"According to government statistics, 30% of women who are murdered are killed by their spouses."
google's not helping me on this. i'd be very surprised if nobody's written any papers on this, even if it's sort of taboo - and is going to especially be taboo amongst the kind of people who are going to study this.
http://brandongaille.com/27-intriguing-crimes-of-passion-statistics/
--
"According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 30 percent of all female murder victims were killed by their spouses. Another 18.3 percent were killed by ex-spouses."
that's nearly half...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/why-do-we-kill2.htm
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2002/4/23/study-us-female-murder-rate-high/
--
from this page, i can calculate that the murder rate for women in the united states was about 1.02/100000 in 2011.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863
---
google tells me directly that the population of the united states was 312 million in 2011.
that suggests that there were around 3182 female homicides in the united states in 2011; the math works out to 1537 being killed by a partner or ex-partner, and while it may be a leap of logic to suggest that most were equivalent to "honour killings" it's a reasonable one.
so, let's go with 1500 honour killings in the united states in 2011. this calculation has nothing to do with ethnicity.
--
the population of MENA is 381 million - roughly comparable. this excludes pakistan and india, where the population both gets much bigger and the problem is much worse. but, let's try and compare like with like as best we can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MENA
--
"(In the mena region) With the exception of Iran, laws which allow for ‘honour’ killing are not derived from Islamic precepts, but from the penal codes of the Napoleonic Empire which legislated for crimes of ‘passion.’"
intriguing. no numbers, though.
http://hbv-awareness.com/regions/
--
i can't find a number for mena, specifically, and i don't think that bringing india into the discussion is conceptually fair (especially considering that a lot of them occur in india by non-muslims).
truth is i'm hungry.
but, most people wouldn't have pulled out a number like 1500, which is no doubt an underestimate - it doesn't include daughters killed by their fathers or other relatives. that's just women killed by partners and ex-partners.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
how many christians support abortion clinic bombings, capital punishment, border fences, forced conversion of homosexuals...
you think it's less than 8%, bill? really?
so, which is it then: are americans stupid or not?
this is the point that maher gets wrong over and over and over again. there's not a liberal on the planet that "supports islam". we just won't stand for giving christians a free pass, or setting up an us-vs-them double standard. that is what is bullshit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7OsQRI-LBU
also, fwiw, syria was a secularist quasi-stalinist state up until a few years ago, and would like to return to that. that's the whole russia-syria thing. they were a proxy. like north korea...
you were more likely to get persecuted for being religious than not being religious. that's why these guys hate assad so much, and why they hate the population so much. it's why the population is fleeing slaughter. that's what's happening: religious extremists are slaughtering functional atheists.
the reality is that whether they identify as christian or muslim or something else, the vast majority of these refugees are actually not religious at all - because syria is not a religious society.
i have another point as well about the honour killings. i could go on about this for a while, but i'll spare you; if you break it down carefully, you need to ask yourself if accepting capital punishment for one type of crime is really different than accepting capital punishment for another type of crime on a concept-of-justice level or if it reflects a different set of ideas about what criminality is. i mean, we can certainly agree that we can find some problems with american executions if we look carefully, can't we? there is a difference - i'm not saying there isn't. but the difference is what is determined to be worthy of a death sentence, not the act of carrying the death sentence out. or at least it is relative to the united states. we don't do that up here.
but, for the honour killings specifically...
it is true that murdering your partner is legal in much of the islamic world if you catch them in the act of adultery red-handed, and at the time of catching them. i apologize for the language, but it's necessary in context. so, because that is legal, you would expect responses on surveys that reflect that it is legal.
i of course disagree with that law. but, i also disagree with capital punishment laws in the united states. there's a difference. but, i went through that.
it is not legal here, so we would expect survey responses to reflect that, as well. but it is also perhaps worth pointing out that it did used to be legal here, too. this is a recently won battle.
but, certainly we all know that this is something that happens here with a relatively high level of frequency. "crimes of passion" are statistically one of the most frequent types of violent crimes. we should readily agree that white men, christian or not, kill their girlfriends or wives for cheating on them all the time - often not caught red-handed, and a good deal of time after the fact.
so, putting the legalities and social conventions aside, it would be interesting to ask the question of how frequently these honour killings occur across countries, and if there is any statistical reason to think they actually happen in greater frequencies in islamic countries.
i'll be blunt: i think you'll find that they do not. i think you'll find that white christian men kill their partners for cheating at a higher frequency than islamic men do.
and, we can talk about reasons for this. it may actually have something to do with the religion - which is the wrong reason, but perhaps true nonetheless.
but, i think i'd really like to see this question of empirical fact established. i'm taking a lot of guesses, sure. but, i do think my hunch is likely correct.
you think it's less than 8%, bill? really?
so, which is it then: are americans stupid or not?
this is the point that maher gets wrong over and over and over again. there's not a liberal on the planet that "supports islam". we just won't stand for giving christians a free pass, or setting up an us-vs-them double standard. that is what is bullshit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7OsQRI-LBU
also, fwiw, syria was a secularist quasi-stalinist state up until a few years ago, and would like to return to that. that's the whole russia-syria thing. they were a proxy. like north korea...
you were more likely to get persecuted for being religious than not being religious. that's why these guys hate assad so much, and why they hate the population so much. it's why the population is fleeing slaughter. that's what's happening: religious extremists are slaughtering functional atheists.
the reality is that whether they identify as christian or muslim or something else, the vast majority of these refugees are actually not religious at all - because syria is not a religious society.
i have another point as well about the honour killings. i could go on about this for a while, but i'll spare you; if you break it down carefully, you need to ask yourself if accepting capital punishment for one type of crime is really different than accepting capital punishment for another type of crime on a concept-of-justice level or if it reflects a different set of ideas about what criminality is. i mean, we can certainly agree that we can find some problems with american executions if we look carefully, can't we? there is a difference - i'm not saying there isn't. but the difference is what is determined to be worthy of a death sentence, not the act of carrying the death sentence out. or at least it is relative to the united states. we don't do that up here.
but, for the honour killings specifically...
it is true that murdering your partner is legal in much of the islamic world if you catch them in the act of adultery red-handed, and at the time of catching them. i apologize for the language, but it's necessary in context. so, because that is legal, you would expect responses on surveys that reflect that it is legal.
i of course disagree with that law. but, i also disagree with capital punishment laws in the united states. there's a difference. but, i went through that.
it is not legal here, so we would expect survey responses to reflect that, as well. but it is also perhaps worth pointing out that it did used to be legal here, too. this is a recently won battle.
but, certainly we all know that this is something that happens here with a relatively high level of frequency. "crimes of passion" are statistically one of the most frequent types of violent crimes. we should readily agree that white men, christian or not, kill their girlfriends or wives for cheating on them all the time - often not caught red-handed, and a good deal of time after the fact.
so, putting the legalities and social conventions aside, it would be interesting to ask the question of how frequently these honour killings occur across countries, and if there is any statistical reason to think they actually happen in greater frequencies in islamic countries.
i'll be blunt: i think you'll find that they do not. i think you'll find that white christian men kill their partners for cheating at a higher frequency than islamic men do.
and, we can talk about reasons for this. it may actually have something to do with the religion - which is the wrong reason, but perhaps true nonetheless.
but, i think i'd really like to see this question of empirical fact established. i'm taking a lot of guesses, sure. but, i do think my hunch is likely correct.
at
21:49
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Saturday, November 21, 2015
this won't help the average citizen of mexico much.
but, it should accelerate inflation, which should put upward pressure on wages. this will make mexico less competitive as a labour source, and that should be good for the other two nafta partners.
it's not the best way to create upward pressure on wages in mexico, but the labour movement there doesn't seem to want to fight.
but, it should accelerate inflation, which should put upward pressure on wages. this will make mexico less competitive as a labour source, and that should be good for the other two nafta partners.
it's not the best way to create upward pressure on wages in mexico, but the labour movement there doesn't seem to want to fight.
at
20:22
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
reaction to the new bowie single, pt 2
Brooklyn Allman
Bowie always tends to reflect the world around him. I think this video is a metaphor for the darkside of religion. The book he holds up. The scarecrows in crucifix formation (scarecrows symbolic of fear which is a key element of organized religion). The blindfolds. The people who seem to be possessed by something. Somehow he ties Major Tom into all of this as his skull is treated like a sacred artifact perhaps meaning that anything can be turned into god and spun out of control. I think "Blackstar" might be like a faux-prophet or fervent disciple going around convincing people god is speaking through them. I think it definitely reflects what's going on in the world right now. I'm sure there are many ways to interpret this though, it's very abstract.
deathtokoalas
+Brooklyn Allman
the kind of ritual you're seeing in the video is something that "kids nowadays" actually seriously do. there's a pretty sizable movement built up around this amongst women that are roughly university aged. they get together in forested spaces and perform magical rites to what they perceive of as pagan spirits.
if you want to get into it, it's likely a reaction to the upbringing brought on by the previous generation - a kind of rebellion against the value system enforced by the "moral majority" in the reagan revolution. the women i've spoken to about this speak in these terms. they talk of how their christian upbringing created a lot of repressed desires. they talk of catholic guilt. yet, as the rituals become so massively enforced and engrained, they create a sense of safety, as well. so, they realize there's something oppressive about the ritual, but can't quite discard the sense of peace that the oppression provides. the result is rebellion on the terms of praying to a false deity, rather than simply discarding it. on that level, it's blowback.
on another level, the ideas are all around us in our culture. there was a movie released in the 90s called the craft that is very popular in these circles, and there have been a number of similar films released since then. it comes out musically in a couple of styles, like witch house. there's a band called esben and the witch that is kind of seminal (even if all the ideas trace back to the 70s, through artists like coil, who were themselves drawing on existing themes). and, remember: this is a generation raised on magic, from disney through to lord of the rings. magic is no longer seen as an archaic relic of the past to be shunned as a process of ignorance. rather, it's become quite normalized.
i think bowie is reflecting on something here, but it's the youth culture. this is, in fact, what he's always done. what i'm getting is that he's both amused by this (it is really quite ridiculous) and somewhat disturbed by it.
the key shot in the video is at the very end, when he's dramatically recoiling from the images being presented on the screen.
"on the day of execution,
only women kneel and smile."
it's the secular society being executed. but, from the inside out.
Bowie always tends to reflect the world around him. I think this video is a metaphor for the darkside of religion. The book he holds up. The scarecrows in crucifix formation (scarecrows symbolic of fear which is a key element of organized religion). The blindfolds. The people who seem to be possessed by something. Somehow he ties Major Tom into all of this as his skull is treated like a sacred artifact perhaps meaning that anything can be turned into god and spun out of control. I think "Blackstar" might be like a faux-prophet or fervent disciple going around convincing people god is speaking through them. I think it definitely reflects what's going on in the world right now. I'm sure there are many ways to interpret this though, it's very abstract.
deathtokoalas
+Brooklyn Allman
the kind of ritual you're seeing in the video is something that "kids nowadays" actually seriously do. there's a pretty sizable movement built up around this amongst women that are roughly university aged. they get together in forested spaces and perform magical rites to what they perceive of as pagan spirits.
if you want to get into it, it's likely a reaction to the upbringing brought on by the previous generation - a kind of rebellion against the value system enforced by the "moral majority" in the reagan revolution. the women i've spoken to about this speak in these terms. they talk of how their christian upbringing created a lot of repressed desires. they talk of catholic guilt. yet, as the rituals become so massively enforced and engrained, they create a sense of safety, as well. so, they realize there's something oppressive about the ritual, but can't quite discard the sense of peace that the oppression provides. the result is rebellion on the terms of praying to a false deity, rather than simply discarding it. on that level, it's blowback.
on another level, the ideas are all around us in our culture. there was a movie released in the 90s called the craft that is very popular in these circles, and there have been a number of similar films released since then. it comes out musically in a couple of styles, like witch house. there's a band called esben and the witch that is kind of seminal (even if all the ideas trace back to the 70s, through artists like coil, who were themselves drawing on existing themes). and, remember: this is a generation raised on magic, from disney through to lord of the rings. magic is no longer seen as an archaic relic of the past to be shunned as a process of ignorance. rather, it's become quite normalized.
i think bowie is reflecting on something here, but it's the youth culture. this is, in fact, what he's always done. what i'm getting is that he's both amused by this (it is really quite ridiculous) and somewhat disturbed by it.
the key shot in the video is at the very end, when he's dramatically recoiling from the images being presented on the screen.
"on the day of execution,
only women kneel and smile."
it's the secular society being executed. but, from the inside out.
at
19:38
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
reaction to the new bowie single, pt 1
see, i think the key to understanding this is having a clue about contemporary youth culture.
the images in the video are what the contemporary musical underground looks like. the exaggeration is only very slight. true to form, bowie is merely reacting to the underground. and, my interpretation is that he's both legitimately amused and seriously disturbed by it.
musically, i'm glad we're getting another "serious" bowie disc and am quite excited about that. i was a little worried he was going to leave us with that last one.
but, only a fool claims to be able to understand the scope of a bowie record via the lead single.
the images in the video are what the contemporary musical underground looks like. the exaggeration is only very slight. true to form, bowie is merely reacting to the underground. and, my interpretation is that he's both legitimately amused and seriously disturbed by it.
musically, i'm glad we're getting another "serious" bowie disc and am quite excited about that. i was a little worried he was going to leave us with that last one.
but, only a fool claims to be able to understand the scope of a bowie record via the lead single.
at
19:18
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
the choice really will be up to him. mostly. things happen, but this strikes me as mostly ideological.
the chart is largely a measure of whether the liberals can gain the approval of liberal-ndp swing voters, and they're (we're...) very much policy oriented. you put through the right policies, you keep them happy. there's a significant potential of trudeau pulling into the 40s (as chretien did), if he can hold that swing a little bit more strongly - he could increase his seat count in four years if he can pull that off. the ndp polled very poorly through the 90s, which was partly a resolve to keep the conservatives out but also partly a reflection on chretien's ability to hold the swing through policy decisions. trudeau is in a strong position to emulate this.
the media is going to focus on the liberal-conservative swing like it always does. and it is true that following through on his campaign promises (which are things that will upset the right-wing minority in the country) may intensify the strength of the disapproval ratings. but they won't change the overall proportion of it.
so, for example, consider the decision to pull back on the bombing in syria. yeah, that's going to upset conservatives, who will trot out their various arguments. but, if he can hold to the kind of foreign policy that was set down by pearson and adhered to across the spectrum until 2006, it will help him hold those ndp-leaning voters - and not just come out in the wash but potentially increase his vote share. similarly, he doesn't want to go slashing programs (we reacted badly to martin because of that). the media, focusing on the right swing, will key on this. conservatives will yell and scream. but, his approval ratings will stay high.
it depends on policy. but, expect it to last.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-trudeau-honeymoon-1.3324631
inuk of the north
That sure never happened in 2006, 2008 and 2011.
jessica murray
no. but, that's sort of my point. the liberals saw shrinking numbers over this period, but harper couldn't break out of his base. during this period, the liberals were seen as leaning too far to the right. ndp support increased as a consequence.
keeping those liberal numbers high is dependent on them not being seen as right-leaning. it's the ndp's task to convince us they are right-leaning, of course, but they've got two problems: a credibility problem after their policies in the last election (and their leader....) and possibly running up against the facts of a return to a left-leaning liberal party.
you can almost suggest it's inversely proportional: the more angry conservatives get, the higher his approval ratings will climb (to a max, of course, which is going to be in the high 60s).
don't expect the media to clue in to this.
inuk of the north
You're right is some ways, but ultimately the biggest factor in 2015 was fatigue with Harper. Second was how far right the NDP swung trying to sound like a government in waiting. Ultimately, more by accident than design, the Liberals happened to be in the right place at the right time.
jessica murray
that's often how the liberals get back in: by default. that's why we call them the natural governing party.
i had a conservative friend years ago that told me "the problem with the liberals isn't exactly the liberals. it's that once they get in, you just can't get them out. they deflect scandals like teflon. there's just no tactic. you're stuck with them."
it's only a half-truth. there's an easy way to get them out: convince people they're campaigning on the left, but governing on the right. but, that's not what he wanted to hear.
the chart is largely a measure of whether the liberals can gain the approval of liberal-ndp swing voters, and they're (we're...) very much policy oriented. you put through the right policies, you keep them happy. there's a significant potential of trudeau pulling into the 40s (as chretien did), if he can hold that swing a little bit more strongly - he could increase his seat count in four years if he can pull that off. the ndp polled very poorly through the 90s, which was partly a resolve to keep the conservatives out but also partly a reflection on chretien's ability to hold the swing through policy decisions. trudeau is in a strong position to emulate this.
the media is going to focus on the liberal-conservative swing like it always does. and it is true that following through on his campaign promises (which are things that will upset the right-wing minority in the country) may intensify the strength of the disapproval ratings. but they won't change the overall proportion of it.
so, for example, consider the decision to pull back on the bombing in syria. yeah, that's going to upset conservatives, who will trot out their various arguments. but, if he can hold to the kind of foreign policy that was set down by pearson and adhered to across the spectrum until 2006, it will help him hold those ndp-leaning voters - and not just come out in the wash but potentially increase his vote share. similarly, he doesn't want to go slashing programs (we reacted badly to martin because of that). the media, focusing on the right swing, will key on this. conservatives will yell and scream. but, his approval ratings will stay high.
it depends on policy. but, expect it to last.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-trudeau-honeymoon-1.3324631
inuk of the north
That sure never happened in 2006, 2008 and 2011.
jessica murray
no. but, that's sort of my point. the liberals saw shrinking numbers over this period, but harper couldn't break out of his base. during this period, the liberals were seen as leaning too far to the right. ndp support increased as a consequence.
keeping those liberal numbers high is dependent on them not being seen as right-leaning. it's the ndp's task to convince us they are right-leaning, of course, but they've got two problems: a credibility problem after their policies in the last election (and their leader....) and possibly running up against the facts of a return to a left-leaning liberal party.
you can almost suggest it's inversely proportional: the more angry conservatives get, the higher his approval ratings will climb (to a max, of course, which is going to be in the high 60s).
don't expect the media to clue in to this.
inuk of the north
You're right is some ways, but ultimately the biggest factor in 2015 was fatigue with Harper. Second was how far right the NDP swung trying to sound like a government in waiting. Ultimately, more by accident than design, the Liberals happened to be in the right place at the right time.
jessica murray
that's often how the liberals get back in: by default. that's why we call them the natural governing party.
i had a conservative friend years ago that told me "the problem with the liberals isn't exactly the liberals. it's that once they get in, you just can't get them out. they deflect scandals like teflon. there's just no tactic. you're stuck with them."
it's only a half-truth. there's an easy way to get them out: convince people they're campaigning on the left, but governing on the right. but, that's not what he wanted to hear.
at
15:48
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
20-11-2015: why the detroit/windsor area needs a pedestrian crossing option
concert footage:
river spirit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btunBJsfq38
the creepers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZforNU_VKY (old footage)
nudie suits (none taken)
valley hush: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmU8iOhObz8
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2015/11/20.html
river spirit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btunBJsfq38
the creepers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZforNU_VKY (old footage)
nudie suits (none taken)
valley hush: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmU8iOhObz8
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2015/11/20.html
at
08:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Friday, November 20, 2015
20-11-2015: valley hush - healthy hours (detroit)
their music:
https://valleyhush.bandcamp.com/
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4THlTw5d80g
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2015/11/20.html
https://valleyhush.bandcamp.com/
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4THlTw5d80g
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2015/11/20.html
at
23:59
Location:
Detroit, MI, USA
a lot of people don't seem to really understand. and, it's understandable that people don't understand, because it's an issue that doesn't come up a lot. we just all kind of take the status quo for granted.
but, remember this: there's a section of the american constitution that allows for the annexation of canada. that's not just empty language. and, it's not a relic of the past, either.
there's only a handful of things they expect of us. so long as we're reasonable about those things, we can keep our sovereignty on social issues. if we're not reasonable...
elephants in the room, or meth labs downstairs, don't really get to the point of it. i think the initial quote was misinterpreted. an elephant in the room can twitch, sure. it can also stampede.
it's really more like sleeping with a knife dangling over your head. and, to an extent, we collectively have stockholm syndrome about it.
one of the things they expect from us is military co-operation, and we should be willing to provide it. it's really up to the occupant of the oval office as to whether this is something we can do on our own terms without consequence. i do hope that justin has this very sober talk with jean, if he hasn't already.
but, whatever the bilateral relationship is at the moment, trudeau needs to be looking forward. he will no doubt outlast obama's successor, whether that successor gets four or eight years. perhaps not by much, but nonetheless. and, serious decisions should consequently be put on hold until that shapes up.
it's going to be the relationship with obama's successor that defines american-canadian relations under this government. right now, time is frozen. and, that's a circumstance in trudeau's favour - it gives him an opportunity to prepare.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-barack-obama-apec-chris-hall-1.3326179
--
Zeeman
Of concern is the loudness of the SILENCE on the TPP by the Liberals.
jessica murray
looking back, i think a lot of senior liberals would argue that we would have been better off negotiating nafta if the negotiations were between chretien and clinton than between bush/reagan and mulroney. history seems to have repeated itself. hopefully, we can learn something from it.
the smart thing to do is wait it out. it doesn't look to me like the americans will ratify this before next year, meaning how to approach ratification is going to be a decision left to the next president.
the idea of waiting it out, studying it to death, running simulations and really, seriously understanding it is the right one. let's hope they actually follow through on it.
but, remember this: there's a section of the american constitution that allows for the annexation of canada. that's not just empty language. and, it's not a relic of the past, either.
there's only a handful of things they expect of us. so long as we're reasonable about those things, we can keep our sovereignty on social issues. if we're not reasonable...
elephants in the room, or meth labs downstairs, don't really get to the point of it. i think the initial quote was misinterpreted. an elephant in the room can twitch, sure. it can also stampede.
it's really more like sleeping with a knife dangling over your head. and, to an extent, we collectively have stockholm syndrome about it.
one of the things they expect from us is military co-operation, and we should be willing to provide it. it's really up to the occupant of the oval office as to whether this is something we can do on our own terms without consequence. i do hope that justin has this very sober talk with jean, if he hasn't already.
but, whatever the bilateral relationship is at the moment, trudeau needs to be looking forward. he will no doubt outlast obama's successor, whether that successor gets four or eight years. perhaps not by much, but nonetheless. and, serious decisions should consequently be put on hold until that shapes up.
it's going to be the relationship with obama's successor that defines american-canadian relations under this government. right now, time is frozen. and, that's a circumstance in trudeau's favour - it gives him an opportunity to prepare.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-barack-obama-apec-chris-hall-1.3326179
--
Zeeman
Of concern is the loudness of the SILENCE on the TPP by the Liberals.
jessica murray
looking back, i think a lot of senior liberals would argue that we would have been better off negotiating nafta if the negotiations were between chretien and clinton than between bush/reagan and mulroney. history seems to have repeated itself. hopefully, we can learn something from it.
the smart thing to do is wait it out. it doesn't look to me like the americans will ratify this before next year, meaning how to approach ratification is going to be a decision left to the next president.
the idea of waiting it out, studying it to death, running simulations and really, seriously understanding it is the right one. let's hope they actually follow through on it.
at
14:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
goldens are by far the best dogs. wise choice, sir.
just a few words of advice.
first, do not be fooled by their passive and seemingly oblivious exterior. these are smart dogs, with relatively advanced language capacities and the intrinsic ability to form a defined mens rea. she will come to understand far more of what you say then you might think. further, expected criminal behaviour is most likely to be related to the intentional theft of food. do not think she doesn't understand, either. she understands. she will no doubt conspire to attain food if it is within reach, and in complex ways that demonstrate foresight and planning. the best strategy is avoidance. dogs don't really have a mechanism to tell them they're full, so sufficient feeding will not resolve conspiracies around the theft of food. be forewarned.
second, goldens have a tendency to consume their own feces. this is not dependent on diet; there is again no way to really prevent this besides constant observation and quick pickup.
third, they tend to have high cancer rates. they're also very stoic, meaning they can hide large amounts of pain. because they will not tell you when they're sore, you might now know until it's metastasized and is too late. so, you should be proactive about that.
besides that, i will state again that they are the best dogs.
just a few words of advice.
first, do not be fooled by their passive and seemingly oblivious exterior. these are smart dogs, with relatively advanced language capacities and the intrinsic ability to form a defined mens rea. she will come to understand far more of what you say then you might think. further, expected criminal behaviour is most likely to be related to the intentional theft of food. do not think she doesn't understand, either. she understands. she will no doubt conspire to attain food if it is within reach, and in complex ways that demonstrate foresight and planning. the best strategy is avoidance. dogs don't really have a mechanism to tell them they're full, so sufficient feeding will not resolve conspiracies around the theft of food. be forewarned.
second, goldens have a tendency to consume their own feces. this is not dependent on diet; there is again no way to really prevent this besides constant observation and quick pickup.
third, they tend to have high cancer rates. they're also very stoic, meaning they can hide large amounts of pain. because they will not tell you when they're sore, you might now know until it's metastasized and is too late. so, you should be proactive about that.
besides that, i will state again that they are the best dogs.
at
05:02
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Thursday, November 19, 2015
derpowitz strikes again.....
you have to understand that the left is looking for any excuse right now, and has been for some time, to find a way to mobilize. i may tentatively agree that speech is the wrong thing to mobilize around [although i'd argue that the harm principle can be legitimately applied to speech, even as i'm arguing that the criteria should be pretty extreme], but the narrative that this is actually about speech is going to be broken apart by anybody really looking into it. you'll even find that it's not truly about racism, if you take that extra step. and even that a lot of the people agitating aren't even students.
a few years ago, it was about financial regulation. then it swung to being about education costs. in canada, we had an indigenous rights movements. now, there's the tautology that black lives matter. the shifting target is indicative of the real motives: what this is really about is getting people out on the street yelling. the target is constantly shifting in attempts to find an issue that can generate a movement.
there is validity in questioning whether the ends justify the means, here. but, let's not get confused.
how do white leftist activists get more visible minorities to rallies?
that's the question at the root of it. and, it's an important question. because leftist activists are well aware that visible minorities tend to react poorly to a bunch of white people marching around with signs. whatever your reaction is to this truth, you have to agree that it's really very rational.
so, step one is to get people out. but, it's step two (radicalization) that is the real point. once you get a crowd together, you can start talking about distributive justice.
now, again: i agree that this is dangerous. is this a crowd you want to assemble? can you radicalize it appropriately? or are you going to produce blow back?
but, let's understand what is happening first. please.
you have to understand that the left is looking for any excuse right now, and has been for some time, to find a way to mobilize. i may tentatively agree that speech is the wrong thing to mobilize around [although i'd argue that the harm principle can be legitimately applied to speech, even as i'm arguing that the criteria should be pretty extreme], but the narrative that this is actually about speech is going to be broken apart by anybody really looking into it. you'll even find that it's not truly about racism, if you take that extra step. and even that a lot of the people agitating aren't even students.
a few years ago, it was about financial regulation. then it swung to being about education costs. in canada, we had an indigenous rights movements. now, there's the tautology that black lives matter. the shifting target is indicative of the real motives: what this is really about is getting people out on the street yelling. the target is constantly shifting in attempts to find an issue that can generate a movement.
there is validity in questioning whether the ends justify the means, here. but, let's not get confused.
how do white leftist activists get more visible minorities to rallies?
that's the question at the root of it. and, it's an important question. because leftist activists are well aware that visible minorities tend to react poorly to a bunch of white people marching around with signs. whatever your reaction is to this truth, you have to agree that it's really very rational.
so, step one is to get people out. but, it's step two (radicalization) that is the real point. once you get a crowd together, you can start talking about distributive justice.
now, again: i agree that this is dangerous. is this a crowd you want to assemble? can you radicalize it appropriately? or are you going to produce blow back?
but, let's understand what is happening first. please.
at
23:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this wouldn't make sense everywhere, but bc is at the point where this is the next logical step. they already have a sufficient supply of clean electricity generation (mostly hydro). they have rebate programs on electric vehicles, which are entirely legal. and, they have a carbon tax. there's a lot of places on this continent where the ability to transition is not feasible, but b.c. has jumped through those hoops and can now focus on doubling down on and shaming people into making the right choices. if you're in bc, you have no valid excuse to keep hanging on to twentieth century technology. so, i would support this because it's rational because the infrastructure is in place.
that said, i suspect some more work could be done on helping people recycle their old cars. your fossil fuel car no doubt has a large amount of valuable parts that could be converted into current-generation vehicles. i know that there are services that exist that will buy cars to salvage parts, but making this a more mainstream option - whether it's through direct co-ordination or just helping to do it through advertising - could help to ease costs in switching to modern vehicles.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/n-vancouver-puts-climate-change-warning-labels-on-gas-pumps/60027/
that said, i suspect some more work could be done on helping people recycle their old cars. your fossil fuel car no doubt has a large amount of valuable parts that could be converted into current-generation vehicles. i know that there are services that exist that will buy cars to salvage parts, but making this a more mainstream option - whether it's through direct co-ordination or just helping to do it through advertising - could help to ease costs in switching to modern vehicles.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/n-vancouver-puts-climate-change-warning-labels-on-gas-pumps/60027/
at
13:17
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
can those suicide vests be detonated via remote control?
www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-attacks-pm-warns-1.3325760
www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-attacks-pm-warns-1.3325760
at
12:43
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm pretty sure you can detonate a suicide vest via remote control. in fact, it would be a virtual necessity to ensure it can be as a backup to ensure that the device gets detonated, to avoid the "martyr" from being captured.
just something to think about when you hear stories about young girls with no apparent history of even religious adherence supposedly blowing themselves up while yelling for help.
if you wanted to create a diversion, for example, a reasonable tactic would be to strap a vest on somebody you consider expendable (i.e. a female), push them towards the cops and then explode them remotely, while you sneak out the back.
just something to think about when you hear stories about young girls with no apparent history of even religious adherence supposedly blowing themselves up while yelling for help.
if you wanted to create a diversion, for example, a reasonable tactic would be to strap a vest on somebody you consider expendable (i.e. a female), push them towards the cops and then explode them remotely, while you sneak out the back.
at
12:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
finalizing the threat of terrorism is used to restrict civil liberties
so, i am for real back to work.
this is the final mix of this track - for real this time. this should accelerate tomorrow.
initially written in 1996. recreated in feb, 1998. reclaimed june 29, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on aug 11, 2015. corrected again on nov 19, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/the-threat-of-terrorism-is-used-to-restrict-civil-liberties
this is the final mix of this track - for real this time. this should accelerate tomorrow.
initially written in 1996. recreated in feb, 1998. reclaimed june 29, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on aug 11, 2015. corrected again on nov 19, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/the-threat-of-terrorism-is-used-to-restrict-civil-liberties
at
02:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
out of state money donated in primaries. wow.
i'm a canadian leftist, so one might expect that i should be in favour of strict donation limits and whatnot, but i'm actually very libertarian on the point. i've seen some of the ads run in the american primaries. the truth is they don't work - you get no turnout. but, if they did work? you'd have to give up on pretensions of being a democracy. you'd have to hand in your democracy card. that would be it.
if candidates can run these kinds of ads, and they work, the country doesn't need campaign finance reform. rather, it needs educational reforms at the primary school level, with a particular focus on stimulating critical thinking.
so, i'm ok with just about anybody paying anybody for anything so long as a few simple rules are followed.
the first is that voters need to be able to unravel the trail of cash. i don't really care how much the kochs give to who, but i do care that i know exactly how much the kochs gave to every person they gave anything to. so, there should be absolute transparency. then, it's up to me to do the research. that's the only serious rule i think is both appropriate and important.
the only other rule i'd put in place is that funds need to originate in your district, whatever it is. otherwise, that's representation without taxation. which means it's taxation without representation. besides transparency, that's really the only rule i'd put in place.
i'm a canadian leftist, so one might expect that i should be in favour of strict donation limits and whatnot, but i'm actually very libertarian on the point. i've seen some of the ads run in the american primaries. the truth is they don't work - you get no turnout. but, if they did work? you'd have to give up on pretensions of being a democracy. you'd have to hand in your democracy card. that would be it.
if candidates can run these kinds of ads, and they work, the country doesn't need campaign finance reform. rather, it needs educational reforms at the primary school level, with a particular focus on stimulating critical thinking.
so, i'm ok with just about anybody paying anybody for anything so long as a few simple rules are followed.
the first is that voters need to be able to unravel the trail of cash. i don't really care how much the kochs give to who, but i do care that i know exactly how much the kochs gave to every person they gave anything to. so, there should be absolute transparency. then, it's up to me to do the research. that's the only serious rule i think is both appropriate and important.
the only other rule i'd put in place is that funds need to originate in your district, whatever it is. otherwise, that's representation without taxation. which means it's taxation without representation. besides transparency, that's really the only rule i'd put in place.
at
19:22
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm not exactly upset about hurting the oil industry. let the western bastards starve on welfare.
but, you have to put in place real alternatives before it's meaningful. what are we accomplishing by shutting down exports, if we're still reliant on imports? not much, besides falling on our own swords.
it might be a good idea in a few years, once we've largely eliminated our need for imports and it's a purely export industry. but, it shouldn't be the short term focus, if we're actually really serious about reducing emissions. we need to transition, first.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/ecofiscal-commission-carbon-tax-report-1.3322817
(deleted response)
we export most of our oil from the united states, and the balance from the middle east and the north sea. eastern canada uses almost no oil from western canada, because you refuse to sell it to us at a reasonable price.
Mad Robert
You insist on it being trucked. You ban the use of oil tankers, and object to pipelines, and then you complain about it not getting there?
jessica murray
that's nonsense. we set up a national energy program decades ago to address this, and you had a hissy fit about selling it to us at a reasonable price.
Had 'nuff yet?
Letting the western bastards starve on welfare will result in a lot of eastern bastards starving on welfare.
jessica murray
that's also nonsense. the reality is that the cost of living in the prairies is absurdly inflated, and the equalization formula gets screwed up as a result of it. if you take the oil out, we'll be sending you subsidies again - as we did in the past.
Had 'nuff yet?
The NEP also tanked the economy with 20% interest rates.
jessica murray
nope. it was meant to *react* to 20% interest rates, which were set to combat stagflation that set in as a consequence of the opec embargo. and, it would have worked, if you weren't such whiners.
Eagle73
You think hurting western Canada will not affect the rest of Canada? You're naive and foolish.
jessica murray
if the cost of living were to come down, it would actually help most albertans.
Eagle73
Re-read your first 2 sentences from your first comment.
jessica murray
i don't see your implication. welfare is set by the provinces, from revenue generated by the provinces.
Had 'nuff yet?
Are you actually old enough to remember the NEP?
jessica murray
i'm not old enough to remember the nep, but i've read up on it and don't think citing my age is a valid argument.
the purpose of the nep was energy security. the oil embargo had a hugely negative effect on the economy (it's not exactly true to say it drove up interest rates; interest rates are set by people that make decisions, and are never a consequence of economic factors. it's more accurate to say that we made the choice to increase interest rates to combat stagflation, which was caused by the embargo). yet, canada was producing oil. the government realized that this was irrational and set up a system to provide western oil to eastern canada at a discounted price, to reverse the effects of stagflation and reduce reliance on imported oil.
western oil producers had a hissy fit at the idea, told us to freeze in the dark and yelled and screamed and stomped their feet until it got reversed. the result was that eastern canada again became reliant on foreign oil, while western oil producers continued to reap ridiculous profits on exports.
Andrew Niall Gordanier
I hope you freeze in the cold for what you said about westerners. I don't think you want to go into the science behind the matter you speak of. Clearly you have no frame of reference.
jessica murray
you're supposed to tell me to freeze in the dark, actually.
been-there-done-that
Population isn't everything.
Your successive Liberal Governments, and let's not forget Bob Rae's NDP, have destroyed Ontario's manufacturing sector.
Your current high energy rates are about to go even higher. So that should finish off what's left.
Ontario has been on the receiving end of transfer payments in recent years,and the primary source for them has been the oil producing Provinces.
So if anyone should be concerned about the effects of oil industry killing carbon taxes, it is you.
jessica murray
i suppose you think that nafta and automation had nothing to do with it. it's easier to vaguely blame political parties without any proposed cause and effect than it is to look at actual policies.
been-there-done-that
As you said, it is a complex issue with many nuances. Both of the drivers for automation and all the free trade agreement were high labour costs. Add to that the high energy prices now being experienced and you can kiss the rest of your industry goodbye.
jessica murray
but, the labour costs were set to the cost of living, which were themselves a consequence of dependence on foreign oil.
i take a different view: i think that organized labour should have reacted to nafta by organizing strikes in mexico. our costs should not come down. their costs should come up.
but, then again, understand this: mexico has a state owned energy sector that keeps inflation down.
Andrew Niall Gordanier
I love how high and mighty you seem to feel even though you haven't made any credible argument yet. Should we bring science into this? Age actually does tell me one thing, you lack education in these matters.
jessica murray
i'm not going to cite my letters, but i'm old enough to have made my way through the higher education system, even if i'm not old enough to remember what happened in the early 1980s.
i'm actually providing the educated perspective, here.
the prime minister isn't old enough to remember the nep, either.
you'd have to be past or approaching retirement age.
Andrew Niall Gordanier
You have made a fundamental error in your assumption about the "carbon" industry. Correlation does not equal causation. You are willing to condemn millions of people based on a faulty premise. Educated perspective? It's all about context, which somehow you have removed yourself and easterners from.
jessica murray
i was making an ironic statement that you clearly didn't catch.
Andrew Niall Gordanier
Then you need to look up what irony means because you didn't use it appropriately.
jessica murray
again: i think it's clear you just didn't get the reference, based on your response of "freezing in the cold".
google the following term: "let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark."
Andrew Niall Gordanier
so this is about revenge is it? a case of schadenfreude me thinks. I'd like to know what degree you have. I'm thinking weaving or drawing. If you say political science then I'm going to be very disappointed.
jessica murray
my background is technical. this isn't relevant. and, i'll state for the third time now that it was merely an ironic turn of phrase meant to imply that the east has no reason to be concerned about the economic well being of westerners because the feeling would clearly not be mutual.
i don't remember the war of 1812 either. that doesn't mean i'm not informed on the topic.
--
Mad Robert
The oil industry emits probably less than a fraction of a percent of the entire Canadian carbon emissions. Carbon is good for us, but let's move beyond that, because oil is evil therefore we're all evil and must be punished.
The same percentage can be applied to the refugee crisis. But when a few hundred terrorists sneak in, it's not a bad thing, it just means that we're racists.
We've elected poorly, and we're starting to see the consequences.
jessica murray
it's actually about 25-30% of emissions. that would have taken about two minutes to google.
but, you have to put in place real alternatives before it's meaningful. what are we accomplishing by shutting down exports, if we're still reliant on imports? not much, besides falling on our own swords.
it might be a good idea in a few years, once we've largely eliminated our need for imports and it's a purely export industry. but, it shouldn't be the short term focus, if we're actually really serious about reducing emissions. we need to transition, first.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/ecofiscal-commission-carbon-tax-report-1.3322817
(deleted response)
we export most of our oil from the united states, and the balance from the middle east and the north sea. eastern canada uses almost no oil from western canada, because you refuse to sell it to us at a reasonable price.
Mad Robert
You insist on it being trucked. You ban the use of oil tankers, and object to pipelines, and then you complain about it not getting there?
jessica murray
that's nonsense. we set up a national energy program decades ago to address this, and you had a hissy fit about selling it to us at a reasonable price.
Had 'nuff yet?
Letting the western bastards starve on welfare will result in a lot of eastern bastards starving on welfare.
jessica murray
that's also nonsense. the reality is that the cost of living in the prairies is absurdly inflated, and the equalization formula gets screwed up as a result of it. if you take the oil out, we'll be sending you subsidies again - as we did in the past.
Had 'nuff yet?
The NEP also tanked the economy with 20% interest rates.
jessica murray
nope. it was meant to *react* to 20% interest rates, which were set to combat stagflation that set in as a consequence of the opec embargo. and, it would have worked, if you weren't such whiners.
Eagle73
You think hurting western Canada will not affect the rest of Canada? You're naive and foolish.
jessica murray
if the cost of living were to come down, it would actually help most albertans.
Eagle73
Re-read your first 2 sentences from your first comment.
jessica murray
i don't see your implication. welfare is set by the provinces, from revenue generated by the provinces.
Had 'nuff yet?
Are you actually old enough to remember the NEP?
jessica murray
i'm not old enough to remember the nep, but i've read up on it and don't think citing my age is a valid argument.
the purpose of the nep was energy security. the oil embargo had a hugely negative effect on the economy (it's not exactly true to say it drove up interest rates; interest rates are set by people that make decisions, and are never a consequence of economic factors. it's more accurate to say that we made the choice to increase interest rates to combat stagflation, which was caused by the embargo). yet, canada was producing oil. the government realized that this was irrational and set up a system to provide western oil to eastern canada at a discounted price, to reverse the effects of stagflation and reduce reliance on imported oil.
western oil producers had a hissy fit at the idea, told us to freeze in the dark and yelled and screamed and stomped their feet until it got reversed. the result was that eastern canada again became reliant on foreign oil, while western oil producers continued to reap ridiculous profits on exports.
Andrew Niall Gordanier
I hope you freeze in the cold for what you said about westerners. I don't think you want to go into the science behind the matter you speak of. Clearly you have no frame of reference.
jessica murray
you're supposed to tell me to freeze in the dark, actually.
been-there-done-that
Population isn't everything.
Your successive Liberal Governments, and let's not forget Bob Rae's NDP, have destroyed Ontario's manufacturing sector.
Your current high energy rates are about to go even higher. So that should finish off what's left.
Ontario has been on the receiving end of transfer payments in recent years,and the primary source for them has been the oil producing Provinces.
So if anyone should be concerned about the effects of oil industry killing carbon taxes, it is you.
jessica murray
i suppose you think that nafta and automation had nothing to do with it. it's easier to vaguely blame political parties without any proposed cause and effect than it is to look at actual policies.
been-there-done-that
As you said, it is a complex issue with many nuances. Both of the drivers for automation and all the free trade agreement were high labour costs. Add to that the high energy prices now being experienced and you can kiss the rest of your industry goodbye.
jessica murray
but, the labour costs were set to the cost of living, which were themselves a consequence of dependence on foreign oil.
i take a different view: i think that organized labour should have reacted to nafta by organizing strikes in mexico. our costs should not come down. their costs should come up.
but, then again, understand this: mexico has a state owned energy sector that keeps inflation down.
Andrew Niall Gordanier
I love how high and mighty you seem to feel even though you haven't made any credible argument yet. Should we bring science into this? Age actually does tell me one thing, you lack education in these matters.
jessica murray
i'm not going to cite my letters, but i'm old enough to have made my way through the higher education system, even if i'm not old enough to remember what happened in the early 1980s.
i'm actually providing the educated perspective, here.
the prime minister isn't old enough to remember the nep, either.
you'd have to be past or approaching retirement age.
Andrew Niall Gordanier
You have made a fundamental error in your assumption about the "carbon" industry. Correlation does not equal causation. You are willing to condemn millions of people based on a faulty premise. Educated perspective? It's all about context, which somehow you have removed yourself and easterners from.
jessica murray
i was making an ironic statement that you clearly didn't catch.
Andrew Niall Gordanier
Then you need to look up what irony means because you didn't use it appropriately.
jessica murray
again: i think it's clear you just didn't get the reference, based on your response of "freezing in the cold".
google the following term: "let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark."
Andrew Niall Gordanier
so this is about revenge is it? a case of schadenfreude me thinks. I'd like to know what degree you have. I'm thinking weaving or drawing. If you say political science then I'm going to be very disappointed.
jessica murray
my background is technical. this isn't relevant. and, i'll state for the third time now that it was merely an ironic turn of phrase meant to imply that the east has no reason to be concerned about the economic well being of westerners because the feeling would clearly not be mutual.
i don't remember the war of 1812 either. that doesn't mean i'm not informed on the topic.
--
Mad Robert
The oil industry emits probably less than a fraction of a percent of the entire Canadian carbon emissions. Carbon is good for us, but let's move beyond that, because oil is evil therefore we're all evil and must be punished.
The same percentage can be applied to the refugee crisis. But when a few hundred terrorists sneak in, it's not a bad thing, it just means that we're racists.
We've elected poorly, and we're starting to see the consequences.
jessica murray
it's actually about 25-30% of emissions. that would have taken about two minutes to google.
at
16:22
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Dieter Hoeller
Can someone explain me the logic behind protesting in a library when they could go on the streets - outside of their campus and try to convince the world?
jessica
+Dieter Hoeller
the actual answer is that they're trying to "radicalize" them. that is, they are going into the library and yelling at people in an attempt to have those people leave the library and help them go yell at other people.
the correct term for this is evangelizing.
i also need to point out that just because they're on campus doesn't mean they're students. i think if you did background checks, you'd find out that you're dealing with a mix of unemployed graduates, drop outs and people that never applied to go to school at all. the number of enrolled, current students in the group is likely quite low.
Can someone explain me the logic behind protesting in a library when they could go on the streets - outside of their campus and try to convince the world?
jessica
+Dieter Hoeller
the actual answer is that they're trying to "radicalize" them. that is, they are going into the library and yelling at people in an attempt to have those people leave the library and help them go yell at other people.
the correct term for this is evangelizing.
i also need to point out that just because they're on campus doesn't mean they're students. i think if you did background checks, you'd find out that you're dealing with a mix of unemployed graduates, drop outs and people that never applied to go to school at all. the number of enrolled, current students in the group is likely quite low.
at
15:48
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
i know this is going to upset people on both the left and the right, but this is the right choice and that will become clear over time.
to win this fight, you don't need to merely destroy targets - and the bombing can make the problem worse through further radicalization if it hits the wrong targets. to be successful, the logical conclusion of the approach taken by our allies will necessarily require committing war crimes on a broad scale over a very long period. france is committing itself to a decades long quagmire that can only end with the area in a crater, or with a withdrawal. and, the idea of a lasting peace becomes out of reach. it's a formula for perpetual war.
nor do you need to merely occupy the region with just any troops. western troops will always be viewed as illegitimate occupiers, and will always be targets.
nor do you need to merely occupy the region with local troops, although this is a necessary precondition.
what you need to do is to find a way to convince the local population to work with the local troops in rebuilding. in germany, that was easy. it's not going to be so easy here. this is a propaganda war and a hard propaganda war at that....
if we cannot find a way to convince the local population to work with local troops, the war will never end.
what that means is that trudeau doesn't just have a task ahead of him in adjusting our own role. he also has a task ahead of him in convincing our allies that he's right, and that his approach is the only approach that can end the conflict. if we switch to training, and they keep bombing, there's still no end in sight.
but, do our allies want to end the conflict? and, how are we to react if we learn that they don't?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-iraq-trainers-military-1.3322288
to win this fight, you don't need to merely destroy targets - and the bombing can make the problem worse through further radicalization if it hits the wrong targets. to be successful, the logical conclusion of the approach taken by our allies will necessarily require committing war crimes on a broad scale over a very long period. france is committing itself to a decades long quagmire that can only end with the area in a crater, or with a withdrawal. and, the idea of a lasting peace becomes out of reach. it's a formula for perpetual war.
nor do you need to merely occupy the region with just any troops. western troops will always be viewed as illegitimate occupiers, and will always be targets.
nor do you need to merely occupy the region with local troops, although this is a necessary precondition.
what you need to do is to find a way to convince the local population to work with the local troops in rebuilding. in germany, that was easy. it's not going to be so easy here. this is a propaganda war and a hard propaganda war at that....
if we cannot find a way to convince the local population to work with local troops, the war will never end.
what that means is that trudeau doesn't just have a task ahead of him in adjusting our own role. he also has a task ahead of him in convincing our allies that he's right, and that his approach is the only approach that can end the conflict. if we switch to training, and they keep bombing, there's still no end in sight.
but, do our allies want to end the conflict? and, how are we to react if we learn that they don't?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-iraq-trainers-military-1.3322288
at
21:29
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i can follow your logic in the abstract, but i really don't see how it fits the evidence.
if what you were saying were true, the governments of the united states and canada would:
(1) stop fracking.
(2) stop muzzling climate change scientists.
(3) stop subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
(4) drop billions into renewable energy.
(5) stop trying to control all the rest of the oil on the planet.
but, the exact opposite seems to be happening. it's really hard to actually trace these bribes you're talking about. i mean, there's a bit of cash coming from investment funds (like tides). but it's nothing compared to the subsidies going out to coal & oil. conversely, it's pretty easy to trace the funds coming out of organizations like the heartland institute.
even so, you're not really addressing the issue. what you're claiming is that the issue is impossible to address. and, that would actually logically lead to agnosticism. your argument is not that the science is wrong, it's that you don't trust the science. rejecting it is a leap of faith.
i'd be tempted to conclude that your little story here is a way to suggest that you, yourself, are being bribed. but, i don't think that's actually true. rather, i think you just don't like the proposals that climate change activists present because they tend to lead to bigger government. it's not a left/right thing like you suggested in your video, it's more an action/reaction thing.
but, you're surely aware that there's a huge number of libertarian environmentalists that suggest things such as privately owned rivers in order to deal with these kinds of concerns. now, i think this is insane. and, i don't know exactly what your views on owning rivers are. but, i'm sure you can come up with an answer that you can ideologically support, and i think it would help a lot.
i'd much rather see a debate over what the best approach to solving the issue is than a debate over whether it's actually an issue. frankly, i think you'd get more public support on solutions than i would.
if what you were saying were true, the governments of the united states and canada would:
(1) stop fracking.
(2) stop muzzling climate change scientists.
(3) stop subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
(4) drop billions into renewable energy.
(5) stop trying to control all the rest of the oil on the planet.
but, the exact opposite seems to be happening. it's really hard to actually trace these bribes you're talking about. i mean, there's a bit of cash coming from investment funds (like tides). but it's nothing compared to the subsidies going out to coal & oil. conversely, it's pretty easy to trace the funds coming out of organizations like the heartland institute.
even so, you're not really addressing the issue. what you're claiming is that the issue is impossible to address. and, that would actually logically lead to agnosticism. your argument is not that the science is wrong, it's that you don't trust the science. rejecting it is a leap of faith.
i'd be tempted to conclude that your little story here is a way to suggest that you, yourself, are being bribed. but, i don't think that's actually true. rather, i think you just don't like the proposals that climate change activists present because they tend to lead to bigger government. it's not a left/right thing like you suggested in your video, it's more an action/reaction thing.
but, you're surely aware that there's a huge number of libertarian environmentalists that suggest things such as privately owned rivers in order to deal with these kinds of concerns. now, i think this is insane. and, i don't know exactly what your views on owning rivers are. but, i'm sure you can come up with an answer that you can ideologically support, and i think it would help a lot.
i'd much rather see a debate over what the best approach to solving the issue is than a debate over whether it's actually an issue. frankly, i think you'd get more public support on solutions than i would.
at
20:04
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
there's a point here when somebody asks if this is all about investors, but in sort of a tongue in cheek way that suggests it was more of a comment: that this is all about investors.
but, it's also a good example of why normal plebs like me view financial experts as charlatans to be treated with derision or even contempt.
summers spends a good chunk near the end defending his position as essentially harmless. that's not the right argument, not even under attack. it suggests that the best reason to listen to him is that it won't make any difference. but, then, why listen to him? yet, he lets on something that he's clearly aware of: it really won't make any difference. or, at least it won't make any difference in the context that the panel is supposed to be discussing.
the debate doesn't exist in the real world. both sides are trying to present an argument designed to convince an audience on terms that are entirely disingenuous. the debate is presented here as being about sound fiscal management, aggregate demand - policy positions.
but, it's really all about investors.
see, short term loans are casino capitalism and benefit investors that want to play the market like it's vegas. buy low, sell high. run it up; burst it. somebody's always manipulating the market. somebody's getting rich fast, and somebody's getting poor fast. long term loans are investment capitalism and benefit things like pension funds and state actors. it's about buying a lot of something that you can have a high certainty will gain value predictably over time.
from a policy perspective, it really doesn't matter. but, it matters a lot if you're trying to set the rules of the game.
but, it's also a good example of why normal plebs like me view financial experts as charlatans to be treated with derision or even contempt.
summers spends a good chunk near the end defending his position as essentially harmless. that's not the right argument, not even under attack. it suggests that the best reason to listen to him is that it won't make any difference. but, then, why listen to him? yet, he lets on something that he's clearly aware of: it really won't make any difference. or, at least it won't make any difference in the context that the panel is supposed to be discussing.
the debate doesn't exist in the real world. both sides are trying to present an argument designed to convince an audience on terms that are entirely disingenuous. the debate is presented here as being about sound fiscal management, aggregate demand - policy positions.
but, it's really all about investors.
see, short term loans are casino capitalism and benefit investors that want to play the market like it's vegas. buy low, sell high. run it up; burst it. somebody's always manipulating the market. somebody's getting rich fast, and somebody's getting poor fast. long term loans are investment capitalism and benefit things like pension funds and state actors. it's about buying a lot of something that you can have a high certainty will gain value predictably over time.
from a policy perspective, it really doesn't matter. but, it matters a lot if you're trying to set the rules of the game.
at
19:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Monday, November 16, 2015
back on the colours tour, i dragged a friend of mine to see this band because he was really into them but was too shy/shallow to go see a show by himself. he ended up calling me a fag, and claiming i embarrassed him in front of the metal guys. i actually found this hilarious at the time, although today it strikes me as bluntly pathetic.
it was not my thing at all, although i ended up drunk enough that i bought two of their records. i was, however, able to hear enough independent thinking to conclude it was worth keeping an eye on them from a distance.
i actually legitimately liked a great deal of the record after that. toning down the metal a little actually brought out some pretty solid songwriting, in a quirky and often pattonesque sort of way. their follow-up to that record did not impress me at all.
and, now they're back in town, so i have to check this out...
i don't know enough about metal to know if it's metal or not, although my first impression is that it isn't what i'd classify it as. but, this isn't prog, either. progressive rock implies something....progressive. forward-thinking. creative. abstract. novel. it's about out-of-the-box thinking. there's none of that here.
i'd say it sounds like what mcr would sound like if gerard way hired a bunch of session musicians. i mean that in two ways. first, it's fundamentally pop music. second, there's not the slightest bit of immediacy or grit or passion in the playing - it sounds like session musicians reading notes off of a page. it's just dry & formulaic & timid. dead, really. this is and always has been the primary criticism of technical rock music: that it sounds like it was played by a soundcard, or, if it's really good, like it was done by robots. combining the worst aspects of technical rock with sappy pop structures is maybe putting them in the contemporary space that in the past was occupied by bands like foreigner and journey.
that is, what this is is what you call corporate rock.
in his defense though, he did pull me out of the pit a second away from me losing my teeth. i'm an experienced punk pit dweller, but punks tend to keep their elbows down and i almost got knocked due to not expecting the elbows.
it was not my thing at all, although i ended up drunk enough that i bought two of their records. i was, however, able to hear enough independent thinking to conclude it was worth keeping an eye on them from a distance.
i actually legitimately liked a great deal of the record after that. toning down the metal a little actually brought out some pretty solid songwriting, in a quirky and often pattonesque sort of way. their follow-up to that record did not impress me at all.
and, now they're back in town, so i have to check this out...
i don't know enough about metal to know if it's metal or not, although my first impression is that it isn't what i'd classify it as. but, this isn't prog, either. progressive rock implies something....progressive. forward-thinking. creative. abstract. novel. it's about out-of-the-box thinking. there's none of that here.
i'd say it sounds like what mcr would sound like if gerard way hired a bunch of session musicians. i mean that in two ways. first, it's fundamentally pop music. second, there's not the slightest bit of immediacy or grit or passion in the playing - it sounds like session musicians reading notes off of a page. it's just dry & formulaic & timid. dead, really. this is and always has been the primary criticism of technical rock music: that it sounds like it was played by a soundcard, or, if it's really good, like it was done by robots. combining the worst aspects of technical rock with sappy pop structures is maybe putting them in the contemporary space that in the past was occupied by bands like foreigner and journey.
that is, what this is is what you call corporate rock.
in his defense though, he did pull me out of the pit a second away from me losing my teeth. i'm an experienced punk pit dweller, but punks tend to keep their elbows down and i almost got knocked due to not expecting the elbows.
at
22:59
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
it sounds reasonable. but, if he thinks it's that simple, he's not fully briefed. and, why would anyone think he would be? who would be briefing him?
who is buying this oil? who is selling them weapons? what are their aims? does taking away the oil actually get to the root of any of that?
any kind of surface approach to the problem is going to have the same fundamental problem of leaving in place people who continue to think the way they think. what the region really needs to seriously resolve the underlying crisis is nation building, wealth generation - it's an economic problem, at it's very absolute core. but, to get there requires an occupation by ground troops. and, those ground troops need to be at least muslim and probably arab.
but, it's hard because it's all cyclical in terms of consequences.
if they cannot get the right kind of ground force to occupy the region, and cannot convince the population to work with that force to build an integrated society, then the war will never end. you can't bomb them into submission. you have to convince them. it's a propaganda war.
i'm not sure what trump thinks he can accomplish through bombing the oil fields that he can't accomplish better through sanctions and trade policy. but, why are these economic screws not being tightened?
"if he wins", that's something he's going to learn on his first day on the job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtsJ-5_Xz-Q
who is buying this oil? who is selling them weapons? what are their aims? does taking away the oil actually get to the root of any of that?
any kind of surface approach to the problem is going to have the same fundamental problem of leaving in place people who continue to think the way they think. what the region really needs to seriously resolve the underlying crisis is nation building, wealth generation - it's an economic problem, at it's very absolute core. but, to get there requires an occupation by ground troops. and, those ground troops need to be at least muslim and probably arab.
but, it's hard because it's all cyclical in terms of consequences.
if they cannot get the right kind of ground force to occupy the region, and cannot convince the population to work with that force to build an integrated society, then the war will never end. you can't bomb them into submission. you have to convince them. it's a propaganda war.
i'm not sure what trump thinks he can accomplish through bombing the oil fields that he can't accomplish better through sanctions and trade policy. but, why are these economic screws not being tightened?
"if he wins", that's something he's going to learn on his first day on the job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtsJ-5_Xz-Q
at
16:48
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Sunday, November 15, 2015
15-11-2015: skinny puppy (pontiac/detroit)
their music:
http://www.skinnypuppy.com/
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKsbf1Op8jM
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2015/11/15.html
http://www.skinnypuppy.com/
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKsbf1Op8jM
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2015/11/15.html
at
23:33
Location:
Pontiac, MI, USA
i just had this show up on a video i made theorizing that the russians may be behind the attacks in paris. this is certainly incredibly controversial, and i can completely understand why they're putting a pause on it. for me, it doesn't matter - because i'm making vlogs as a way to document my recording career, and act as a sort of public interest gateway, rather than for the cash itself. i want people to buy my records at bandcamp, not generate ad revenue over youtube. i mean, i'll take it, sure. but, it's not the intent.
but i think my example makes it clear what's happening. from your standpoint, as a user of the system, you're thinking you want to slap ads on a video and get a cut out of it. but, remember: you're not the customer from google's standpoint. you're the product. google's customers are businesses that want to advertise their products on youtube. ad space on your videos is what google sells it's customer. that ad space consequently needs to have value. i think my theory of russian involvement in the attacks has merit, but i can completely understand why a company may want to distance themselves from the content in the video.
the metric in understanding why you might get flagged consequently shouldn't be understood via a kind of first amendment type thing. it should be interpreted via the question of whether you think advertisers would want to be associated with the content. a perfectly clean and legal post may very well get flagged just because it's controversial in some other sense that advertisers want to distance themselves from. my example is just much more clear due to how extreme it is.
but i think my example makes it clear what's happening. from your standpoint, as a user of the system, you're thinking you want to slap ads on a video and get a cut out of it. but, remember: you're not the customer from google's standpoint. you're the product. google's customers are businesses that want to advertise their products on youtube. ad space on your videos is what google sells it's customer. that ad space consequently needs to have value. i think my theory of russian involvement in the attacks has merit, but i can completely understand why a company may want to distance themselves from the content in the video.
the metric in understanding why you might get flagged consequently shouldn't be understood via a kind of first amendment type thing. it should be interpreted via the question of whether you think advertisers would want to be associated with the content. a perfectly clean and legal post may very well get flagged just because it's controversial in some other sense that advertisers want to distance themselves from. my example is just much more clear due to how extreme it is.
at
15:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
14-11-2015: vampire belt & absinthe bust
concert footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCI5CRdMB4c
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2015/11/14.html
i seem to have been taken in on an urban legend regarding the absinthe....
"Absinthe has been frequently and improperly described in modern times as being hallucinogenic. No peer-reviewed scientific study has demonstrated absinthe to possess hallucinogenic properties."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absinthe#Effects
that would explain why i didn't feel anything. the initial waves may have been psychosomatic and a consequence of expectation.
also note that i had to reupload this video to remove an approximately one minute section (beginning around 18:40) where the bar i was walking by happened to be playing a michael jackson song. sony claimed copyright over the entire vlog, the right to place ads of it's choosing on it and total control over revenue to those ads. to put it mildly, this is absolute bullshit. i have no intention of profiting directly from these vlogs (please visit my bandcamp site to support me financially), but the idea that i'd be allowing sony to profit from it because the bar i was walking by for forty seconds was playing a michael jackson song makes me want to vomit.
in order to prevent these kinds of absolutely frivolous claims, youtube should have an independent arbitration process in place that takes power away from claimants and puts it in the hand of a neutral third party.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCI5CRdMB4c
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2015/11/14.html
i seem to have been taken in on an urban legend regarding the absinthe....
"Absinthe has been frequently and improperly described in modern times as being hallucinogenic. No peer-reviewed scientific study has demonstrated absinthe to possess hallucinogenic properties."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absinthe#Effects
that would explain why i didn't feel anything. the initial waves may have been psychosomatic and a consequence of expectation.
also note that i had to reupload this video to remove an approximately one minute section (beginning around 18:40) where the bar i was walking by happened to be playing a michael jackson song. sony claimed copyright over the entire vlog, the right to place ads of it's choosing on it and total control over revenue to those ads. to put it mildly, this is absolute bullshit. i have no intention of profiting directly from these vlogs (please visit my bandcamp site to support me financially), but the idea that i'd be allowing sony to profit from it because the bar i was walking by for forty seconds was playing a michael jackson song makes me want to vomit.
in order to prevent these kinds of absolutely frivolous claims, youtube should have an independent arbitration process in place that takes power away from claimants and puts it in the hand of a neutral third party.
at
04:29
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Grandma Roses
Why does anyone believe that using conventional warfare against a non-state enemy would have any effect?
Why does anyone believe that creating more martyrs for 'the cause' will have a negative effect on ISIS? If anything, it will make ISIS more determined.
booyakasha
That's why you kill all of them.
jessica murray
to carry out this plan, funerals are the best targets. you have to make sure you get the kids, first and foremost. that's getting to the root cause.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/g20-syria-paris-attacks-1.3319701
Why does anyone believe that using conventional warfare against a non-state enemy would have any effect?
Why does anyone believe that creating more martyrs for 'the cause' will have a negative effect on ISIS? If anything, it will make ISIS more determined.
booyakasha
That's why you kill all of them.
jessica murray
to carry out this plan, funerals are the best targets. you have to make sure you get the kids, first and foremost. that's getting to the root cause.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/g20-syria-paris-attacks-1.3319701
at
03:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
wait a second, here.
i'm not convinced it was isis, and trudeau may not have been fully informed about the nature of the mission, but for brevity let's go with the dominant media narrative.
bill maher made headlines last night by suggesting that the attacks on paris were a consequence of the attacks on isis. he articulated a opinion that is actually fairly widely shared by liberals - that the attacks can only make things worse. and, was this not trudeau's argument in the first place? if he argued the attacks only make things worse, and then the attacks produce a terrible response, that suggests he was right. it in no way suggests he should modify his proposals; to the contrary, it suggests he should stick to them.
if you hold to the dominant media narrative, the obvious conclusion with the mission is that we're fighting with one hand behind our back. isis is a bunch of hoodlums operating on some kind of medieval ideology (if that...). if has no chance of withstanding a serious nato offensive. but, nato has been unwilling to go in all the way and really bludgeon them.
(which certainly begs the question as to *why*, but we're sticking with the dominant media narrative, here)
trudeau's logic could lead to a continuation of bombing if it's also an escalation of bombing. that is, if the americans want to take the lead in seriously bombing these idiots into a crater, then it could very well seriously destroy them, and that would be entirely rational from the perspective he's argued from. but, his logic absolutely rejects continuing the kind of half-serious attacks that nato has been pushing, which accomplish nothing besides further radicalization and an escalation of the problem.
the idea behind focusing on training instead of bombing is that it's more likely to actually work. it's not a "dove" position. it's simple pragmatism.
what happened in paris doesn't - and won't - change anything unless the americans seriously evaluate how they're fighting this. and even that might not be convincing.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/paris-attacks-trudeau-isis-1.3319277
RonRaygin
No it's only "piecemeal" attacks to the toenails that make things worse. We have to believably threaten of attack the heart.
We have not yet threatened the only thing they truly care about, and cannot lose. And, that is obviously not their lives, or their childrens lives.
jessica murray
well, it will be a cold day in hell when i take advice from the gipper. but, think about what you're saying.
i agree - and pointed out in this post - that a serious, all-out total blitz on isis with the intent of absolute annihilation is consistent with trudeau's position. it's also a call for genocide.
you could imagine a cartoon strip, with some academics talking with some politicians.
academic: every time you kill a terrorist, you create five more. it's a culture that roots itself in feudal perceptions of honour and the subsequent deduction of revenge. have you seen the princess bride? you're creating a bunch of inigo montoyas, all looking for their six-fingered men. 'you killed my father. prepare to die.'. you need to get to the root cause of this, which is the radicalization.
politician: get to the root cause, huh.
the next still would show them dropping a nuclear bomb, and building a fence around the area to prevent survivors from escaping.
if you follow the logic of excessive force through, that is what you get: the extermination of entire villages. vietnam-style mass aerial slaughter. fire-bombings of cities, or, dare i say it, actual nuclear attacks. there's no middle point.
the cold reality is that it might work - if it is barbaric enough. but, then what have we become?
again: the tactic of sending in advisers is not pacifist. it's pragmatic. we either need to convince them, or we need to start thinking in terms of committing atrocities. the status quo is a failure. and both approaches may be consistent with the argument that the status quo is a failure. but, you'll excuse me for preferring the former.
i don't see any reason why we should tie ourselves to failed strategies that target ourselves without getting to the root causes.
i'm not convinced it was isis, and trudeau may not have been fully informed about the nature of the mission, but for brevity let's go with the dominant media narrative.
bill maher made headlines last night by suggesting that the attacks on paris were a consequence of the attacks on isis. he articulated a opinion that is actually fairly widely shared by liberals - that the attacks can only make things worse. and, was this not trudeau's argument in the first place? if he argued the attacks only make things worse, and then the attacks produce a terrible response, that suggests he was right. it in no way suggests he should modify his proposals; to the contrary, it suggests he should stick to them.
if you hold to the dominant media narrative, the obvious conclusion with the mission is that we're fighting with one hand behind our back. isis is a bunch of hoodlums operating on some kind of medieval ideology (if that...). if has no chance of withstanding a serious nato offensive. but, nato has been unwilling to go in all the way and really bludgeon them.
(which certainly begs the question as to *why*, but we're sticking with the dominant media narrative, here)
trudeau's logic could lead to a continuation of bombing if it's also an escalation of bombing. that is, if the americans want to take the lead in seriously bombing these idiots into a crater, then it could very well seriously destroy them, and that would be entirely rational from the perspective he's argued from. but, his logic absolutely rejects continuing the kind of half-serious attacks that nato has been pushing, which accomplish nothing besides further radicalization and an escalation of the problem.
the idea behind focusing on training instead of bombing is that it's more likely to actually work. it's not a "dove" position. it's simple pragmatism.
what happened in paris doesn't - and won't - change anything unless the americans seriously evaluate how they're fighting this. and even that might not be convincing.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/paris-attacks-trudeau-isis-1.3319277
RonRaygin
No it's only "piecemeal" attacks to the toenails that make things worse. We have to believably threaten of attack the heart.
We have not yet threatened the only thing they truly care about, and cannot lose. And, that is obviously not their lives, or their childrens lives.
jessica murray
well, it will be a cold day in hell when i take advice from the gipper. but, think about what you're saying.
i agree - and pointed out in this post - that a serious, all-out total blitz on isis with the intent of absolute annihilation is consistent with trudeau's position. it's also a call for genocide.
you could imagine a cartoon strip, with some academics talking with some politicians.
academic: every time you kill a terrorist, you create five more. it's a culture that roots itself in feudal perceptions of honour and the subsequent deduction of revenge. have you seen the princess bride? you're creating a bunch of inigo montoyas, all looking for their six-fingered men. 'you killed my father. prepare to die.'. you need to get to the root cause of this, which is the radicalization.
politician: get to the root cause, huh.
the next still would show them dropping a nuclear bomb, and building a fence around the area to prevent survivors from escaping.
if you follow the logic of excessive force through, that is what you get: the extermination of entire villages. vietnam-style mass aerial slaughter. fire-bombings of cities, or, dare i say it, actual nuclear attacks. there's no middle point.
the cold reality is that it might work - if it is barbaric enough. but, then what have we become?
again: the tactic of sending in advisers is not pacifist. it's pragmatic. we either need to convince them, or we need to start thinking in terms of committing atrocities. the status quo is a failure. and both approaches may be consistent with the argument that the status quo is a failure. but, you'll excuse me for preferring the former.
i don't see any reason why we should tie ourselves to failed strategies that target ourselves without getting to the root causes.
at
02:49
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
what’s being lost in this discussion is the underlying idea that training local forces to fight on the ground will be more *effective* than aerial strikes. i know, i know – when people hear the word “liberal”, they think of anti-war activists. but has canada so quickly forgotten what the term “liberal” actually means?
this isn’t a question of engagement or withdrawal. it’s a question of smart tactics that might work versus stupid tactics that clearly haven’t, and there’s no reason to think magically will. when something fails, doing more of it isn’t an “evidence-based” response.
www.macleans.ca/news/canada/deadly-attacks-renew-debate-over-trudeau-warplane-strategy/
this isn’t a question of engagement or withdrawal. it’s a question of smart tactics that might work versus stupid tactics that clearly haven’t, and there’s no reason to think magically will. when something fails, doing more of it isn’t an “evidence-based” response.
www.macleans.ca/news/canada/deadly-attacks-renew-debate-over-trudeau-warplane-strategy/
at
02:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Saturday, November 14, 2015
14-11-2015: vampire belt (detroit)
their music:
http://www.cor-sano.com/vampirebelt/
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23UboXAEw60
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2015/11/14.html
http://www.cor-sano.com/vampirebelt/
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23UboXAEw60
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2015/11/14.html
at
22:55
Location:
Detroit, MI, USA
these are my notes to the 1892 introduction of socialism: scientific and utopian. the introduction is sometimes split into it's own text, and given the title of on historical materialism.
===
this cursory delve into the mainstream philosophical questions of the day aside, the text is actually primarily a brief history lesson. it places the three major battles of the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy within the context of the english and continental approaches to religion. central to marxist history is, of course, the idea of class struggle, particularly between three classes: the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. also keep in mind that the purpose of religion within a marxist framework is, of course, to control the population....
the first battle between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie was the reformation. marx keys in on two of the many reformers, luther and calvin, in order to contrast what happened in england with what happened in germany. in germany, the aristocracy won handily; lutheranism became, like roman christianity, a deeply feudal religion. calvin, on the other hand, produced republican movements in holland, scotland and england, the latter of which led to the second struggle, the "glorious revolution". this "glorious" revolution, however, was somewhat of a failure; the english aristocracy had actually defeated the upstart bourgeoisie, placed it back under its own subservience and left it in philosophical ignorance. enlightened philosophies such as materialism continued to be hoarded by the aristocracy; the bourgeoisie languished in the ignorance of christianity. on the continent, however, materialism flourished and with it came the third battle, the french revolution. according to engels, the french revolution was the first time that the bourgeoisie successfully usurped power from the aristocracy (for a brief time).
while the french revolution was occurring in france, the industrial revolution was occurring in england. by definition, the primary beneficiaries of the industrial revolution would be the english bourgeoisie, who finally saw their power eclipse the aristocracy - through peaceful, financial means and not through violent class struggle. the bourgeoisie then used that newfound financial power to gain political power by passing bills through parliament, such as the reform act. in other words, they legislated themselves into power; however, they were never able to push the aristocracy out of power. a second conclusion of the industrial revolution was the creation of a new class, the proletariat, which began for the first time to organize politically through the creation of new parties, such as the chartists in england. all of that led to the first uprisings of the proletariat, in 1848, which were crushed not by the bourgeoisie but by the aristocracy. interestingly, engels notes that the british aristocracy responded to these uprisings by increasing funding for religious proselytization across the country side.
the years after 1848 saw increasing unrest amongst the proletariat throughout europe, especially in germany. again, engels points out that the bourgeoisie and aristocracy came to the common conclusion that, in order to prevent the "destruction of society", the working class must be evangelized. in england, no such approach was necessary because the british aristocracy had already spent lavishly on maintaining a religious proletariat and bourgeoisie; engels comes to his key statement of the essay while discussing this,
They had come to grief with materialism. "Die Religionmuss dem Volk erhalten werden" — religion must be kept alive for the people — that was the only and the last means to save society from utter ruin. Unfortunately for themselves, they did not find this out until they had done their level best to break up religion for ever. And now it was the turn of the British bourgeoisie to sneer and to say: "Why, you fools, I could have told you that 200 years ago!"
engels ends the essay by deducing that germany, not england, will be the scene of the first proletarian revolution.
====
now, this is not to specifically endorse the marxist position, so much to point out that marx would actually agree with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc
the correct marxist analysis of the situation is that the elite have determined that if white people will no longer submit to religion, they must be replaced by people who will - or society will "collapse" into communism.
or, to put it another way: white people make shitty slaves.
the way for leftists to address this is through continuing to actively fight against religion through persuasion. that is, to take the position of a dawkins or a hitchens in trying to win the intellectual battle. a true leftist would not see these artificial boundaries of nation-states and seek to erect walls; they would see the struggle against religion as global, and take the opportunity to combat it when it's in front of them. the most important lesson the left ought to have learned from the 20th century is that communism cannot be local to be effective.
===
this cursory delve into the mainstream philosophical questions of the day aside, the text is actually primarily a brief history lesson. it places the three major battles of the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy within the context of the english and continental approaches to religion. central to marxist history is, of course, the idea of class struggle, particularly between three classes: the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. also keep in mind that the purpose of religion within a marxist framework is, of course, to control the population....
the first battle between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie was the reformation. marx keys in on two of the many reformers, luther and calvin, in order to contrast what happened in england with what happened in germany. in germany, the aristocracy won handily; lutheranism became, like roman christianity, a deeply feudal religion. calvin, on the other hand, produced republican movements in holland, scotland and england, the latter of which led to the second struggle, the "glorious revolution". this "glorious" revolution, however, was somewhat of a failure; the english aristocracy had actually defeated the upstart bourgeoisie, placed it back under its own subservience and left it in philosophical ignorance. enlightened philosophies such as materialism continued to be hoarded by the aristocracy; the bourgeoisie languished in the ignorance of christianity. on the continent, however, materialism flourished and with it came the third battle, the french revolution. according to engels, the french revolution was the first time that the bourgeoisie successfully usurped power from the aristocracy (for a brief time).
while the french revolution was occurring in france, the industrial revolution was occurring in england. by definition, the primary beneficiaries of the industrial revolution would be the english bourgeoisie, who finally saw their power eclipse the aristocracy - through peaceful, financial means and not through violent class struggle. the bourgeoisie then used that newfound financial power to gain political power by passing bills through parliament, such as the reform act. in other words, they legislated themselves into power; however, they were never able to push the aristocracy out of power. a second conclusion of the industrial revolution was the creation of a new class, the proletariat, which began for the first time to organize politically through the creation of new parties, such as the chartists in england. all of that led to the first uprisings of the proletariat, in 1848, which were crushed not by the bourgeoisie but by the aristocracy. interestingly, engels notes that the british aristocracy responded to these uprisings by increasing funding for religious proselytization across the country side.
the years after 1848 saw increasing unrest amongst the proletariat throughout europe, especially in germany. again, engels points out that the bourgeoisie and aristocracy came to the common conclusion that, in order to prevent the "destruction of society", the working class must be evangelized. in england, no such approach was necessary because the british aristocracy had already spent lavishly on maintaining a religious proletariat and bourgeoisie; engels comes to his key statement of the essay while discussing this,
They had come to grief with materialism. "Die Religionmuss dem Volk erhalten werden" — religion must be kept alive for the people — that was the only and the last means to save society from utter ruin. Unfortunately for themselves, they did not find this out until they had done their level best to break up religion for ever. And now it was the turn of the British bourgeoisie to sneer and to say: "Why, you fools, I could have told you that 200 years ago!"
engels ends the essay by deducing that germany, not england, will be the scene of the first proletarian revolution.
====
now, this is not to specifically endorse the marxist position, so much to point out that marx would actually agree with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc
the correct marxist analysis of the situation is that the elite have determined that if white people will no longer submit to religion, they must be replaced by people who will - or society will "collapse" into communism.
or, to put it another way: white people make shitty slaves.
the way for leftists to address this is through continuing to actively fight against religion through persuasion. that is, to take the position of a dawkins or a hitchens in trying to win the intellectual battle. a true leftist would not see these artificial boundaries of nation-states and seek to erect walls; they would see the struggle against religion as global, and take the opportunity to combat it when it's in front of them. the most important lesson the left ought to have learned from the 20th century is that communism cannot be local to be effective.
at
12:04
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Friday, November 13, 2015
seems like the russians just reacted pre-emptively in paris.
(everybody knows that isis is a proxy front for the saudi-nato alliance, right?)
http://www.latinopost.com/articles/27191/20151113/isis-threatens-russia-kremlin-will-be-ours.htm
(everybody knows that isis is a proxy front for the saudi-nato alliance, right?)
http://www.latinopost.com/articles/27191/20151113/isis-threatens-russia-kremlin-will-be-ours.htm
at
20:29
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm sorry, but these are not logical targets. josh homme may be the master of desert rock, but that alone doesn't make him a target for religious extremists. rather, this strikes me as a disgusting attempt to derail the climate talks. the only question in my mind is whether it's being derailed by nato or russia - and i would suggest russia is the more likely culprit, given their history of this (see climategate).
www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-shooting-attacks-explosion-1.3318444
--
still no claim of responsibility.
when a terrorist group carries out an attack, the first thing they do is claim responsibility. this is true of every terrorist group, from the ira to aum shinrikyo. if it was isis, or al qaeda, we'd know by now - because they'd have told us.
terrorism is not about committing a crime and then trying to get away with it. it's about brazenly creating a disruption, then trying to draw as much attention to the cause as possible. it's a protest tactic.
there are a number of possible other suspects that may have motives that are more stealth, but understand this: every single one of them is going to stage it as an attack by muslims. if it's some kind of excuse to create a police state for the cop21 [i doubt that - this is far too extreme], they'd set it up as a threat by muslim extremists. if it's some kind of attempt by the oil industry to derail cop21 [i doubt that - this is the thing of science fiction], they'd set it up as a threat by muslim extremists. if it's an operation by russian black ops to derail the cop21 [this is my guess....and perhaps with other goals as well], they'd set it up as a threat by muslim extremists.
on it's own, this consequently suggests nothing of value - other than that whomever organized it set it up to look like an attack by muslim extremists.
i think the russians are the only really serious suspect, right now. the organization. the kalashnikovs. chechens? they've derailed climate talks before but not like this. and, there's a much broader scope in which to put this in context.
in the end, we may be fed the line that it's al qaeda, even though we'd have expected them to claim responsibility by now - and the fact that they haven't all but rules them out.
but, i think this is far more than it appears.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-shooting-attacks-explosion-1.3318444
--
still no claim of responsibility.
when a terrorist group carries out an attack, the first thing they do is claim responsibility. this is true of every terrorist group, from the ira to aum shinrikyo. if it was isis, or al qaeda, we'd know by now - because they'd have told us.
terrorism is not about committing a crime and then trying to get away with it. it's about brazenly creating a disruption, then trying to draw as much attention to the cause as possible. it's a protest tactic.
there are a number of possible other suspects that may have motives that are more stealth, but understand this: every single one of them is going to stage it as an attack by muslims. if it's some kind of excuse to create a police state for the cop21 [i doubt that - this is far too extreme], they'd set it up as a threat by muslim extremists. if it's some kind of attempt by the oil industry to derail cop21 [i doubt that - this is the thing of science fiction], they'd set it up as a threat by muslim extremists. if it's an operation by russian black ops to derail the cop21 [this is my guess....and perhaps with other goals as well], they'd set it up as a threat by muslim extremists.
on it's own, this consequently suggests nothing of value - other than that whomever organized it set it up to look like an attack by muslim extremists.
i think the russians are the only really serious suspect, right now. the organization. the kalashnikovs. chechens? they've derailed climate talks before but not like this. and, there's a much broader scope in which to put this in context.
in the end, we may be fed the line that it's al qaeda, even though we'd have expected them to claim responsibility by now - and the fact that they haven't all but rules them out.
but, i think this is far more than it appears.
at
18:08
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
what if i told you that i thought it was the russians?
evidence:
- too organized for a terrorist group
- pattern fits with russian operations
- who else gets kalashnikovs into france?
anybody doing this would set it up to look like a muslim attack. if it was france trying to create a police state for cop21, they'd make it look like muslims. if it was the oil industry trying to create a diversion for cop21, they'd make it look like muslims. if it's nato trying to create an excuse to increase the attacks on syria, they'd make it look like muslims.
but, ironically, we can be pretty sure that it's not - because they didn't take responsibility. isis has no motive to kill people in france, unless everybody knows it was isis. now, isis may take responsibility for something they didn't do, sure. but, they'd never carry out an attack and then deny it. that would make no sense, relative to how they operate.
so, we can actually rule out immediately that it's not isis or al qaeda.
that doesn't mean we won't be told it is, or that nato won't use it as an excuse to further their own goals.
motives for the russians:
- to pre-empt increasing threats of terrorist attacks in russia
- to divert attention from cop21
- to create pressure for france to pull back from syria. are the french prepared for the consequences of further involvement, or will they pull back like spain did?
- to give their allies in france (like the national front) an opportunity to campaign against muslims.
if the russians were going to do something like this right now, the reality is that france is the most strategic target.
jessica
+Michael P none of the previous attacks in france have been like this.
and, i don't think 9/11 was carried out by terrorists, either. i actually think it was....the germans. no, really. i know that's out of nowhere, but if you look at the information carefully, it all points to berlin. the motive was to crash the dollar.
i don't know if this was ever figured out. and, i don't expect to hear anybody blame the russians, even if it's understood that they did this. nato reacted to 9/11 by carrying out plans it wanted to do anyways - afghanistan is strategic, and iraq had nothing to do with it. as mentioned, i could very well see america reacting to this similarly. or, perhaps, you could interpret escalation in syria as a direct response, anyways.
Michael P
+jessica ISIS claimed responsibility now...that part of the russion conspiracy?
jessica
as i stated: isis will take responsibility for things that they did not do, but they will not deny things they did do.
i don't feel that isis has the capability to pull this off, and i think they would have taken credit immediately if they were actually responsible. they're taking credit for somebody else's work.
but, this is what the russians wanted. it's up to american intelligence to work it through, if they want to. it may serve their own aims to have people think it was isis, too.
there are other reasons to doubt the narrative. if you understand the real dynamics on the ground, the idea that it was isis doesn't really make any sense.
i'll give you a condition to look out for in the upcoming days and weeks: if nato responds by increasing pressure on assad (or even taking him out directly), you'll know what the claim of responsibility is really about.
and, i'd keep an eye on how the french public reacts to what marine le pen has to say about this. that's what the russians would really be angling for. we'll see if it works.
Michael P
+jessica How exactly do you "understand the real dynamics on the ground"?
You are making connections without connecting them...Just because nato responds a certain way does not mean your vague theory is correct unless you can actually connect the dots with something more than a hypothesis.
I just gave you a list of the "dynamics on the ground" by the way.
jessica
+Michael P i want to be clear that i'm not making authoritative claims about who is responsible. there are other explanations, too. we are at the whim of what we're told. we'll never really know.
what i'm arguing is that the russians are the most likely culprit, for the reasons i'm suggesting, and that isis is a very unlikely culprit - even if they took responsibility after the fact, after nobody else did, and after they took the time to prepare a statement.
understanding what's happening in the region of the middle east is very complicated. there's about ten wars happening at the same time. but, the biggest war that's happening is a struggle between a handful of american allies (mostly the saudis and turks - who are themselves in conflict with each other over who is taking the lead) and the russians for control over syria. this relies on the neo-con perspective that russia is weak due to the collapse of the soviet union and must be dismantled before it can regain it's power. removing assad from power is a part of the greater post cold war geo-political struggle between russia and the united states that, until recently, was a process of the americans knocking off russian client states.
isis exists within this context. it's an organization that is funded at arms length by saudi oligarchs to increase their own control in the region. the saudi long plan is the collapse of the borders in the region and the establishment of a larger, integrated arab-sunni state that includes most of iraq, jordan, kuwait, egypt and syria. in the short run, this would operate basically as an arab league. this goal itself goes back to the first world war.
the conflict you're seeing is far too complicated, and yet far too transparent, to call a conspiracy. it's more like a tactic to break the region up. and, france is ultimately in the alliance that is in favour of this.
an isis attack on france would be an attack on their own benefactors.
yet, it makes sense for them to claim responsibility, too, even if they did not do it - if it results in increased pressure on assad.
we live in a world where the conflicts that exist around us are kept obscure so that we do not understand them, because if we did understand them then we would oppose them.
it's consequently very hard to have these discussions in a medium such as this, as there is so much disinformation to cut through.
but, the dynamics on the ground - along with the way events have unfolded, and the complexity of the attack - all but rule isis out, despite what the media says, and what they say themselves, and how the military reacts.
you can surely agree that responding to these attacks by stepping up pressure on assad has no clear causal basis.
so, you should agree that i'm on to something if that is, in fact, what happens.
Michael P
+jessica I'm not buying any of this. You're a person on their computer postulating and theorizing. It's all very clever and imaginative and would make for a great alex jones video. You talk about all this disinformation....your comment is a big part of that disinformation. Others read it, it sounds cool and scandalous, but its nothing but imagination and theories, and then it gets repeated, and it soon becomes misinformation.
jessica
+Michael P well, i actually think that alex jones is a russian spy, too.
i don't claim it's more than theorizing, but we don't have another option if we want to understand what's happening. if you're serious about understanding world events, you have to begin with the basic starting point of being skeptical about official explanations and then try and deduce what's happening from there.
but, i do think that my perspective is educated. i'm not talking about aliens or new world orders. it's all very rooted in well understood academic themes. further, i've provided you with a predictive empirical test to check whether what i'm saying makes sense or not. we'll find out in a few days.
Michael P
+jessica Islamic terrorists coordinated an attack on French civilians and then admitted to it. Same as last time and the time before and the time before. There is really not much to it. And obviously since the attackers were Islamic terrorists claiming allegiance to ISIS that world leaders will put more pressure on Assad. Thats the logical progression. It doesnt mean some wild conspiracy theory is proven true. That is not an empirical test.
jessica
+Michael P so, the way to combat isis is to help them carry out their goals? intriguing.
the logical response would be to co-ordinate with assad in helping him stamp out isis.
evidence:
- too organized for a terrorist group
- pattern fits with russian operations
- who else gets kalashnikovs into france?
anybody doing this would set it up to look like a muslim attack. if it was france trying to create a police state for cop21, they'd make it look like muslims. if it was the oil industry trying to create a diversion for cop21, they'd make it look like muslims. if it's nato trying to create an excuse to increase the attacks on syria, they'd make it look like muslims.
but, ironically, we can be pretty sure that it's not - because they didn't take responsibility. isis has no motive to kill people in france, unless everybody knows it was isis. now, isis may take responsibility for something they didn't do, sure. but, they'd never carry out an attack and then deny it. that would make no sense, relative to how they operate.
so, we can actually rule out immediately that it's not isis or al qaeda.
that doesn't mean we won't be told it is, or that nato won't use it as an excuse to further their own goals.
motives for the russians:
- to pre-empt increasing threats of terrorist attacks in russia
- to divert attention from cop21
- to create pressure for france to pull back from syria. are the french prepared for the consequences of further involvement, or will they pull back like spain did?
- to give their allies in france (like the national front) an opportunity to campaign against muslims.
if the russians were going to do something like this right now, the reality is that france is the most strategic target.
jessica
+Michael P none of the previous attacks in france have been like this.
and, i don't think 9/11 was carried out by terrorists, either. i actually think it was....the germans. no, really. i know that's out of nowhere, but if you look at the information carefully, it all points to berlin. the motive was to crash the dollar.
i don't know if this was ever figured out. and, i don't expect to hear anybody blame the russians, even if it's understood that they did this. nato reacted to 9/11 by carrying out plans it wanted to do anyways - afghanistan is strategic, and iraq had nothing to do with it. as mentioned, i could very well see america reacting to this similarly. or, perhaps, you could interpret escalation in syria as a direct response, anyways.
Michael P
+jessica ISIS claimed responsibility now...that part of the russion conspiracy?
jessica
as i stated: isis will take responsibility for things that they did not do, but they will not deny things they did do.
i don't feel that isis has the capability to pull this off, and i think they would have taken credit immediately if they were actually responsible. they're taking credit for somebody else's work.
but, this is what the russians wanted. it's up to american intelligence to work it through, if they want to. it may serve their own aims to have people think it was isis, too.
there are other reasons to doubt the narrative. if you understand the real dynamics on the ground, the idea that it was isis doesn't really make any sense.
i'll give you a condition to look out for in the upcoming days and weeks: if nato responds by increasing pressure on assad (or even taking him out directly), you'll know what the claim of responsibility is really about.
and, i'd keep an eye on how the french public reacts to what marine le pen has to say about this. that's what the russians would really be angling for. we'll see if it works.
Michael P
+jessica How exactly do you "understand the real dynamics on the ground"?
You are making connections without connecting them...Just because nato responds a certain way does not mean your vague theory is correct unless you can actually connect the dots with something more than a hypothesis.
I just gave you a list of the "dynamics on the ground" by the way.
jessica
+Michael P i want to be clear that i'm not making authoritative claims about who is responsible. there are other explanations, too. we are at the whim of what we're told. we'll never really know.
what i'm arguing is that the russians are the most likely culprit, for the reasons i'm suggesting, and that isis is a very unlikely culprit - even if they took responsibility after the fact, after nobody else did, and after they took the time to prepare a statement.
understanding what's happening in the region of the middle east is very complicated. there's about ten wars happening at the same time. but, the biggest war that's happening is a struggle between a handful of american allies (mostly the saudis and turks - who are themselves in conflict with each other over who is taking the lead) and the russians for control over syria. this relies on the neo-con perspective that russia is weak due to the collapse of the soviet union and must be dismantled before it can regain it's power. removing assad from power is a part of the greater post cold war geo-political struggle between russia and the united states that, until recently, was a process of the americans knocking off russian client states.
isis exists within this context. it's an organization that is funded at arms length by saudi oligarchs to increase their own control in the region. the saudi long plan is the collapse of the borders in the region and the establishment of a larger, integrated arab-sunni state that includes most of iraq, jordan, kuwait, egypt and syria. in the short run, this would operate basically as an arab league. this goal itself goes back to the first world war.
the conflict you're seeing is far too complicated, and yet far too transparent, to call a conspiracy. it's more like a tactic to break the region up. and, france is ultimately in the alliance that is in favour of this.
an isis attack on france would be an attack on their own benefactors.
yet, it makes sense for them to claim responsibility, too, even if they did not do it - if it results in increased pressure on assad.
we live in a world where the conflicts that exist around us are kept obscure so that we do not understand them, because if we did understand them then we would oppose them.
it's consequently very hard to have these discussions in a medium such as this, as there is so much disinformation to cut through.
but, the dynamics on the ground - along with the way events have unfolded, and the complexity of the attack - all but rule isis out, despite what the media says, and what they say themselves, and how the military reacts.
you can surely agree that responding to these attacks by stepping up pressure on assad has no clear causal basis.
so, you should agree that i'm on to something if that is, in fact, what happens.
Michael P
+jessica I'm not buying any of this. You're a person on their computer postulating and theorizing. It's all very clever and imaginative and would make for a great alex jones video. You talk about all this disinformation....your comment is a big part of that disinformation. Others read it, it sounds cool and scandalous, but its nothing but imagination and theories, and then it gets repeated, and it soon becomes misinformation.
jessica
+Michael P well, i actually think that alex jones is a russian spy, too.
i don't claim it's more than theorizing, but we don't have another option if we want to understand what's happening. if you're serious about understanding world events, you have to begin with the basic starting point of being skeptical about official explanations and then try and deduce what's happening from there.
but, i do think that my perspective is educated. i'm not talking about aliens or new world orders. it's all very rooted in well understood academic themes. further, i've provided you with a predictive empirical test to check whether what i'm saying makes sense or not. we'll find out in a few days.
Michael P
+jessica Islamic terrorists coordinated an attack on French civilians and then admitted to it. Same as last time and the time before and the time before. There is really not much to it. And obviously since the attackers were Islamic terrorists claiming allegiance to ISIS that world leaders will put more pressure on Assad. Thats the logical progression. It doesnt mean some wild conspiracy theory is proven true. That is not an empirical test.
jessica
+Michael P so, the way to combat isis is to help them carry out their goals? intriguing.
the logical response would be to co-ordinate with assad in helping him stamp out isis.
at
17:10
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
well, that was fairly "presidential".
i like bernie...
....but i still don't know who the bank is running to beat hillary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCvvODhy1xM
i will say this though...
canadians pride themselves on...how can i say this...on differentiating themselves from americans. don't get me wrong: canadians are broadly pretty similar to americans. if you were to take a bunch of surveys, in aggregate, you'd find there's not a lot of differences. but, the few differences that do exist are things we hold very close to ourselves. it's a complicated, multidimensional thing. there's an outward manifestation that we state openly, like i am in this post. but, there's an inward manifestation that is only truly observed from a distance, too - things we innately live, without fully even realizing.
with the rise of the xenophobic rhetoric from the republicans, it's easy to draw parallels and craft a political strategy that learns from the recent election in canada. but, it's an open question as to whether such a strategy will be effective.
hey: if america wants to prove this canadian wrong, it'll be the most delicious crow i've ever had.
i like bernie...
....but i still don't know who the bank is running to beat hillary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCvvODhy1xM
i will say this though...
canadians pride themselves on...how can i say this...on differentiating themselves from americans. don't get me wrong: canadians are broadly pretty similar to americans. if you were to take a bunch of surveys, in aggregate, you'd find there's not a lot of differences. but, the few differences that do exist are things we hold very close to ourselves. it's a complicated, multidimensional thing. there's an outward manifestation that we state openly, like i am in this post. but, there's an inward manifestation that is only truly observed from a distance, too - things we innately live, without fully even realizing.
with the rise of the xenophobic rhetoric from the republicans, it's easy to draw parallels and craft a political strategy that learns from the recent election in canada. but, it's an open question as to whether such a strategy will be effective.
hey: if america wants to prove this canadian wrong, it'll be the most delicious crow i've ever had.
at
11:49
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
nononono, you don't get it.
see, there's a hierarchy. white people are at the top of it. black people are at the bottom of it. it's the natural order of things, and can't be altered.
therefore, black people cannot be racist - because they're inferior. when black people say racist things, they're just being uppity.
get it?
Issac Hopson
+jessica Wrong spokesman for white superiority.
jessica
+Issac Hopson well, perhaps i'm making the error of excluding the middle. but, in context, i don't think it's irrational. if one is inherently and irreversibly inferior, it certainly follows that they can never genuinely express feelings or perceptions of superiority, does it not? if one follows these perspectives closely, and i have, it does appear that this is legitimately the crux of the argument.
fwanksajerk
+jessica "black people cannot be racist - because they're inferior" Poor wording. Sounds like something I would write.
jessica
+fwanksajerk you may want to read between the lines a little. i tried to make it pretty obvious.
Lo Cas
+fwanksajerk oblivious much?
eye emoji
+jessica no. a hiearchy has nothing to do with racism. racism means thinking your race is better than others. if i, a mexican, were to say ''fuck those blacks'' i would be RACIST. if a white person said ''fuck the muslims!'' then they would be racist. and if a black person said ''fuck those spics!'' they would be racist. i don't know who made up the whole black people cant be racist because they're the systematically most oppressed blahblahblah because that's a whole other type of racism.
jessica
+eye emoji well, i actually think they're on to something in differentiating between what could be called "casual racism" (they toss this aside as discrimination) and really meaningful "systemic racism" (which they elevate to the status of Real Racism).
i mean, there's obviously a difference between somebody slowing down in a car and yelling something at somebody and somebody firing or refusing to interview somebody. the second option can seriously limit somebody's positive freedom. the first is really just harmlessly being an asshole.
it even makes sense to suggest that in certain societies - like the apartheid systems in the american south and in south africa - that racism against whites (in the second sense) is basically impossible, because the systemic realities are such that it really can't occur.
the error that arises is two-fold:
1) the american south is far from an egalitarian society, but it's not the hierarchically enforced system of white supremacy that it once was. it's consequently disingenuous to continue the same arguments. there are blacks with real power in the southern states, and they're every bit as capable of abusing it as whites are.
2) to jump from "whites cannot be meaningfully discriminated against in an apartheid society" to "racism against whites is universally impossible" is a tremendous leap of specious logic that, when heard, broadly suggests that the speaker is not truly familiar with the source material, but is carrying on slogans that they heard second hand.
see, there's a hierarchy. white people are at the top of it. black people are at the bottom of it. it's the natural order of things, and can't be altered.
therefore, black people cannot be racist - because they're inferior. when black people say racist things, they're just being uppity.
get it?
Issac Hopson
+jessica Wrong spokesman for white superiority.
jessica
+Issac Hopson well, perhaps i'm making the error of excluding the middle. but, in context, i don't think it's irrational. if one is inherently and irreversibly inferior, it certainly follows that they can never genuinely express feelings or perceptions of superiority, does it not? if one follows these perspectives closely, and i have, it does appear that this is legitimately the crux of the argument.
fwanksajerk
+jessica "black people cannot be racist - because they're inferior" Poor wording. Sounds like something I would write.
jessica
+fwanksajerk you may want to read between the lines a little. i tried to make it pretty obvious.
Lo Cas
+fwanksajerk oblivious much?
eye emoji
+jessica no. a hiearchy has nothing to do with racism. racism means thinking your race is better than others. if i, a mexican, were to say ''fuck those blacks'' i would be RACIST. if a white person said ''fuck the muslims!'' then they would be racist. and if a black person said ''fuck those spics!'' they would be racist. i don't know who made up the whole black people cant be racist because they're the systematically most oppressed blahblahblah because that's a whole other type of racism.
jessica
+eye emoji well, i actually think they're on to something in differentiating between what could be called "casual racism" (they toss this aside as discrimination) and really meaningful "systemic racism" (which they elevate to the status of Real Racism).
i mean, there's obviously a difference between somebody slowing down in a car and yelling something at somebody and somebody firing or refusing to interview somebody. the second option can seriously limit somebody's positive freedom. the first is really just harmlessly being an asshole.
it even makes sense to suggest that in certain societies - like the apartheid systems in the american south and in south africa - that racism against whites (in the second sense) is basically impossible, because the systemic realities are such that it really can't occur.
the error that arises is two-fold:
1) the american south is far from an egalitarian society, but it's not the hierarchically enforced system of white supremacy that it once was. it's consequently disingenuous to continue the same arguments. there are blacks with real power in the southern states, and they're every bit as capable of abusing it as whites are.
2) to jump from "whites cannot be meaningfully discriminated against in an apartheid society" to "racism against whites is universally impossible" is a tremendous leap of specious logic that, when heard, broadly suggests that the speaker is not truly familiar with the source material, but is carrying on slogans that they heard second hand.
at
11:29
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this guy is throwing around so much bullshit, i don't even know where to start. i mean, do i want to get into a discussion about the euro crisis on this thread? probably not. suffice it to say that greece's problem is not that they're "broke". it's that they lost sovereignty over their banking institutions to the ecb.
universities charge a fee to enter, and it gets paid as it is. how can there be less money than they collect in fees? i believe that pewdiepie should have really been on this panel to address this issue. really. a subset of gdp is greater than gdp. that's not even ordinal. you'd need a new system of logic to get your head around this.
demagogues pick their battles wisely. they have to! i hear his next interview will be a discussion of planetary mechanics with the hula champion in a local kindergarten class. he'll show her good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmji36q8E4o
the way the system currently works is that you put people into debt when they're young and have them pay that debt off - + interest - when they graduate.
the proposal would need to be to put the money down first, and then collect it in taxes when they graduate.
all that that does is remove the interest on the loan, which is really just a deadweight on the economy. it also socializes the investment, and along with that it socializes the losses - meaning those that do well will pay education costs for those that do not. this would ultimately be equivalent to a stimulative tax cut for low to middle wage earners at the expense of the bank. that's about the only effect you'd see, in terms of accounting.
if you did it intelligently, you'd set the system up so that tax revenue = theoretical debt - theoretical interest. so, the student (after graduation) would have their new income equal to their old income minus the interest. that is,
new income = previous income - (theoretical debt - taxes = 0) + theoretical interest
which is a net benefit.
then, they'd no doubt spend that and we get an economic stimulus out of it.
so, the simple way to think of it is that the government steps in to take the role of the bank, in collecting taxes instead of loan payments. it's really a very minor tweak from the fiscal side. but, it would open up opportunities on the youth side.
that said....this kind of model works best when standards are higher. "free" education is not the same thing as "universal" education. i do support "free" education, but i don't support "universal" education - or at least not at this level. this is how most countries with state-funded education function: they basically give everybody who deserves one a scholarship, and abolish the fee-for-entry status quo for those that do not.
universities charge a fee to enter, and it gets paid as it is. how can there be less money than they collect in fees? i believe that pewdiepie should have really been on this panel to address this issue. really. a subset of gdp is greater than gdp. that's not even ordinal. you'd need a new system of logic to get your head around this.
demagogues pick their battles wisely. they have to! i hear his next interview will be a discussion of planetary mechanics with the hula champion in a local kindergarten class. he'll show her good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmji36q8E4o
the way the system currently works is that you put people into debt when they're young and have them pay that debt off - + interest - when they graduate.
the proposal would need to be to put the money down first, and then collect it in taxes when they graduate.
all that that does is remove the interest on the loan, which is really just a deadweight on the economy. it also socializes the investment, and along with that it socializes the losses - meaning those that do well will pay education costs for those that do not. this would ultimately be equivalent to a stimulative tax cut for low to middle wage earners at the expense of the bank. that's about the only effect you'd see, in terms of accounting.
if you did it intelligently, you'd set the system up so that tax revenue = theoretical debt - theoretical interest. so, the student (after graduation) would have their new income equal to their old income minus the interest. that is,
new income = previous income - (theoretical debt - taxes = 0) + theoretical interest
which is a net benefit.
then, they'd no doubt spend that and we get an economic stimulus out of it.
so, the simple way to think of it is that the government steps in to take the role of the bank, in collecting taxes instead of loan payments. it's really a very minor tweak from the fiscal side. but, it would open up opportunities on the youth side.
that said....this kind of model works best when standards are higher. "free" education is not the same thing as "universal" education. i do support "free" education, but i don't support "universal" education - or at least not at this level. this is how most countries with state-funded education function: they basically give everybody who deserves one a scholarship, and abolish the fee-for-entry status quo for those that do not.
at
11:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
you want to know why trump is the best bet for republicans?
because he has the best chance of swinging the most democrats.
the republican party does not have a monopoly on stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmi6a-Q29AA
because he has the best chance of swinging the most democrats.
the republican party does not have a monopoly on stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmi6a-Q29AA
at
10:16
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
serial killers seem harmless when they're toddlers, too.
Rose Red
+jessicaThank you for not drinking the kool-aid. <3
Gabby TheBest
Serial killers weren't born murderous their peers or caretakers taught them how to murder
jessica
+Gabby TheBest
i was unaware that there were serial killer classes. is that a ba or a bsc?
we would like to proudly announce this year's recipient for the jeffrey dahmer memorial scholarship...
Lizeth GonzaleZ
Stop comparing dogs to humans
jessica
+Lizeth GonzaleZ
you're right. we have far greater control over our emotions.
before i delete another stupid comment, ask yourself this question before posting:
why wouldn't you raise a wolf pup?
UghIt'sEmily
Oh and also it depends on how they are raised. Just like humans. If a child was raised around an abusive, hurtful family it would maybe have mental health issues. And a dog that is abused may become aggressive or scared around people because their past experiences. :)
jessica
+UghIt'sEmily
there is an underlying truth to what you're saying, but it's not some kind of causal law. it's not as though you can predict somebody's behaviour as an adult by their childhood. plenty of psychopathic assholes, some of them serial killers, have idyllic childhoods; some people that go through hell as children grow up into very generous, free-spirited adults.
likewise, you can't really predict a dog's behaviour by the way you treat it. if it was that easy, there wouldn't be a problem - and you could go ahead and have wolves and mountain lions and bears for pets, so long as you make sure they get lots of hugs when they're young.
pit bulls are bred for violence. over time, it can be bred out. as it is, they need to be approached with caution - or not at all.
Massive Fox
+jessica because you have to tame a wolf, but same with a bob cat, dogs aren't like yhe stereotypes that are passed around, "dogs are dangerous" pinché! thats all lies!
jessica
+Massive Fox
a wolf is a specific breed of dog. a pitbull is a specific breed of dog. a retriever is a specific breed of dog. dogs are individuals, but characteristics cluster along breed lines.
josephine vargas
Pitts were originally a breed that took care of children in Europe back in the day. They we are known as the "Nanny" dog
jessica
+josephine vargas
see, i actually took the time - ~10 minutes - to determine the veracity of this claim, and it should be pointed out that what we call a "pit bull" is an american invention.
it may be true that the old terrier breeds were reliable family dogs, but that is not what the pit bull in front of you is. not at all.
Rose Red
+jessicaThank you for not drinking the kool-aid. <3
Gabby TheBest
Serial killers weren't born murderous their peers or caretakers taught them how to murder
jessica
+Gabby TheBest
i was unaware that there were serial killer classes. is that a ba or a bsc?
we would like to proudly announce this year's recipient for the jeffrey dahmer memorial scholarship...
Lizeth GonzaleZ
Stop comparing dogs to humans
jessica
+Lizeth GonzaleZ
you're right. we have far greater control over our emotions.
before i delete another stupid comment, ask yourself this question before posting:
why wouldn't you raise a wolf pup?
UghIt'sEmily
Oh and also it depends on how they are raised. Just like humans. If a child was raised around an abusive, hurtful family it would maybe have mental health issues. And a dog that is abused may become aggressive or scared around people because their past experiences. :)
jessica
+UghIt'sEmily
there is an underlying truth to what you're saying, but it's not some kind of causal law. it's not as though you can predict somebody's behaviour as an adult by their childhood. plenty of psychopathic assholes, some of them serial killers, have idyllic childhoods; some people that go through hell as children grow up into very generous, free-spirited adults.
likewise, you can't really predict a dog's behaviour by the way you treat it. if it was that easy, there wouldn't be a problem - and you could go ahead and have wolves and mountain lions and bears for pets, so long as you make sure they get lots of hugs when they're young.
pit bulls are bred for violence. over time, it can be bred out. as it is, they need to be approached with caution - or not at all.
Massive Fox
+jessica because you have to tame a wolf, but same with a bob cat, dogs aren't like yhe stereotypes that are passed around, "dogs are dangerous" pinché! thats all lies!
jessica
+Massive Fox
a wolf is a specific breed of dog. a pitbull is a specific breed of dog. a retriever is a specific breed of dog. dogs are individuals, but characteristics cluster along breed lines.
josephine vargas
Pitts were originally a breed that took care of children in Europe back in the day. They we are known as the "Nanny" dog
jessica
+josephine vargas
see, i actually took the time - ~10 minutes - to determine the veracity of this claim, and it should be pointed out that what we call a "pit bull" is an american invention.
it may be true that the old terrier breeds were reliable family dogs, but that is not what the pit bull in front of you is. not at all.
at
09:47
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Thursday, November 12, 2015
see, the third question is what i think the first question was trying to get at. and, to address the point i think it's important to recognize that some people that claim to hold a scientific worldview have only a limited understanding of it, and do in fact take it on authority. if you're somebody like dawkins, you might not realize that, because you're just not really exposed to it.
we could speak of the age of the earth, for example. some monk or something calculated it was 6000 years based on the bible, and we ridicule this as preposterous. but, to the average person, the calculation that it is 4.5 billion years old based on the calculations of some geologist or something is not any less authoritative. the monk claims his calculation is based on the evidence in the bible, and he can lay it out with perfectly valid rules of inference. the geologist claims his calculation is based on the evidence in the quarry, and he lays out with the same rules of inference. the differentiation is consequently not actually a discussion of evidence, but a discussion of what evidence is and which evidence is more convincing. they are both basically inferences.
if you understand a little about geological processes, and why digging down a certain way can allow you to estimate how old some rock is by comparison to the rock around it, you're doing science on inferences on empirically gathered evidence. but, if you're reading it out of a book, and you don't have a clue about any of that, then you're not truly interpreting it differently than a kid in sunday school. if anything, the biblical inference is a lot easier to actually understand.
she wasn't able to articulate herself well, and i think that's why the decision was made to move on. but, i think this is kind of an example of the ivory tower not being able to see outside of itself. it's unfortunate, but she is making a valid point: most people are only able to interpret science as a system of statements that they don't fully understand the reasoning behind, and are forced to leave their derivation to experts and then put faith in the veracity of the conclusions of those experts. appeals to the contrary are themselves a sort of faith-based reasoning. and, so, for many people, science becomes just another type of religion.
there's another point to bring up about axiom systems. it's not valid for the entirety of science; it's more about the more obscure theoretical reaches. the classical v. modern physics part is a good way to discuss this. you can do most classical physics with your bare hands; you throw something at a wall and you measure it, or whatever. experiments, observations, results. that's what science is supposed to be, right?
but if you look at relativity, it doesn't work like that. it's an axiomatic system. light shalt move at c in all inertial reference frames. there shalt be no particle that moves faster than c. light shalt have no mass whatsoever. [these are equivalent statements]. and, yes, it's a reasonable assumption, and i offer no empirical contradiction, but put this in your pipe: i don't believe the third assertion. now, what? then i have little faith in the absolute truth of your deductions, even if i'll admit they're probably pretty close.
i'm not going to argue that that brings religion from the brink; rather, i'm going to argue that it puts a lot of what we call science in the realm of what should be called philosophy. kant be damned; it's not how science is supposed to work. and, doing science like this really opens up a lot of valid space for attack.
i'm not convinced that that is what she was getting at, but the truth is that this line between something that is a story and something that makes predictions isn't quite as clear as is being suggested. it's just....
don't look at religion in a better light because of this. rather, be more critical of what we allow ourselves to call science.
we could speak of the age of the earth, for example. some monk or something calculated it was 6000 years based on the bible, and we ridicule this as preposterous. but, to the average person, the calculation that it is 4.5 billion years old based on the calculations of some geologist or something is not any less authoritative. the monk claims his calculation is based on the evidence in the bible, and he can lay it out with perfectly valid rules of inference. the geologist claims his calculation is based on the evidence in the quarry, and he lays out with the same rules of inference. the differentiation is consequently not actually a discussion of evidence, but a discussion of what evidence is and which evidence is more convincing. they are both basically inferences.
if you understand a little about geological processes, and why digging down a certain way can allow you to estimate how old some rock is by comparison to the rock around it, you're doing science on inferences on empirically gathered evidence. but, if you're reading it out of a book, and you don't have a clue about any of that, then you're not truly interpreting it differently than a kid in sunday school. if anything, the biblical inference is a lot easier to actually understand.
she wasn't able to articulate herself well, and i think that's why the decision was made to move on. but, i think this is kind of an example of the ivory tower not being able to see outside of itself. it's unfortunate, but she is making a valid point: most people are only able to interpret science as a system of statements that they don't fully understand the reasoning behind, and are forced to leave their derivation to experts and then put faith in the veracity of the conclusions of those experts. appeals to the contrary are themselves a sort of faith-based reasoning. and, so, for many people, science becomes just another type of religion.
there's another point to bring up about axiom systems. it's not valid for the entirety of science; it's more about the more obscure theoretical reaches. the classical v. modern physics part is a good way to discuss this. you can do most classical physics with your bare hands; you throw something at a wall and you measure it, or whatever. experiments, observations, results. that's what science is supposed to be, right?
but if you look at relativity, it doesn't work like that. it's an axiomatic system. light shalt move at c in all inertial reference frames. there shalt be no particle that moves faster than c. light shalt have no mass whatsoever. [these are equivalent statements]. and, yes, it's a reasonable assumption, and i offer no empirical contradiction, but put this in your pipe: i don't believe the third assertion. now, what? then i have little faith in the absolute truth of your deductions, even if i'll admit they're probably pretty close.
i'm not going to argue that that brings religion from the brink; rather, i'm going to argue that it puts a lot of what we call science in the realm of what should be called philosophy. kant be damned; it's not how science is supposed to work. and, doing science like this really opens up a lot of valid space for attack.
i'm not convinced that that is what she was getting at, but the truth is that this line between something that is a story and something that makes predictions isn't quite as clear as is being suggested. it's just....
don't look at religion in a better light because of this. rather, be more critical of what we allow ourselves to call science.
at
06:05
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
so, i'll be watching brookings institute videos while i eat lunch for the next few weeks. let's see how this goes.
i understand what the brookings institute is and why it's going to present certain narratives that may be a little bit elastic regarding certain facts, so let's take a step back here.
let's begin by acknowledging that, regardless of the facts that followed, saddam was very useful to the united states in the 1980s, because he launched an absolutely brutal war against the iranians on their urging. now, skip forwards a few decades and realize that the geo-strategic aim of installing a shia leadership in iraq was to attempt to create competition for control over shia islam. there was no deficit of voices at the time that pointed out that this was naive. but, the intent was that iraq would compete with iran for influence and if they got into a firefight here or there, hey, nobody in the state department is crying about it.
rather, what happened was that the shi'ite leadership in iraq valued co-operation with other shi'ite powers, in competition with sunni powers, over competition with each other. oops.
so, at the time [things have changed a lot in the last year], you had americans going after maliki for not being "inclusive", which is a type of code that means to say that he's not doing what he was supposed to do. he was supposed to be fighting with iran, not working with it. in reaction to this failed policy, you've got saudi-backed militants running in, trying to take him down and put their own guy in place. of course, we blame it on him for not doing what he's told, rather than on ourselves for following through with a policy that was widely panned as naive.
so, what happens when you partition the state? what you do is relinquish the opportunity for saudi-influence in the shia areas, as well as the kurdish areas. further, you permanently move the front in the saudi-iranian proxy war away from the iran-iraq border and into the middle of iraq. that sounds like a great idea - if you're iran. it doesn't sound like such a great idea if you're saudi arabia.
the only way the saudis can regain their influence is if they put a sunni back in charge of a unified state. for that reason, partition will remain anathema to us policy - it would be forfeiting the most valuable parts of iraq to iran.
so, how do you fix this, then?
well, at the moment, it appears that the saudis have settled upon ethnic/religious cleansing as the preferred solution. there's obviously some problems with that tactic; although, if it continues, the harsh truth is that it may do the job.
personally, i'm in favour of regime change in saudi arabia followed by the saudis relinquishing their desire for control, but that's easier to suggest in the abstract than it is to put in place.
but, i do think the analyst is at least right in suggesting that there's not an easy answer and that there's no real end to this conflict in sight.
i understand what the brookings institute is and why it's going to present certain narratives that may be a little bit elastic regarding certain facts, so let's take a step back here.
let's begin by acknowledging that, regardless of the facts that followed, saddam was very useful to the united states in the 1980s, because he launched an absolutely brutal war against the iranians on their urging. now, skip forwards a few decades and realize that the geo-strategic aim of installing a shia leadership in iraq was to attempt to create competition for control over shia islam. there was no deficit of voices at the time that pointed out that this was naive. but, the intent was that iraq would compete with iran for influence and if they got into a firefight here or there, hey, nobody in the state department is crying about it.
rather, what happened was that the shi'ite leadership in iraq valued co-operation with other shi'ite powers, in competition with sunni powers, over competition with each other. oops.
so, at the time [things have changed a lot in the last year], you had americans going after maliki for not being "inclusive", which is a type of code that means to say that he's not doing what he was supposed to do. he was supposed to be fighting with iran, not working with it. in reaction to this failed policy, you've got saudi-backed militants running in, trying to take him down and put their own guy in place. of course, we blame it on him for not doing what he's told, rather than on ourselves for following through with a policy that was widely panned as naive.
so, what happens when you partition the state? what you do is relinquish the opportunity for saudi-influence in the shia areas, as well as the kurdish areas. further, you permanently move the front in the saudi-iranian proxy war away from the iran-iraq border and into the middle of iraq. that sounds like a great idea - if you're iran. it doesn't sound like such a great idea if you're saudi arabia.
the only way the saudis can regain their influence is if they put a sunni back in charge of a unified state. for that reason, partition will remain anathema to us policy - it would be forfeiting the most valuable parts of iraq to iran.
so, how do you fix this, then?
well, at the moment, it appears that the saudis have settled upon ethnic/religious cleansing as the preferred solution. there's obviously some problems with that tactic; although, if it continues, the harsh truth is that it may do the job.
personally, i'm in favour of regime change in saudi arabia followed by the saudis relinquishing their desire for control, but that's easier to suggest in the abstract than it is to put in place.
but, i do think the analyst is at least right in suggesting that there's not an easy answer and that there's no real end to this conflict in sight.
at
05:34
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)