engage them in debate when they get back, though.
"don't you fucking tell me how to raise my kid".
fuck you.
i'm going to stand up for your kids' rights, not your authority over them, and i'll get in between you and your kids and dismantle your authority over them at every possible chance.
you have no rights over your children, no authority over them, no justification for your behaviour. clearly, your children need to be protected from you, if your attitude is that you can treat them like property.
fuck you.
i'm going to stand up for your kids' rights, not your authority over them, and i'll get in between you and your kids and dismantle your authority over them at every possible chance.
you have no rights over your children, no authority over them, no justification for your behaviour. clearly, your children need to be protected from you, if your attitude is that you can treat them like property.
this person knows the truth.
https://forbiddencomma.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/aristotle-wrong-about-everything/
https://forbiddencomma.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/aristotle-wrong-about-everything/
unfortunately, the main critic of the socratic idea of abolishing heteropatriarchy was aristotle, who was pretty much wrong about everything he ever wrote about. there's essentially nobody in history that was wrong more often, more consistently and more totally than aristotle. he's maybe the single worst source of information in recorded history.
i'm not going to call aristotle an idiot, as that's not entirely fair, although he did reject a lot of good evidence in favour of a lot of bad arguments. i blame a lot on christianity, but a big part of the problem with christianity is that it picked aristotle over plato so often, in ways that were so catastrophically harmful.
i'm not going to run through the debate, except to say that, as usual, socrates was right - and aristotle was dead wrong.
i'm not going to call aristotle an idiot, as that's not entirely fair, although he did reject a lot of good evidence in favour of a lot of bad arguments. i blame a lot on christianity, but a big part of the problem with christianity is that it picked aristotle over plato so often, in ways that were so catastrophically harmful.
i'm not going to run through the debate, except to say that, as usual, socrates was right - and aristotle was dead wrong.
it's this old platonic position to support the abolition of the family, although it's intricately tied into feminism as well, in it's rejection of heteropatriarchy. unfortunately, all i ever hear from people when i bring it up is something like i've read that socratic dialogue, but you don't really believe that, do you?
i do, actually.
i do, actually.
i would like to see stronger law enforcement around the issue, and more parents charged with child abuse for enforcing their views on their children. the rights of children to free cognitive expression take absolute precedence over the opinions of their parents; parents need to adjust to reflect the views of their children, not the other way around.
enforcing your religious views on your children is absolutely wrong all of the time. there is no valid excuse, no exception, no acceptable scenario. your children are not your property. you have no authority over them, except to protect them from harm.
and, i'd broadly support abolishing the family, altogether.
but, cases like this indicate that it is necessary to be gentle, because even the smallest disturbance could create an undesired chaotic reaction.
enforcing your religious views on your children is absolutely wrong all of the time. there is no valid excuse, no exception, no acceptable scenario. your children are not your property. you have no authority over them, except to protect them from harm.
and, i'd broadly support abolishing the family, altogether.
but, cases like this indicate that it is necessary to be gentle, because even the smallest disturbance could create an undesired chaotic reaction.
see, this is a travesty, but it indicates the difficulties in fully eradicating religion.
this person's parents did everything right in maintaining a distance, and letting their child make an independent choice when they were old enough to do so. that's responsible parenting; that's the right thing to do.
but, their child turned into an idiot, anyways.
if there was an easy answer, religion would have been eradicated by now. but, even when we do everything right, we still just can't get fucking rid of it....
https://www.cbc.ca/parents/learning/view/catholic-canada-mother
this person's parents did everything right in maintaining a distance, and letting their child make an independent choice when they were old enough to do so. that's responsible parenting; that's the right thing to do.
but, their child turned into an idiot, anyways.
if there was an easy answer, religion would have been eradicated by now. but, even when we do everything right, we still just can't get fucking rid of it....
https://www.cbc.ca/parents/learning/view/catholic-canada-mother
yeah, before the shit hit the fan, they were talking about the centrepiece of the budget being environmentally focused.
you can imagine i'm exceedingly skeptical at this point. but, let's see what they've got.
and, fwiw, i was calling on morneau to get fired months before this happened.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-morneau-clash-1.5688776
you can imagine i'm exceedingly skeptical at this point. but, let's see what they've got.
and, fwiw, i was calling on morneau to get fired months before this happened.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-morneau-clash-1.5688776
that's absurd.
you can send your kids to school, or you can home school them yourselves. the government has no legal obligation to provide at-distance learning, and the court won't create one.
who's his client, here? bill gates?
https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/lawsuit-to-be-filed-against-quebec-back-to-school-requirement
you can send your kids to school, or you can home school them yourselves. the government has no legal obligation to provide at-distance learning, and the court won't create one.
who's his client, here? bill gates?
https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/lawsuit-to-be-filed-against-quebec-back-to-school-requirement
they stopped broadcasting again, and my guess is that they're trying to censor the following paragraph:
while i won't condemn the bombing of mosques because i support a diversity of tactics, i would suggest tactics that are a little more productive than that. plus, killing yourself is just stupid. you're not of much use to anybody when you're dead.
it's not the first time i've presented a statement like that, and it won't be the last. i'll support that statement to whomever wants to challenge me on it. it's the right moral statement to make, in context.
i wouldn't condemn the bombing of churches, temples or synagogues either, and i've stated as much on repeated occasions; this isn't just made up, it's a position i've spent some time with. and, i'll repeat - it's the right position to take, and the side that history will uphold, in the end.
the threats that religious congregations pose to the safety of the community are well understood, and this tendency to ignore them or otherwise take them lightly cannot be sustained. we need to recognize the harm that religion causes and adjust to it.
as mentioned, bombing them is not the most productive approach; the threat is not generally imminent, and there's usually more proportional ways to address it.
but, i will not allow you to deny the threat that a mosque or a church poses to a large percentage of members in the community, or trivialize their safety as unimportant.
maintaining a diversity of tactics is important...
now, i'm specifically pointing to the religious institutions, indicating that these people are guilty by association. ok, not all of them - there could be young kids, or people stopping in randomly. it would be a sad twist if a bomb at a mosque accidentally blew up human rights protesters - feminists, queer activists - outside. but, if you're at a mosque to worship, you are not innocent - you are willfully taking part in a system of absolutely brutal oppression. i'm not going to sign your death warrant, but i won't shed a tear for you, either.
so, by extension, bombing non-religious gatherings that are not specifically about worshiping are something i'd lean more towards condemning, but i've never seen an actual example of that. i mean, if you were to aimlessly bomb a queer dance party where people are drinking because of the ethnicity of the participants, i'm sure you'd get a rebuke from me.
but, maintaining support for a diversity of tactics is a standard leftist approach that is exceedingly relevant in context. it may seem terrible to you today if you really believe in conservative values, but from the long run and right side of history, i simply can't and won't condemn them - and you shouldn't either.
while i won't condemn the bombing of mosques because i support a diversity of tactics, i would suggest tactics that are a little more productive than that. plus, killing yourself is just stupid. you're not of much use to anybody when you're dead.
it's not the first time i've presented a statement like that, and it won't be the last. i'll support that statement to whomever wants to challenge me on it. it's the right moral statement to make, in context.
i wouldn't condemn the bombing of churches, temples or synagogues either, and i've stated as much on repeated occasions; this isn't just made up, it's a position i've spent some time with. and, i'll repeat - it's the right position to take, and the side that history will uphold, in the end.
the threats that religious congregations pose to the safety of the community are well understood, and this tendency to ignore them or otherwise take them lightly cannot be sustained. we need to recognize the harm that religion causes and adjust to it.
as mentioned, bombing them is not the most productive approach; the threat is not generally imminent, and there's usually more proportional ways to address it.
but, i will not allow you to deny the threat that a mosque or a church poses to a large percentage of members in the community, or trivialize their safety as unimportant.
maintaining a diversity of tactics is important...
now, i'm specifically pointing to the religious institutions, indicating that these people are guilty by association. ok, not all of them - there could be young kids, or people stopping in randomly. it would be a sad twist if a bomb at a mosque accidentally blew up human rights protesters - feminists, queer activists - outside. but, if you're at a mosque to worship, you are not innocent - you are willfully taking part in a system of absolutely brutal oppression. i'm not going to sign your death warrant, but i won't shed a tear for you, either.
so, by extension, bombing non-religious gatherings that are not specifically about worshiping are something i'd lean more towards condemning, but i've never seen an actual example of that. i mean, if you were to aimlessly bomb a queer dance party where people are drinking because of the ethnicity of the participants, i'm sure you'd get a rebuke from me.
but, maintaining support for a diversity of tactics is a standard leftist approach that is exceedingly relevant in context. it may seem terrible to you today if you really believe in conservative values, but from the long run and right side of history, i simply can't and won't condemn them - and you shouldn't either.
is secularizing muslims a type of colonialism?
no, it's a backwards argument, because islam is a system of colonialism and dominance, itself. muslims don't come here as indigenous groups, they come to take part in colonialism just like christians did centuries ago.
decolonization is dechristianization is deislamification.
it's like arguing that arresting thugs at a violent nazi demonstration is a restriction on freedom of speech. now, i'm actually going to be a little more lenient than others, but i flip it over very quickly; the idea of staying back is that you'll harm less people if you just let them do their stupid march than if you start trying to shut them down, but the moment they demonstrate the least bit of threat, that calculus evaporates. so, what you want is for the nazis to have their march lined by very stern looking leftists that have the self discipline not to initiate.
but, at the end of it, is stopping the nazis a restriction of expression? no - because they're going to hurt people, if you let them.
and, similarly, conscious attempts to separate muslims from their faith are not the continuation of a colonial process, but the undoing of one.
it's a false equivalency.
no, it's a backwards argument, because islam is a system of colonialism and dominance, itself. muslims don't come here as indigenous groups, they come to take part in colonialism just like christians did centuries ago.
decolonization is dechristianization is deislamification.
it's like arguing that arresting thugs at a violent nazi demonstration is a restriction on freedom of speech. now, i'm actually going to be a little more lenient than others, but i flip it over very quickly; the idea of staying back is that you'll harm less people if you just let them do their stupid march than if you start trying to shut them down, but the moment they demonstrate the least bit of threat, that calculus evaporates. so, what you want is for the nazis to have their march lined by very stern looking leftists that have the self discipline not to initiate.
but, at the end of it, is stopping the nazis a restriction of expression? no - because they're going to hurt people, if you let them.
and, similarly, conscious attempts to separate muslims from their faith are not the continuation of a colonial process, but the undoing of one.
it's a false equivalency.
so, have i actually been sitting here for hours and ranting about nothing?
i spent another day cleaning, trying to get my head around what the smells in here are, if it's me, if it's cleanable, etc. it seems like the pig is upstairs smoking, and she may have been up there smoking the whole time, but i actually don't think that's true, because i would have smelled it earlier. frustratingly, it's way too cold out to open the window, so i'm stuck running the fan.
i remember the logic in may being "well, it smells like a fucking disgusting ashtray in here anyways, so why not open the window?". that is, i realized that the smoke was coming from inside, upstairs, anyways.
now, i can smell it again as soon as i close the window :\.
that's fine. if we need to do laundry twice a day because the pig upstairs is too lazy to take a walk to puff on a disgusting cancer stick, she can pay the gas & hot water costs involved in it.
i tried to eat this afternoon because i was all of a sudden very hungry (i've skipped about 25 days worth of meals since mid june - not unusual for me in the summer, but it does lead to some hungry days at the end of it), but i only got halfway through it. then it was late, and i needed to shower again to clear the shit out of my hair...
it's 5:30. should i sleep?
i guess so.
if i can avoid coughing.
we'll just have to do some more cleaning tomorrow, i guess. it warms the place up, too.
i spent another day cleaning, trying to get my head around what the smells in here are, if it's me, if it's cleanable, etc. it seems like the pig is upstairs smoking, and she may have been up there smoking the whole time, but i actually don't think that's true, because i would have smelled it earlier. frustratingly, it's way too cold out to open the window, so i'm stuck running the fan.
i remember the logic in may being "well, it smells like a fucking disgusting ashtray in here anyways, so why not open the window?". that is, i realized that the smoke was coming from inside, upstairs, anyways.
now, i can smell it again as soon as i close the window :\.
that's fine. if we need to do laundry twice a day because the pig upstairs is too lazy to take a walk to puff on a disgusting cancer stick, she can pay the gas & hot water costs involved in it.
i tried to eat this afternoon because i was all of a sudden very hungry (i've skipped about 25 days worth of meals since mid june - not unusual for me in the summer, but it does lead to some hungry days at the end of it), but i only got halfway through it. then it was late, and i needed to shower again to clear the shit out of my hair...
it's 5:30. should i sleep?
i guess so.
if i can avoid coughing.
we'll just have to do some more cleaning tomorrow, i guess. it warms the place up, too.
what i want, and what all free-thinking people should want, and what left-leaning political movements should be striving for, is finding ways to convince muslims that they're wrong - that they're on the wrong side of history, that they have no future and that they need to throw the religion away and move on.
that should be the political focus, not just looking the other way at a system that is going to kill us all if we let it.
so, it's less that i want to round the muslims up and kick them out, and more that i want to support strategies to secularize them and tear them apart from their faith.
i don't really care where you're from.
but, i'd like every last muslim on this earth to reject their faith, as a means forward into the 21st century, something that's inevitable and long overdue.
i don't really care where you're from.
but, i'd like every last muslim on this earth to reject their faith, as a means forward into the 21st century, something that's inevitable and long overdue.
the biggest critique i have of multiculturalism in how it's practiced is that it tends to correlate religion with ethnicity. when i talk of post-culturalism, what i mean is breaking the connection between religion and identity and reasserting cultural individuality. this would help in minimizing the political impact of religion, as well.
we should not see ourselves or define ourselves as members of ethnic groups, by default; we should be building communities based on shared values and goals, not on where our dna comes from or what language our grandparents spoke.
i guess this goes back to not really being able to tell the difference between a political party and an organized religion; if organized religion is just another type of politics, why not accept it on it's face and adjust to more appropriate ways to congregate?
so, instead of having the arabic doctor that's forced to be a muslim because it's the family tradition, let's have doctors just be doctors, and seek out other people that have like interests, regardless of their background. let's let people be individuals, rather than statistics.
to me, that's post-culturalism, and it's the world i want to live in - not one where we split ourselves up by ethnic types, and then pretend that ethnic types have something to do with religion.
if you read the old literature on multiculturalism from the 60s, what we have today is not what they intended. they actually were aiming for a system where individuals overlapped with multiple cultures. so, they thought they'd create these weird kind of gurus that would go to yoga in the morning, say their prayers at noon and then attend a church service at night, before going for drinks with friends and waking up in the middle of a one-night stand. all of the contradictions inherent in this apparently went over the heads of those that designed this system, perhaps as a reflection of the shallowness of 60s culture. it's all just market choice, right? all about the experience. woah.
what we have, instead, are isolated tribes all plotting to assert their will on each other, and nobody intended for that or should want it to sustain itself, moving forward.
what we should learn from this is that integration and multiculturalism are actually in opposition to each other, and adjust to it, if what we want is integration and the tearing down of boundaries and labels.
we should not see ourselves or define ourselves as members of ethnic groups, by default; we should be building communities based on shared values and goals, not on where our dna comes from or what language our grandparents spoke.
i guess this goes back to not really being able to tell the difference between a political party and an organized religion; if organized religion is just another type of politics, why not accept it on it's face and adjust to more appropriate ways to congregate?
so, instead of having the arabic doctor that's forced to be a muslim because it's the family tradition, let's have doctors just be doctors, and seek out other people that have like interests, regardless of their background. let's let people be individuals, rather than statistics.
to me, that's post-culturalism, and it's the world i want to live in - not one where we split ourselves up by ethnic types, and then pretend that ethnic types have something to do with religion.
if you read the old literature on multiculturalism from the 60s, what we have today is not what they intended. they actually were aiming for a system where individuals overlapped with multiple cultures. so, they thought they'd create these weird kind of gurus that would go to yoga in the morning, say their prayers at noon and then attend a church service at night, before going for drinks with friends and waking up in the middle of a one-night stand. all of the contradictions inherent in this apparently went over the heads of those that designed this system, perhaps as a reflection of the shallowness of 60s culture. it's all just market choice, right? all about the experience. woah.
what we have, instead, are isolated tribes all plotting to assert their will on each other, and nobody intended for that or should want it to sustain itself, moving forward.
what we should learn from this is that integration and multiculturalism are actually in opposition to each other, and adjust to it, if what we want is integration and the tearing down of boundaries and labels.
moderate muslims and moderate christians are essentially indistinguishable from each other. so, if i'm violently opposed to moderate christianity, it follows that i should be equally opposed to moderate islam, for all of the same reasons.
likewise, fundamentalist muslims are indistinguishable from nazis. so, if i'm opposed to nazism, i need to oppose islam, too, for the same reasons.
this isn't going to make sense to conservatives, and i get that, but it's because they don't understand history very well. they think western culture is a product of christianity (!?), rather than the dismantling of it. the french revolution never happened. the russian revolution never happened. the enlightenment never happened. the renaissance never happened. the reformation didn't even happen. they just have this imaginary construct called "christendom" that never actually existed, and they erect these imaginary constructs of history around it.
real history is very different, and it pulls the rug out from under conservatism pretty viciously.
so, what does a post-religionist do in this reality of collapse happening around her?
well, the proper historical example is to look at how pagans reacted to the rise of christianity, and try to learn lessons from it.
the first and most important thing is to protect the knowledge, because they're going to come looking to destroy it. books. records. data. just hide it somewhere, as best you can. this, too, shall pass, and we don't want to let them wipe out history, in the meantime. the negative effects of christianity would have been dramatically lessened if they hadn't burned all of the history, science and philosophy books. so, that's priority number one: protect the data.
the second thing to realize is that, if they're allowed, they'll just kill you if they can. so, you need to find ways to exist without the religious authorities coming to get you and throwing you in jail, then sentencing you to death in an unfair show trial. it's important to maintain a concept of privacy.
here's a little known fact: cryptography, as we understand it, was invented to prevent the church from destroying science. scientists were not able to communicate freely, so they would encrypt their writings with a cypher that only the recipient could understand. that way, they could get their writings through checkpoints and raids without it being seized and burned. that kind of attitude is likely going to be necessary, but try to get a little out of the box; a public key, for example, is not the best idea. be security-minded, because they're coming for you, in time, if they're allowed to.
while i won't condemn the bombing of mosques because i support a diversity of tactics, i would suggest tactics that are a little more productive than that. plus, killing yourself is just stupid. you're not of much use to anybody when you're dead.
for now, i'd recommend mostly just being aware of what's happening around you, and being cognizant that some adjustments may be necessary in the short run.
in the long run, science wins by presenting superior arguments, and that's how we'll have to defeat these new islamic christofascists, in the end.
likewise, fundamentalist muslims are indistinguishable from nazis. so, if i'm opposed to nazism, i need to oppose islam, too, for the same reasons.
this isn't going to make sense to conservatives, and i get that, but it's because they don't understand history very well. they think western culture is a product of christianity (!?), rather than the dismantling of it. the french revolution never happened. the russian revolution never happened. the enlightenment never happened. the renaissance never happened. the reformation didn't even happen. they just have this imaginary construct called "christendom" that never actually existed, and they erect these imaginary constructs of history around it.
real history is very different, and it pulls the rug out from under conservatism pretty viciously.
so, what does a post-religionist do in this reality of collapse happening around her?
well, the proper historical example is to look at how pagans reacted to the rise of christianity, and try to learn lessons from it.
the first and most important thing is to protect the knowledge, because they're going to come looking to destroy it. books. records. data. just hide it somewhere, as best you can. this, too, shall pass, and we don't want to let them wipe out history, in the meantime. the negative effects of christianity would have been dramatically lessened if they hadn't burned all of the history, science and philosophy books. so, that's priority number one: protect the data.
the second thing to realize is that, if they're allowed, they'll just kill you if they can. so, you need to find ways to exist without the religious authorities coming to get you and throwing you in jail, then sentencing you to death in an unfair show trial. it's important to maintain a concept of privacy.
here's a little known fact: cryptography, as we understand it, was invented to prevent the church from destroying science. scientists were not able to communicate freely, so they would encrypt their writings with a cypher that only the recipient could understand. that way, they could get their writings through checkpoints and raids without it being seized and burned. that kind of attitude is likely going to be necessary, but try to get a little out of the box; a public key, for example, is not the best idea. be security-minded, because they're coming for you, in time, if they're allowed to.
while i won't condemn the bombing of mosques because i support a diversity of tactics, i would suggest tactics that are a little more productive than that. plus, killing yourself is just stupid. you're not of much use to anybody when you're dead.
for now, i'd recommend mostly just being aware of what's happening around you, and being cognizant that some adjustments may be necessary in the short run.
in the long run, science wins by presenting superior arguments, and that's how we'll have to defeat these new islamic christofascists, in the end.
yeah, so when i talk about the ongoing collapse of western society into a dark age, i don't know how anybody could interpret that as an embrace or defense of christianity.
the west is not defined as adjunct to or derived from christianity, but rather arose in a dialectic against it. contemporary western culture is the literal ideological opponent to historical christianity, in every conceivable way.
western culture embraces science, rationality, discourse and empiricism. these are the values that make us what we are; they define us, they explain us. christianity is the (foreign) system we had to overcome and dismantle in order to get to this point of defining ourselves in opposition to it.
a collapse into a dark age would be a return to the christian tyranny that we escaped, not a retreat from a christian identity that we've already discarded.
stated simply, muslims don't scare me because they're going to overthrow the christian order; muslims scare me because they're pretty much exactly the same thing as christians, and threaten to bring the christian order that we eradicated back, again.
and, what i'm really afraid of - what i'm really opposed to - is the return of christianity. muslims are just a newer, scarier type of christian.
a pile of shit by any other name will smell just as bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)