Friday, August 21, 2020
the liberals have never been very similar to what you may imagine as "centrist democrats" or something.
the chretien/martin government, a moderate government by canadian standards, made nader look fairly middle of the road. they were closer to bernie sanders than to al gore.
so, for example - the liberals in canada support universal health care, they voted against the war in iraq (and did not officially participate in it) and even for the correct reason that it was in contravention of international law, they were bringing in universal daycare and while they didn't support free tuition they did bring in large numbers of grants and bursaries that were targeted towards low income people. we could go down this road, but i'm making my point; what we called right-wing liberals in canada in 2005 were to the left of essentially all of the most left-wing members of the house of representatives in the united states. at the least, i can't think of anybody that's close.
dennis kucinich would have been a moderate in canada, at the time.
the democrats running at the time would have been more similar to the dying progressive-conservative party, led by joe clark and peter mackay (who appears ready to be the next prime minister, now).
and, dubya has always looked like nothing but a fascist, from canada.
the chretien/martin government, a moderate government by canadian standards, made nader look fairly middle of the road. they were closer to bernie sanders than to al gore.
so, for example - the liberals in canada support universal health care, they voted against the war in iraq (and did not officially participate in it) and even for the correct reason that it was in contravention of international law, they were bringing in universal daycare and while they didn't support free tuition they did bring in large numbers of grants and bursaries that were targeted towards low income people. we could go down this road, but i'm making my point; what we called right-wing liberals in canada in 2005 were to the left of essentially all of the most left-wing members of the house of representatives in the united states. at the least, i can't think of anybody that's close.
dennis kucinich would have been a moderate in canada, at the time.
the democrats running at the time would have been more similar to the dying progressive-conservative party, led by joe clark and peter mackay (who appears ready to be the next prime minister, now).
and, dubya has always looked like nothing but a fascist, from canada.
fwiw, yes, there was a corruption scandal at the time, but i don't even remember what it was about, and i don't remember having any kind of conversation with anybody about it, or anybody mentioning it or thinking about or caring about it....
it was all over the national post.
nobody else seemed to care.
it was all over the national post.
nobody else seemed to care.
i'm not 23 years old; i remember 2004, and i remember 2006, and i remember interacting with people that were voting for the ndp.
not a single one of them could articulate why.
they were mostly aware that the policy platforms were largely interchangeable, with minor differences that put them both at about the same place in the spectrum. the only substantive difference is that the ndp wanted higher tax rates on corporations, and the liberals thought that was bad economics.
even layton argued - and, in hindsight, it's hard not to call him a liar - that you should vote ndp because the conservatives promised not to undo the proposed liberal programs, anyways (and, of course, they undid every one of them, and then some).
the actual reasons that people came up with were stupid, vacuous things like "we need a change of government" (for the sake of it.), or "i'm tired of the liberals". these weren't even fully formed thoughts, they were just kneejerk, mindless behaviours.
and, i yelled at a lot of people for it, at the time; i could handle it if there was some kind of reason, but they were all just following their gut.
yeah, they followed their gut - and they vomited in everybody's face.
i voted for paul dewar a few times in 2008 and 2011, when i was in a downtown riding. dewar was a promising mp, and his opponents were not the best the liberals had to offer. but, the conservatives were not competitive in these ridings.
it was the people in the south and west of ottawa that i found myself yelling and screaming at...
and, you know what?
they admitted it.
they apologized...
maybe, biden and his army of zombie idiots should follow.
not a single one of them could articulate why.
they were mostly aware that the policy platforms were largely interchangeable, with minor differences that put them both at about the same place in the spectrum. the only substantive difference is that the ndp wanted higher tax rates on corporations, and the liberals thought that was bad economics.
even layton argued - and, in hindsight, it's hard not to call him a liar - that you should vote ndp because the conservatives promised not to undo the proposed liberal programs, anyways (and, of course, they undid every one of them, and then some).
the actual reasons that people came up with were stupid, vacuous things like "we need a change of government" (for the sake of it.), or "i'm tired of the liberals". these weren't even fully formed thoughts, they were just kneejerk, mindless behaviours.
and, i yelled at a lot of people for it, at the time; i could handle it if there was some kind of reason, but they were all just following their gut.
yeah, they followed their gut - and they vomited in everybody's face.
i voted for paul dewar a few times in 2008 and 2011, when i was in a downtown riding. dewar was a promising mp, and his opponents were not the best the liberals had to offer. but, the conservatives were not competitive in these ridings.
it was the people in the south and west of ottawa that i found myself yelling and screaming at...
and, you know what?
they admitted it.
they apologized...
maybe, biden and his army of zombie idiots should follow.
we were closer to universal daycare in 2005 than we are today.
and, why didn't it happen?
because jack layton pulled the plug on it.
(block javascript in your browser to access the article)
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/dryden-achieves-10-child-care-agreements/article990610/
and, why didn't it happen?
because jack layton pulled the plug on it.
(block javascript in your browser to access the article)
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/dryden-achieves-10-child-care-agreements/article990610/
this was the culmination of years worth of work; layton pulled the plug on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelowna_Accord
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelowna_Accord
martin's budgets were actually exceedingly liberal, as well - it's not like layton had some horrible things in front of him that he couldn't support.
there was a universal daycare program, for example, that nobody talks about anymore.
there were major increases in health transfers to the provinces.
there were major commitments to indigenous groups.
and, there were even the last serious commitments to climate change seen at the federal level, in this country.
these were good budgets, and layton should have supported them (they were possibly better than his own would have been), but layton didn't care - he wanted a run at power, and he knew he'd have a better chance of winning if the conservative were in power.
so, he cynically collapsed the government in order to maximize his own chances - the country, be damned.
fuck daycare. fuck healthcare. fuck the aboriginal. fuck the climate. what's important is jack. right jack?
asshole, to his core.
there was a universal daycare program, for example, that nobody talks about anymore.
there were major increases in health transfers to the provinces.
there were major commitments to indigenous groups.
and, there were even the last serious commitments to climate change seen at the federal level, in this country.
these were good budgets, and layton should have supported them (they were possibly better than his own would have been), but layton didn't care - he wanted a run at power, and he knew he'd have a better chance of winning if the conservative were in power.
so, he cynically collapsed the government in order to maximize his own chances - the country, be damned.
fuck daycare. fuck healthcare. fuck the aboriginal. fuck the climate. what's important is jack. right jack?
asshole, to his core.
yeah, hard-right son-of-a-conservative minister jack, who ruined the party that gave us healthcare, by caving in to the conservatives.
the guy was a right-wing asshole.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/biden-speech-evokes-layton-s-message-of-hope-days-before-9th-anniversary-of-former-ndp-leader-s-death-1.5073905
the guy was a right-wing asshole.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/biden-speech-evokes-layton-s-message-of-hope-days-before-9th-anniversary-of-former-ndp-leader-s-death-1.5073905
and, to answer the obvious question...
i don't want to be a teacher. at all. maybe i thought about it at some point as a way to sell my labour to exist, but i'd rather be a 40 year old in first year than a professor with tenure.
teaching is incredibly boring, as a job. you go over things you already know, to people you can't relate to. we all know the sad professor, and i would become that, i'm sure.
but, learning is always fun, so long as there's not too much pressure and, in the right scenario, i could see myself re-engaging.
i don't want to be a teacher. at all. maybe i thought about it at some point as a way to sell my labour to exist, but i'd rather be a 40 year old in first year than a professor with tenure.
teaching is incredibly boring, as a job. you go over things you already know, to people you can't relate to. we all know the sad professor, and i would become that, i'm sure.
but, learning is always fun, so long as there's not too much pressure and, in the right scenario, i could see myself re-engaging.
i actually would go back to school, but only if:
(1) i complete my discography
(2) i can get something like this happening:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/thoughts/trolls/floater.html
(1) i complete my discography
(2) i can get something like this happening:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/thoughts/trolls/floater.html
i skipped the last part.
i did too many mushrooms with some occupy activists in the spring of 2013 near a creek in orleans, and realized in the process that arguing about the foundations of law with stuck-up professors was a waste of existence, and i had to move on.
so, i hitchhiked to windsor, and here i am.
i did too many mushrooms with some occupy activists in the spring of 2013 near a creek in orleans, and realized in the process that arguing about the foundations of law with stuck-up professors was a waste of existence, and i had to move on.
so, i hitchhiked to windsor, and here i am.
nononononno.
imagine giving your landlord notice, moving out of the apartment and then showing up at the door with your stuff and being told "no. get lost.".
i probably could have figured something out if he hadn't lied to me, but it's the old work-or-die attitude; if i wasn't going to work a 9-5 job and put money away for his retirement, i could basically starve on the street and die.
imagine giving your landlord notice, moving out of the apartment and then showing up at the door with your stuff and being told "no. get lost.".
i probably could have figured something out if he hadn't lied to me, but it's the old work-or-die attitude; if i wasn't going to work a 9-5 job and put money away for his retirement, i could basically starve on the street and die.
maybe it's a good time to run through my education.
that picture on the side is from mid 2017, and i should really upload some new pics. that would make me 36 in the picture; i'm now 39. i know i look very young, and take pride in it.
1) i graduated from st. pius X high school in ottawa in 2000, with 8 oac credits in calculus, algebra, finite math, biology, chemistry, physics, computer science and english. i was lucky to go to a high school with a big music program, but you can only take so many courses. that was the last year for oac in ontario. sort of. i refused to enroll in grade 13 religion under the argument that it was a waste of time, and refused to complete the community service requirements in protest at the obligation to perform unpaid labour. so, i have a transcript (i got 99 in calculus and 97 in comp sci, and maybe should have picked something easier than gravity's rainbow for english), but i don't have a diploma. i'm not ashamed of this; i think my protests were grounded, and i'd do it again.
2) i went to ottawa u for a few weeks in a software engineering program, and switched into math-physics at carleton by early october. i switched into a four-year pure math program after first year, then into gender studies late in second year, and briefly enrolled in an english program in third year. so, i had no idea, really.
3) i dropped out a few weeks into third year to raise money for gender transition, and ended up hitching to bc with a friend, and coming back not much later. i was back in the math program at carleton after skipping a year.
4) i finished a four year b. mathematics (not a b. sc, not a ba. a b. math.) in 2006. i was frequently homeless, on drugs and generally kind of a messed up young person, and my marks reflect it - they're all over the place, and semester-dependent. it's the old oppressed queer kid sob story that is so normal to all of us. so, i got straight As some semesters when i was focused and straight Ds when i was sleeping on my ex-girlfriend's floor, and camping out in the loeb building. it worked out to a strong B+, which put me in a state of limbo for grad school.
5) i ended up working very entry level positions in the tech industry for a couple of big companies like microsoft from 2007-2008, when the tech jobs started disappearing after the crash. i didn't want any more debt, but my dad tricked me into going back to school by promising to pay for it, then bailed at the last minute.
6) so, i was admitted into a qualifying year for a master's program in math in 2008; i was admitted by carleton, but the masters in math (at least at the time) was jointly administered by both ottawa and carleton, together.
7) after my dad bailed on me, i switched into a b. sc. for computer science. my argument was that a masters degree in mathematics is not worth the paper it's printed on, but he insisted on it, and suckered me into it; as soon as i realized i'd have to pay for this myself, and had no ability to pull out (without defaulting on my apartment), i decided to switch into something i thought would be more marketable, in the long run.
8) somebody with a math degree is already mostly done a comp. sci. degree, so i was able to get to 19.5/20 credits in two years (including the summer). my average over these two years was in the high 90s.
9) but, i had a moment of reflection in 2010 and decided i didn't want to live that way, which led me into a narcotics-fueled mental breakdown, and eventually landed me back in transition. i did not finish this second degree; i'm a half credit short, specifically the honours thesis.
10) despite high grades, i was ineligible for further student loan funding over 2011 because i dropped out in 2010 and got evicted at the end of the year after being unable to find a full time job. i blame this eviction on my then wealthy father deciding to be an asshole and "teach me a lesson" (what a dimwit.), and had to move in with my grandmother as a last resort, after he tricked me, again; he told me i could move home, then refused to let me actually move home, after i'd loaded the truck up with my stuff. i did not speak to my father much after that; he died of brain cancer in 2013. he was diagnosed the same day i was evicted, after suffering his first seizure while i was yelling at him for tricking me into getting evicted.
11) i was eligible for osap again in 2012 and very quickly completed the equivalent of three years of a sociology of law degree (1 first year course over the summer of 2012, the 2nd year requirements in late 2012 and the third year requirements in early 2013). osap is better than welfare, basically. i did not formally switch into a law program.
12) i got into odsp (ontario disability) late in 2012 due to post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from my father purposefully tricking me into getting evicted from my apartment in order to "teach me a lesson". i remain on odsp.
13) from 2008-2013, i quietly completed the requirements of a masters degree in math by completing more than 4.0 credits at the graduate level. i did not formally apply, or even enroll.
so, i have a lot of credits in a lot of different subjects and it adds up to:
0) a high school equivalency, without diploma, because fuck unpaid labour and fuck religion class
1) one official b. math degree in mathematics, with diploma
2) 19.5/20 credits of a b.sc in computer science, without diploma
3) the full requirements of a three year sociology of law degree (a b.a.), without diploma
4) the course requirements of a masters in mathematics, without diploma
5) undeclared minors in physics, economics and music
i'm happy on odsp and would like to stay here, or otherwise move to a gai.
i just don't like people. that's the reality. give me an apartment to read and rant and create in.
am i not entertaining?
that picture on the side is from mid 2017, and i should really upload some new pics. that would make me 36 in the picture; i'm now 39. i know i look very young, and take pride in it.
1) i graduated from st. pius X high school in ottawa in 2000, with 8 oac credits in calculus, algebra, finite math, biology, chemistry, physics, computer science and english. i was lucky to go to a high school with a big music program, but you can only take so many courses. that was the last year for oac in ontario. sort of. i refused to enroll in grade 13 religion under the argument that it was a waste of time, and refused to complete the community service requirements in protest at the obligation to perform unpaid labour. so, i have a transcript (i got 99 in calculus and 97 in comp sci, and maybe should have picked something easier than gravity's rainbow for english), but i don't have a diploma. i'm not ashamed of this; i think my protests were grounded, and i'd do it again.
2) i went to ottawa u for a few weeks in a software engineering program, and switched into math-physics at carleton by early october. i switched into a four-year pure math program after first year, then into gender studies late in second year, and briefly enrolled in an english program in third year. so, i had no idea, really.
3) i dropped out a few weeks into third year to raise money for gender transition, and ended up hitching to bc with a friend, and coming back not much later. i was back in the math program at carleton after skipping a year.
4) i finished a four year b. mathematics (not a b. sc, not a ba. a b. math.) in 2006. i was frequently homeless, on drugs and generally kind of a messed up young person, and my marks reflect it - they're all over the place, and semester-dependent. it's the old oppressed queer kid sob story that is so normal to all of us. so, i got straight As some semesters when i was focused and straight Ds when i was sleeping on my ex-girlfriend's floor, and camping out in the loeb building. it worked out to a strong B+, which put me in a state of limbo for grad school.
5) i ended up working very entry level positions in the tech industry for a couple of big companies like microsoft from 2007-2008, when the tech jobs started disappearing after the crash. i didn't want any more debt, but my dad tricked me into going back to school by promising to pay for it, then bailed at the last minute.
6) so, i was admitted into a qualifying year for a master's program in math in 2008; i was admitted by carleton, but the masters in math (at least at the time) was jointly administered by both ottawa and carleton, together.
7) after my dad bailed on me, i switched into a b. sc. for computer science. my argument was that a masters degree in mathematics is not worth the paper it's printed on, but he insisted on it, and suckered me into it; as soon as i realized i'd have to pay for this myself, and had no ability to pull out (without defaulting on my apartment), i decided to switch into something i thought would be more marketable, in the long run.
8) somebody with a math degree is already mostly done a comp. sci. degree, so i was able to get to 19.5/20 credits in two years (including the summer). my average over these two years was in the high 90s.
9) but, i had a moment of reflection in 2010 and decided i didn't want to live that way, which led me into a narcotics-fueled mental breakdown, and eventually landed me back in transition. i did not finish this second degree; i'm a half credit short, specifically the honours thesis.
10) despite high grades, i was ineligible for further student loan funding over 2011 because i dropped out in 2010 and got evicted at the end of the year after being unable to find a full time job. i blame this eviction on my then wealthy father deciding to be an asshole and "teach me a lesson" (what a dimwit.), and had to move in with my grandmother as a last resort, after he tricked me, again; he told me i could move home, then refused to let me actually move home, after i'd loaded the truck up with my stuff. i did not speak to my father much after that; he died of brain cancer in 2013. he was diagnosed the same day i was evicted, after suffering his first seizure while i was yelling at him for tricking me into getting evicted.
11) i was eligible for osap again in 2012 and very quickly completed the equivalent of three years of a sociology of law degree (1 first year course over the summer of 2012, the 2nd year requirements in late 2012 and the third year requirements in early 2013). osap is better than welfare, basically. i did not formally switch into a law program.
12) i got into odsp (ontario disability) late in 2012 due to post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from my father purposefully tricking me into getting evicted from my apartment in order to "teach me a lesson". i remain on odsp.
13) from 2008-2013, i quietly completed the requirements of a masters degree in math by completing more than 4.0 credits at the graduate level. i did not formally apply, or even enroll.
so, i have a lot of credits in a lot of different subjects and it adds up to:
0) a high school equivalency, without diploma, because fuck unpaid labour and fuck religion class
1) one official b. math degree in mathematics, with diploma
2) 19.5/20 credits of a b.sc in computer science, without diploma
3) the full requirements of a three year sociology of law degree (a b.a.), without diploma
4) the course requirements of a masters in mathematics, without diploma
5) undeclared minors in physics, economics and music
i'm happy on odsp and would like to stay here, or otherwise move to a gai.
i just don't like people. that's the reality. give me an apartment to read and rant and create in.
am i not entertaining?
the ruling was just shit-disturbing activism, and they really had no choice but to appeal it. but, the other side would have appealed the ruling, too.
so, sometimes, when you have judges that know that a case is going up, they will try to frame it in a specific way. and, that's what the ruling was, in truth, about.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-government-appeals-federal-court-ruling-on-canada-u-s-refugee-pact-1.5074058
so, sometimes, when you have judges that know that a case is going up, they will try to frame it in a specific way. and, that's what the ruling was, in truth, about.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-government-appeals-federal-court-ruling-on-canada-u-s-refugee-pact-1.5074058
this law was written for people like navalny; he's the perfect example of somebody who should be prosecuted under the legislation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
if you know activists in germany, get them on this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
if you know activists in germany, get them on this.
he's a nazi.
and, we always support nazis in eastern europe - this isn't an exception, it's the norm.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/01/09/nava-j09.html
and, we always support nazis in eastern europe - this isn't an exception, it's the norm.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/01/09/nava-j09.html
they should charge him with promoting and distributing hate speech when he gets there.
this guy is a fascist thug and he actually does belong in a jail cell.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/21/alexei-navalny-to-be-flown-to-germany-for-suspected-poisoning-treatment
this guy is a fascist thug and he actually does belong in a jail cell.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/21/alexei-navalny-to-be-flown-to-germany-for-suspected-poisoning-treatment
why don't i join ______ party?
i will never join a political party; i'm an anarchist, it's ideological.
i don't want to be in your party, and i don't care what the members of your party think of me.
and you can denounce me all you want, i'll still endorse you and vote for you if i think you're the best candidate - because i vote for you, you don't vote for me.
i will never join a political party; i'm an anarchist, it's ideological.
i don't want to be in your party, and i don't care what the members of your party think of me.
and you can denounce me all you want, i'll still endorse you and vote for you if i think you're the best candidate - because i vote for you, you don't vote for me.
i understand why a bunch of people in their 70s might think gays and atheists are obscure fringe groups that everybody hates, but the fact is that they're not just wrong but ridiculously wrong.
besides white evangelicals, a dying breed, and hispanics, an in truth evasive and poorly defined group, the 10% of the population that are gay and the 25% of the population that are atheist are pretty much the single largest voting blocks in the country (along with the 50% that are women). they're also both popular groups that evoke large amounts of sympathy when they run for office.
they want to vote democrat, too.
and they gave us john kasich, instead,
so, the 70+ year olds are in truth just completely out of touch. sadly. and to their own detriment.
after trump wins re-election as a consequence of clueless tactical work by biden and his backers, the party has to make generational renewal an immediate necessity.
this has to be the last time that the democrats try to put together this incoherent coalition that doesn't make any sense.
besides white evangelicals, a dying breed, and hispanics, an in truth evasive and poorly defined group, the 10% of the population that are gay and the 25% of the population that are atheist are pretty much the single largest voting blocks in the country (along with the 50% that are women). they're also both popular groups that evoke large amounts of sympathy when they run for office.
they want to vote democrat, too.
and they gave us john kasich, instead,
so, the 70+ year olds are in truth just completely out of touch. sadly. and to their own detriment.
after trump wins re-election as a consequence of clueless tactical work by biden and his backers, the party has to make generational renewal an immediate necessity.
this has to be the last time that the democrats try to put together this incoherent coalition that doesn't make any sense.
you could hear it come out of sanders' campaign near the end, this completely data-ignorant perception that he got sunk by the gays.
if there was any truth to it, it was that he didn't do any outreach, and threw one of ten voters away because of it.
but, the more realistic reaction is that his campaign was just run by a lot of bigots that swallowed a lot of republican talking points from the 1970s, and refused to do proper research into actual, real demographics. if the campaign had actually understood the demographics, and actually resourced itself properly, it might have at least given biden a better run...
but, it was easier to blame it on the gays. it always is.
if there was any truth to it, it was that he didn't do any outreach, and threw one of ten voters away because of it.
but, the more realistic reaction is that his campaign was just run by a lot of bigots that swallowed a lot of republican talking points from the 1970s, and refused to do proper research into actual, real demographics. if the campaign had actually understood the demographics, and actually resourced itself properly, it might have at least given biden a better run...
but, it was easier to blame it on the gays. it always is.
how about the united states?
i really wish the democrats would look at the data more clearly.
mormons: 1.9%
jews: 1.6%
===============
6.7%
gays: 10%
atheists: 25%
women: 50%
so, if i was trying to get elected, i think i'd be focusing mostly on gays, women and atheists, not on fragmented religious groups.
i really wish the democrats would look at the data more clearly.
mormons: 1.9%
jews: 1.6%
muslims: 1.1%
buddhists: 1%
buddhists: 1%
hindus: 0.9%
sikhs: 0.2%===============
6.7%
gays: 10%
atheists: 25%
women: 50%
so, if i was trying to get elected, i think i'd be focusing mostly on gays, women and atheists, not on fragmented religious groups.
i'm going to presume that a third under-represented group would be disabled canadians, but i don't actually have rigorous data regarding the number of disabled mps in the house of commons.
there are two visually impaired members of congress, one liberal and one conservative. they both have prominent positions in their respective parties. that's 0.6% of the members of parliament.
while over 20% of the population self-identifies as having a disability, the definitions here are not consistent, and i know that they're not comparable.
but, these are the three groups that political parties in canada should be seeking to increase representation for: women, queers and the disabled.
they are also the three most oppressed groups in our society, by a substantive margin.
there are two visually impaired members of congress, one liberal and one conservative. they both have prominent positions in their respective parties. that's 0.6% of the members of parliament.
while over 20% of the population self-identifies as having a disability, the definitions here are not consistent, and i know that they're not comparable.
but, these are the three groups that political parties in canada should be seeking to increase representation for: women, queers and the disabled.
they are also the three most oppressed groups in our society, by a substantive margin.
actually, i can think of two groups that are clearly under-represented.
1) women. under 30% of the parliament is female, who make up a bit more than 50% of the population. that greatly exceeds any concept of error.
2) queer people only make up about 1% of the parliament, but make up roughly 10% of the population - a number greater than the number of blacks, indo-canadians and muslims, combined. this would be the single biggest under-represented group in parliament that i know of.
1) women. under 30% of the parliament is female, who make up a bit more than 50% of the population. that greatly exceeds any concept of error.
2) queer people only make up about 1% of the parliament, but make up roughly 10% of the population - a number greater than the number of blacks, indo-canadians and muslims, combined. this would be the single biggest under-represented group in parliament that i know of.
to finish the thought: there are 10 indigenous members, and would be 17 if it were proportional. that's actually within error, too - it's about a 2% difference. so, i do apologize for being misleading; even indigenous groups are within a reasonable error of a proportional representation, which i'm surprising myself by.
if there is some other group of under-represented canadians in parliament, i am not aware of them.
if there is some other group of under-represented canadians in parliament, i am not aware of them.
like i say, it's a subtle debate.
even if i conceded that a problem existed, it's not as easy as just running more candidates. there's racism in the society, and running more minority candidates doesn't resolve it, it just makes it harder to get elected.
it's a discussion that needs a careful analysis around the reality of racism in the country, and the role that political parties can play in addressing it.
even if i conceded that a problem existed, it's not as easy as just running more candidates. there's racism in the society, and running more minority candidates doesn't resolve it, it just makes it harder to get elected.
it's a discussion that needs a careful analysis around the reality of racism in the country, and the role that political parties can play in addressing it.
there are some minority groups - like indo-canadians and muslims today, and jews in the past - that are actually starkly noticeably over-represented.
there were 19 indo-canadians elected in 2015, when a proportional amount would have been more like 10. that's a 2.7% difference, which is pushing towards significance.
i'm not complaining about that. as far as i know, they won their seats fairly.
but, it's important to point to actual, real data when making political decisions in an actual party, as bad assumptions could lead to poor outcomes.
there were 19 indo-canadians elected in 2015, when a proportional amount would have been more like 10. that's a 2.7% difference, which is pushing towards significance.
i'm not complaining about that. as far as i know, they won their seats fairly.
but, it's important to point to actual, real data when making political decisions in an actual party, as bad assumptions could lead to poor outcomes.
indigenous groups in canada are starkly certainly noticeably under-represented in parliament. i would assume it's worse than any reasonable error, but i should look that up before i post it.
everybody else is roughly proportional, if you accept a reasonable margin of error.
that's not an opinion. that's data.
everybody else is roughly proportional, if you accept a reasonable margin of error.
that's not an opinion. that's data.
annamie is very purposefully and consciously positioning herself as a candidate that is interested in increasing the "diversity" of the democratic representation in canada, which opens up the obvious question as to whether we're experiencing a deficit of representation in the country when it comes to...."diversity" is a liberal party code word that racist white liberals use to refer to black and brown people, so i'm going to kind of drop it, but it's kind of getting me to the point of my concern, here. does canada have an issue with the proportionality of it's democratic representation? when i look at the elections i've experienced, what i notice is that all of the major parties consistently run a very wide selection of candidates that are often consciously chosen to reflect the demographics in their ridings, but that the most "diverse" of these candidates very often fail to win their seats. and, thus, i think the question is a little more subtle, when being approached from a leadership perspective. if we decide that the existing representation is not proportional, is it because parties are not doing enough outreach to present a representative slate or is it because voters are making different choices than parties are? and, if it's the latter, what are the reasons for that? annamie also demonstrated a tendency to use the race card in cynical ways that were intended to tar her opponents, and i worry if that might backfire with the broader canadian population, which may be sympathetic to legitimate demonstrations of racism and quick to bolt on a candidate that tries to play the race card in disingenuous ways. the members will need to weigh all of these issues, if they decide to walk down this path, and weight the relative importance of focusing on increasing "diversity" in parliament in the context of tackling the climate crisis.
as a long time viewer of the real news during the now apparently over paul jay period, i am much more familiar with dmitri than i am with any of the other candidates and it is actually for this reason that i'm a little apprehensive about voting for him as a leader, despite the fact that i think he'd make an excellent and very responsible member of parliament, much in the same way that elizabeth may is. dmitri is exceedingly strident in his opinions, and very much convinced of the correctness of them, in ways that may make it difficult for him to organize a political party. a dmitri lascaris led green party may be fun for a few years, but i would be concerned about his electoral viability, due to his tendency to take controversial positions and refuse to compromise on them. those supporting his candidacy should be aware that they are getting somebody with very strongly held opinions that holds to those opinions because he is certain he is right. that said, he's probably the best attorney general that the country will never actually have.
regarding bds....
the switch to the ndp was a little curious to me, given what happened to libby davies all those years ago. i'm, personally, a little bit apprehensive about bds as a tactic, for the reason that it seems likely to me to make things worse rather than better, which is a position i've adopted from listening to chomsky. but, i am exceedingly confident that dmitri is coming from a place of support for human rights, and not a place of support for something else.
regarding bds....
the switch to the ndp was a little curious to me, given what happened to libby davies all those years ago. i'm, personally, a little bit apprehensive about bds as a tactic, for the reason that it seems likely to me to make things worse rather than better, which is a position i've adopted from listening to chomsky. but, i am exceedingly confident that dmitri is coming from a place of support for human rights, and not a place of support for something else.
Thursday, August 20, 2020
dr. howard is the second of two candidates that are entering this race with clear qualifications to a lead a federal party, and, in my opinion, is the obvious runner-up, that only being because there is another candidate with more experience in politics, specifically. courtney's experience is of a slightly different nature, which is a bit of a judgement call - is a political background more preferable, or is a medical/scientific background more preferable? the party really needs both things to function. dr. howard also presents the members with a real option to pick a younger woman to jump the queue, if you will, if that is of great importance to you. while i would be comfortable in voting for her expertise and wisdom, and think she's an ideal middle candidate that is both useful for the present and the future, i will not be participating in the contest.
my impression of meryam is that she would be an interesting choice primarily for people that are looking to build a more general left-wing party and are focusing strictly on the long term, and that she's approaching the greens as a kind of vehicle for the construction of a new party of the left; that is, she strikes me as somebody that's basically just fed up with the ndp and looking to move past it. the greens exist, therefore she is here. but, if her argument is rooted in the superiority of an electoral strategy that pushes the idea that the greens can win seats tomorrow by convincing more young people to vote by running a young person, i may suggest that the members look at the evidence of how successful such a strategy has been recently - but to do so across the board. compare and contrast the very large increases in turnout that the liberals managed under trudeau in 2015 (and disappeared last year) to the anemic turnout in the united states amongst young people, and try to figure out what you think a meryam-led party would more resemble, and truly be able to accomplish. do you think you can win seats by convincing young people to vote? then, perhaps you could see a good reason to support meryam. if you're a little skeptical about that, based on the evidence from recent elections, then maybe a different candidate may be preferable.
david is a likeable enough guy that seems to be committed to the climate and he seems to be successfully avoiding the issue that i'm most concerned about with him, which is the potential of the ndp going after him for being too right-wing. whether that's true or not (and i think the evidence is mixed....it's both fair and unfair), we've already seen what kind of effect that can have on elections in bc. so, david presents a kind of another choice for the members: do they want to dig in and kind of let the ndp attack them in this way, and try and carve out some support in reaction to that, or do they want to step away from that as a potential liability? i'd be a little apprehensive, myself. regardless of where you stand on the spectrum, the greens are in direct competition with the ndp in much of the country, and i'd be worried that he might be a factor in losing some seats, even if he succeeds in winning his own.
glen has an establishment background, but the truth is that he's also the most left-wing candidate in the pile. if you're a pragmatic, left-leaning environmentalist then there's a lot of reasons why he should be the front-runner, but i don't get the impression that he actually is. i will not be voting in this contest, but if the party membership wants to pick a leader that is able to present the party as a serious choice that wants to actually get something done then i would suggest you make a serious effort to look beyond his history as a high-ranking liberal and listen to what he's actually saying. and, let's remember that elizabeth came out of mulroney's office. glen has consistently come off as the most informed and most focused candidate on these panels, even when he's being consistently cut off for running over time. as such, the party has a kind of acid test here; does it want to take itself seriously now and try to take a run at the balance of power in the imminent upcoming election, or is it looking to build, longterm? if it wants to get in tomorrow, glen is the leadership candidate that can step in and make a difference right away. if it wants to look long term (and how much time do we have?), then it's going to pick somebody else that is going to take a longer view. i don't think we have much time, and would lean towards a candidate that can have an immediate impact. but, we will see if the members are thinking the same way as i am or not.
as per usual, the headache went away with a long, hot shower. further, the air seems to have moistened up nicely, to the point that i'm no longer coughing. migraine averted? let's hope so.
so, i'm very confident that i understand the causes, and i know how to react.
i just wish i didn't have to; i wish the air would just stay moist enough that it's not triggering me.
i got another clean of the fan in, and i just have to hope it turns back on once it's dried out. it's one of those grey ge/honeywell type affairs that you can clean via water pressure in the tub. they're constructed well, but they have proprietary screws, so they're hard to clean. if i can't get this to work and have to buy another, i'm going to make sure i get something i can take apart to clean.
i keep saying i'm going to clean this space up, then rant all night. but, if i can avoid the headache, that's the plan.
so, i'm very confident that i understand the causes, and i know how to react.
i just wish i didn't have to; i wish the air would just stay moist enough that it's not triggering me.
i got another clean of the fan in, and i just have to hope it turns back on once it's dried out. it's one of those grey ge/honeywell type affairs that you can clean via water pressure in the tub. they're constructed well, but they have proprietary screws, so they're hard to clean. if i can't get this to work and have to buy another, i'm going to make sure i get something i can take apart to clean.
i keep saying i'm going to clean this space up, then rant all night. but, if i can avoid the headache, that's the plan.
let's take a step back here and explain why we don't need studies to know that humans are creating antibodies to eliminate the virus, and that there is no ambiguity surrounding the point, at all, whatsoever. and, i'm not going to cite studies, nor am i going to post links, but i'm just going to summarize a high school biology textbook, for the benefits of people that were apparently too lazy to bother.
and, i don't want to hear excuses - if you don't take bio in high school, you're just too lazy to do it. there's no other reason. i'll accept that physics and chemistry are a little esoteric if you're really intent on becoming a lawyer, but high school biology (including evolution) is really so rudimentary that it ought to be mandatory for all five years.
and, the immense ignorance we're seeing in front of us is evidence of the point.
so, how do we know that antibodies work without doing any studies?
the answer is that we get sick and clear the virus.
"but, what about t cells?"
if you clear the virus with t cells, you won't get sick. that's maybe the only thing i've seen come out of this that is mildly surprising; the apparently very high percentage of people that just clear this thing without even sneezing.
but, if you get any symptom at all - headaches, fever, coughs - then that is evidence that your body is producing antibodies.
and, when you defeat the virus, that's proof that it works.
well, unless you want to argue that it just gave up and left.
"meh. fuck this guy, anyways. i'm infecting somebody else."
no. stop. it is that easy.
it doesn't require a study.
when you get sick, you're producing antibodies; when you win, that means they cleared it.
and, when you die, that means they didn't.
source: any middle school science textbook.
and, i don't want to hear excuses - if you don't take bio in high school, you're just too lazy to do it. there's no other reason. i'll accept that physics and chemistry are a little esoteric if you're really intent on becoming a lawyer, but high school biology (including evolution) is really so rudimentary that it ought to be mandatory for all five years.
and, the immense ignorance we're seeing in front of us is evidence of the point.
so, how do we know that antibodies work without doing any studies?
the answer is that we get sick and clear the virus.
"but, what about t cells?"
if you clear the virus with t cells, you won't get sick. that's maybe the only thing i've seen come out of this that is mildly surprising; the apparently very high percentage of people that just clear this thing without even sneezing.
but, if you get any symptom at all - headaches, fever, coughs - then that is evidence that your body is producing antibodies.
and, when you defeat the virus, that's proof that it works.
well, unless you want to argue that it just gave up and left.
"meh. fuck this guy, anyways. i'm infecting somebody else."
no. stop. it is that easy.
it doesn't require a study.
when you get sick, you're producing antibodies; when you win, that means they cleared it.
and, when you die, that means they didn't.
source: any middle school science textbook.
this just in, we've got a response from biden regarding the news about the wheel...
i am remember this one time back in 1879, when we were talking about eels. they're odd creatures, the way they just clamp on to you. it's like the time when i was walking in the park and i saw a coyote, and jill looked at me and said "that's a dog", and i said "that's a coyote", and then i wondered why the coyote was letting somebody walk him in the park and jill said that it's a dog.
anyways, why did you ask me about eels?
i am remember this one time back in 1879, when we were talking about eels. they're odd creatures, the way they just clamp on to you. it's like the time when i was walking in the park and i saw a coyote, and jill looked at me and said "that's a dog", and i said "that's a coyote", and then i wondered why the coyote was letting somebody walk him in the park and jill said that it's a dog.
anyways, why did you ask me about eels?
i'm starting to get a dry air smell in here and my fan still isn't working :(
it smells more like the back of a radiator than an ashtray, so i think it's probably the dehumidifier rather than a smoker. but, removing humidity from the air is going to affect me the same way as smoking will.
i was on the brink of an aura when i fell asleep this morning, and woke up feeling better. however, i'm getting the very beginning start of round two, which is hitting me in the stomach first, and just starting to spread to my right side as i'm typing. let's hope i can avoid it, but i basically need the fan on immediately or i won't; round two is always the harder one to avoid.
it's a mild day out, but not warm enough to let the heat in. i also need to have the fan pointing towards the window to keep some of the smell out, or it's worse with it open than it closed. we should get something more closely approaching summer over the weekend, but i'm not interested in being stoned right now; i burned myself out nicely, and that should be it for a while.
so, i've got laundry running (again) to get the heat up, and i'm going to have to get back to trying to clean out the fan. i'm essentially going to be unable to do anything until the fan starts working again.
my little usb fan is probably not actually doing anything relative to the larger fan. right now, i have it an inch from my face to try to blow the dry air away from me, but that's not going to be effective for very long.
i may end up sitting in the shower all night.
we've also got some reaction from dr. fauci on the reinvention of the wheel, as well.
i must express cautious optimism around the wheel-reinvention candidates, as they have yet to pass randomized testing in sufficiently large trials. we are not yet clear if this particular approach to rewheeling will effectively eliminate friction, or if there may be unknown sources of friction coming from hidden variables, or perhaps even multiple dimensions. it is also not clear if the friction is being eliminated because of the rewheeling or due to some other effect, like sympathetic magic. i would cautiously avoid using this device to reduce friction for now, and continue to drag objects that need to be moved in sleds, as the egyptians did centuries ago.
there was a follow-up about potential hyperthermia due to exertion, and a query as to why our previous understanding of the wheel was not sufficient.
look, we just don't know yet. i'll be the first to support a proper wheel-reinvention candidate when it appears, but until then we need to keep dragging ourselves through the mud.
i must express cautious optimism around the wheel-reinvention candidates, as they have yet to pass randomized testing in sufficiently large trials. we are not yet clear if this particular approach to rewheeling will effectively eliminate friction, or if there may be unknown sources of friction coming from hidden variables, or perhaps even multiple dimensions. it is also not clear if the friction is being eliminated because of the rewheeling or due to some other effect, like sympathetic magic. i would cautiously avoid using this device to reduce friction for now, and continue to drag objects that need to be moved in sleds, as the egyptians did centuries ago.
there was a follow-up about potential hyperthermia due to exertion, and a query as to why our previous understanding of the wheel was not sufficient.
look, we just don't know yet. i'll be the first to support a proper wheel-reinvention candidate when it appears, but until then we need to keep dragging ourselves through the mud.
we've got some reaction from bernie sanders on the reinvention of the wheel.
i'm in solidarity with the reinvention of the wheel, and glad to hear it. my own wheel was getting a little run down from running in spot on it for the last 50 years. it's still my wheel though, and stay the fuck out of it.
i'm in solidarity with the reinvention of the wheel, and glad to hear it. my own wheel was getting a little run down from running in spot on it for the last 50 years. it's still my wheel though, and stay the fuck out of it.
people don't seem to know what vaccines are.
they seem to think it's a magic potion that wards off bad demons, or something; i'm only mildly exaggerating.
no - i'm a bitch, sure, and i enjoy it, but this is serious; it's really exposing a very serious hole in our public education programs, when we have adults, many of them well meaningm that simply have no idea whatsoever what a vaccine is, whether they're opposed to it or not.
if you're going to send kids back to school in september, maybe a solid week of vaccine learning across the board for students of all ages would be appropriate, to start.
they seem to think it's a magic potion that wards off bad demons, or something; i'm only mildly exaggerating.
no - i'm a bitch, sure, and i enjoy it, but this is serious; it's really exposing a very serious hole in our public education programs, when we have adults, many of them well meaningm that simply have no idea whatsoever what a vaccine is, whether they're opposed to it or not.
if you're going to send kids back to school in september, maybe a solid week of vaccine learning across the board for students of all ages would be appropriate, to start.
BREAKING NEWS
as of 15:14 est, there are reports out of new york that the wheel has been reinvented.
i repeat: the wheel has been reinvented.
while these reports are preliminary, and some caution is suggested, we will provide further updates after the run of pornographic infomercials disguised as after-school specials ends, at 18:00.
as of 15:14 est, there are reports out of new york that the wheel has been reinvented.
i repeat: the wheel has been reinvented.
while these reports are preliminary, and some caution is suggested, we will provide further updates after the run of pornographic infomercials disguised as after-school specials ends, at 18:00.
the argument that we're going to be hearing from all these ignorant arts majors on the fake left is something like this:
as antibodies don't provide immunity against the virus, the only effective way to mass immunity is via vaccination
they will stand up and state this into their microphones and their audiences will lap it up, because they don't have the base of knowledge to deconstruct it.
and, as hilarious as it is, it has to be stopped. we can't have people thinking they need to get vaccinated, because antibodies don't provide immunity. that's going to create all kinds of problems in the long run.
as antibodies don't provide immunity against the virus, the only effective way to mass immunity is via vaccination
they will stand up and state this into their microphones and their audiences will lap it up, because they don't have the base of knowledge to deconstruct it.
and, as hilarious as it is, it has to be stopped. we can't have people thinking they need to get vaccinated, because antibodies don't provide immunity. that's going to create all kinds of problems in the long run.
there's a phenomenon in psychology called the dunning-kruger effect that i'm...
you can't really measure things like this. if you thought i was critical of economics as a science, you should hear me lace into psychology.
but, that seems to be the idea that's at play, here.
we're all experts now, thanks to twitter. right?
you can't really measure things like this. if you thought i was critical of economics as a science, you should hear me lace into psychology.
but, that seems to be the idea that's at play, here.
we're all experts now, thanks to twitter. right?
i'd like to see a study on this....
what is the size of the intersection of people that hold the following views simultaneously:
1) antibodies don't create immunity to the virus
2) vaccination should be mandatory
i suspect that these views are actually highly correlated.
and, that's both frightening and hilarious at the same time.
what is the size of the intersection of people that hold the following views simultaneously:
1) antibodies don't create immunity to the virus
2) vaccination should be mandatory
i suspect that these views are actually highly correlated.
and, that's both frightening and hilarious at the same time.
we're doing phase III trials and global news thinks we need to prove that antibodies might protect against the disease.
the stupidity is just staggering.
how did this get published?
fire this journalist!
https://globalnews.ca/news/7288133/coronavirus-antibody-protection-science/
the stupidity is just staggering.
how did this get published?
fire this journalist!
https://globalnews.ca/news/7288133/coronavirus-antibody-protection-science/
so, they're back to fucking with the data, if they ever stopped.
i don't know when we're going to get analyzable statistics from ontario. it could be years. or, it might never materialize.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/covid-19-coronavirus-ontario-august-20-emergency-orders-1.5693397
i don't know when we're going to get analyzable statistics from ontario. it could be years. or, it might never materialize.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/covid-19-coronavirus-ontario-august-20-emergency-orders-1.5693397
regarding that russian vaccine again...
do you know who is the perfect example of somebody that is in a high enough risk category that they ought to be given the opportunity to make an autonomous choice about their body and their health?
donald trump.
he'sover almost 75, he has to exist in public and he lives with a young person likely to spread the virus (i mean barron, not melania).
i'm not saying he should take the russian vaccine, although i'd love to see the media coverage around it. but, i would suggest that it's probably a better idea, as a prophylactic, than hydroxycholoroquine.
it would be hilarious if trump took the russian version, but there are non-russian vaccine candidates that are ready for or already in phase III trials.
is there some chance he could get sick and die from the untested vaccine? sure. 2%. 5%. those numbers are in the "easy to trick yourself" range, as they look small but really aren't. complication numbers for tested vaccines are going to be <<1%.
but, if he gets it, he has close to a 10% chance of dying.
he should have the right to weigh that risk himself, not be told what to do by the state. or fauci, as it may be.
do you know who is the perfect example of somebody that is in a high enough risk category that they ought to be given the opportunity to make an autonomous choice about their body and their health?
donald trump.
he's
i'm not saying he should take the russian vaccine, although i'd love to see the media coverage around it. but, i would suggest that it's probably a better idea, as a prophylactic, than hydroxycholoroquine.
it would be hilarious if trump took the russian version, but there are non-russian vaccine candidates that are ready for or already in phase III trials.
is there some chance he could get sick and die from the untested vaccine? sure. 2%. 5%. those numbers are in the "easy to trick yourself" range, as they look small but really aren't. complication numbers for tested vaccines are going to be <<1%.
but, if he gets it, he has close to a 10% chance of dying.
he should have the right to weigh that risk himself, not be told what to do by the state. or fauci, as it may be.
judy strikes me as the kind of candidate that would emerge as a good consensus choice, in the middle of a vicious primary, which is not the scenario that is currently playing out. her most likely path to victory would be to take a kind of high road and walk up the middle, while two other candidates bludgeon each other, which is something that this process seems designed to avoid. while there are some tactical considerations to focusing on atlantic canada, i would recommend some caution amongst greens about putting too much emphasis on a region that may have been voting via the process of elimination. that is, if the sole intent is to build a regional base, i would recommend some caution before proceeding. that said, while her most likely path to victory in the leadership contest would be to avoid the trenches, the evidence i've seen in canada about leaders that come out of processes such as that would lead me to a little bit of caution in recommending her, as the end efficacy of that type of leader is generally minimal, as they will need to start fighting immediately on day one and often are not able to do so in an effective manner. while the party may be wise not to stray too far from elizabeth may as an archetype, we must not forget that ms. may's effectiveness is rooted in her assertiveness and feistiness, qualities i must presume she gained as a lawyer. i wonder if judy has enough fight in her to get her voice heard. i will not be voting in this contest, but i do wish her luck.
dr. kuttner is clearly a very bright, focused individual, and i have to say i like the attitude being projected the best of all of the candidates. we used to talk of the ndp as the moral conscience of the nation, but really haven't heard talk of that since the day that jack layton pulled the plug on paul martin. i am interpreting dr. kuttner as a good candidate to take on that role, from a more rigorous perspective than they ever really did. yet, that would be a role for a leader of a party with a more substantive presence than the greens currently have, and it would consequently appear as though dr. kuttner is maybe converting too much potential energy into kinetic energy. i will not be voting in this contest, but i would suggest that dr. kuttner's talents are currently better served in a support role to a leader with a more dynamic and populist style that is better able to work up a groundswell of support.
i'm just trying to find a good way to get this across so it's written down somewhere in understandable terms for leftists to reference, because it's a big problem on the ground - the left is absolutely clueless about race, right now.
we are taught to see race. it's true; when i say it's a social construct, that's not a facetious claim - we see it everywhere, because we're taught to, forced to, brainwashed to...
but let's forget about skin colour for a moment and talk about eye colour, instead. this is easily measurable, and we have a good idea of the genetics behind it.
so, let's suppose that we decide we're going to categorize people by eye colour. i'm not even going to walk you through that; i'll let you imagine how you'd do that...
the absurdity of the process should be apparent to most, immediately. do we suppose that eye colour has some effect on who these people are? that blue-eyed people are a certain way, and green-eyed people are another way?
would we wonder if the bmi of redheads should be measured differently than the bmi of brunettes?
no - we would laugh at this.
so, why do we still take skin colour seriously? why don't we see it as as much of a triviality as eye colour or hair colour is?
the answer is because we've erected a social construct around it!
but, if we were thinking more carefully, and actually looking at the science, we would realize that the amount of our genome that codes for skin colour is not much greater than the amount that codes for eye colour or hair colour or nose shape or breast size. and, we would see the idea of categorizing people by skin colour as as absurd and full of contradictions as the idea of categorizing people by any other meaningless physical characteristic.
so, please, people - stop talking about race in biological terms.
the bbc should retract that article and apologize for publishing it.
we are taught to see race. it's true; when i say it's a social construct, that's not a facetious claim - we see it everywhere, because we're taught to, forced to, brainwashed to...
but let's forget about skin colour for a moment and talk about eye colour, instead. this is easily measurable, and we have a good idea of the genetics behind it.
so, let's suppose that we decide we're going to categorize people by eye colour. i'm not even going to walk you through that; i'll let you imagine how you'd do that...
the absurdity of the process should be apparent to most, immediately. do we suppose that eye colour has some effect on who these people are? that blue-eyed people are a certain way, and green-eyed people are another way?
would we wonder if the bmi of redheads should be measured differently than the bmi of brunettes?
no - we would laugh at this.
so, why do we still take skin colour seriously? why don't we see it as as much of a triviality as eye colour or hair colour is?
the answer is because we've erected a social construct around it!
but, if we were thinking more carefully, and actually looking at the science, we would realize that the amount of our genome that codes for skin colour is not much greater than the amount that codes for eye colour or hair colour or nose shape or breast size. and, we would see the idea of categorizing people by skin colour as as absurd and full of contradictions as the idea of categorizing people by any other meaningless physical characteristic.
so, please, people - stop talking about race in biological terms.
the bbc should retract that article and apologize for publishing it.
and, no you can't use y-dna haplotypes to determine race, either.
not rigorously.
consider the curious example of the black r1b populations in africa. we don't care how that got there right now, i'm just drawing your attention to the fact that there is, in fact, a black population with overwhelming r1b y-dna, which we usually think of as the "white gene".
https://haplomaps.com/the-euro-african-or-the-story-of-the-haplogroup-r1b/
clearly, that gene ain't so white, is it?
it's also true that some indigenous groups in canada have upwards of 80% r1* ancestry. we can talk about how that happened some other time. right now, simply note that it's true, and it doesn't affect the phenotypes (or not as much as you'd imagine it does).
not rigorously.
consider the curious example of the black r1b populations in africa. we don't care how that got there right now, i'm just drawing your attention to the fact that there is, in fact, a black population with overwhelming r1b y-dna, which we usually think of as the "white gene".
https://haplomaps.com/the-euro-african-or-the-story-of-the-haplogroup-r1b/
clearly, that gene ain't so white, is it?
it's also true that some indigenous groups in canada have upwards of 80% r1* ancestry. we can talk about how that happened some other time. right now, simply note that it's true, and it doesn't affect the phenotypes (or not as much as you'd imagine it does).
it's one of my biggest peeves.
the smart post-modernist thinkers know that race is a construct, but there's still so many ignorant people out there that take these post-modernist ideas and try to erect them into race as an identity.
it's the worst pseudo-science imaginable, and it drives me fucking nuts.
the smart post-modernist thinkers know that race is a construct, but there's still so many ignorant people out there that take these post-modernist ideas and try to erect them into race as an identity.
it's the worst pseudo-science imaginable, and it drives me fucking nuts.
what does it mean, though?
you've probably heard these statements, no doubt tersely.
"race has no scientific basis", "race is not a biological concept", "there is no scientific meaning to race", etc.
what?
what it means is that your ancestors aren't as homogeneous as you probably think they are; what it means is that we migrate widely and always have, that we all fuck each other and always have and that any one of us, as individuals, has ancestry all over the world, regardless of our phenotypic expressions.
what it means is that, because genetic diversity is highest in east africa due to it being our ancestral homeland, two black women from africa are likely to have more genetic differences between each other than either are likely to have with any random white people.
what it means is that you can't build generalized genetic relationships based on observing how people look, that phylogenetic relationships are not strongly correlated with phenotypes.
what it means is that you don't just have ancestors that look differently than you, but you have ancestors that look any way imaginable.
but, mostly, what it means is that it is impossible to build rigorous, data-based categorizations of humans based on their appearance; all you get is noise and contradictions.
it's not like they didn't try to do it, but they failed.
as a scientific concept, race is just wrong.
you've probably heard these statements, no doubt tersely.
"race has no scientific basis", "race is not a biological concept", "there is no scientific meaning to race", etc.
what?
what it means is that your ancestors aren't as homogeneous as you probably think they are; what it means is that we migrate widely and always have, that we all fuck each other and always have and that any one of us, as individuals, has ancestry all over the world, regardless of our phenotypic expressions.
what it means is that, because genetic diversity is highest in east africa due to it being our ancestral homeland, two black women from africa are likely to have more genetic differences between each other than either are likely to have with any random white people.
what it means is that you can't build generalized genetic relationships based on observing how people look, that phylogenetic relationships are not strongly correlated with phenotypes.
what it means is that you don't just have ancestors that look differently than you, but you have ancestors that look any way imaginable.
but, mostly, what it means is that it is impossible to build rigorous, data-based categorizations of humans based on their appearance; all you get is noise and contradictions.
it's not like they didn't try to do it, but they failed.
as a scientific concept, race is just wrong.
this is completely retarded.
bmi is not a racialized concept, but poverty is. the reason these numbers are different across these ethnic groups is a reflection of systemic racism, not a question of biology.
so, i would support programs to help poor people eat better diets, regardless of their ethnicity.
but, i don't think it's worthwhile to waste time and research dollars on determining whether bmi is different for different racial types; it's a laughable suggestion, frankly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/49f398eb-5546-4d68-8d07-4b74e35b1df8
bmi is not a racialized concept, but poverty is. the reason these numbers are different across these ethnic groups is a reflection of systemic racism, not a question of biology.
so, i would support programs to help poor people eat better diets, regardless of their ethnicity.
but, i don't think it's worthwhile to waste time and research dollars on determining whether bmi is different for different racial types; it's a laughable suggestion, frankly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/49f398eb-5546-4d68-8d07-4b74e35b1df8
"Based on everything we know... this has not been sufficiently tested," he added. "It's not about being first somehow - it's about having a safe vaccine."
well, tell that to the clear-minded 85 year-old diabetic that just inherited her only daughter's grandkids, as she succumbed to it herself in her 60s.
that's a little over the top....
but, you get the point. there's lots and lots of people that will very rationally choose an experimental vaccine, after a cost-benefit analysis.
this is the real world, where people have no choice but to live in risk.
i think that if people are willing to take the risk, they should be allowed to assume it; it's their body, so it's their choice.
well, tell that to the clear-minded 85 year-old diabetic that just inherited her only daughter's grandkids, as she succumbed to it herself in her 60s.
that's a little over the top....
but, you get the point. there's lots and lots of people that will very rationally choose an experimental vaccine, after a cost-benefit analysis.
this is the real world, where people have no choice but to live in risk.
i think that if people are willing to take the risk, they should be allowed to assume it; it's their body, so it's their choice.
the reality is that there's probably something like a 95% chance that the vaccine out of russia is fine. for me, a 5% chance of complications is many orders of magnitude higher than the likelihood that the virus harms me in any way. so, i'll wait.
but, if i was a little older, or diabetic, i'd jump at it.
technically, it's untested and comes with some risk, but this isn't as reckless as it's being portrayed as, and things will probably work out fine.
but, if i was a little older, or diabetic, i'd jump at it.
technically, it's untested and comes with some risk, but this isn't as reckless as it's being portrayed as, and things will probably work out fine.
the last few migraines have just been vicious, too, so i don't have any apprehension in doing everything i can to stop it. i'm about 30% into it, and i think i can pull it back still.
we're talking auras, with hemiplegic weakness, on one side and then the other, like i'm having a stroke on both sides, one after the other.
i have an appointment on the 24th with a neurologist. i know that these aren't actually dangerous, i just want to know if he has ideas on how to deal with them.
we're talking auras, with hemiplegic weakness, on one side and then the other, like i'm having a stroke on both sides, one after the other.
i have an appointment on the 24th with a neurologist. i know that these aren't actually dangerous, i just want to know if he has ideas on how to deal with them.
the heaters make me sick.
the a/c makes me sick.
the dehumidifier makes me sick...
so, i keep the fan on 24/7, and the windows open as much as possible.
but, even that doesn't always work - i'll even get sick when the atmospheric pressure outside changes.
i'd legitimately probably be happiest living outside in a tree hut in a rainforest, i just need a tiger shield and somebody to build me a treetop studio that's hurricane proof.
for now, if i could just find somewhere to live where nobody is trying to fuck with the air in any way - where i can just enjoy the natural atmosphere, whatever that means - then that's the preferred solution.
the a/c makes me sick.
the dehumidifier makes me sick...
so, i keep the fan on 24/7, and the windows open as much as possible.
but, even that doesn't always work - i'll even get sick when the atmospheric pressure outside changes.
i'd legitimately probably be happiest living outside in a tree hut in a rainforest, i just need a tiger shield and somebody to build me a treetop studio that's hurricane proof.
for now, if i could just find somewhere to live where nobody is trying to fuck with the air in any way - where i can just enjoy the natural atmosphere, whatever that means - then that's the preferred solution.
and, yes - i can smell. and taste. it doesn't seem to be that.
i just had a yummy bite of strawberry. mmmm.
i just can't smell any smoke, or any of the disgusting smells i was dealing with last year. so, what i'm getting at is that it seems unlikely to be related to gasses coming up from under the floor. that issue does seem to have been fixed.
i've been through this before enough times that i know that it's the dry & stagnant air causing both the bleeds and the migraines. he doesn't seem to have his a/c on, but he may be running a dehumidifier up there, and that may be the root cause.
the fan fixes it. i just need to fix the fan.
and hope it doesn't get too bad in the mean time.
i just had a yummy bite of strawberry. mmmm.
i just can't smell any smoke, or any of the disgusting smells i was dealing with last year. so, what i'm getting at is that it seems unlikely to be related to gasses coming up from under the floor. that issue does seem to have been fixed.
i've been through this before enough times that i know that it's the dry & stagnant air causing both the bleeds and the migraines. he doesn't seem to have his a/c on, but he may be running a dehumidifier up there, and that may be the root cause.
the fan fixes it. i just need to fix the fan.
and hope it doesn't get too bad in the mean time.
self-medicating, as in the case of a headache, is pretty much the only time i won't smoke pot, as a principle.
i want to use the drug in a purely recreational way, sporadically - very infrequently. i don't want to get into the habit of using anything as a sleep aid, or anything to deal with headaches or muscle pains.
i'm an advocate of suffering through it.
i mean, if i won't take aspirin, generally, because i feel uncomfortable with the premise of taking drugs for pain relief, i'm not going to smoke drugs, either.
i want to use the drug in a purely recreational way, sporadically - very infrequently. i don't want to get into the habit of using anything as a sleep aid, or anything to deal with headaches or muscle pains.
i'm an advocate of suffering through it.
i mean, if i won't take aspirin, generally, because i feel uncomfortable with the premise of taking drugs for pain relief, i'm not going to smoke drugs, either.
so, my fan went out this afternoon and i'm predictably getting another migraine, along with nose bleeds. it doesn't smell like anything in here, though. this might be a difficult few days, coming up.
it's the same thing that happened last year - it just stopped. i'm more convinced that it's full of hair this year, though, because it's more obvious. but i don't know...
what i know is that if i don't get the fan back on soon, i'm going to potentially be writhing in pain for days, as i fight off migraines and nosebleeds.
i was dealing with something similar in the previous basement, so it doesn't seem to be unique to this space. and, i've had periodic migraines and seizure-like events going back years.
so, i don't think it's anything particularly local, i think i just need better air circulation.
it's the same thing that happened last year - it just stopped. i'm more convinced that it's full of hair this year, though, because it's more obvious. but i don't know...
what i know is that if i don't get the fan back on soon, i'm going to potentially be writhing in pain for days, as i fight off migraines and nosebleeds.
i was dealing with something similar in the previous basement, so it doesn't seem to be unique to this space. and, i've had periodic migraines and seizure-like events going back years.
so, i don't think it's anything particularly local, i think i just need better air circulation.
Wednesday, August 19, 2020
a central focus in the film is the role of poor nutrition on the lifestyles of the future, and the dominant effect of fast food on our diets.
it is both the case that the flynn effect (which is what he's talking about) is usually explained primarily via increases in nutrition in our diets (as a result of oil) and that poor diets, especially diets high in fast food, lead to lower iq scores.
so, if he's projecting a future where people have been eating garbage for centuries, we would expect the flynn effect to have undone and reversed itself quite some time before the film takes place.
https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/relationship-between-fast-food-brain-12203.html
it is both the case that the flynn effect (which is what he's talking about) is usually explained primarily via increases in nutrition in our diets (as a result of oil) and that poor diets, especially diets high in fast food, lead to lower iq scores.
so, if he's projecting a future where people have been eating garbage for centuries, we would expect the flynn effect to have undone and reversed itself quite some time before the film takes place.
https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/relationship-between-fast-food-brain-12203.html
i think the film is rather brilliant, and that while projective science of the sort is tentative at best, it's at least an educated guess.
a more useful criticism, from my perspective, would be to point out that they don't talk about things like energy sources, or address the consequences of climate change. further, they treat america as though it exists on this world by itself. if america were to ever stagnate to such an absurd extreme, it would run out of energy before it ran out of food, and end up subsumed by the ocean in the process. further, some other culture would no doubt come in and wipe us out, as easy prey.
so, in that sense, this kind of future is unlikely, for the reason that we'd end up extinct before it happened.
but, in theory?
i have little criticism of the premise of the film, as it exists. it's not inevitable, surely. but, it's a reasonable projection of existing trends.
obviously, it won't be quite that bad 20 years from now.
a more useful criticism, from my perspective, would be to point out that they don't talk about things like energy sources, or address the consequences of climate change. further, they treat america as though it exists on this world by itself. if america were to ever stagnate to such an absurd extreme, it would run out of energy before it ran out of food, and end up subsumed by the ocean in the process. further, some other culture would no doubt come in and wipe us out, as easy prey.
so, in that sense, this kind of future is unlikely, for the reason that we'd end up extinct before it happened.
but, in theory?
i have little criticism of the premise of the film, as it exists. it's not inevitable, surely. but, it's a reasonable projection of existing trends.
obviously, it won't be quite that bad 20 years from now.
further, the idea that intelligence has been going up recently and therefore will go up forever is a basic logical fallacy. it's the same error that led us to taking the philips curve seriously.
the reasons we saw increasing intelligence in the 20th century had mostly to do with increasing levels of nutrition, something that started to undo itself in the onset of neoliberalism around 1970 or so. so, i'm not buying the idea that we should project all of the progress we had up to 1970 indefinitely into the future, especially when the point of the film is to viciously criticize the revolutionary economic changes that set in with the embrace of corporatism and neoliberalism. we don't know what our intelligence levels will be like in 500 years, but we can certainly state with clarity that we won't have infinite growth in intelligence levels, that some kind of limit is inevitable, and that decline is just as likely as anything else.
so, again, that's a dumb criticism.
the reasons we saw increasing intelligence in the 20th century had mostly to do with increasing levels of nutrition, something that started to undo itself in the onset of neoliberalism around 1970 or so. so, i'm not buying the idea that we should project all of the progress we had up to 1970 indefinitely into the future, especially when the point of the film is to viciously criticize the revolutionary economic changes that set in with the embrace of corporatism and neoliberalism. we don't know what our intelligence levels will be like in 500 years, but we can certainly state with clarity that we won't have infinite growth in intelligence levels, that some kind of limit is inevitable, and that decline is just as likely as anything else.
so, again, that's a dumb criticism.
i just want to react to the genetic criticism, because this guy isn't really understanding what the film is getting at.
it's well understood at this point that the genetic contributions to intelligence are minimal to non-existent, and the exception more than the rule. intelligence does not exist entirely independently from genetics, but it is shaped dominantly by the environment.
but, that's kind of actually the point that's really being made, here - the film isn't arguing for the genetic basis of stupidity, so much as it's arguing for the environmental effects on it. it may be the case that there is no particular genetic reason why two very stupid people could not produce intelligent offspring, but because the factors in intelligence are so intertwined with environment, it does stand to reason that people that are raised by stupid people are going to end up just as stupid as their parents.
rather than cite very old and debunked studies and present them as a strawman argument around the intent of the film's creators, i'd rather direct you to studies regarding public v private schools. up until recently, private school advocates would point to higher grades as evidence of superior schooling, and it even led to support for voucher programs. but, over time, greater study led to the conclusion that the differences in grades had to do with class and upbringing rather than instruction.
that is to say that the modern science is actually pretty clear that how you raise your child is a dominant factor in how intelligent they end up.
he'd have realized that if he wasn't.....an idiot.
regarding the pseudo v anti intellectual section, i'm just going to say no and leave it at that. pseudo-intellectualism is a thing, surely. but, we live in anti-intellectualism more than pseudo-intellectualism, and i'll point to your decision to present the argument without any sort of backing as evidence of that. i realize i'm doing the same thing, but i don't have the burden of proof, here, and i don't know of any studies that analyze the question and attempt to come to a meaningful deduction.
it's well understood at this point that the genetic contributions to intelligence are minimal to non-existent, and the exception more than the rule. intelligence does not exist entirely independently from genetics, but it is shaped dominantly by the environment.
but, that's kind of actually the point that's really being made, here - the film isn't arguing for the genetic basis of stupidity, so much as it's arguing for the environmental effects on it. it may be the case that there is no particular genetic reason why two very stupid people could not produce intelligent offspring, but because the factors in intelligence are so intertwined with environment, it does stand to reason that people that are raised by stupid people are going to end up just as stupid as their parents.
rather than cite very old and debunked studies and present them as a strawman argument around the intent of the film's creators, i'd rather direct you to studies regarding public v private schools. up until recently, private school advocates would point to higher grades as evidence of superior schooling, and it even led to support for voucher programs. but, over time, greater study led to the conclusion that the differences in grades had to do with class and upbringing rather than instruction.
that is to say that the modern science is actually pretty clear that how you raise your child is a dominant factor in how intelligent they end up.
he'd have realized that if he wasn't.....an idiot.
regarding the pseudo v anti intellectual section, i'm just going to say no and leave it at that. pseudo-intellectualism is a thing, surely. but, we live in anti-intellectualism more than pseudo-intellectualism, and i'll point to your decision to present the argument without any sort of backing as evidence of that. i realize i'm doing the same thing, but i don't have the burden of proof, here, and i don't know of any studies that analyze the question and attempt to come to a meaningful deduction.
there's a lot of criticism of the film out there and...
it's all very ironic. truly.
i get the most kids are raised with these things called parents, who set rules and boundaries and otherwise shape their existence from a position of authority. this helps them transition into school, into the workforce and what not, where there is always somebody around that is ahead of them in the hierarchy, and has the role to tell them what to do. when hierarchy is normalized at home, it makes sense outside of it, too. ok.
but, when hierarchy and authority is not normalized at home, or does not exist at all, those kids will grow up and walk into classrooms and workplaces and just look at people trying to tell them what to do as though they're from another planet.
you....think...you..can...tell....me...what...to....wait...what?
(blank stare)
your average millennial may even seek guidance as they age via whatever source of authority they define - they don't just accept it, they crave it, they want it.
but, when somebody tries to tell me what to do, my general reaction is woah. who the fuck do you think you are? you can't tell me what to do. why would that even cross your mind as acceptable? i'm going to ignore you now, and if you don't stop yelling, i'm outta here.
being squeezed is an interesting way to exist, because the people older and younger than us were both raised with such structured existences (in aggregate). if the world doesn't make sense to us, maybe there's some good reasons for it.
but, our time is nearing - and we will not have much of it.
so, this is a call to gen x to make the best of what's coming, even as we watch our parents die in front of us in order to get there.
the next 20 years are ours.
let's fix this broken, piece of shit world as best we can, while we can.
but, when hierarchy and authority is not normalized at home, or does not exist at all, those kids will grow up and walk into classrooms and workplaces and just look at people trying to tell them what to do as though they're from another planet.
you....think...you..can...tell....me...what...to....wait...what?
(blank stare)
your average millennial may even seek guidance as they age via whatever source of authority they define - they don't just accept it, they crave it, they want it.
but, when somebody tries to tell me what to do, my general reaction is woah. who the fuck do you think you are? you can't tell me what to do. why would that even cross your mind as acceptable? i'm going to ignore you now, and if you don't stop yelling, i'm outta here.
being squeezed is an interesting way to exist, because the people older and younger than us were both raised with such structured existences (in aggregate). if the world doesn't make sense to us, maybe there's some good reasons for it.
but, our time is nearing - and we will not have much of it.
so, this is a call to gen x to make the best of what's coming, even as we watch our parents die in front of us in order to get there.
the next 20 years are ours.
let's fix this broken, piece of shit world as best we can, while we can.
so, is it partly the case that i really, really don't like being told what to do because i'm just not used to being told what to do? that authority is a weird, foreign concept that i've never experienced and don't understand?
there's probably something to do that, yeah.
but, i'd argue it's a more desirable way to organize society than one where we whip our children into shape by treating them like property or slaves.
there's some benefits of living in a society where people dislike being told what to do.
there's probably something to do that, yeah.
but, i'd argue it's a more desirable way to organize society than one where we whip our children into shape by treating them like property or slaves.
there's some benefits of living in a society where people dislike being told what to do.
people don't want to let me be a gen xer. but, it's kind of not fair to give gen x 15 years and every other generation 20-25; gen x should really be more like 1965-1985. as it is, you usually get 65-80, so i'm stuck at the edge - thirteen days into january, 1981.
and i sort of like being the last one, ever, which is kind of intrinsically gen x, itself.
but, look at this:
that is a picture of me on the right with the hat turned up a little to see the hair. and what is that around my neck?
it's a latch-key.
qed.
and i sort of like being the last one, ever, which is kind of intrinsically gen x, itself.
but, look at this:
that is a picture of me on the right with the hat turned up a little to see the hair. and what is that around my neck?
it's a latch-key.
qed.
i'll state this tersely.
i'm not running for office, and i don't want to join your party. so, i don't care if you want my endorsement or not, and your opinion of me or what i type here is not of any concern to me.
so, you can hate me to my core if you want; i don't care, i'll vote for you and analyze your policies and post here about them, anyways. you can send me an email if you'd like to have a debate about it, but expect me to post your responses here, in the long run.
politicians don't elect voters; voters elect politicians. it's my opinion of your policies that is relevant, not your opinion of my writing.
so, don't like this site? don't want my endorsement?
too fucking bad; i don't give a fuck.
i'm not running for office, and i don't want to join your party. so, i don't care if you want my endorsement or not, and your opinion of me or what i type here is not of any concern to me.
so, you can hate me to my core if you want; i don't care, i'll vote for you and analyze your policies and post here about them, anyways. you can send me an email if you'd like to have a debate about it, but expect me to post your responses here, in the long run.
politicians don't elect voters; voters elect politicians. it's my opinion of your policies that is relevant, not your opinion of my writing.
so, don't like this site? don't want my endorsement?
too fucking bad; i don't give a fuck.
i've never heard of her and have no comment.
except to remind you that twitter is not a reflection of reality; it's a circle jerk for liberal elitists.
which i will need to do over and over, i know that.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-primary-loomer-1.5691796
except to remind you that twitter is not a reflection of reality; it's a circle jerk for liberal elitists.
which i will need to do over and over, i know that.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-primary-loomer-1.5691796
i'm just trying to imagine where to put john kasich on the political spectrum, in canada.
you might pretend he's a moderate, and i might disagree, but he was a relatively mainstream republican, at one point. he's in the spectrum, down there.
i'm not even sure that the populist party in canada, what we call a far-right fringe group, would be able to deal with a john kasich. this is somebody that left the conservative party because he thought it was too liberal, and still calls himself pro-choice (although he supports the kind of restrictions that clinton does on late term abortions).
so, our far right party has roughly the same position that hillary clinton had; in our spectrum, she would be considered an anti-abortion extremist. so, where do you put kasich?
he's certainly not a libertarian.
the grassroots of the reform party had a strong anti-abortion component, but the leadership of the party just used it as an excuse to string along donors. there is little evidence that they ever had any real intent on banning anything, and they never did, despite repeated opportunities. in the end, the donors started dying off, and the issue seems to have largely receded from the conservative party's discourse.
in canada, john kasich would really have to join something like the christian heritage party, which is a crypto-fascist group, just like kasich is, himself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Heritage_Party_of_Canada
this is a party that gets a few thousand votes per riding at most and has never won a seat at any level. but, it's the only party that would come close to representing his views on abortion.
he may have been a socred, back before they disappeared in the early 80s. the socreds were legitimately anti-abortion, along with being anti-semitic and absolutely vehemently opposed to the metric system. i wonder if i could measure the length of my middle finger for them, and set it to the standard of measurement.
canada is not as liberal as europe, either, in general.
so, america, you really need to look at yourself in the mirror a little. this guy kasich, who the center-left party just brought in to appeal to supposed moderates, would be unwelcome in any party in canada. he would be so far to the right that he's out of the spectrum.
and, he claims the party left him, in some kind of twisted reagan reference.
most of the world would have considered him unelectable - in fact unnominatable - from the start.
you might pretend he's a moderate, and i might disagree, but he was a relatively mainstream republican, at one point. he's in the spectrum, down there.
i'm not even sure that the populist party in canada, what we call a far-right fringe group, would be able to deal with a john kasich. this is somebody that left the conservative party because he thought it was too liberal, and still calls himself pro-choice (although he supports the kind of restrictions that clinton does on late term abortions).
so, our far right party has roughly the same position that hillary clinton had; in our spectrum, she would be considered an anti-abortion extremist. so, where do you put kasich?
he's certainly not a libertarian.
the grassroots of the reform party had a strong anti-abortion component, but the leadership of the party just used it as an excuse to string along donors. there is little evidence that they ever had any real intent on banning anything, and they never did, despite repeated opportunities. in the end, the donors started dying off, and the issue seems to have largely receded from the conservative party's discourse.
in canada, john kasich would really have to join something like the christian heritage party, which is a crypto-fascist group, just like kasich is, himself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Heritage_Party_of_Canada
this is a party that gets a few thousand votes per riding at most and has never won a seat at any level. but, it's the only party that would come close to representing his views on abortion.
he may have been a socred, back before they disappeared in the early 80s. the socreds were legitimately anti-abortion, along with being anti-semitic and absolutely vehemently opposed to the metric system. i wonder if i could measure the length of my middle finger for them, and set it to the standard of measurement.
canada is not as liberal as europe, either, in general.
so, america, you really need to look at yourself in the mirror a little. this guy kasich, who the center-left party just brought in to appeal to supposed moderates, would be unwelcome in any party in canada. he would be so far to the right that he's out of the spectrum.
and, he claims the party left him, in some kind of twisted reagan reference.
most of the world would have considered him unelectable - in fact unnominatable - from the start.
i warned against this in 2016, and it was part of my calculus in weakly endorsing clinton in the end; there was the jimmy dore faction that suggested that a trump victory may create a left-wing backlash, and i said to them "you're all fucking daft. if you elect trump, you'll create the biggest tent the democrats have ever seen, and end up with the most right-wing democrat since andrew jackson".
and, here we are.
and, now?
this election can't be about defeating trump, not anymore, not with the way the democrats are going; america, you need to send a message to the democrats that the direction they're moving is not acceptable, and grit your teeth and cry and vote for a third party, instead.
now is the time to abandon the democrats.
i encourage you to follow my lead.
and, here we are.
and, now?
this election can't be about defeating trump, not anymore, not with the way the democrats are going; america, you need to send a message to the democrats that the direction they're moving is not acceptable, and grit your teeth and cry and vote for a third party, instead.
now is the time to abandon the democrats.
i encourage you to follow my lead.
it's also a reminder that we should be careful with words, and i'm as guilty as anybody else of this.
when we routinely throw around words like "fascist" and "nazi" in imprecise ways, we lose their meanings, and we have a hard time seeing true fascism when it actually appears in front of us.
trump is not smart enough to be a fascist. it's a scary truth, but he just isn't.
but, kasich is the real deal.
and, the dnc is on the wrong side of history in allowing him to speak, and needs to apologize for it.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
when we routinely throw around words like "fascist" and "nazi" in imprecise ways, we lose their meanings, and we have a hard time seeing true fascism when it actually appears in front of us.
trump is not smart enough to be a fascist. it's a scary truth, but he just isn't.
but, kasich is the real deal.
and, the dnc is on the wrong side of history in allowing him to speak, and needs to apologize for it.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
this is the article that the msm should be running, but won't, because they're invested in swinging the democrats as far right as possible.
the americans used to have a choice between the right and the far right; that's increasingly dissolving into a one-party state that embraces the far right and rejects dissent.
https://www.indy100.com/article/john-kasich-dnc-speech-video-aoc-democrat-national-convention-9675766
the americans used to have a choice between the right and the far right; that's increasingly dissolving into a one-party state that embraces the far right and rejects dissent.
https://www.indy100.com/article/john-kasich-dnc-speech-video-aoc-democrat-national-convention-9675766
they should absolutely be distancing themselves from both sarsour and omar, who are going to lose more votes than they gain, in the most important swing groups. in canada, muslims actually do form a meaningful voting bloc. they simply don't in the united states.
it's not the bds movement, exactly - i follow chomsky's deconstruction, which is that pushing these kinds of tactics are more likely to get you labeled a nazi than actually work. that is, chomsky has been skeptical (albeit vaguely supportive) of these tactics, under the argument that they aren't just not going to work but are likely to lead to a backlash that makes it harder to get people substantive rights. i think that's the right analysis.
but, i mean, i don't support two states; that's a 20th century solution. the palestinians need full civil rights in a single state where everybody is treated as an equal. no solidarity with ethnic nationalism - they need to adjust and learn to be citizens of israel, and israel needs to let them be citizens, too.
the problem with sarsour & omar is the comments they've produced, which are unambiguously racist, and the associations they're bringing in, but, even more so, the liability around projecting those associations to actual swing voters, which are mostly white people in the midwest.
that said, this is too little, too late. i will be continuing to support the green ticket until i hear an explicit denunciation of john kasich, meg whitman and the lot as fascists that are unwanted in the party - because if i don't get that denunciation, i'll have to assume that they are wanted in the party, in which case it's a party i can't support.
https://forward.com/fast-forward/452889/biden-campaign-disavows-linda-sarsour-after-her-convention-appearance/
it's not the bds movement, exactly - i follow chomsky's deconstruction, which is that pushing these kinds of tactics are more likely to get you labeled a nazi than actually work. that is, chomsky has been skeptical (albeit vaguely supportive) of these tactics, under the argument that they aren't just not going to work but are likely to lead to a backlash that makes it harder to get people substantive rights. i think that's the right analysis.
but, i mean, i don't support two states; that's a 20th century solution. the palestinians need full civil rights in a single state where everybody is treated as an equal. no solidarity with ethnic nationalism - they need to adjust and learn to be citizens of israel, and israel needs to let them be citizens, too.
the problem with sarsour & omar is the comments they've produced, which are unambiguously racist, and the associations they're bringing in, but, even more so, the liability around projecting those associations to actual swing voters, which are mostly white people in the midwest.
that said, this is too little, too late. i will be continuing to support the green ticket until i hear an explicit denunciation of john kasich, meg whitman and the lot as fascists that are unwanted in the party - because if i don't get that denunciation, i'll have to assume that they are wanted in the party, in which case it's a party i can't support.
https://forward.com/fast-forward/452889/biden-campaign-disavows-linda-sarsour-after-her-convention-appearance/
must have been all of that unemployment that pushed inflation down to negative levels.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-inflation-july-1.5691748
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-inflation-july-1.5691748
The Embassy of Latvia in Canada has also pushed back against criticism of members of the Latvian SS units and the annual parade. It recently labelled a Ottawa Citizen commentary describing the participation of Latvians in the SS division and the Holocaust as a “threat to democracy in the world.”
“One must study history in order to understand the truth,” the embassy added in a tweet.
that's official holocaust denial from the latvian state.
The Latvian government also has on its website a 14-page document that argues Russian “disinformation” is behind efforts to paint the gathering in an unfavourable light.
just like goebbels would have!
“One must study history in order to understand the truth,” the embassy added in a tweet.
that's official holocaust denial from the latvian state.
The Latvian government also has on its website a 14-page document that argues Russian “disinformation” is behind efforts to paint the gathering in an unfavourable light.
just like goebbels would have!
umm....yes, he does.
that would be a very nice surprise, especially given the fascist rhetoric from clinton around it.
i'll believe it when i see it, but i would strongly support pardoning both snowden and assange, as well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/18/edward-snowden-deserves-trial-not-pardon/
that would be a very nice surprise, especially given the fascist rhetoric from clinton around it.
i'll believe it when i see it, but i would strongly support pardoning both snowden and assange, as well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/18/edward-snowden-deserves-trial-not-pardon/
well, we got this right, at least.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-condemns-annual-latvian-parade-that-honours-nazi-ss-unit
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-condemns-annual-latvian-parade-that-honours-nazi-ss-unit
hey, listen.
i wasn't alive yet, but i would have supported the russians in their struggle against fascism in the past, and i'll support them in the fight against fascism, again.
but, it would help if they'd drop their own support for it, and be more proactive in removing dictators where they prop them up.
i wasn't alive yet, but i would have supported the russians in their struggle against fascism in the past, and i'll support them in the fight against fascism, again.
but, it would help if they'd drop their own support for it, and be more proactive in removing dictators where they prop them up.
what history do we have in the baltics? where and when have we fought together? in what way are we allies?
these were some of the most nazi corners of europe, and they willingly aligned with the fascists against the communists. they were not on our side; they were not on the right side. and, they never even truly recanted. poland was a victim in the war, but, to this day, latvia & lithuania maintain vibrant white supremacist communities, and little shame about their collaboration with nazis. they don't deserve any protection at all.
moving further back in history, the region is actually just extremely remote. the region didn't really exist in history as anything besides a transit point for varangians moving south until the german crusaders moved in looking for lebensraum around the year 900, but the indigenous inhabitants would have been fully in the sphere of the norse-slavic states (like kiev). riga was founded in the 13th century. this area was just outside of what we call civilization. so, there's no shared history, here, until they had to fight off the mongols, which didn't end until a city called moscow decided to refuse payment, and united an indigenous revolt against them. the region only then emerges in history as a satellite of the russians, although they had to fight some wars against the swedes and others around it.
we don't need the details of baltic history, here; the point i'm making is that there's no point of shared history, no overlapping culture, nothing to tie us together with them. the region is not strategic, either; there's nothing to save, nothing to protect.
we have never fought side-to-side with these people, and to suggest they are some kind of allies is consequently an abuse of language and an abuse of history.
if anything, they're taking advantage of the west to use us as leverage in an independence struggle that is not based on any meaningful concept of difference.
we should give them back; they don't belong to us.
these were some of the most nazi corners of europe, and they willingly aligned with the fascists against the communists. they were not on our side; they were not on the right side. and, they never even truly recanted. poland was a victim in the war, but, to this day, latvia & lithuania maintain vibrant white supremacist communities, and little shame about their collaboration with nazis. they don't deserve any protection at all.
moving further back in history, the region is actually just extremely remote. the region didn't really exist in history as anything besides a transit point for varangians moving south until the german crusaders moved in looking for lebensraum around the year 900, but the indigenous inhabitants would have been fully in the sphere of the norse-slavic states (like kiev). riga was founded in the 13th century. this area was just outside of what we call civilization. so, there's no shared history, here, until they had to fight off the mongols, which didn't end until a city called moscow decided to refuse payment, and united an indigenous revolt against them. the region only then emerges in history as a satellite of the russians, although they had to fight some wars against the swedes and others around it.
we don't need the details of baltic history, here; the point i'm making is that there's no point of shared history, no overlapping culture, nothing to tie us together with them. the region is not strategic, either; there's nothing to save, nothing to protect.
we have never fought side-to-side with these people, and to suggest they are some kind of allies is consequently an abuse of language and an abuse of history.
if anything, they're taking advantage of the west to use us as leverage in an independence struggle that is not based on any meaningful concept of difference.
we should give them back; they don't belong to us.
the way that nato should be thinking about the baltics is this: the alliance overextended itself to a region it can't and shouldn't want to protect. so, what can it get in return for handing them over without a fight?
maybe, the russians could pull back a little somewhere else, in exchange for a nato withdrawal.
maybe, the russians could pull back a little somewhere else, in exchange for a nato withdrawal.
this is the most ridiculous nonsense...
if the russians move in in any serious way, and i do actually think they should, it's not going to be as simple as removing a dictator (and lukashenko is legitimately a dictator) and putting in a foreign-backed puppet. the discourse is so far removed from reality, that it's not even worth debunking.
rather, if the russians get triggered, they are likely to bring in the kind of strategic and structural changes that they brought to syria.
so, that would mean:
1) closer military cooperation between minsk and moscow (if that's possible)
2) replacing lukashenko with somebody around him as a temporary leader. i don't know the situation well enough to make suggestions, but it would probably be a military leader.
3) stabilizing the region from foreign influence
4) fresh elections
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/18/lukashenko-putin-russia-belarus-tsar/
if the russians move in in any serious way, and i do actually think they should, it's not going to be as simple as removing a dictator (and lukashenko is legitimately a dictator) and putting in a foreign-backed puppet. the discourse is so far removed from reality, that it's not even worth debunking.
rather, if the russians get triggered, they are likely to bring in the kind of strategic and structural changes that they brought to syria.
so, that would mean:
1) closer military cooperation between minsk and moscow (if that's possible)
2) replacing lukashenko with somebody around him as a temporary leader. i don't know the situation well enough to make suggestions, but it would probably be a military leader.
3) stabilizing the region from foreign influence
4) fresh elections
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/18/lukashenko-putin-russia-belarus-tsar/
and, let this be a warning to nato - if you continue to mess around in the russian sphere of influence, don't start crying when they start destabilizing poland or the baltics; you will have brought that on yourself, and the russian reaction will be justified and correct.
i think they should have retaliated years ago, and that they didn't is a reflection of putin's delusional insistence on working with a hostile west that doesn't respect him or russia in general.
as before, the russians would be smart to shift the conflict out of belarus by starting a hot war somewhere like venezuela, instead. and, america will only have itself to blame for it.
i think they should have retaliated years ago, and that they didn't is a reflection of putin's delusional insistence on working with a hostile west that doesn't respect him or russia in general.
as before, the russians would be smart to shift the conflict out of belarus by starting a hot war somewhere like venezuela, instead. and, america will only have itself to blame for it.
i would support calls for lukashenko to quit. while not on the same level as the fascists in the middle east, he is an anachronism in europe that should not exist. unlike many of the countries in the region that are often labeled incorrectly, belarus is legitimately long overdue for a transition to democracy.
that said, belarus is in the russian sphere of influence, and i would oppose any sort of intervention for that explicit reason. the potential consequences of such a thing are far too destabilizing to even contemplate. the russians would be justified in intervening and escalating, and i would morally support them in doing so.
the eu may have a valid role to play in negotiation, but it should avoid the kinds of destabilizing actions that it took in ukraine.
we should, broadly, step back and let the russians deal with it - and they have every right to retaliate if we don't.
that said, belarus is in the russian sphere of influence, and i would oppose any sort of intervention for that explicit reason. the potential consequences of such a thing are far too destabilizing to even contemplate. the russians would be justified in intervening and escalating, and i would morally support them in doing so.
the eu may have a valid role to play in negotiation, but it should avoid the kinds of destabilizing actions that it took in ukraine.
we should, broadly, step back and let the russians deal with it - and they have every right to retaliate if we don't.
Click the map to create your own at
this is probably a better forecast:
(note that the initial post mistakenly had nevada red. oops.)
...meaning trump needs any two of the top three, or iowa + michigan, or iowa + minnesota + wisconsin, to win; biden must win michigan, and two out of the other three.
(note that the initial post mistakenly had nevada red. oops.)
...meaning trump needs any two of the top three, or iowa + michigan, or iowa + minnesota + wisconsin, to win; biden must win michigan, and two out of the other three.
i remember back in 2016 i did this with these maps and said "trump doesn't have a path", and then he won three states that he had no business winning.
trump seems to have the advantage on paper right now, but we'll see how that works out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)