Saturday, January 14, 2017
and, yes - trump's framing is racist as racist can be. but, let's be real, here.
you want to pick a side in a debate between a racist and a sellout?
no. a pox on both their houses.
this is exactly the narrative that democrats need to resist in opposing trump, in order to prevent themselves from being co-opted.
you want to pick a side in a debate between a racist and a sellout?
no. a pox on both their houses.
this is exactly the narrative that democrats need to resist in opposing trump, in order to prevent themselves from being co-opted.
actually, john lewis should focus on pleasing the multinationals that keep him in place as a figurehead in a corporate district. he's one of the most egregious corporate democrats in congress; his history doesn't absolve him of being a tool for big money.
he doesn't represent his constituents, and he doesn't represent civil rights. he represents capital.
he supported clinton over sanders. what does that tell you about who he really represents?
he's a sell-out.
he doesn't represent his constituents, and he doesn't represent civil rights. he represents capital.
he supported clinton over sanders. what does that tell you about who he really represents?
he's a sell-out.
Sunday, July 13, 2014
if you throw the liberal philosophy and rhetoric about property rights
out the window (and this is especially necessary in canada, where
property rights are only weakly recognized by common law, and have no
standing whatsoever at a constitutional level, being explicitly rejected
by parliament (perhaps for political reasons, but nonetheless)
repeatedly), the way "buying" property works in reality is something
that is basically still feudal in nature.
the proposed constitutional amendment (which the conservatives actually voted down, afraid it was going to create social rights) was itself more or less useless. it said something like "nobody should be deprived of property, unless we say so - in which case we agree to compensate them for it". it was never worded in a way that allowed for real property rights, it was more of a right of compensation for state infringement on property. and, in truth that's what already exists in case law. the proposed, and defeated, amendment was not really meaningful, except to legislate existing case law.
the legal owner of every inch of property in canada (including virtually all native land reserves and virtually everything we refer to as "private property") is the crown, which in canada since 1981 (at the latest possible interpretation date) is legally considered to mean the federal government, to the chagrin of certain groups, but legally so nonetheless. the crown has split this giant area of land up into a very large number of fiefs, which it retains ownership of but passes certain privileges off in the form of various titles. the most common type of fief in the former british empire is the fee simple. fee simple is a title that allows the owner of the title (not the owner of the land) to develop the land in certain ways in exchange for a yearly rental fee, which we refer to as a property tax. actual ownership of land in canada is called allodial title, which is unheard of - it only exists in theory, as an abstract possibility.
see, this is where the liberal literature about property gets really confusing, which reduces to an educational fail. i mean, it's what they teach us in schools, so it's what people think is accurate. there's this widespread misunderstanding that property owners (note the language, which is suggestive) ultimately allodially own a piece of property, and that taxes and regulations on that property are consequently some kind of invasion of freedom. but this interpretation is purely projective. it's what liberals WANT to be true, but it has essentially no legal or traditional basis of any kind whatsoever in canada. it is really just simply *wrong* to try and understand property like this. if it's what you want, then get a gun and start a militia, because it's the only way you're going to get it. personally, i'm not much of a fan of understanding property like this. i'd rather talk about social ownership than private ownership.
but, neither of these things exist in canada. in reality, the crown owns the land, and the taxes paid are a yearly type of rent to use it, subject to the conditions laid out in laws (which are the rental agreements, and dictated by the state).
the truth is that this is the general form of rights in canada, and it may actually be the smarter way to do it, despite appearing weaker.
our rights are all of the form:
"all canadians have this right, unless we take it away, in which case we agree to compensate for it."
rather than american rights which are just generally of the form:
"all americans have this right."
...which *actually means*
"all americans have this right, unless we decide otherwise, in which case you're fucked."
the rule of law is another liberal fantasy that comes off as particularly hilarious when you look at the actual historical record.
but this isn't yet another anarchist rant....
the proposed constitutional amendment (which the conservatives actually voted down, afraid it was going to create social rights) was itself more or less useless. it said something like "nobody should be deprived of property, unless we say so - in which case we agree to compensate them for it". it was never worded in a way that allowed for real property rights, it was more of a right of compensation for state infringement on property. and, in truth that's what already exists in case law. the proposed, and defeated, amendment was not really meaningful, except to legislate existing case law.
the legal owner of every inch of property in canada (including virtually all native land reserves and virtually everything we refer to as "private property") is the crown, which in canada since 1981 (at the latest possible interpretation date) is legally considered to mean the federal government, to the chagrin of certain groups, but legally so nonetheless. the crown has split this giant area of land up into a very large number of fiefs, which it retains ownership of but passes certain privileges off in the form of various titles. the most common type of fief in the former british empire is the fee simple. fee simple is a title that allows the owner of the title (not the owner of the land) to develop the land in certain ways in exchange for a yearly rental fee, which we refer to as a property tax. actual ownership of land in canada is called allodial title, which is unheard of - it only exists in theory, as an abstract possibility.
see, this is where the liberal literature about property gets really confusing, which reduces to an educational fail. i mean, it's what they teach us in schools, so it's what people think is accurate. there's this widespread misunderstanding that property owners (note the language, which is suggestive) ultimately allodially own a piece of property, and that taxes and regulations on that property are consequently some kind of invasion of freedom. but this interpretation is purely projective. it's what liberals WANT to be true, but it has essentially no legal or traditional basis of any kind whatsoever in canada. it is really just simply *wrong* to try and understand property like this. if it's what you want, then get a gun and start a militia, because it's the only way you're going to get it. personally, i'm not much of a fan of understanding property like this. i'd rather talk about social ownership than private ownership.
but, neither of these things exist in canada. in reality, the crown owns the land, and the taxes paid are a yearly type of rent to use it, subject to the conditions laid out in laws (which are the rental agreements, and dictated by the state).
the truth is that this is the general form of rights in canada, and it may actually be the smarter way to do it, despite appearing weaker.
our rights are all of the form:
"all canadians have this right, unless we take it away, in which case we agree to compensate for it."
rather than american rights which are just generally of the form:
"all americans have this right."
...which *actually means*
"all americans have this right, unless we decide otherwise, in which case you're fucked."
the rule of law is another liberal fantasy that comes off as particularly hilarious when you look at the actual historical record.
but this isn't yet another anarchist rant....
i told you from the start that you'll never get co-operation from alberta. in the great game of life, they constantly play D. when you try and cut a deal with them, they just want to take advantage of you. they're bullies; they want to fight. and, you have to take the fight right to them.
they'll complain and whine and cry about it, but the reality is that they thrive on the confrontation. it's what they want.
they'll complain and whine and cry about it, but the reality is that they thrive on the confrontation. it's what they want.
this is a fundamental point of tension in the country, east v west. it's
never going to resolve. it is consequently not the task of eastern
politicians to try and play nice, but to try and use the conflict to
their advantage.
of course, you need to be
careful. as is the case with quebecois nationalism, the ultimate fear is
that the americans may swoop in. but, both sides can use this as
leverage.
if you hand them a fig leaf, they will take it out of your hand and stomp on it. so, we need to stop doing it.
to be clear: it's arms-length.
and, harper made it a priority to take control of it. it's become a
swarming hive of right-wing hacks.
cbc: conservative broadcasting corporation.
somebody needs to get the
importance of removing these people across to the liberal party. i don't
think this is clear enough to them.
sitting and watching cbc comments change in real-time is always fun, because you can actually see the upvotes decrease in front of you.
this is the statement:
"phasing out the tar sands *is* a populist position."
the upvotes go up....and then they come down, because this is a statement that cannot be upvoted.
to be clear: the ups and downs are independent. clicking down shouldn't decrease the ups. it's just being manipulated. and, like i say, you can watch it happen if you sit and wait.
this is the statement:
"phasing out the tar sands *is* a populist position."
the upvotes go up....and then they come down, because this is a statement that cannot be upvoted.
to be clear: the ups and downs are independent. clicking down shouldn't decrease the ups. it's just being manipulated. and, like i say, you can watch it happen if you sit and wait.
a parliamentary system is not set up to send a figurehead around to take
questions from audiences. the only people that can vote for or against
the prime minister are in his riding. the people that are tasked to talk
to their constituents and bring their concerns back to ottawa are the
sitting members in the house. that is how the data that they want should
be collected.
so, the media narrative of "he should say this...he should say
that..."....no. he should leave the job of local representation to local
representatives and go back to ottawa and govern.
when i go in to the voting area, i'm not going to remember the answers he gave at a town hall meeting. what i'm going to remember is the choices he made when governing. and, right now, he hasn't made very many choices at all - he's just answered a lot of questions.
if i have a concern, i'm not
going to call the prime minister. i'm going to call my mp. and, that's
who should be doing these town halls.
when i go in to the voting area, i'm not going to remember the answers he gave at a town hall meeting. what i'm going to remember is the choices he made when governing. and, right now, he hasn't made very many choices at all - he's just answered a lot of questions.
no, you don't...
i actually don't care how he answers the questions; i care what he does when he goes back to ottawa. and, i actually think he should have stayed there in the first place, because it doesn't actually matter how he answers the questions.
the greatest, most carefully crafted responses in the world will not overshadow policy decisions. the most beautiful platitudes imaginable will not alter the contents of the budget. and, the most vociferous claims of a change of direction in government mean little, when they are not backed up by meaningful legislation.
we've heard trudeau talk enough. i know what he has to say. what i want is more action.
i actually don't care how he answers the questions; i care what he does when he goes back to ottawa. and, i actually think he should have stayed there in the first place, because it doesn't actually matter how he answers the questions.
the greatest, most carefully crafted responses in the world will not overshadow policy decisions. the most beautiful platitudes imaginable will not alter the contents of the budget. and, the most vociferous claims of a change of direction in government mean little, when they are not backed up by meaningful legislation.
we've heard trudeau talk enough. i know what he has to say. what i want is more action.
july 12, 2014
it's all the same cultural themes as at the end of the clinton administration. techno. emo. ufos. these things actually have something in common. if you don't think the economy is planned, you're not paying attention. but note that the planners do not believe in democracy; the social engineering is being pushed down from above, and it's not a utopian vision. this future has a new religion in it, with new value systems, but it's designed to uphold the status quo rather than abolish it.
it's the type of thing people fear the republicans are scheming up. but, that's the democratic plan, which seems to have just been rebooted with obama without so much as a thought. it's absolute clinton redux. the republicans don't even care anymore, the democrats do everything the business class wants anyways, so they're just happy to hold the office every few years to cut their own taxes.
one of the more surreal conversations i've stumbled upon in relation to this was actually from peter gabriel, who very coyly suggested that the social and political messaging behind his art was to create a globalized culture, and there was some kind of structure underlying it. well, if the nwo sounds like passion, i must say that, i, for one, welcome our new kosmische overlords.
not to drag the nwo scare tactics out. we may end up ruled by computerized aliens, but no intelligent person is going to actually believe it's anything more than a front. these guys aren't marxists; they're not even on the left side of capitalism. it's fascists across the board, right now. and global bodies like the un remain the only way to stop them.
if you want to stop them. it's a hard road from a to b, but we may require a long period of horrific global governance to reach a state of communism.
i mean, things aren't working out so well at the moment.
it's all the same cultural themes as at the end of the clinton administration. techno. emo. ufos. these things actually have something in common. if you don't think the economy is planned, you're not paying attention. but note that the planners do not believe in democracy; the social engineering is being pushed down from above, and it's not a utopian vision. this future has a new religion in it, with new value systems, but it's designed to uphold the status quo rather than abolish it.
it's the type of thing people fear the republicans are scheming up. but, that's the democratic plan, which seems to have just been rebooted with obama without so much as a thought. it's absolute clinton redux. the republicans don't even care anymore, the democrats do everything the business class wants anyways, so they're just happy to hold the office every few years to cut their own taxes.
one of the more surreal conversations i've stumbled upon in relation to this was actually from peter gabriel, who very coyly suggested that the social and political messaging behind his art was to create a globalized culture, and there was some kind of structure underlying it. well, if the nwo sounds like passion, i must say that, i, for one, welcome our new kosmische overlords.
not to drag the nwo scare tactics out. we may end up ruled by computerized aliens, but no intelligent person is going to actually believe it's anything more than a front. these guys aren't marxists; they're not even on the left side of capitalism. it's fascists across the board, right now. and global bodies like the un remain the only way to stop them.
if you want to stop them. it's a hard road from a to b, but we may require a long period of horrific global governance to reach a state of communism.
i mean, things aren't working out so well at the moment.
put another way..
it's well known that, when forced with the choice, canada picks democrats over republicans by at least a 3-1 margin. there were polls around the iraq invasion that had george w. bush running under 5% in canada - even as he was running high in the polls in the united states.
the flip side of that that is much less realized is that americans are going to pick the conservatives over the liberals by similar margins. they just don't realize it, because they don't really know the parties. they know the words, but they don't realize how they apply, here. all kinds of people that identify as liberal democrats in the united states would very quickly become card-carrying conservatives as soon as they crossed the border and realized what was actually in front of them.
it's well known that, when forced with the choice, canada picks democrats over republicans by at least a 3-1 margin. there were polls around the iraq invasion that had george w. bush running under 5% in canada - even as he was running high in the polls in the united states.
the flip side of that that is much less realized is that americans are going to pick the conservatives over the liberals by similar margins. they just don't realize it, because they don't really know the parties. they know the words, but they don't realize how they apply, here. all kinds of people that identify as liberal democrats in the united states would very quickly become card-carrying conservatives as soon as they crossed the border and realized what was actually in front of them.
the great irony is that so many self-identifying american progressives that want to move to canada would quickly find themselves marginalized on the right, if they were to actually do so.
our conservative party supports single-payer health care, and refuses to discuss abortion. with the single exception of energy policy, it is monolithically to the left of the democratic party.
our "natural governing party", the liberals, is roughly in the same space on the spectrum as the american green party.
and, we have a socialist party that actually succeeded in nationalizing the oil industry for most of the 70s and part of the 80s (with a strong assist from the liberals).
to get an idea of where you'd exist in our spectrum, let's map a few well known personalities:
1) hillary clinton ----> old tory.
2) barack obama ----> old tory.
3) elizabeth warren ----> red tory, or right-wing liberal.
4) jill stein ----> centrist liberal: closest match to the prime minister.
5) ted cruz ----> reform party (albertan conservative).
6) marco rubio ----> reform party (albertan conservative).
7) donald trump ----> oldskool social credit.
8) john kerry ---> right-wing liberal.
9) bernie sanders ----> right-leaning ndp, or left-leaning liberal.
10) naomi klein ----> centrist ndp.
11) noam chomsky ---->left-leaning ndp.
you sure you think this is a good idea?
actually, it's kind of neat to put them together to really solidify the culture shock.
socreds: {trump}
tories: {clinton, obama, rubio, cruz, warren....stephen harper}
liberals: {kerry, stein.....justin trudeau}
ndp: {sanders, klein, chomsky}
our conservative party supports single-payer health care, and refuses to discuss abortion. with the single exception of energy policy, it is monolithically to the left of the democratic party.
our "natural governing party", the liberals, is roughly in the same space on the spectrum as the american green party.
and, we have a socialist party that actually succeeded in nationalizing the oil industry for most of the 70s and part of the 80s (with a strong assist from the liberals).
to get an idea of where you'd exist in our spectrum, let's map a few well known personalities:
1) hillary clinton ----> old tory.
2) barack obama ----> old tory.
3) elizabeth warren ----> red tory, or right-wing liberal.
4) jill stein ----> centrist liberal: closest match to the prime minister.
5) ted cruz ----> reform party (albertan conservative).
6) marco rubio ----> reform party (albertan conservative).
7) donald trump ----> oldskool social credit.
8) john kerry ---> right-wing liberal.
9) bernie sanders ----> right-leaning ndp, or left-leaning liberal.
10) naomi klein ----> centrist ndp.
11) noam chomsky ---->left-leaning ndp.
you sure you think this is a good idea?
actually, it's kind of neat to put them together to really solidify the culture shock.
socreds: {trump}
tories: {clinton, obama, rubio, cruz, warren....stephen harper}
liberals: {kerry, stein.....justin trudeau}
ndp: {sanders, klein, chomsky}
another way to understand what's happening is to use the analogy of a cell phone contract, because it's actually fairly precise and something a lot of people have experience with.
let's say you get a new job that requires you to use a lot of minutes. you look at the plans and pick a plan that gives you unlimited minutes for a considerably higher price. it's expensive in absolute terms, but you know you will use the minutes, so you expect to save money. then, you sign the contract for five years, because you're optimistic about the job.
now, imagine that you get hit by a car the day after you sign the cell contract and it puts you in permanent disability, so that you're not going to work at all for at least five years. now, you have no expectation of needing all of these minutes that you bought - but you're locked into a five year plan.
so, every month when the bill comes in, you're paying for a service you're not using. but, because you're under contract, you can't get out.
what the province of ontario did was sign 20 year contracts with private electricity suppliers that guaranteed them a minimum revenue stream, then figuratively get hit by a car and find itself unable to use all of this electricity that it locked itself into paying for.
you can't buy a cell tower. but, the state could have paid for the wind farm. the problem is that they were afraid that the debt would become a political liability. so, they made what they thought was a great deal, instead. and it backfired very badly....
i've been clear that i'd just pass a law. but, the fastest and easiest solution would be to take on the debt.
let's say you get a new job that requires you to use a lot of minutes. you look at the plans and pick a plan that gives you unlimited minutes for a considerably higher price. it's expensive in absolute terms, but you know you will use the minutes, so you expect to save money. then, you sign the contract for five years, because you're optimistic about the job.
now, imagine that you get hit by a car the day after you sign the cell contract and it puts you in permanent disability, so that you're not going to work at all for at least five years. now, you have no expectation of needing all of these minutes that you bought - but you're locked into a five year plan.
so, every month when the bill comes in, you're paying for a service you're not using. but, because you're under contract, you can't get out.
what the province of ontario did was sign 20 year contracts with private electricity suppliers that guaranteed them a minimum revenue stream, then figuratively get hit by a car and find itself unable to use all of this electricity that it locked itself into paying for.
you can't buy a cell tower. but, the state could have paid for the wind farm. the problem is that they were afraid that the debt would become a political liability. so, they made what they thought was a great deal, instead. and it backfired very badly....
i've been clear that i'd just pass a law. but, the fastest and easiest solution would be to take on the debt.
Friday, January 13, 2017
the electricity issue in ontario is indeed bad.
i've been over this. but to be as terse as possible: we used to have a monopoly on generation. but, we switched to a private/public mix. and, what we did was guarantee private producers a revenue stream, to ensure the system had sufficient generation.
there's a lot of what ifs.
1) had we just built this generation ourselves, instead of relying on private industry, we wouldn't have this problem. but, we'd have more debt. in fact, this works out to a shifting of manageable debt to unmanageable rates. most people will argue it would have been better to keep the system entirely state-run - but that would have meant the government taking on debt. and, conservatives would of course not like that.
2) but, if we had met the demand that was projected, we wouldn't have this problem, either. very specifically: if we had shifted to electric vehicles, we wouldn't have this problem. that was the precise reason that the province went out of it's way to ensure such a high capacity. it projected a nightmare in demand for electrical vehicles, which it saw as inevitable, and signed what today look like absurd contracts. if demand had risen as projected, these contracts would not look so crazy; rather, the architects would be being praised for their foresight.
3) had the government realized the problem earlier, and taken the steps to eat the error rather than pass it on to consumers, we wouldn't have this problem. there are several approaches. instead of passing these fees on to consumers, they could pay it and add it to the debt. they could buy the contracts out. or even refuse to honour them. or, they could go back to the drawing board and nationalize.
however, the idea that market liberalization would have prevented or will resolve this problem is incorrect. when you remove price controls, the prices always go up. in this particular case, taking away the energy board would almost certainly raise prices across the board to the level of the contracts. the energy board is what is keeping the prices down. i know that this is counter-intuitive. but it's not the board that sets the fees; the fees are determined by subtracting actual demand from the guaranteed payouts. in fact, the lower the board sets the rate, the higher the fees are going to be; the higher the board sets the rate, the lower the fees are going to be.
we're just not anywhere close to projected demand...
so, there is somewhat of a cautionary tale in centralized planning, here, it's just not what the right is throwing around. the lesson is that if you're going to plan your economy deep into the future, you need to ensure that you do not rely on private interests. centralized planning has to be public sector. otherwise, externalities and profit motives will invariably fuck everything up.
but what is absolutely beyond any debate is that this is purely a provincial issue. and, the media that is attempting to tie it to the federal government is dishonest.
i've been over this. but to be as terse as possible: we used to have a monopoly on generation. but, we switched to a private/public mix. and, what we did was guarantee private producers a revenue stream, to ensure the system had sufficient generation.
there's a lot of what ifs.
1) had we just built this generation ourselves, instead of relying on private industry, we wouldn't have this problem. but, we'd have more debt. in fact, this works out to a shifting of manageable debt to unmanageable rates. most people will argue it would have been better to keep the system entirely state-run - but that would have meant the government taking on debt. and, conservatives would of course not like that.
2) but, if we had met the demand that was projected, we wouldn't have this problem, either. very specifically: if we had shifted to electric vehicles, we wouldn't have this problem. that was the precise reason that the province went out of it's way to ensure such a high capacity. it projected a nightmare in demand for electrical vehicles, which it saw as inevitable, and signed what today look like absurd contracts. if demand had risen as projected, these contracts would not look so crazy; rather, the architects would be being praised for their foresight.
3) had the government realized the problem earlier, and taken the steps to eat the error rather than pass it on to consumers, we wouldn't have this problem. there are several approaches. instead of passing these fees on to consumers, they could pay it and add it to the debt. they could buy the contracts out. or even refuse to honour them. or, they could go back to the drawing board and nationalize.
however, the idea that market liberalization would have prevented or will resolve this problem is incorrect. when you remove price controls, the prices always go up. in this particular case, taking away the energy board would almost certainly raise prices across the board to the level of the contracts. the energy board is what is keeping the prices down. i know that this is counter-intuitive. but it's not the board that sets the fees; the fees are determined by subtracting actual demand from the guaranteed payouts. in fact, the lower the board sets the rate, the higher the fees are going to be; the higher the board sets the rate, the lower the fees are going to be.
we're just not anywhere close to projected demand...
so, there is somewhat of a cautionary tale in centralized planning, here, it's just not what the right is throwing around. the lesson is that if you're going to plan your economy deep into the future, you need to ensure that you do not rely on private interests. centralized planning has to be public sector. otherwise, externalities and profit motives will invariably fuck everything up.
but what is absolutely beyond any debate is that this is purely a provincial issue. and, the media that is attempting to tie it to the federal government is dishonest.
july 9, 2014
it's funny how, the more a piece is practiced, time begins to slow down. i wonder if anybody's really studied this...
it's just perception, of course. but time is weird. relativity theory suggests (and suggests is the right word. the experiments that supposedly uphold this part of it are kind of weak. for example, they sent a plane around the earth a few times and noticed the clocks came back differently, in a way that sort of verified einstein's predictions. but, in fact, it was in the margin of error. i don't doubt einstein was on to something, and it's not like i found an error in the math or anything, but i'm a little iffy on some of the assumptions. relativity theory is an axiomatic system, built at the precise moment that axiomatic systems were being abandoned as unreliable. so, this is a perilous way to build a theory up. any future corrections to the axioms, and they're perpetually inevitable, may drastically alter the conclusions.) that time is not as constant as we perceive it as, but we're not accelerating to fractions of the speed of light very often, either, so it's not really wrong to think of it as a constant in day-to-day non-experimental life. i mean, playing my guitar isn't anything like synchronizing satellites.
but, there's no question that an ant or a fly must perceive of time as faster than we do. i mean, flies wouldn't be so hard to catch, otherwise. i guess it's just simple physics if you think about it: shorter paths for the electricity to follow. and it's true that insects are roughly comparable to primitive robots in terms of consciousness, it's just action/reaction, so that's not a totally useful comparison. but, if we could somehow be the proverbial fly on the wall, we would probably have difficulty understanding what was being said, because the waveforms would come in to us as slowed down, elongated messes. i don't even know if flies can "hear" or not...well, i guess they get vibrations of some sort but i don't know if that's actually sound or just noise.
something like that seems to happen when getting locked into the groove of an instrument. after a while, playing at 360 seems like playing at 250. it's not just a question of getting the mechanics right, it's the entire computation process. at first, the notes are blurry and it's difficult to think and play at the same time, but eventually the separation of the notes is as clear as it is at slower tempos and the ability to process the whole thing - finger movements, next notes, etc - slows down as well.
and i'm wondering if it might have something to do with higher aptitude to do various mental tasks amongst musicians. i mean, i'm not actually modifying time. my guitar is not a frame of reference. i'm not increasing my velocity. it must be that i'm thinking faster, getting my brain to work at a faster speed. physically, that would have to be synapses being built - that's what it *means* to think faster, right? to have more synapses, shorter paths, faster electrical responses. maybe the brain reuses those for math problems...
i'm rambling, just thinking out loud. but it really is remarkable how we're able to lock in and change that perception of time, whether it's the result of increasing transmission speed or something else.
there's this unfortunate tendency recently to think of intelligence as something genetic, but the brain is a highly plastic organ that is constantly changing with experience.
your current brain is not the brain you were born with. it's a highly individualized culture of cells that was built solely for you as a reaction to the experiences you've had in your life.
and it will continue changing for as long as you live.
--
well, somebody's studied it.
i don't currently have the time or interest to review the literature, but this is quick survey.
http://www.demneuropsy.com.br/imageBank/PDF/v4n4a05.pdf
it's funny how, the more a piece is practiced, time begins to slow down. i wonder if anybody's really studied this...
it's just perception, of course. but time is weird. relativity theory suggests (and suggests is the right word. the experiments that supposedly uphold this part of it are kind of weak. for example, they sent a plane around the earth a few times and noticed the clocks came back differently, in a way that sort of verified einstein's predictions. but, in fact, it was in the margin of error. i don't doubt einstein was on to something, and it's not like i found an error in the math or anything, but i'm a little iffy on some of the assumptions. relativity theory is an axiomatic system, built at the precise moment that axiomatic systems were being abandoned as unreliable. so, this is a perilous way to build a theory up. any future corrections to the axioms, and they're perpetually inevitable, may drastically alter the conclusions.) that time is not as constant as we perceive it as, but we're not accelerating to fractions of the speed of light very often, either, so it's not really wrong to think of it as a constant in day-to-day non-experimental life. i mean, playing my guitar isn't anything like synchronizing satellites.
but, there's no question that an ant or a fly must perceive of time as faster than we do. i mean, flies wouldn't be so hard to catch, otherwise. i guess it's just simple physics if you think about it: shorter paths for the electricity to follow. and it's true that insects are roughly comparable to primitive robots in terms of consciousness, it's just action/reaction, so that's not a totally useful comparison. but, if we could somehow be the proverbial fly on the wall, we would probably have difficulty understanding what was being said, because the waveforms would come in to us as slowed down, elongated messes. i don't even know if flies can "hear" or not...well, i guess they get vibrations of some sort but i don't know if that's actually sound or just noise.
something like that seems to happen when getting locked into the groove of an instrument. after a while, playing at 360 seems like playing at 250. it's not just a question of getting the mechanics right, it's the entire computation process. at first, the notes are blurry and it's difficult to think and play at the same time, but eventually the separation of the notes is as clear as it is at slower tempos and the ability to process the whole thing - finger movements, next notes, etc - slows down as well.
and i'm wondering if it might have something to do with higher aptitude to do various mental tasks amongst musicians. i mean, i'm not actually modifying time. my guitar is not a frame of reference. i'm not increasing my velocity. it must be that i'm thinking faster, getting my brain to work at a faster speed. physically, that would have to be synapses being built - that's what it *means* to think faster, right? to have more synapses, shorter paths, faster electrical responses. maybe the brain reuses those for math problems...
i'm rambling, just thinking out loud. but it really is remarkable how we're able to lock in and change that perception of time, whether it's the result of increasing transmission speed or something else.
there's this unfortunate tendency recently to think of intelligence as something genetic, but the brain is a highly plastic organ that is constantly changing with experience.
your current brain is not the brain you were born with. it's a highly individualized culture of cells that was built solely for you as a reaction to the experiences you've had in your life.
and it will continue changing for as long as you live.
--
well, somebody's studied it.
i don't currently have the time or interest to review the literature, but this is quick survey.
http://www.demneuropsy.com.br/imageBank/PDF/v4n4a05.pdf
Jul 7, 2014
if you follow the logic in the statement he made last year about it being contingent on a state department review, the reality is that he has already approved the pipeline. and, in fact, it's already pumping. he's just waiting for the right political moment to announce it.
you have to understand that this is a national security issue. the oil is going to china. and, what does the united states focus it's entire foreign policy around? controlling the oil supply. this isn't an economic argument. environmentalists are trying to engage in a debate about the ecological problems, while correcting people on the economic value, but they're missing the point. from the government's perspective, it's not about this...
if canada doesn't ship it through the united states, it's going to be shipping it through british columbia, which is a national security problem because it's draining resources out of an area it considers it's backyard and towards a country it considers it's dominant rival. the military will not allow that to happen. the oil is going through the united states, and harper is going to be removed if he throws any wrenches into it. but, he's not actually throwing wrenches into it. the terms of conditions for the bc pipeline are going to take a decade to work out, the courts are going to slow it down, and by then the oil will be pumping from the south. so, harper can go to his chinese investors and say his hands are tied. it's no accident...
....because if they pump the oil through the united states, the military maintains control over it, including the ability to block export in the event of sanctions or war. this is what is going to happen whether anybody likes it or not.
it's also the reason canada is not allowed to build refineries, or airplanes or anything else. that would provide us with too much independence.
he'll probably announce it after the midterms, but he might wait as long as the end of his term, or even dump it off to a republican successor, if the politics allow for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVM2qOl144c
if you follow the logic in the statement he made last year about it being contingent on a state department review, the reality is that he has already approved the pipeline. and, in fact, it's already pumping. he's just waiting for the right political moment to announce it.
you have to understand that this is a national security issue. the oil is going to china. and, what does the united states focus it's entire foreign policy around? controlling the oil supply. this isn't an economic argument. environmentalists are trying to engage in a debate about the ecological problems, while correcting people on the economic value, but they're missing the point. from the government's perspective, it's not about this...
if canada doesn't ship it through the united states, it's going to be shipping it through british columbia, which is a national security problem because it's draining resources out of an area it considers it's backyard and towards a country it considers it's dominant rival. the military will not allow that to happen. the oil is going through the united states, and harper is going to be removed if he throws any wrenches into it. but, he's not actually throwing wrenches into it. the terms of conditions for the bc pipeline are going to take a decade to work out, the courts are going to slow it down, and by then the oil will be pumping from the south. so, harper can go to his chinese investors and say his hands are tied. it's no accident...
....because if they pump the oil through the united states, the military maintains control over it, including the ability to block export in the event of sanctions or war. this is what is going to happen whether anybody likes it or not.
it's also the reason canada is not allowed to build refineries, or airplanes or anything else. that would provide us with too much independence.
he'll probably announce it after the midterms, but he might wait as long as the end of his term, or even dump it off to a republican successor, if the politics allow for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVM2qOl144c
July 7, 2014
line 9 goes through the state of michigan (allowing the americans to block the line in case of sanctions or war against china) and has a proposed terminal in portland, maine - giving them ultimate control over exports.
http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/06/13/if_keystone_gets_nixed_canadian_pipeline_operators_have_a_plan_b_olive.html
this is about the americans controlling the supply, and harper being stuck in a tug-of-war between chinese buyers wanting to control it and the americans seeing that as a security threat.
for a long time, i was worried that harper was giving in to those chinese interests and possibly putting western canada under threat of american occupation.
thankfully, he seems to have stepped back from the brink.
if he wanted the western pipelines built, he wouldn't have approved them with hundreds of conditions.
it's going to be decades before anything gets done, and by then the other lines will be operational. it's not worth the cost. they won't be built.
but, what harper can do now is go to his chinese investors and say his hands are tied. which is true. it's just that they're not tied by regulators, they're tied by the americans.
the oil is already pumping south through the keystone. if obama doesn't approve the wider pipe, his successor will. it's a matter of time.
in the mean time, the line 9 will ship it through michigan and out to maine.
it's all about controlling the oil supply. we know that this is what the americans spend billions on their military to do, but we think of ourselves as special.
there's nothing more obvious than that the americans will insist they are in control. and it seems to be that what that means is having the oil pumped through their borders.
so, keystone is allowed because it goes through the us. line 9 is allowed because it goes through the us. the western pipelines get drowned in bureaucracy because they don't go through the us. and the chinese get stuck with an unstable investment.
that's the cost of doing business in the shadow of the elephant.
and it has nothing to do with ecological concerns.
line 9 goes through the state of michigan (allowing the americans to block the line in case of sanctions or war against china) and has a proposed terminal in portland, maine - giving them ultimate control over exports.
http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/06/13/if_keystone_gets_nixed_canadian_pipeline_operators_have_a_plan_b_olive.html
this is about the americans controlling the supply, and harper being stuck in a tug-of-war between chinese buyers wanting to control it and the americans seeing that as a security threat.
for a long time, i was worried that harper was giving in to those chinese interests and possibly putting western canada under threat of american occupation.
thankfully, he seems to have stepped back from the brink.
if he wanted the western pipelines built, he wouldn't have approved them with hundreds of conditions.
it's going to be decades before anything gets done, and by then the other lines will be operational. it's not worth the cost. they won't be built.
but, what harper can do now is go to his chinese investors and say his hands are tied. which is true. it's just that they're not tied by regulators, they're tied by the americans.
the oil is already pumping south through the keystone. if obama doesn't approve the wider pipe, his successor will. it's a matter of time.
in the mean time, the line 9 will ship it through michigan and out to maine.
it's all about controlling the oil supply. we know that this is what the americans spend billions on their military to do, but we think of ourselves as special.
there's nothing more obvious than that the americans will insist they are in control. and it seems to be that what that means is having the oil pumped through their borders.
so, keystone is allowed because it goes through the us. line 9 is allowed because it goes through the us. the western pipelines get drowned in bureaucracy because they don't go through the us. and the chinese get stuck with an unstable investment.
that's the cost of doing business in the shadow of the elephant.
and it has nothing to do with ecological concerns.
do you want to know the primary reason that the program is unpopular, barry?
it didn't work. it left people uninsured. it was expensive.
and, these failures were predictable - because you cannot use a market system to deliver a product like healthcare. it will fail. every time.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obamacare-idUSKBN14Q2E5
it didn't work. it left people uninsured. it was expensive.
and, these failures were predictable - because you cannot use a market system to deliver a product like healthcare. it will fail. every time.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obamacare-idUSKBN14Q2E5
i don't think that this is the line the government will take, but it's the line they ought to take.
and, you can imagine the opposition's response, right.
"the prime minister can't just change the rules!"
....except that that's actually what the prime minister's job is - to change the rules.
i still don't see a story, here.
and, you can imagine the opposition's response, right.
"the prime minister can't just change the rules!"
....except that that's actually what the prime minister's job is - to change the rules.
i still don't see a story, here.
rrrrrrrring
"hi. ethics office."
it's justin, again.
"it's 3 am, sir."
i know. but, i had to pull over at the gas station and the tp isn't branded in the stall. what do i do?
"you'll have to sit there and wait until the committee meets in the morning. we'll try and get the memo to your office before lunch. and, yes, you need it in writing."
what if i just...
"well, we'll have to launch an investigation if you take matters into your own hands, sir."
"hi. ethics office."
it's justin, again.
"it's 3 am, sir."
i know. but, i had to pull over at the gas station and the tp isn't branded in the stall. what do i do?
"you'll have to sit there and wait until the committee meets in the morning. we'll try and get the memo to your office before lunch. and, yes, you need it in writing."
what if i just...
"well, we'll have to launch an investigation if you take matters into your own hands, sir."
rrrrrrrring
"hi. ethics office."
it's justin, again.
"the right honourable...."
indeed. i'm just at the store and i need to know: what is the preferred brand of toilet paper? ethically speaking. are these green brands acceptable, or is it just greenwashing?
"we'll have to take it to committee."
do i need this in writing?
"of course."
"hi. ethics office."
it's justin, again.
"the right honourable...."
indeed. i'm just at the store and i need to know: what is the preferred brand of toilet paper? ethically speaking. are these green brands acceptable, or is it just greenwashing?
"we'll have to take it to committee."
do i need this in writing?
"of course."
it is an obvious empirical fact that white rappers exist, and an obvious
empirical fact that a white market for rap exists, too. i am aware that
the market for rap has more whites than blacks in it. but, that implies
less than is usually assumed. numbers pulled from nowhere, but if the
black rap market is something like 4%/8%, and the white rap market is
something like 6%/70% then that is half of black people but only a tenth
of white people. and it is no doubt more than half and less than a
tenth.
i don't claim to know why these white people feel an attachment to an inherently black form of protest. i guess that solidarity is meaningful. but, if you're listening to music out of solidarity then you're missing the point of what music is. there are other aesthetic factors. and, of course, there are white people that grow up in black neighbourhoods, too, and don't feel that exclusion, or feel included by the exclusion. but, i wouldn't be the first to claim that a large percentage of them just honestly don't get it, and are operating on some kind of vacuous "cool" factor that most people don't operate on.
the reality is that most white people are going to listen to the form and find themselves unable to relate to the topics being discussed because it doesn't reflect their life experiences and therefore be disinterested in delving deeper into something that was obviously not made for them. and, why should they want to delve into it if it wasn't made for them?
i know that this idea that hip-hop was going to be the new mainstream was widely circulated around fifteen years ago, but the reality is that it never got there and that the window has since long passed. it's never going to get there, because it's never going to make sense to the majority demographics as anything besides a form of ethnic protest that does not belong to them.
i don't claim to know why these white people feel an attachment to an inherently black form of protest. i guess that solidarity is meaningful. but, if you're listening to music out of solidarity then you're missing the point of what music is. there are other aesthetic factors. and, of course, there are white people that grow up in black neighbourhoods, too, and don't feel that exclusion, or feel included by the exclusion. but, i wouldn't be the first to claim that a large percentage of them just honestly don't get it, and are operating on some kind of vacuous "cool" factor that most people don't operate on.
the reality is that most white people are going to listen to the form and find themselves unable to relate to the topics being discussed because it doesn't reflect their life experiences and therefore be disinterested in delving deeper into something that was obviously not made for them. and, why should they want to delve into it if it wasn't made for them?
i know that this idea that hip-hop was going to be the new mainstream was widely circulated around fifteen years ago, but the reality is that it never got there and that the window has since long passed. it's never going to get there, because it's never going to make sense to the majority demographics as anything besides a form of ethnic protest that does not belong to them.
rock music was initially always about dancing - and itself evolved out
of earlier dance forms. over time, it hybridized, but it never lots it's
purpose as soundtracking a party. it eventually evolved into different
dance forms. but, because it is about dancing, it is inherently
inclusive. hip-hop was always about protest. and, because that protest
is so heavily tied into an identity, it is inherently deeply exclusive.
"but rock music was black."
except that it wasn't. it was a synthesis. and in the sense that it was partly black, it never identified that way. early rock musicians were sometimes black, but they rarely made their blackness central to their art.
hip-hop was constructed for the sole purpose of exploring black identity. it really doesn't make sense when you separate it from it's blackness. so, how can it make sense to white people? what does it have to offer people that aren't black?
except that it wasn't. it was a synthesis. and in the sense that it was partly black, it never identified that way. early rock musicians were sometimes black, but they rarely made their blackness central to their art.
hip-hop was constructed for the sole purpose of exploring black identity. it really doesn't make sense when you separate it from it's blackness. so, how can it make sense to white people? what does it have to offer people that aren't black?
the beatniks became hippies, and the hippies became punks, and the punks became emos and ravers. then capitalism swooped in, and the counterculture stagnated as it stabilized into a set of markets. but, the current evolutionary end point for the beatnik dance parties is the rave scene. bongos have become drum machines; marijuana has become mdma.
hip-hop is in a different cultural heritage. i don't want to talk about appropriation; the reality is that it actually has essentially no appeal to white culture, because it is so inherently black. which isn't to say that white people shouldn't, but to say that they overwhelmingly don't want to. it has not and will not work it's in way into the above lineage, except in the form of an outside influence.
hip-hop is in a different cultural heritage. i don't want to talk about appropriation; the reality is that it actually has essentially no appeal to white culture, because it is so inherently black. which isn't to say that white people shouldn't, but to say that they overwhelmingly don't want to. it has not and will not work it's in way into the above lineage, except in the form of an outside influence.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
jul 3, 2014
the comments here seem to suggest that it's a common view in america that one is not entitled to water unless they are a good slave. bad slaves are best left to dehydrate and die, as they are not producing anything for their masters.
you white racist dipshits are a bunch of fucking niggers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj5dD06Iy9U
John Galt
Just pay your bills and the water gets turned on. Do you somehow feel that you can demand the labor of others without paying for that labor?
jessica
+John Galt what does an automated system of water distribution have to do with labour?
and why do you think that automated system has the right to charge a price, or generate a profit?
the real issue is parasitic investors converting humans into profit generating machines, and denying them the necessities of existence if they don't contribute to that extractive process.
so, why do you think that these parasitic investors ought to have the right to force independent human beings into non-consensual labour (which is difficult to even find) in exchange for the things they need to survive?
there's a very simple fix: common ownership. if the people having their water shut off owned the system, nobody would be able to deny them of what they owned, and they would maintain access to what they are entitled to.
the crime here is in private ownership of goods that nobody should have the right to own, or be able to coerce people into forced labour in order to gain access to.
until we collectively pull our heads out of our asses and work towards collectivizing the various ways we produce things, we will continue to live under the slavery of market capitalism that forces us to work or die.
the reality is that the vast majority of employed people do nothing of any substantial value to society, and most of them are going to lose their jobs in their near future to automation.
but, we should look forward to this as a step forward in human progress and seize the opportunity that is finally available to us to truly be free.
but, we have to change how we think about labour, first.
and, john galt is not helping us do that. john galt is keeping us locked in a system that has failed us as workers, artists and inventors - while benefiting a select group of people, most of whom have never done an honest day of hard work in their whole lives.
crowbird213
+deathtokoalas Never worked, never will. What does your fantasy system do about population explosion by the dumbest among us? Keep feeding them? If the whole world naught into your fantasy, what effect would that have on your lifestyle. As the dumbest continue to over populate, what continued effect would that have on your lifestyle? Are you prepared to meet at the lowest common denominator? Before answering that last one, I want you to get an apartment where all those lovely poor live. Then get back to me.
jessica
+crowbird213 i actually live just about as close to detroit as a canadian possibly could. it's a five minute walk to the tunnel under the detroit river....
i've only been over once, and it was to get my border clearance, which should (finally) show up in the mail this week. and i can state that windsor is not as bad as detroit, but that it does have all of the same underlying economic problems stemming from massive job losses due to massive automation. i live in what is one of the poorest parts of windsor, which is no doubt roughly comparable to some areas in detroit. and, i moved here specifically to exist in the area that has the highest potential to move beyond capitalism in the near future.
starting in august, i will be over to detroit fairly regularly.
the basis of the plotline underlying the film idiocracy is not scientifically valid: there's no correlation between intelligence and genetics. brilliant people will produce dumb children, and dumb people will produce brilliant children. it has more to do with the environment that the children are raised in.
i would consider both of my parents to be stupid people - especially my father, who was a flat out imbecile. but, i was raised with a focus on learning that i've kept up with and have consistently scored in the highest percentiles, while both of my parents would consistently score in the lowest. i'm not a statistical anomaly. you just can't draw those connections, it's a myth.
it's a standard anarchist hope that one of the effects of mass automation and collective ownership of production would be greater community involvement in educating kids (as well as a greater focus on art and education, in general). that kind of freedom from repetitive, dull employment is going to allow parents and other adults to spend more time with their children. to most of us anarchists, this focus on art and education is the entire purpose and value of collectivizing production and resources.
further, the solution to overpopulation issues lies in increasing access to abortion and contraceptives and tearing down religious taboos against their use. it doesn't have anything to do with who owns the resources, it has to do with ensuring that people have access to the tools they need to avoid pregnancies.
intelligence is largely a function of brain plasticity. genetics are certainly passed down, but intelligence is not something that is genetic. there was thinking along those lines in the previous century, but if you move beyond the popular press and popular media and into real journals, you'll see that brain plasticity is now understood as the dominant factor, which places environment as the sole consideration.
this is actually a really important thing to understand in constructing the nature of what human beings actually are. you have to begin thinking of your brain as a ball of plasma that is constructed not by a planned genetic code but by the sum of it's reactions to it's experiences. it's consequently not the same organ that you had when you were born, and it consequently will be an entirely different organ by the time you die. genes code for quantifiable traits, like eye colour and physical sex. despite what the popular press would have you believe, genes don't code for things that arise in our minds like intelligence, sexual orientation or moral value systems.
just as an aside...
the reason people push this "dna is a plan for our lives" hogwash is that it aligns well with the christian idea of "god's plan". it's the genetic equivalent of cavemen hanging out with dinosaurs. the difference is that it cuts a little deeper, and even respectable scientists consequently have difficulty separating the ideas. but the media is relentless in ways that no scientist ever would be because it's seen as bridging a divide.
the reality is that there's absolutely no evidence that there are genes that code for behaviour, cognition, orientation or anything else outside of the basic bio-chemical functioning of our bodies, and anybody that suggests that genes do code for these sorts of things is pushing pseudo-science.
it's chemistry, it's not the magic wand of god.
QuartuvLarry
Collectivism: from the same assholes who brought us the Soviet Union
jessica
+QuartuvLarry actually, we're the assholes that loudly denounced marx when he was still alive, split the socialist international in half because we thought he was a homicidal lunatic, did everything we could to prevent the russian revolution and then died in several theatres (spain, ukraine, germany amongst others) trying to fight them off when they stamped us out with force.
the comments here seem to suggest that it's a common view in america that one is not entitled to water unless they are a good slave. bad slaves are best left to dehydrate and die, as they are not producing anything for their masters.
you white racist dipshits are a bunch of fucking niggers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj5dD06Iy9U
John Galt
Just pay your bills and the water gets turned on. Do you somehow feel that you can demand the labor of others without paying for that labor?
jessica
+John Galt what does an automated system of water distribution have to do with labour?
and why do you think that automated system has the right to charge a price, or generate a profit?
the real issue is parasitic investors converting humans into profit generating machines, and denying them the necessities of existence if they don't contribute to that extractive process.
so, why do you think that these parasitic investors ought to have the right to force independent human beings into non-consensual labour (which is difficult to even find) in exchange for the things they need to survive?
there's a very simple fix: common ownership. if the people having their water shut off owned the system, nobody would be able to deny them of what they owned, and they would maintain access to what they are entitled to.
the crime here is in private ownership of goods that nobody should have the right to own, or be able to coerce people into forced labour in order to gain access to.
until we collectively pull our heads out of our asses and work towards collectivizing the various ways we produce things, we will continue to live under the slavery of market capitalism that forces us to work or die.
the reality is that the vast majority of employed people do nothing of any substantial value to society, and most of them are going to lose their jobs in their near future to automation.
but, we should look forward to this as a step forward in human progress and seize the opportunity that is finally available to us to truly be free.
but, we have to change how we think about labour, first.
and, john galt is not helping us do that. john galt is keeping us locked in a system that has failed us as workers, artists and inventors - while benefiting a select group of people, most of whom have never done an honest day of hard work in their whole lives.
crowbird213
+deathtokoalas Never worked, never will. What does your fantasy system do about population explosion by the dumbest among us? Keep feeding them? If the whole world naught into your fantasy, what effect would that have on your lifestyle. As the dumbest continue to over populate, what continued effect would that have on your lifestyle? Are you prepared to meet at the lowest common denominator? Before answering that last one, I want you to get an apartment where all those lovely poor live. Then get back to me.
jessica
+crowbird213 i actually live just about as close to detroit as a canadian possibly could. it's a five minute walk to the tunnel under the detroit river....
i've only been over once, and it was to get my border clearance, which should (finally) show up in the mail this week. and i can state that windsor is not as bad as detroit, but that it does have all of the same underlying economic problems stemming from massive job losses due to massive automation. i live in what is one of the poorest parts of windsor, which is no doubt roughly comparable to some areas in detroit. and, i moved here specifically to exist in the area that has the highest potential to move beyond capitalism in the near future.
starting in august, i will be over to detroit fairly regularly.
the basis of the plotline underlying the film idiocracy is not scientifically valid: there's no correlation between intelligence and genetics. brilliant people will produce dumb children, and dumb people will produce brilliant children. it has more to do with the environment that the children are raised in.
i would consider both of my parents to be stupid people - especially my father, who was a flat out imbecile. but, i was raised with a focus on learning that i've kept up with and have consistently scored in the highest percentiles, while both of my parents would consistently score in the lowest. i'm not a statistical anomaly. you just can't draw those connections, it's a myth.
it's a standard anarchist hope that one of the effects of mass automation and collective ownership of production would be greater community involvement in educating kids (as well as a greater focus on art and education, in general). that kind of freedom from repetitive, dull employment is going to allow parents and other adults to spend more time with their children. to most of us anarchists, this focus on art and education is the entire purpose and value of collectivizing production and resources.
further, the solution to overpopulation issues lies in increasing access to abortion and contraceptives and tearing down religious taboos against their use. it doesn't have anything to do with who owns the resources, it has to do with ensuring that people have access to the tools they need to avoid pregnancies.
intelligence is largely a function of brain plasticity. genetics are certainly passed down, but intelligence is not something that is genetic. there was thinking along those lines in the previous century, but if you move beyond the popular press and popular media and into real journals, you'll see that brain plasticity is now understood as the dominant factor, which places environment as the sole consideration.
this is actually a really important thing to understand in constructing the nature of what human beings actually are. you have to begin thinking of your brain as a ball of plasma that is constructed not by a planned genetic code but by the sum of it's reactions to it's experiences. it's consequently not the same organ that you had when you were born, and it consequently will be an entirely different organ by the time you die. genes code for quantifiable traits, like eye colour and physical sex. despite what the popular press would have you believe, genes don't code for things that arise in our minds like intelligence, sexual orientation or moral value systems.
just as an aside...
the reason people push this "dna is a plan for our lives" hogwash is that it aligns well with the christian idea of "god's plan". it's the genetic equivalent of cavemen hanging out with dinosaurs. the difference is that it cuts a little deeper, and even respectable scientists consequently have difficulty separating the ideas. but the media is relentless in ways that no scientist ever would be because it's seen as bridging a divide.
the reality is that there's absolutely no evidence that there are genes that code for behaviour, cognition, orientation or anything else outside of the basic bio-chemical functioning of our bodies, and anybody that suggests that genes do code for these sorts of things is pushing pseudo-science.
it's chemistry, it's not the magic wand of god.
QuartuvLarry
Collectivism: from the same assholes who brought us the Soviet Union
jessica
+QuartuvLarry actually, we're the assholes that loudly denounced marx when he was still alive, split the socialist international in half because we thought he was a homicidal lunatic, did everything we could to prevent the russian revolution and then died in several theatres (spain, ukraine, germany amongst others) trying to fight them off when they stamped us out with force.
jul 3, 2014
i don't think we can talk about hayek being wrong, because his predictions rely on the assumptions of ever increasing state ownership, and the new right stepped in right after he was done rambling and took steps to reduce state ownership, under fears of that serfdom developing (or, more realistically, just using it as an excuse to increase their own power).
when i have this argument, i don't tend to try and convince people that hayek was wrong, i try to point out that my opponents sound like they're stuck in 1973. it's ironic that the right-libertarians tend not to acknowledge that everything they want to see happen has been being put in motion, slowly, by the crony capitalists they're all after. then, when the result is more and more crony capitalism, they call for greater and greater privatization...
so, all you can do is look at the reality and say "well, we've been doing what you want for forty years and the results are exactly what you were trying to prevent. don't you think it's time to try something else, now?".
it creates a sort of irony. we are on the road to serfdom. by eliminating governance as anything but an organization that collects taxes and gives it to military, police and banks, we're recreating a two-class debt-based society that consists primarily of landowners and serfs. rather than push for universal education, we have student loans. rather than keep wages up at levels of inflation, we have a society of people with mortgages.
i'm not sure how hayek would correct the policies of the new right to be more in line with what he was saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpuNbwysXQc
i don't think we can talk about hayek being wrong, because his predictions rely on the assumptions of ever increasing state ownership, and the new right stepped in right after he was done rambling and took steps to reduce state ownership, under fears of that serfdom developing (or, more realistically, just using it as an excuse to increase their own power).
when i have this argument, i don't tend to try and convince people that hayek was wrong, i try to point out that my opponents sound like they're stuck in 1973. it's ironic that the right-libertarians tend not to acknowledge that everything they want to see happen has been being put in motion, slowly, by the crony capitalists they're all after. then, when the result is more and more crony capitalism, they call for greater and greater privatization...
so, all you can do is look at the reality and say "well, we've been doing what you want for forty years and the results are exactly what you were trying to prevent. don't you think it's time to try something else, now?".
it creates a sort of irony. we are on the road to serfdom. by eliminating governance as anything but an organization that collects taxes and gives it to military, police and banks, we're recreating a two-class debt-based society that consists primarily of landowners and serfs. rather than push for universal education, we have student loans. rather than keep wages up at levels of inflation, we have a society of people with mortgages.
i'm not sure how hayek would correct the policies of the new right to be more in line with what he was saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpuNbwysXQc
july 3, 2014
i don't often "laugh out loud", but finkelstein has a particularly effective style of observational comedy.
i get his argument, but i'm not sure the israelis or americans really want this to end. the israelis have been clear for decades that they're not going to allow a two-state solution. the uncomfortable corollary of this is the question of what exactly they plan on doing with the palestinians is, a question in which nobody wants to exist within the reality where it becomes necessary, and people consequently don't bring themselves to ask. surely, some sort of return will be allowed, or some kind of two-state understanding will be come to! but, neither of these things are going to happen, and the question is consequently pertinent, as difficult as it is.
and i think that's what the economy part of this is about. kerry is trying to set up an apartheid state, and perhaps this is because he knows it is the best thing the palestinians can hope for, and it seems to be being resisted by the israelis. this is implying more drastic answers to the question.
the best case scenario that the israelis will allow appears to be resettlement somewhere outside israel. they seem to want gaza to join egypt, to egypt's continuing refusal. they seem to want to expel the population of the west bank to jordan. integration isn't a serious option.
so, if kerry's plan relies on convincing the israelis to abandon this type of cleansing operation and integrate the palestinians as low wage workers, i don't foresee it being successful.
however, that doesn't make finkelstein's underlying logic go away. the west bank is almost full, and when it becomes full something is going to have to happen to all of these people that are never going home.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7R8GyplfV8
i don't often "laugh out loud", but finkelstein has a particularly effective style of observational comedy.
i get his argument, but i'm not sure the israelis or americans really want this to end. the israelis have been clear for decades that they're not going to allow a two-state solution. the uncomfortable corollary of this is the question of what exactly they plan on doing with the palestinians is, a question in which nobody wants to exist within the reality where it becomes necessary, and people consequently don't bring themselves to ask. surely, some sort of return will be allowed, or some kind of two-state understanding will be come to! but, neither of these things are going to happen, and the question is consequently pertinent, as difficult as it is.
and i think that's what the economy part of this is about. kerry is trying to set up an apartheid state, and perhaps this is because he knows it is the best thing the palestinians can hope for, and it seems to be being resisted by the israelis. this is implying more drastic answers to the question.
the best case scenario that the israelis will allow appears to be resettlement somewhere outside israel. they seem to want gaza to join egypt, to egypt's continuing refusal. they seem to want to expel the population of the west bank to jordan. integration isn't a serious option.
so, if kerry's plan relies on convincing the israelis to abandon this type of cleansing operation and integrate the palestinians as low wage workers, i don't foresee it being successful.
however, that doesn't make finkelstein's underlying logic go away. the west bank is almost full, and when it becomes full something is going to have to happen to all of these people that are never going home.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7R8GyplfV8
july 3, 2014
but, aboriginal title is not sovereign land rights. it's just a special type of fief. and, the ruling states that the crown maintains veto over the process, in the end.
they've been doing this for years. it's all a smokescreen. and it's actually directed more at making white settlers feel good about themselves than it is towards any real aboriginal land rights.
of course, some aboriginal activists will want to spin it as positively as they can, under the misguided view that if they push hard enough then the courts will eventually give in. but, that's exactly what the system wants them to do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4D85H7lQxE
just to clarify.
the way this will work now is like this:
1) the developer will seek consent. if granted, it will be recorded forever. this helps developers regarding ambiguities - it constructs a real contract out of the process.
2) if not granted, the province will declare that it's in the public interest and attack the first nations groups for not behaving in the public interest.
the difference is consequently merely that they're forcing the natives to sign contracts, to clarify the process.
but, aboriginal title is not sovereign land rights. it's just a special type of fief. and, the ruling states that the crown maintains veto over the process, in the end.
they've been doing this for years. it's all a smokescreen. and it's actually directed more at making white settlers feel good about themselves than it is towards any real aboriginal land rights.
of course, some aboriginal activists will want to spin it as positively as they can, under the misguided view that if they push hard enough then the courts will eventually give in. but, that's exactly what the system wants them to do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4D85H7lQxE
just to clarify.
the way this will work now is like this:
1) the developer will seek consent. if granted, it will be recorded forever. this helps developers regarding ambiguities - it constructs a real contract out of the process.
2) if not granted, the province will declare that it's in the public interest and attack the first nations groups for not behaving in the public interest.
the difference is consequently merely that they're forcing the natives to sign contracts, to clarify the process.
july 3, 2014
so, stephen, is that a four-year plan or a five-year plan?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A95_oilkQxc
five-year plan, this time.
so, stephen, is that a four-year plan or a five-year plan?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A95_oilkQxc
five-year plan, this time.
July 2, 2014
i may have voted for hillary ten years ago (i can't actually vote in the united states), and i supported her by default as the more left choice over obama (although there was incredible ignorance on the topic in '07) during the last primaries, but she's since proven herself as right-wing as obama. continuing with hillary would just be extending the bush administration into a fifth term.
she lost last time because the banks wouldn't support her. again: people were easily manipulated into being confused over the establishment candidate. obama was the establishment candidate, and he was run by the establishment to defeat hillary, who was rejected by the establishment.
i'm not expecting that hillary will be the establishment candidate this time, either. yes, she just spent the last six years trying to prove she's right-wing enough for office - and she's convinced me, but i doubt she's convinced wall street. i don't know who wall street is going to run to beat her, but they'll find some puppet or other and construct some outlandish media narrative.
but i'm hoping she's lost or will lose enough support that it won't matter. this is a woman who has been trying to break through the establishment for thirty years. she had some good ideas when she was younger, but she's shown clearly that she's not a reformer or a visionary but somebody that is willing to do exactly what she's told in order to advance her career. if she's the anti-establishment candidate, we're fucked.
rather, i'm hoping that a serious candidate will emerge out of the ground. now, i don't expect most people will learn from the obama debacle, but i was able to clearly see what was coming and so were many others. so, it's no surprise the obama carried the bush legacy forward. if you actually listened to him directly, rather than relying on media, you wouldn't have ever thought otherwise. what that *does* mean is that independent media should be able to play a role in debunking the establishment candidate when it appears.
further, this serious candidate isn't going to appear out of nowhere. the american left needs to get to work. it's running out of time....
i may have voted for hillary ten years ago (i can't actually vote in the united states), and i supported her by default as the more left choice over obama (although there was incredible ignorance on the topic in '07) during the last primaries, but she's since proven herself as right-wing as obama. continuing with hillary would just be extending the bush administration into a fifth term.
she lost last time because the banks wouldn't support her. again: people were easily manipulated into being confused over the establishment candidate. obama was the establishment candidate, and he was run by the establishment to defeat hillary, who was rejected by the establishment.
i'm not expecting that hillary will be the establishment candidate this time, either. yes, she just spent the last six years trying to prove she's right-wing enough for office - and she's convinced me, but i doubt she's convinced wall street. i don't know who wall street is going to run to beat her, but they'll find some puppet or other and construct some outlandish media narrative.
but i'm hoping she's lost or will lose enough support that it won't matter. this is a woman who has been trying to break through the establishment for thirty years. she had some good ideas when she was younger, but she's shown clearly that she's not a reformer or a visionary but somebody that is willing to do exactly what she's told in order to advance her career. if she's the anti-establishment candidate, we're fucked.
rather, i'm hoping that a serious candidate will emerge out of the ground. now, i don't expect most people will learn from the obama debacle, but i was able to clearly see what was coming and so were many others. so, it's no surprise the obama carried the bush legacy forward. if you actually listened to him directly, rather than relying on media, you wouldn't have ever thought otherwise. what that *does* mean is that independent media should be able to play a role in debunking the establishment candidate when it appears.
further, this serious candidate isn't going to appear out of nowhere. the american left needs to get to work. it's running out of time....
jul 1, 2014
gee. is it possible that they're actually shutting down smaller banks on the order of the larger ones?
see, that's what "regulators" actually do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzpHUWckpII
gee. is it possible that they're actually shutting down smaller banks on the order of the larger ones?
see, that's what "regulators" actually do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzpHUWckpII
june 29, 2014
the ironic thing about the spooky satan-worshipping side of the neo-pagan movement is that they interpret the old pagan gods the way that christians demonized them, rather than the way they were worshiped by actual pagans.
odin was a good guy. wise. kind. generous. more like jesus than satan, actually. maybe a little less naive, but no less altruistic in his motives.
to a medieval christian landowner, however, any competition with the church was satanic, by definition. i mean, you weren't even allowed to read the bible back then. it was just madness. a jesus by any other name is just another representation of satan. it challenges the monopoly. so, it all got perverted and twisted around. and, now these kids are just picking up the bullshit out of historical ignorance. in reality, it's all just christian propaganda...
you see the same thing with these anti-illuminati groups. the illuminati were the good guys. they were into liberty and equality. but, that meant opposing the church, because the church wasn't into liberty and equality, it was into feudalism and ignorance. so, the church did what it does to any person or organization that challenges it (odin, scientists, jews) - it declared it driven by satan. from this, we get the nefarious nwo that wants to take over the world and enslave us all. but it's never been anything more than christian propaganda designed to stigmatize a political movement that challenged it's power. it's just morphed from a right-wing catholic scare tactic to a right-wing military-industrial scare tactic. the united nations is really the only global body that offers the slightest bit of competition to american hegemony, which is why it's loathed so deeply by the people that make real decisions and have real financial power within the united states. a true global order would have to decentralize power from the united states, by necessity - by definition. the conspiracy is actually the conspiracy theory, itself; the anti-illuminati and anti-nwo propaganda is being spread by the status quo in order to maintain it.
if you strip out the anachronistic warrior culture, which is just no longer applicable to a civilization at the stage we're now at, actual odin worship would not be much different than the core ideas present in british liberalism. it would uphold fairness and honour in the face of a strong emphasis on individual sovereignty. a random observer would be forgiven for mistaking it for the kind of advanced form of christianity that most people adhere to nowadays - the golden rule minus the hubris.
the ironic thing about the spooky satan-worshipping side of the neo-pagan movement is that they interpret the old pagan gods the way that christians demonized them, rather than the way they were worshiped by actual pagans.
odin was a good guy. wise. kind. generous. more like jesus than satan, actually. maybe a little less naive, but no less altruistic in his motives.
to a medieval christian landowner, however, any competition with the church was satanic, by definition. i mean, you weren't even allowed to read the bible back then. it was just madness. a jesus by any other name is just another representation of satan. it challenges the monopoly. so, it all got perverted and twisted around. and, now these kids are just picking up the bullshit out of historical ignorance. in reality, it's all just christian propaganda...
you see the same thing with these anti-illuminati groups. the illuminati were the good guys. they were into liberty and equality. but, that meant opposing the church, because the church wasn't into liberty and equality, it was into feudalism and ignorance. so, the church did what it does to any person or organization that challenges it (odin, scientists, jews) - it declared it driven by satan. from this, we get the nefarious nwo that wants to take over the world and enslave us all. but it's never been anything more than christian propaganda designed to stigmatize a political movement that challenged it's power. it's just morphed from a right-wing catholic scare tactic to a right-wing military-industrial scare tactic. the united nations is really the only global body that offers the slightest bit of competition to american hegemony, which is why it's loathed so deeply by the people that make real decisions and have real financial power within the united states. a true global order would have to decentralize power from the united states, by necessity - by definition. the conspiracy is actually the conspiracy theory, itself; the anti-illuminati and anti-nwo propaganda is being spread by the status quo in order to maintain it.
if you strip out the anachronistic warrior culture, which is just no longer applicable to a civilization at the stage we're now at, actual odin worship would not be much different than the core ideas present in british liberalism. it would uphold fairness and honour in the face of a strong emphasis on individual sovereignty. a random observer would be forgiven for mistaking it for the kind of advanced form of christianity that most people adhere to nowadays - the golden rule minus the hubris.
june 28, 2014
i think you're almost making a valid point. i've picked up a few pieces that seem to sound roughly like this, but what you're doing is mistaking bad writers for a bad method. i would agree that the problem is compounded by the "academic establishment", who for some reason tend to pick out the worst of the bunch out of some kind of a desire for shock value. there's probably an underlying psychiatric condition that causes music teachers to hate the thing they cycle their life around. whether an expression of the ultraparadoxical or a reflection of self-loathing remains an open question in my mind, but it's gotta be something like that. it's some kind of rebellion, and that's something to cherish in principle if it doesn't always work out in practice. but, let's be blunt: this is a topic for two centuries ago. if you want to create interesting music in the 21st century, you can't be dragging the corpse of music theory around with you. holding on to music theory at this late a date is really something like holding on to creationism. or causality. pitches are mathematical objects. they exist in a continuum. any attempt to order that - be it through conventional music theory or tone rows - is just meaningless, oppressive structure.
the right way to look at it is that it's really just a question of tonal freedom. it's my composition, and i'll flat diminished if i want to, flat diminished if i want to....
the better side of it has a level of artistry that goes beyond the pretension. it just reduces to tension and release when you break it down to it's most basic. does it not seem foolhardy to restrict your emotional expression to a flawed mathematical relation? i think the best conventional composers have all understood this, and it's what really makes them stand out. standing on the other side of webern and cage just means coming to terms with it, without the hubris of pretending otherwise.
which is pretty pretentious, too.
but, i hear you - it's there, especially in the universities, and, sadly, they seem intent on upholding it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pwKMtJxUC0
i think you're almost making a valid point. i've picked up a few pieces that seem to sound roughly like this, but what you're doing is mistaking bad writers for a bad method. i would agree that the problem is compounded by the "academic establishment", who for some reason tend to pick out the worst of the bunch out of some kind of a desire for shock value. there's probably an underlying psychiatric condition that causes music teachers to hate the thing they cycle their life around. whether an expression of the ultraparadoxical or a reflection of self-loathing remains an open question in my mind, but it's gotta be something like that. it's some kind of rebellion, and that's something to cherish in principle if it doesn't always work out in practice. but, let's be blunt: this is a topic for two centuries ago. if you want to create interesting music in the 21st century, you can't be dragging the corpse of music theory around with you. holding on to music theory at this late a date is really something like holding on to creationism. or causality. pitches are mathematical objects. they exist in a continuum. any attempt to order that - be it through conventional music theory or tone rows - is just meaningless, oppressive structure.
the right way to look at it is that it's really just a question of tonal freedom. it's my composition, and i'll flat diminished if i want to, flat diminished if i want to....
the better side of it has a level of artistry that goes beyond the pretension. it just reduces to tension and release when you break it down to it's most basic. does it not seem foolhardy to restrict your emotional expression to a flawed mathematical relation? i think the best conventional composers have all understood this, and it's what really makes them stand out. standing on the other side of webern and cage just means coming to terms with it, without the hubris of pretending otherwise.
which is pretty pretentious, too.
but, i hear you - it's there, especially in the universities, and, sadly, they seem intent on upholding it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pwKMtJxUC0
actually, here's the thing with this: i don't think that these are political decisions. i think that these are legal decisions, and should be made in a court of law.
i said from day one that it was going to be necessary to fight the pipelines in court and on the ground. but, i wouldn't see a contradiction in voting for trudeau, then joining the protest.
time for a thought experiment. suppose that trudeau had blocked each of the pipelines. what would have happened next? the pipeline companies would have sued. so, either way, the decision is made in court - which is where it should be made.
and why should it be made in court? because it's ultimately a question of property rights, and property rights are not subject to the popular will. that's a tyranny of the majority. property rights are a question of law, for the courts to determine.
the government's position should ultimately be to minimize damages, under the understanding that the decision was never really in their hands.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/we-dont-give-a-damn-honeymoon-over-between-trudeau-and-anti-oil-activists
i said from day one that it was going to be necessary to fight the pipelines in court and on the ground. but, i wouldn't see a contradiction in voting for trudeau, then joining the protest.
time for a thought experiment. suppose that trudeau had blocked each of the pipelines. what would have happened next? the pipeline companies would have sued. so, either way, the decision is made in court - which is where it should be made.
and why should it be made in court? because it's ultimately a question of property rights, and property rights are not subject to the popular will. that's a tyranny of the majority. property rights are a question of law, for the courts to determine.
the government's position should ultimately be to minimize damages, under the understanding that the decision was never really in their hands.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/we-dont-give-a-damn-honeymoon-over-between-trudeau-and-anti-oil-activists
see, this is why i keep voting for them, though: it's these quiet changes that don't really make headlines but make a huge difference in people's lives.
the conservatives would never do this, and for all the ndp's rhetoric, they don't have a good track record, either.
i know he probably doesn't want every positive article to mention his father. but, his father spent years promising and pushing for a housing strategy. it never really materialized. it could be why they're keeping this quiet.
but, those waiting lists are really something else. and, the units they get attached to have often been discarded by the market. this creates pockets of decay. so, if this goes through, it's incredibly good news for just about everybody.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/12/federal-government-looks-at-creating-new-housing-benefit-for-low-income-renters.html
the conservatives would never do this, and for all the ndp's rhetoric, they don't have a good track record, either.
i know he probably doesn't want every positive article to mention his father. but, his father spent years promising and pushing for a housing strategy. it never really materialized. it could be why they're keeping this quiet.
but, those waiting lists are really something else. and, the units they get attached to have often been discarded by the market. this creates pockets of decay. so, if this goes through, it's incredibly good news for just about everybody.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/12/federal-government-looks-at-creating-new-housing-benefit-for-low-income-renters.html
i thought we banished that fucking sweater vest along with the low iq, brainless piece of shit that used to wear it. ugh.
somebody needs to track trudeau down, rip it off of him and BURN IT.
KILL THE SWEATER VEST. KILL IT WITH FIRE. DIE. DIE. DIE.
but, yeah. i get it. it's barely been a year, and trudeau has become harper. i guess he's aiming for a 25% approval rating, and a legacy of mind-numbing incompetence.
we live in a sad world.
somebody needs to track trudeau down, rip it off of him and BURN IT.
KILL THE SWEATER VEST. KILL IT WITH FIRE. DIE. DIE. DIE.
but, yeah. i get it. it's barely been a year, and trudeau has become harper. i guess he's aiming for a 25% approval rating, and a legacy of mind-numbing incompetence.
we live in a sad world.
ok, so this is the opposite extreme of the dominant old tory media narrative.
i don't think it's quite right; i think that there are valid concerns around his demeanour, and pr reasons to keep him away from cameras.
but, i do think it's leaning in the correct direction, and i do think that this shuffle is broadcasting a strong rightward shift over the next two years that will hurt him in the next election.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/01/12/dion-a-great-canadian-dishonoured-by-trudeau.html
i don't think it's quite right; i think that there are valid concerns around his demeanour, and pr reasons to keep him away from cameras.
but, i do think it's leaning in the correct direction, and i do think that this shuffle is broadcasting a strong rightward shift over the next two years that will hurt him in the next election.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/01/12/dion-a-great-canadian-dishonoured-by-trudeau.html
part of being an anarchist means complaining about the government. but,
we pay attention to the news because we're looking for opportunities to
resist, not opportunities to participate.
for me, the barrier lies in property rights. i would no doubt choose to involve myself more in a system that put property in common ownership. as it is, i see essentially no opportunities for me to participate; i only see opportunities to resist.
for me, the barrier lies in property rights. i would no doubt choose to involve myself more in a system that put property in common ownership. as it is, i see essentially no opportunities for me to participate; i only see opportunities to resist.
i'm sorry if i've confused anybody, but i actually think i've made it clear that i'm an artist first and an activist/analyst, second.
i have absolutely no interest in involving myself in politics, whatsoever.
i just don't think my life is long enough to spend a portion of it convincing people to vote for me. i think that that would be a terrible waste of my time.
i have absolutely no interest in involving myself in politics, whatsoever.
i just don't think my life is long enough to spend a portion of it convincing people to vote for me. i think that that would be a terrible waste of my time.
in all seriousness, have we not already learned that releasing this material would just increase his poll numbers?
i mean, what are they blackmailing him with? not releasing it?
"unless you pull your troops out of poland, and stop work on this offensive weapons missile shield, we will never release this footage! resistance is futile! ahahahaha......*cough* *cough* *hack*"
this is how you take him down:
i mean, what are they blackmailing him with? not releasing it?
"unless you pull your troops out of poland, and stop work on this offensive weapons missile shield, we will never release this footage! resistance is futile! ahahahaha......*cough* *cough* *hack*"
this is how you take him down:
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
june 26, 2014
(edit: the only world leader that i've seen try to tie al qaeda to iran is netanyahu. which is not to suggest some kind of jewish conspiracy theory, so much as to suggest that the conservative party is contracting out it's intelligence services to some very poor sources; when netanyahu said it, harper seems to have believed it.)
it seems as though the conservatives may be planning to stage an attack before the next election.
anybody telling you that al qaeda is collaborating with iran neither understands al qaeda (who are violently opposed to shiite iran) nor iran (the idea that iran would launch a terrorist attack in canada is laughable). but, the sitting government doesn't have a lot of respect for your intelligence.
if they try it, make sure it backfires, eh?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/16/irans-anti-canada-rhetoric-has-officials-on-guard-for-possible-ottawa-area-terror-attacks/
(edit: the only world leader that i've seen try to tie al qaeda to iran is netanyahu. which is not to suggest some kind of jewish conspiracy theory, so much as to suggest that the conservative party is contracting out it's intelligence services to some very poor sources; when netanyahu said it, harper seems to have believed it.)
it seems as though the conservatives may be planning to stage an attack before the next election.
anybody telling you that al qaeda is collaborating with iran neither understands al qaeda (who are violently opposed to shiite iran) nor iran (the idea that iran would launch a terrorist attack in canada is laughable). but, the sitting government doesn't have a lot of respect for your intelligence.
if they try it, make sure it backfires, eh?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/16/irans-anti-canada-rhetoric-has-officials-on-guard-for-possible-ottawa-area-terror-attacks/
june 20, 2014
(note: yes. cops showed up at my front door as a reaction to my facebook posts. what? how? and it's not like there's a lot of options, because i had recently moved to windsor from ottawa and literally not given anybody the address. my mom denied it. there is literally not another option.
.....except the undercover cops i met at occupy.
seriously.)
lol.
some cops showed up today to talk about my suicidal facebook messages. but, the context in the messages is very clear - i'm not currently suicidal. such an autonomous decision is dependent upon the outcome of the odsp evaluation in september. i was posting to prepare others for the eventuality. further, while i'm fairly certain of the outcome, i'm actually holding out hope that it will be extended. how can i be suicidal if i'm mutedly optimistic about the future, and merely planning for the worst case should it actualize?
i've already posted my logic.
it's always interesting explaining my coldly rational, detached perspective to people that seem to think they have the ability to magically project their desires onto reality.
but, you're giving up too soon! you're young!
it's not a question of giving up. that's a subjective perspective. i'm about analyzing data and coming to objective conclusions. my attitude doesn't affect the data, which clearly demonstrates that my chances of finding employment are exceedingly low. it has nothing to do with how i feel, it's just what the data states.
but, you haven't tried.
sure i have. that's how i built up my data set. why try further when the data projects a high probability of failure? it would be *this* behaviour that would be insane.
but that was in ottawa.
the conditions here are worse than in ottawa. that's why i moved here. it follows that i should spend even less time trying here.
you're just focusing on numbers and statistics, you just need to think positively and...
no. i need to focus on data. your arguments are not convincing, because you're not challenging the data, you're merely asking me to ignore it in favour of magical thinking.
*frown*
i tried to explain it, but they didn't get it. they did, however, convince me to allow a nurse to come later today to talk to me.
btw: the correct mathematical argument against my data-driven deductions is to question whether employment data is dependent. if each process is independent of the next, my conclusions collapse.
i think there is some argument for this. in fact, it even follows that if each process is independent then the probability of eventually finding a job approaches one (because any non-zero probability implies at least one success in infinitely many trials).
however, i'm convinced that the challenges are related to personal character traits, which makes each trial dependent on the last.
(note: yes. cops showed up at my front door as a reaction to my facebook posts. what? how? and it's not like there's a lot of options, because i had recently moved to windsor from ottawa and literally not given anybody the address. my mom denied it. there is literally not another option.
.....except the undercover cops i met at occupy.
seriously.)
lol.
some cops showed up today to talk about my suicidal facebook messages. but, the context in the messages is very clear - i'm not currently suicidal. such an autonomous decision is dependent upon the outcome of the odsp evaluation in september. i was posting to prepare others for the eventuality. further, while i'm fairly certain of the outcome, i'm actually holding out hope that it will be extended. how can i be suicidal if i'm mutedly optimistic about the future, and merely planning for the worst case should it actualize?
i've already posted my logic.
it's always interesting explaining my coldly rational, detached perspective to people that seem to think they have the ability to magically project their desires onto reality.
but, you're giving up too soon! you're young!
it's not a question of giving up. that's a subjective perspective. i'm about analyzing data and coming to objective conclusions. my attitude doesn't affect the data, which clearly demonstrates that my chances of finding employment are exceedingly low. it has nothing to do with how i feel, it's just what the data states.
but, you haven't tried.
sure i have. that's how i built up my data set. why try further when the data projects a high probability of failure? it would be *this* behaviour that would be insane.
but that was in ottawa.
the conditions here are worse than in ottawa. that's why i moved here. it follows that i should spend even less time trying here.
you're just focusing on numbers and statistics, you just need to think positively and...
no. i need to focus on data. your arguments are not convincing, because you're not challenging the data, you're merely asking me to ignore it in favour of magical thinking.
*frown*
i tried to explain it, but they didn't get it. they did, however, convince me to allow a nurse to come later today to talk to me.
btw: the correct mathematical argument against my data-driven deductions is to question whether employment data is dependent. if each process is independent of the next, my conclusions collapse.
i think there is some argument for this. in fact, it even follows that if each process is independent then the probability of eventually finding a job approaches one (because any non-zero probability implies at least one success in infinitely many trials).
however, i'm convinced that the challenges are related to personal character traits, which makes each trial dependent on the last.
i quit smoking one year ago. sort of, anyways. i've bought a handful of packs over the last year, either when i had set aside all nighters for drinking or i was going through my biyearly headclear. that's certainly a lot less than 350+ packs.
350*8 = $2800. $2800/12 = $233.33/month. so, $200+/month. where did it go? the answer is that i went to more concerts, and went to more expensive concerts. i also bought some new hardware. and, i bought a lot of cigarettes for $0.50 or $1.00 a piece.
but, after a year of social smoking, i'm taking the plunge. i made this choice at the detroit bus station in october, on the way to lansing to see touche amore: i'm going zero nicotine on jan 13th, 2017.
well, i've been smoke-free since the end of the headclear, which was on dec 26th this year. so, i'm already cold turkey over the last two weeks. this has been the norm for me for the last year: zero cigarettes for several weeks, then a binge for a night or maybe two, then zero for another several weeks, etc. so, nothing changes today or this week or probably even this month.
it will be in the spring that i'll have to face going to my first concert smoke-free.
but, this is it. it was a good year for me; i made a lot of progress in breaking habits. now, i need to spend the year finishing the job.
350*8 = $2800. $2800/12 = $233.33/month. so, $200+/month. where did it go? the answer is that i went to more concerts, and went to more expensive concerts. i also bought some new hardware. and, i bought a lot of cigarettes for $0.50 or $1.00 a piece.
but, after a year of social smoking, i'm taking the plunge. i made this choice at the detroit bus station in october, on the way to lansing to see touche amore: i'm going zero nicotine on jan 13th, 2017.
well, i've been smoke-free since the end of the headclear, which was on dec 26th this year. so, i'm already cold turkey over the last two weeks. this has been the norm for me for the last year: zero cigarettes for several weeks, then a binge for a night or maybe two, then zero for another several weeks, etc. so, nothing changes today or this week or probably even this month.
it will be in the spring that i'll have to face going to my first concert smoke-free.
but, this is it. it was a good year for me; i made a lot of progress in breaking habits. now, i need to spend the year finishing the job.
i just want to say something about the genocide/isis thing, though, because the conservatives used this tactic against him when he was running for prime minister (i can't remember what it was about...) and he responded the same way both times.
broadly speaking, an opposition member wouldn't ask that question unless it was meant as a sucker punch. and, it's obvious that it was meant as a sucker punch in context, too.
if somebody asks you this question: "is isis guilty of genocide?", you're going to run off some chain of mental logic that is along the lines of "isis....bad guys...genocide....bad...bad guys...bad things....yes.". so, you'd likely respond affirmatively pretty quickly.
but, in the mind of stephane dion - and in fact most academics - this is a legal accusation that requires evidence and due process. the question of whether isis is guilty of genocide or not is reduced to the question of whether they have been found guilty of genocide in a court of law, and after due process. the accusations may exist - wildly, i may add - but no process has ever occurred to determine the accuracy of them. so, in his mind, the most uncontroversial response is going to be the one with the least number of assumptions. and, surely, we can't have a canadian minister of foreign affairs libeling a foreign group before the process of establishing guilt has been carried out.
and, i ask you: what court of law has found isis guilty of genocide?
so, we run into this problem. where dion is technically correct, and is responding in the way that he would be expected to in the circles he exists within, the response is considered to be outrageous by the general public. how can he not know if isis is guilty of genocide? doesn't he watch tv? doesn't he understand the propaganda? why isn't he repeating it? what a fool!
but, what i wanted to draw attention to was the reality that he got suckered and may still not fully know it - because it happened (at least) twice.
broadly speaking, an opposition member wouldn't ask that question unless it was meant as a sucker punch. and, it's obvious that it was meant as a sucker punch in context, too.
if somebody asks you this question: "is isis guilty of genocide?", you're going to run off some chain of mental logic that is along the lines of "isis....bad guys...genocide....bad...bad guys...bad things....yes.". so, you'd likely respond affirmatively pretty quickly.
but, in the mind of stephane dion - and in fact most academics - this is a legal accusation that requires evidence and due process. the question of whether isis is guilty of genocide or not is reduced to the question of whether they have been found guilty of genocide in a court of law, and after due process. the accusations may exist - wildly, i may add - but no process has ever occurred to determine the accuracy of them. so, in his mind, the most uncontroversial response is going to be the one with the least number of assumptions. and, surely, we can't have a canadian minister of foreign affairs libeling a foreign group before the process of establishing guilt has been carried out.
and, i ask you: what court of law has found isis guilty of genocide?
so, we run into this problem. where dion is technically correct, and is responding in the way that he would be expected to in the circles he exists within, the response is considered to be outrageous by the general public. how can he not know if isis is guilty of genocide? doesn't he watch tv? doesn't he understand the propaganda? why isn't he repeating it? what a fool!
but, what i wanted to draw attention to was the reality that he got suckered and may still not fully know it - because it happened (at least) twice.
and, regarding trump getting blackmailed by russia? i obviously have no inside information.
but, i set down my narrative quite a while ago and it's unfolding more or less as i suggested it would.
0) of course, they had to get rid of sanders first. that was the primary imperative.
1) but, then, the deep state saw both candidates as national security threats, and preferred trump to clinton rather overwhelmingly - largely because they managed to get pence on the ticket.
2) so, they rigged the election for trump.
3) but, they did it in such a way (leaking documents and blaming it on russia) that they could take him down afterwards.
4) now that clinton and sanders are both defeated, they are taking trump down as was planned all along.
5) the ultimate goal is to install not just mike pence as president, but also ted cruz as vice president. it was ted cruz that was the deep state's real preference.
this will recreate a proper republican party, with conservatives all the way down.
i can't prove any of this. it's just built up on a combination of intuition and deductive reasoning. but, i keep being right about it.
i don't know if they want to impeach trump early, force him to stand down before or close to the 20th or even assassinate him.
but, i think that this is orchestrated - and that, this time, trump is right in his paranoid claims. i'll forgive you for not believing him. but, i'll plead with you to listen to what i'm saying.
but, i set down my narrative quite a while ago and it's unfolding more or less as i suggested it would.
0) of course, they had to get rid of sanders first. that was the primary imperative.
1) but, then, the deep state saw both candidates as national security threats, and preferred trump to clinton rather overwhelmingly - largely because they managed to get pence on the ticket.
2) so, they rigged the election for trump.
3) but, they did it in such a way (leaking documents and blaming it on russia) that they could take him down afterwards.
4) now that clinton and sanders are both defeated, they are taking trump down as was planned all along.
5) the ultimate goal is to install not just mike pence as president, but also ted cruz as vice president. it was ted cruz that was the deep state's real preference.
this will recreate a proper republican party, with conservatives all the way down.
i can't prove any of this. it's just built up on a combination of intuition and deductive reasoning. but, i keep being right about it.
i don't know if they want to impeach trump early, force him to stand down before or close to the 20th or even assassinate him.
but, i think that this is orchestrated - and that, this time, trump is right in his paranoid claims. i'll forgive you for not believing him. but, i'll plead with you to listen to what i'm saying.
i just want to...
i'm not mad about dion, or something. as though i knew him? of course, i didn't.
i'm surprised, but not mad. what i'm surprised about is the decision to offer him a position outside of parliament. but, i don't think that the prime minister was being snide when he pointed out that the ambassadorship to the eu is not an unimportant job, either.
i offer no opposition to the removal of the exact portfolio. frankly, it's not the job i would have given him to begin with, and for a lot of the reasons that are being presented in his removal. rather, i would have given him a technocratic domestic portfolio from the get go. and, when his name came up, it was where i was expecting him to be shuffled in to. i may have even offered him a position as a parliamentary secretary. these are where his strengths are, after all. his english is terrible, and he's horribly awkward, but he's brutally smart. you want this guy writing policy papers, not giving speeches.
maybe you can see why i like the guy? it's for all of the same reasons so many people hate him. i have a similar temperament and similar strengths and weaknesses. so, i found something inspiring in him, when so many people just saw him as a hapless nerd. and, i haven't been shy about my contempt for jocks, either.
again: i grasp that the point of sending him to the eu is that he's a political appointee. you don't send him to brussels to never hear from him. you send him to brussels so that brussels has a direct line to ottawa. i pointed out that the media hates him for the reasons i like him, so the way they're spinning it as a deep demotion was predictable. it isn't. it's a move sideways, and it will better utilize his strengths.
but, i'm still surprised at the decision to take him out of parliament. as mentioned: he has a lot of respect in the party, and it's well deserved. you want his input on policy, even if you don't want to let him speak to the crowd. so, i would not have expected that to have been in the list of contemplated options.
but, i'll acknowledge that he might be offering me the explanation in his reaction. that is to say that he might not have accepted the offer, or may have brought an unwelcome attitude in if he did.
i'm not mad about dion, or something. as though i knew him? of course, i didn't.
i'm surprised, but not mad. what i'm surprised about is the decision to offer him a position outside of parliament. but, i don't think that the prime minister was being snide when he pointed out that the ambassadorship to the eu is not an unimportant job, either.
i offer no opposition to the removal of the exact portfolio. frankly, it's not the job i would have given him to begin with, and for a lot of the reasons that are being presented in his removal. rather, i would have given him a technocratic domestic portfolio from the get go. and, when his name came up, it was where i was expecting him to be shuffled in to. i may have even offered him a position as a parliamentary secretary. these are where his strengths are, after all. his english is terrible, and he's horribly awkward, but he's brutally smart. you want this guy writing policy papers, not giving speeches.
maybe you can see why i like the guy? it's for all of the same reasons so many people hate him. i have a similar temperament and similar strengths and weaknesses. so, i found something inspiring in him, when so many people just saw him as a hapless nerd. and, i haven't been shy about my contempt for jocks, either.
again: i grasp that the point of sending him to the eu is that he's a political appointee. you don't send him to brussels to never hear from him. you send him to brussels so that brussels has a direct line to ottawa. i pointed out that the media hates him for the reasons i like him, so the way they're spinning it as a deep demotion was predictable. it isn't. it's a move sideways, and it will better utilize his strengths.
but, i'm still surprised at the decision to take him out of parliament. as mentioned: he has a lot of respect in the party, and it's well deserved. you want his input on policy, even if you don't want to let him speak to the crowd. so, i would not have expected that to have been in the list of contemplated options.
but, i'll acknowledge that he might be offering me the explanation in his reaction. that is to say that he might not have accepted the offer, or may have brought an unwelcome attitude in if he did.
most of my songs begin as conventional guitar songs before they get
ripped apart and demented into various abstract concoctions. that means
that a lot of my pieces have two different versions. i've always
deferred the raw guitar versions to eventual live performances, but i'm
at a space in life where i realize that these live performances are not
likely to ever materialize. so, i'm going to compile the live/guitar
versions of my larger pieces here.
it's unclear to me at this point where i will space this in my discography, but it will probably be around 2008.
it's unclear to me at this point where i will space this in my discography, but it will probably be around 2008.
Jun 12, 2014
what they don't realize is that they are liberals and what they think is liberalism is actually a type of right-wing populism pushed historically by the progressive party, often as a front for christian groups. liberals are all about free speech, free markets and individual rights. crucially, they're strongly in favour of a separation of church and state.
what these idiots have succeeded in is little more than to confuse people about words and concepts that they don't actually have a good understanding of. if you watch the show, you're left to conclude that liberals are a type of fundamentalist christian.
rather, a liberal is exactly what stone and parker are, and their target of ridicule is religiosity - bordering on what engels called utopian socialism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hriKiBbw3nU
what they don't realize is that they are liberals and what they think is liberalism is actually a type of right-wing populism pushed historically by the progressive party, often as a front for christian groups. liberals are all about free speech, free markets and individual rights. crucially, they're strongly in favour of a separation of church and state.
what these idiots have succeeded in is little more than to confuse people about words and concepts that they don't actually have a good understanding of. if you watch the show, you're left to conclude that liberals are a type of fundamentalist christian.
rather, a liberal is exactly what stone and parker are, and their target of ridicule is religiosity - bordering on what engels called utopian socialism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hriKiBbw3nU
june 12, 2014
it's actually fairly common here to see unifor banners paired with conservative party yard signs (you know the ones, they're standard across north america) on the lawns of upper middle class houses. unifor is the big auto/energy union. i've been aware of this connection for a while, but i kind of expected it to be an under the rug thing rather than something openly flaunted. it's surreal to see how normal it is.
it doesn't make sense on first glance, but it does when you work the politics out in more detail. big union members in southern ontario are very well paid. they're more worried about their taxes being too high then they are about their collective bargaining rights and their political choices reflect that economic comfort. it's no longer "the bosses are stealing my wages to live in luxury" but "the government is stealing my wages to distribute to the community". the difference in function is less important than the perceived lost wages, regardless of the comfort they live in.
nobody wants to talk about it, though. the conservatives don't want to risk losing one of their most effective attack mechanisms, so they keep attacking them. the ndp don't want to come off as utterly irrelevant, so they keep acting like they represent them. but it's all a charade...
there's an election today. i'm not voting. i do sometimes, i don't sometimes. for today, i'm in a relatively new riding and i simply don't know the local candidates or local issues well enough.
i don't expect much to change, though.
it's actually fairly common here to see unifor banners paired with conservative party yard signs (you know the ones, they're standard across north america) on the lawns of upper middle class houses. unifor is the big auto/energy union. i've been aware of this connection for a while, but i kind of expected it to be an under the rug thing rather than something openly flaunted. it's surreal to see how normal it is.
it doesn't make sense on first glance, but it does when you work the politics out in more detail. big union members in southern ontario are very well paid. they're more worried about their taxes being too high then they are about their collective bargaining rights and their political choices reflect that economic comfort. it's no longer "the bosses are stealing my wages to live in luxury" but "the government is stealing my wages to distribute to the community". the difference in function is less important than the perceived lost wages, regardless of the comfort they live in.
nobody wants to talk about it, though. the conservatives don't want to risk losing one of their most effective attack mechanisms, so they keep attacking them. the ndp don't want to come off as utterly irrelevant, so they keep acting like they represent them. but it's all a charade...
there's an election today. i'm not voting. i do sometimes, i don't sometimes. for today, i'm in a relatively new riding and i simply don't know the local candidates or local issues well enough.
i don't expect much to change, though.
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
0% means 0%. it's not a discussion. and, i decided quite some time ago that chasing collectors around wasn't worth my time.
the interest on my loan exceeds my disability payments.
i talked to them last in early
2016. i have no intention of contacting them again until 2021. and, when
i do, it will be to discuss options for default.
there is simply not another way forwards.
there is no punitive measure that they can take that is meaningful. and there are no steps that i can take for repayment.
the correct lesson is that they
should carry out greater due diligence; i should have never been given
the loan, because i should have never been expected to be able to repay
it.
that's correct: i am claiming that the responsibility for the default lies with the state.
and, i have better things to do than worry about it.
even if they were to take away
my disability altogether, it wouldn't help because i would become
ineligible for disability when i get evicted. and, then you've got
another mentally ill homeless person and are no closer to recouping the
loan. it would be pretty stupid.
i've filled out the forms, and
while they understand that i am permanently disabled, and agree that i
will never pay the loan, they claim that it cannot be forgiven because i
am not *severely* permanently disabled. i can only respond by pointing
out that this is severely stupid, and go do something else with my time.
i'm not joking. they agree
that i will never pay back the loan, because i'm permanently disabled.
explicitly. i have this in writing. but, despite agreeing that the loan
will never be repaid, they won't forgive it because i'm not "severely"
disabled. it is the most amazingly idiotic thing you could imagine.
or, maybe they're right: maybe
i'll be able to pay them back in five years after all. they'll find out
in five years. until then, i can't be bothered.
since i've moved to windsor, i've spent most of my time completing
existing recordings. but, i have put aside a few demos for later, too.
i'm just interested in sharing these, right now, so they'll be here for
streaming, only. i initially had a soundcloud site for this, but i want
to shut that down.
these tracks will eventually be moved out of this space, completed and placed on to singles, eps and lps for download.
these tracks will eventually be moved out of this space, completed and placed on to singles, eps and lps for download.
i think there's another reading of the shuffle out to the ambassadorships.
neither mccallum nor dion strike me as the type to work past retirement: they'll both be cashing in at 65. and, not a day later, either.
i mean, they'll be around. just not all day. and not every day.
mccallum will be past retirement in late 2019. dion will be a few months from it.
so, they'd probably both have left before or shortly after the next election.
they're also both in relatively safe seats. certainly, either by-election would be an upset if it went to another party.
we're not quite mid-mandate, but i suspect that the government would love to get a measure of the actual support on the ground. so, this is a way you can do that: you ask some people to step down a little early, and then you can run the by-election to figure out where you're sitting.
i'm not proposing that this is the only reason things happened. i'm proposing that it may be one of the reasons things happened.
neither mccallum nor dion strike me as the type to work past retirement: they'll both be cashing in at 65. and, not a day later, either.
i mean, they'll be around. just not all day. and not every day.
mccallum will be past retirement in late 2019. dion will be a few months from it.
so, they'd probably both have left before or shortly after the next election.
they're also both in relatively safe seats. certainly, either by-election would be an upset if it went to another party.
we're not quite mid-mandate, but i suspect that the government would love to get a measure of the actual support on the ground. so, this is a way you can do that: you ask some people to step down a little early, and then you can run the by-election to figure out where you're sitting.
i'm not proposing that this is the only reason things happened. i'm proposing that it may be one of the reasons things happened.
to be clear.
there's nobody on the conservative side i'd vote for, or at least not at the prime ministerial level. the ndp don't have many promising options, either. in fact, if it's down to a local riding choice, i really couldn't imagine voting for cheryl hardcastle.
i'm hoping that the greens step up soon.
right now, i think there's a good chance i won't vote at all in 2019. and, while this riding is probably not in play, that's the liberals' worst nightmare.
there's nobody on the conservative side i'd vote for, or at least not at the prime ministerial level. the ndp don't have many promising options, either. in fact, if it's down to a local riding choice, i really couldn't imagine voting for cheryl hardcastle.
i'm hoping that the greens step up soon.
right now, i think there's a good chance i won't vote at all in 2019. and, while this riding is probably not in play, that's the liberals' worst nightmare.
i'm not exaggerating.
look up quotes about nafta by people like pierre trudeau, jean chretien, lloyd axworthy, allan rock, sheila copps...
these people had a very clear analysis of the agreement, and their statements show great foresight in how it would unfold. i'm hard-pressed to think of a better example of such clear foresight. it's truly impressive. and it's horrific that the party has apparently almost wholly adopted their opponent's position on the topic, along with all of their inaccuracies and even their historical baggage.
look up quotes about nafta by people like pierre trudeau, jean chretien, lloyd axworthy, allan rock, sheila copps...
these people had a very clear analysis of the agreement, and their statements show great foresight in how it would unfold. i'm hard-pressed to think of a better example of such clear foresight. it's truly impressive. and it's horrific that the party has apparently almost wholly adopted their opponent's position on the topic, along with all of their inaccuracies and even their historical baggage.
the liberals should be gloating, right now. they should be reminding people that they never fully supported free trade. they should be reminding everybody that they were right.
instead, they're pretending to represent the legacy of the disastrous mulroney government.
it's scandalous. truly.
and it's foolish.
if they hold to it, it will be their undoing.
this isn't like clinton. they don't need to protect a legacy. they were right all along, they're just too stupid to realize it. and so instead of capitalizing off of it, they're going to let it drag them down.
instead, they're pretending to represent the legacy of the disastrous mulroney government.
it's scandalous. truly.
and it's foolish.
if they hold to it, it will be their undoing.
this isn't like clinton. they don't need to protect a legacy. they were right all along, they're just too stupid to realize it. and so instead of capitalizing off of it, they're going to let it drag them down.
but, after correctly being skeptical about free trade for decades, now all of a sudden they seem to want to be the champions of this dying global order. where they were once correct to hold to their principles, now they seem to want to be the last in the class to learn the lesson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FEW5mh7iAI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FEW5mh7iAI
it's actually very irritating to me.
this is the guy i voted for in the election:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/frank-schiller-is-liberal-candidate-in-windsor-tecumseh-1.3051691
and the reason i voted for him is that he was a very vocal opponent to nafta. he promised he'd work to renegotiate it.
he lost in this riding to the zombie ndp vote, which preferred a local councilor running a straight-from-head-office cookie-cutter campaign. the only independent position she seemed to hold was being anti-gmo.
i would normally lean ndp, but the difference in candidates was stark. he was very independent minded and said a lot of the things i was thinking. she just read memos from the ndp's politburo, except when she decided to be vocally opposed to science.
the liberals spent years and years campaigning against nafta, but i couldn't pull up any legacy of this in my mind. or at least nothing really explicit.
the guy i actually voted for would actually be exactly the right person to send to washington right now....
this is the guy i voted for in the election:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/frank-schiller-is-liberal-candidate-in-windsor-tecumseh-1.3051691
and the reason i voted for him is that he was a very vocal opponent to nafta. he promised he'd work to renegotiate it.
he lost in this riding to the zombie ndp vote, which preferred a local councilor running a straight-from-head-office cookie-cutter campaign. the only independent position she seemed to hold was being anti-gmo.
i would normally lean ndp, but the difference in candidates was stark. he was very independent minded and said a lot of the things i was thinking. she just read memos from the ndp's politburo, except when she decided to be vocally opposed to science.
the liberals spent years and years campaigning against nafta, but i couldn't pull up any legacy of this in my mind. or at least nothing really explicit.
the guy i actually voted for would actually be exactly the right person to send to washington right now....
so, this cabinet shift...
substantively, what he's done is move what are probably his two most capable and knowledgeable mps out of cabinet roles and into the civil service. you could look at this either way.
see, in canada, most of the actual work is bureaucratic. that's the actual reason why it takes a few years for a new government to do anything. the ministers can change the direction of things, but they are expected to ultimately be figureheads and ultimately defer to the authority of the bureaucrats. we're getting to the point now where things should be starting to spin in a less conservative direction.
so, you could argue that putting these two capable ministers (mccallum and dion) in the civil service is a better use of their talents. we're not yet sure where dion is going, but sending mccallum to china is certainly a boost of confidence, if nothing else.
but, you could also argue that these two capable and knowledgeable ministers are looking for a way out of a government that is leaning further to the right than they'd like. i'm very surprised that dion would decide to leave his riding - he may be being pushed out. and, that's a very ominous signal that trudeau is planning on swinging hard to the right.
it's unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected. they're going to have to learn the hard way that a world of open markets isn't the vision that canadians voted for, and isn't the vision that canadians want.
so, this actually doesn't appear to have anything to do with adjusting to trump at all. this appears to be about the trudeau government learning the wrong lessons from the election, and deciding to follow barack obama into the dustbin of history.
pity.
substantively, what he's done is move what are probably his two most capable and knowledgeable mps out of cabinet roles and into the civil service. you could look at this either way.
see, in canada, most of the actual work is bureaucratic. that's the actual reason why it takes a few years for a new government to do anything. the ministers can change the direction of things, but they are expected to ultimately be figureheads and ultimately defer to the authority of the bureaucrats. we're getting to the point now where things should be starting to spin in a less conservative direction.
so, you could argue that putting these two capable ministers (mccallum and dion) in the civil service is a better use of their talents. we're not yet sure where dion is going, but sending mccallum to china is certainly a boost of confidence, if nothing else.
but, you could also argue that these two capable and knowledgeable ministers are looking for a way out of a government that is leaning further to the right than they'd like. i'm very surprised that dion would decide to leave his riding - he may be being pushed out. and, that's a very ominous signal that trudeau is planning on swinging hard to the right.
it's unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected. they're going to have to learn the hard way that a world of open markets isn't the vision that canadians voted for, and isn't the vision that canadians want.
so, this actually doesn't appear to have anything to do with adjusting to trump at all. this appears to be about the trudeau government learning the wrong lessons from the election, and deciding to follow barack obama into the dustbin of history.
pity.
does free trade between canada and china make sense?
in a literal sense, not at all. an attempted free trade agreement with china - in literal terms - would create downward pressure on wages and living standards, because we cannot in good faith expect them to raise in a brutal dictatorship with minimal respect for human rights. free trade with the state-capitalist dictatorship in china is neither good nor bad but impossible.
this is different than a trade agreement with the united states, with europe, with australia or with japan.
but, a trade agreement with china that takes these concerns into consideration does make sense, so long as it explicitly ties the opening of markets to increasing labour standards.
my faith in the trudeau government's ability to put together a reasonable deal on this is both relatively high, in comparison to the other options, and pretty low, in absolute terms. this is an issue that needs to be tackled one way or another. we can't just decide to not deal with this. i'm likely to end up critical, perhaps extremely so, but i'd rather this guy is doing it than the other guy.
what i don't want to see is trudeau to come out swinging for some kind of dying neo-liberal order. that is tone deaf on every level - political suicide, and not in the national interest, either. it's not even reality any more, it's just delusional. magical thinking. there has to be some kind of serious push for increasing labour standards, and not as some kind of do-gooder progressivism but as hard-nosed economic realism. we'll get destroyed if we don't pay very close attention to this.
the neo-liberal order is dead. good riddance. let's adjust. we never liked it much, anyways.
in a literal sense, not at all. an attempted free trade agreement with china - in literal terms - would create downward pressure on wages and living standards, because we cannot in good faith expect them to raise in a brutal dictatorship with minimal respect for human rights. free trade with the state-capitalist dictatorship in china is neither good nor bad but impossible.
this is different than a trade agreement with the united states, with europe, with australia or with japan.
but, a trade agreement with china that takes these concerns into consideration does make sense, so long as it explicitly ties the opening of markets to increasing labour standards.
my faith in the trudeau government's ability to put together a reasonable deal on this is both relatively high, in comparison to the other options, and pretty low, in absolute terms. this is an issue that needs to be tackled one way or another. we can't just decide to not deal with this. i'm likely to end up critical, perhaps extremely so, but i'd rather this guy is doing it than the other guy.
what i don't want to see is trudeau to come out swinging for some kind of dying neo-liberal order. that is tone deaf on every level - political suicide, and not in the national interest, either. it's not even reality any more, it's just delusional. magical thinking. there has to be some kind of serious push for increasing labour standards, and not as some kind of do-gooder progressivism but as hard-nosed economic realism. we'll get destroyed if we don't pay very close attention to this.
the neo-liberal order is dead. good riddance. let's adjust. we never liked it much, anyways.
i don't have any problem with trudeau going on a christmas vacation, and he can go wherever he'd like, but i am a little unhappy about the premise of going on a cross-country campaign when parliament is in session and he should be governing.
i don't care at all whether he comes to my town or not, and i'm not going to vote based on his travel itinerary. but, my patience is getting a little thin regarding the slow pace of legislation.
so, there is some basis to the criticism that he's not working hard enough. they're apparently missing the point.
i don't care at all whether he comes to my town or not, and i'm not going to vote based on his travel itinerary. but, my patience is getting a little thin regarding the slow pace of legislation.
so, there is some basis to the criticism that he's not working hard enough. they're apparently missing the point.
Monday, January 9, 2017
great.
national security adviser? they should put her on healthcare.
i think that it's obvious that this is a media position. so long as she doesn't plagiarize her hair, i think she'll be ok.
but, it's just as obvious that you're not going to get a job in this administration unless you make it a priority to look like a pornographic actress. this isn't even about presentation. you are required to look trashy.
well, maybe it's not coincidental.
there are going to be sex scandals in this administration. that is obvious. perhaps more so than anything else.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/report-trump-national-security-pick-monica-crowley-plagiarized-her-ph-d-dissertation/
national security adviser? they should put her on healthcare.
i think that it's obvious that this is a media position. so long as she doesn't plagiarize her hair, i think she'll be ok.
but, it's just as obvious that you're not going to get a job in this administration unless you make it a priority to look like a pornographic actress. this isn't even about presentation. you are required to look trashy.
well, maybe it's not coincidental.
there are going to be sex scandals in this administration. that is obvious. perhaps more so than anything else.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/report-trump-national-security-pick-monica-crowley-plagiarized-her-ph-d-dissertation/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)