Tuesday, April 25, 2017
donald trump is a bully. and, like all bullies, he seeks out easy targets. canada is the easiest target he can find.
it's not more complicated than that.
i understand that the trudeau government's instincts are to play buddy-buddy, point to the fact that we're allies under norad and nato and hope there's a rational human being in there somewhere. this is what all canadians really want. but, for at least the next four years, this is the wrong approach.
when a bully targets you because you're easy meat, you have no choice but to stand up for yourself.
they should call his bluff and make a fool out of him, and do it as internationally as possible. humiliate him on the world stage. teach him a lesson.
that's how you deal with bullies.
it's not more complicated than that.
i understand that the trudeau government's instincts are to play buddy-buddy, point to the fact that we're allies under norad and nato and hope there's a rational human being in there somewhere. this is what all canadians really want. but, for at least the next four years, this is the wrong approach.
when a bully targets you because you're easy meat, you have no choice but to stand up for yourself.
they should call his bluff and make a fool out of him, and do it as internationally as possible. humiliate him on the world stage. teach him a lesson.
that's how you deal with bullies.
i've been clear about my views on this.
1) trump is going to face domestic opposition to renegotiation. the congress will not give him what he wants.
2) therefore, he's bluffing.
3) i never liked nafta much, anyways. plus, we have the fta to fall back on.
4) let's call him on his bluff by offering to pull out of nafta. we don't have a congress that can block us. we can do this in 90 days. we can give him what he wants, if he wants it. but, of course, it's going to cost him.
5) oh, wait. he likes nafta after all?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-canada-trade-options-analysis-idUSKBN17R2TL
1) trump is going to face domestic opposition to renegotiation. the congress will not give him what he wants.
2) therefore, he's bluffing.
3) i never liked nafta much, anyways. plus, we have the fta to fall back on.
4) let's call him on his bluff by offering to pull out of nafta. we don't have a congress that can block us. we can do this in 90 days. we can give him what he wants, if he wants it. but, of course, it's going to cost him.
5) oh, wait. he likes nafta after all?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-canada-trade-options-analysis-idUSKBN17R2TL
i guess the parties have been reading the polls.
this is a good idea. it's not expensive; it actually saves money.
the provincial liberals want it done nationally, but this is one of the things that trudeau has walked away from. but, listen: if this election ends up as a fight between the ndp and the liberals over who can be more populist, we all win in the long run.
....just so long as we don't split the vote, which is going to have to be the factor that actually motivates me in lining up behind one or the other, in the end. wynne has a huge hole to climb out of, and if she doesn't make some progress soon, we're all going to have to cut the line to keep the tories out - and i'm not going to pretend this isn't so.
(my riding is not in play)
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/04/24/ndp-liberal-battle-for-hearts-and-votes-of-progressives-cohn.html
this is a good idea. it's not expensive; it actually saves money.
the provincial liberals want it done nationally, but this is one of the things that trudeau has walked away from. but, listen: if this election ends up as a fight between the ndp and the liberals over who can be more populist, we all win in the long run.
....just so long as we don't split the vote, which is going to have to be the factor that actually motivates me in lining up behind one or the other, in the end. wynne has a huge hole to climb out of, and if she doesn't make some progress soon, we're all going to have to cut the line to keep the tories out - and i'm not going to pretend this isn't so.
(my riding is not in play)
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/04/24/ndp-liberal-battle-for-hearts-and-votes-of-progressives-cohn.html
they were talking about this before.
apparently, studies done in the past suggest that the ubi doesn't provide a disincentive towards working. i'd guess this is probably due to social coercion.
i would personally not be subject to such coercion. but, i'm unemployable, anyways - and i think that's the more key point. it's going to be a hard sell to certain groups, but if you want to do this experiment, you have to separate out the noise. i mean, call me a loser if you want. or call me an artist with an unmarketable product. that's not so important, in context; what's more important is that nobody is going to hire me any time soon, anyways, so the ubi isn't keeping me out of the work force.
the point is that you have to scratch people like me off the list. let's hope they actually do it, so i'm not skewing the results. for me, the whole thing really reduces to not needing to go through the hassle of getting my odsp renewed again - and also to a bit of a boost in income. how much?
to ease the pain on the calvinists, which are the real opposition here (even when they don't realize they're calvinists...), i want to draw attention to the numbers they're floating around. i'm on the ontario disability support, which is $1128/month - and i fully acknowledge that this feels like it's generous in the part of the province i live in (although, the caveat is that i moved across the province to allow for it). i have plenty of spending money, as those that follow me can see clearly. that works out to $13,536/year. this is before tax credits, but i'm going to assume that they will remain (because nobody has suggested otherwise). i wouldn't push back on swapping the trillium out for a ubi, though.
the article puts the number of $16,989 down, which is $1415.75/month. so, i would get a boost in benefits of $287.75/month - substantial, to say the least. that's a 26% boost, and i'm not even paying union dues. if i was moving from welfare to the ubi it would be more like a 215% boost in income. and, if i renewed my disability, i may be potentially eligible for another $500/month, making the total increase close to 70%.
but, calvinists should calm down.
at $16,989/year, that would be equivalent to about $8.17/hour, if the person worked 40 hours a week. the minimum wage is about $11.50, and living wage advocates in toronto are pushing for something closer to $20. so, there remain plenty of incentives to work, depending on where you live. in toronto or ottawa, this would merely make the desperately poor a little less desperate. here in windsor, it may be harder to make that argument, but the economy is terrible, anyways. if i stay on disability and this goes through, i could conceivably buy property here with $23,000/year. that's less than i made at microsoft, but pretty close to what i made working tech support for hp - in ottawa, in 2006. it's almost minimum wage, now.
so, the numbers seem to be crunched for toronto and that may be some insular thinking. this is unsustainable if you don't adjust for living costs, locally. if you try and find some middle point, i'll get twice what i need and somebody in a wheelchair in toronto will get half what she needs. it's a big province, with big disparities. and, this is arguably at the root of the cause in the first place - they aren't doing this, and it's what they need to do.
but, it's good to see some work moving in this direction.
https://news.ontario.ca/mcss/en/2017/04/ontarios-basic-income-pilot.html
apparently, studies done in the past suggest that the ubi doesn't provide a disincentive towards working. i'd guess this is probably due to social coercion.
i would personally not be subject to such coercion. but, i'm unemployable, anyways - and i think that's the more key point. it's going to be a hard sell to certain groups, but if you want to do this experiment, you have to separate out the noise. i mean, call me a loser if you want. or call me an artist with an unmarketable product. that's not so important, in context; what's more important is that nobody is going to hire me any time soon, anyways, so the ubi isn't keeping me out of the work force.
the point is that you have to scratch people like me off the list. let's hope they actually do it, so i'm not skewing the results. for me, the whole thing really reduces to not needing to go through the hassle of getting my odsp renewed again - and also to a bit of a boost in income. how much?
to ease the pain on the calvinists, which are the real opposition here (even when they don't realize they're calvinists...), i want to draw attention to the numbers they're floating around. i'm on the ontario disability support, which is $1128/month - and i fully acknowledge that this feels like it's generous in the part of the province i live in (although, the caveat is that i moved across the province to allow for it). i have plenty of spending money, as those that follow me can see clearly. that works out to $13,536/year. this is before tax credits, but i'm going to assume that they will remain (because nobody has suggested otherwise). i wouldn't push back on swapping the trillium out for a ubi, though.
the article puts the number of $16,989 down, which is $1415.75/month. so, i would get a boost in benefits of $287.75/month - substantial, to say the least. that's a 26% boost, and i'm not even paying union dues. if i was moving from welfare to the ubi it would be more like a 215% boost in income. and, if i renewed my disability, i may be potentially eligible for another $500/month, making the total increase close to 70%.
but, calvinists should calm down.
at $16,989/year, that would be equivalent to about $8.17/hour, if the person worked 40 hours a week. the minimum wage is about $11.50, and living wage advocates in toronto are pushing for something closer to $20. so, there remain plenty of incentives to work, depending on where you live. in toronto or ottawa, this would merely make the desperately poor a little less desperate. here in windsor, it may be harder to make that argument, but the economy is terrible, anyways. if i stay on disability and this goes through, i could conceivably buy property here with $23,000/year. that's less than i made at microsoft, but pretty close to what i made working tech support for hp - in ottawa, in 2006. it's almost minimum wage, now.
so, the numbers seem to be crunched for toronto and that may be some insular thinking. this is unsustainable if you don't adjust for living costs, locally. if you try and find some middle point, i'll get twice what i need and somebody in a wheelchair in toronto will get half what she needs. it's a big province, with big disparities. and, this is arguably at the root of the cause in the first place - they aren't doing this, and it's what they need to do.
but, it's good to see some work moving in this direction.
https://news.ontario.ca/mcss/en/2017/04/ontarios-basic-income-pilot.html
"Canada is supposed to be fair for everybody." - justin trudeau
no, don't misunderstand - i'm not being snide. it's almost precocious, in a way - in a sort of childlike naivete. but, i'm not pushing back - this is what you want to hear from a dauphin growing into his role. you want to almost be proud of him, or something.
he's right. canada is supposed to be fair for everybody. and, we should applaud the prime minister for upholding the social contract and passing legislation that makes it a little bit more fair, when he can.
no, don't misunderstand - i'm not being snide. it's almost precocious, in a way - in a sort of childlike naivete. but, i'm not pushing back - this is what you want to hear from a dauphin growing into his role. you want to almost be proud of him, or something.
he's right. canada is supposed to be fair for everybody. and, we should applaud the prime minister for upholding the social contract and passing legislation that makes it a little bit more fair, when he can.
Monday, April 24, 2017
i talk a lot shit, don't i? do i know what i'm talking about?
i'm putting this aside for my own records.
...but i have an honours degree in mathematics, with a surplus of credits at the fourth/fifth year that would be enough for a masters degree, if i were to pay for it. this is why i focused on a second degree in computer science rather than a master's degree in math - i already had one, i just never bought it. it didn't get me anywhere, and wasn't going to get me anywhere i wanted.
i stopped the computer science degree a credit short for the simple reason that i didn't want to do it anymore. i did not formally switch into law, but i completed about two years worth of law credits before i abandoned this as well. i could get a minor in either subject if i wanted it.
i spent a year in physics, as well, and you can see that i had an interest in it.
i have no meaningful formal education in history, anthropology, music or political science. this is dabbling and outside reading.
so, when i start talking about thermodynamics or statistics or whatever else, i'm not just repeating things i learned at wiki. i went to school for an absurd amount of time, and took a very technical workload. it's actually the "softer" subjects that i'm not trained in.
i promote skepticism. but, you can usually take me seriously when i get technical, and i will always caveat when i'm being unconventional.
all courses taken at carleton university in ottawa, canada.
mathematics/statistics
*MATH 1002 - Calculus and Introductory Analysis I (full credit)
*MATH 1102 - Algebra I (full credit)
MATH 1805 - Discrete Structures
*MATH 2000 - Calculus and Introductory Analysis II (full credit)
*MATH 2100 - Algebra II (full credit)
*MATH 2454 - Ordinary Differential Equations
*STAT 2655 - Introduction to Probability with Applications
*STAT 2559 - Basics of Statistical Modeling
*MATH 3001 - Real Analysis
*MATH 3002 - Calculus of Differential Forms and Geometry
*MATH 3008 - Ordinary Differential Equations
*MATH 3057 - Functions of a Complex Variable
*MATH 3106 - Introduction to Group Theory
*MATH 3158 - Rings and Fields
*MATH 3256 - Plane Projective Geometry
*STAT 3505 - Linear Regression and Design of Experiments
MATH 3705 - Mathematical Methods I
MATH 3801 - Linear Programming
MATH 3804 - Design and Analysis of Algorithms I
MATH 3806 - Numerical Analysis
*MATH 3855 - Discrete Structures and Applications
*MATH 4002 - Fourier Analysis
*MATH 4207 - Foundations of Geometry
*MATH 4700 - Partial Differential Equations
*MATH 4802 - Introduction to Mathematical Logic
*MATH 4803 - Computable Functions
*MATH 4805 - Theory of Automata
*MATH 4806 - Numerical Linear Algebra
*MATH 4807 - Game Theory
*MATH 4808 - Graph Theory and Algorithms
*MATH 4809 - Mathematical Cryptography
*MATH 4822 - Wavelets and Digital Signal Processing
*MATH 4905 - Honours Project
*MATH 4907 - Galois Theory
* - enrollment limited to honours students.
total math credits: 19 credits, or 38 courses.
result: official b. math. unofficial m. math.
computer science
*COMP 1402 - Introduction to Systems Programming
*COMP 1405 - Introduction to Object-Oriented Programming
*COMP 1406 - Design and Implementation of Computer Applications
COMP 1805 - Discrete Structures
COMP 2003 - Computer Organization
*COMP 2402 - Abstract Data Types and Algorithms
*COMP 2404 - Programming in C++
COMP 2805 - Introduction to Theory of Computation
COMP 3000 - Operating Systems
COMP 3005 - Database Management Systems
COMP 3007 - Programming Paradigms
COMP 3804 - Design and Analysis of Algorithms I
*COMP 3805 - Discrete Structures and Applications
COMP 3806 - Numerical Analysis
*COMP 4803 - Computable Functions
*COMP 4805 - Theory of Automata
*COMP 4806 - Numerical Linear Algebra
* - enrollment limited to honours students.
total computer science credits: 8.5 credits, or 17 courses.
result: incomplete degree (completed 8 of 9 required credits, and 19 of 20 overall).
law
LAWS 1000 - Introduction to Legal Studies (full credit)
LAWS 2201 - Persons and Property (Private Law I)
LAWS 2202 - Obligations (Tort law) (Private Law II)
LAWS 2301 - Criminal Justice System (Criminal Law I)
LAWS 2302 - Criminal Law (Criminal Law II)
LAWS 2501 - Law, State & Constitution (Public Law I)
LAWS 2502 - Law, State & Citizen (Public Law II)
LAWS 3500 - Constitutional Law
LAWS 3504 - Law and Aboriginal Peoples
total credits: 5 credits, or 10 courses.
result: undeclared minor.
physics
PHYS 1001 - Foundations of Physics I
PHYS 1002 - Foundations of Physics II
PHYS 2604 - Modern Physics
PHYS 3807 - Mathematical Physics I
PHYS 3808 - Mathematical Physics II
PHYS 4203 - Physical Applications of Fourier Analysis
total credits: 3 credits, or 6 courses.
result: this is a credit short of a minor.
breadth
BIOL 1003 - Introductory Biology I
BIOL 1004 - Introductory Biology II
PSYC 1001 - Introduction to Psychology I
PSYC 1002 - Introduction to Psychology II
ENGL 2107 - Science Fiction
ENGL 2906 - Culture and Society
MUSI 3603 - Computer Music Techniques
MUSI 3604 - Computer Music Projects
CLCV 1002 - Survey of Greek Civilization
HIST 3902 - The Late Roman Empire (Byzantine History, 395-1453)
ECON 1000 - Introduction to Economics (full credit)
ECON 4004 - Operations Research I
total credits: 6.5 credits, or 13 courses.
result: this is breadth outside of the four areas i focused on, remember: 1 credit bio, 1 credit psych, 1 credit english, 1 credit music, 1 credit history and 1.5 credits in economics (ECON 4004 was also listed as MATH 3801).
OAC courses
SPHOA - Physics
MCAOA - Calculus
ENGOA - English
DCCOA - Computer Science
MFNOA - Finite Mathematics
MAGOA - Algebra & Geometry
SBIOA - Biology
SCHOA - Chemistry
total credits: 8 credits, or 8 courses.
result: these are pre-university courses that were previously offered at the ontario high school level. i believe i was in the last year for OAC.
i'm putting this aside for my own records.
...but i have an honours degree in mathematics, with a surplus of credits at the fourth/fifth year that would be enough for a masters degree, if i were to pay for it. this is why i focused on a second degree in computer science rather than a master's degree in math - i already had one, i just never bought it. it didn't get me anywhere, and wasn't going to get me anywhere i wanted.
i stopped the computer science degree a credit short for the simple reason that i didn't want to do it anymore. i did not formally switch into law, but i completed about two years worth of law credits before i abandoned this as well. i could get a minor in either subject if i wanted it.
i spent a year in physics, as well, and you can see that i had an interest in it.
i have no meaningful formal education in history, anthropology, music or political science. this is dabbling and outside reading.
so, when i start talking about thermodynamics or statistics or whatever else, i'm not just repeating things i learned at wiki. i went to school for an absurd amount of time, and took a very technical workload. it's actually the "softer" subjects that i'm not trained in.
i promote skepticism. but, you can usually take me seriously when i get technical, and i will always caveat when i'm being unconventional.
all courses taken at carleton university in ottawa, canada.
mathematics/statistics
*MATH 1002 - Calculus and Introductory Analysis I (full credit)
*MATH 1102 - Algebra I (full credit)
MATH 1805 - Discrete Structures
*MATH 2000 - Calculus and Introductory Analysis II (full credit)
*MATH 2100 - Algebra II (full credit)
*MATH 2454 - Ordinary Differential Equations
*STAT 2655 - Introduction to Probability with Applications
*STAT 2559 - Basics of Statistical Modeling
*MATH 3001 - Real Analysis
*MATH 3002 - Calculus of Differential Forms and Geometry
*MATH 3008 - Ordinary Differential Equations
*MATH 3057 - Functions of a Complex Variable
*MATH 3106 - Introduction to Group Theory
*MATH 3158 - Rings and Fields
*MATH 3256 - Plane Projective Geometry
*STAT 3505 - Linear Regression and Design of Experiments
MATH 3705 - Mathematical Methods I
MATH 3801 - Linear Programming
MATH 3804 - Design and Analysis of Algorithms I
MATH 3806 - Numerical Analysis
*MATH 3855 - Discrete Structures and Applications
*MATH 4002 - Fourier Analysis
*MATH 4207 - Foundations of Geometry
*MATH 4700 - Partial Differential Equations
*MATH 4802 - Introduction to Mathematical Logic
*MATH 4803 - Computable Functions
*MATH 4805 - Theory of Automata
*MATH 4806 - Numerical Linear Algebra
*MATH 4807 - Game Theory
*MATH 4808 - Graph Theory and Algorithms
*MATH 4809 - Mathematical Cryptography
*MATH 4822 - Wavelets and Digital Signal Processing
*MATH 4905 - Honours Project
*MATH 4907 - Galois Theory
* - enrollment limited to honours students.
total math credits: 19 credits, or 38 courses.
result: official b. math. unofficial m. math.
computer science
*COMP 1402 - Introduction to Systems Programming
*COMP 1405 - Introduction to Object-Oriented Programming
*COMP 1406 - Design and Implementation of Computer Applications
COMP 1805 - Discrete Structures
COMP 2003 - Computer Organization
*COMP 2402 - Abstract Data Types and Algorithms
*COMP 2404 - Programming in C++
COMP 2805 - Introduction to Theory of Computation
COMP 3000 - Operating Systems
COMP 3005 - Database Management Systems
COMP 3007 - Programming Paradigms
COMP 3804 - Design and Analysis of Algorithms I
*COMP 3805 - Discrete Structures and Applications
COMP 3806 - Numerical Analysis
*COMP 4803 - Computable Functions
*COMP 4805 - Theory of Automata
*COMP 4806 - Numerical Linear Algebra
* - enrollment limited to honours students.
total computer science credits: 8.5 credits, or 17 courses.
result: incomplete degree (completed 8 of 9 required credits, and 19 of 20 overall).
law
LAWS 1000 - Introduction to Legal Studies (full credit)
LAWS 2201 - Persons and Property (Private Law I)
LAWS 2202 - Obligations (Tort law) (Private Law II)
LAWS 2301 - Criminal Justice System (Criminal Law I)
LAWS 2302 - Criminal Law (Criminal Law II)
LAWS 2501 - Law, State & Constitution (Public Law I)
LAWS 2502 - Law, State & Citizen (Public Law II)
LAWS 3500 - Constitutional Law
LAWS 3504 - Law and Aboriginal Peoples
total credits: 5 credits, or 10 courses.
result: undeclared minor.
physics
PHYS 1001 - Foundations of Physics I
PHYS 1002 - Foundations of Physics II
PHYS 2604 - Modern Physics
PHYS 3807 - Mathematical Physics I
PHYS 3808 - Mathematical Physics II
PHYS 4203 - Physical Applications of Fourier Analysis
total credits: 3 credits, or 6 courses.
result: this is a credit short of a minor.
breadth
BIOL 1003 - Introductory Biology I
BIOL 1004 - Introductory Biology II
PSYC 1001 - Introduction to Psychology I
PSYC 1002 - Introduction to Psychology II
ENGL 2107 - Science Fiction
ENGL 2906 - Culture and Society
MUSI 3603 - Computer Music Techniques
MUSI 3604 - Computer Music Projects
CLCV 1002 - Survey of Greek Civilization
HIST 3902 - The Late Roman Empire (Byzantine History, 395-1453)
ECON 1000 - Introduction to Economics (full credit)
ECON 4004 - Operations Research I
total credits: 6.5 credits, or 13 courses.
result: this is breadth outside of the four areas i focused on, remember: 1 credit bio, 1 credit psych, 1 credit english, 1 credit music, 1 credit history and 1.5 credits in economics (ECON 4004 was also listed as MATH 3801).
OAC courses
SPHOA - Physics
MCAOA - Calculus
ENGOA - English
DCCOA - Computer Science
MFNOA - Finite Mathematics
MAGOA - Algebra & Geometry
SBIOA - Biology
SCHOA - Chemistry
total credits: 8 credits, or 8 courses.
result: these are pre-university courses that were previously offered at the ontario high school level. i believe i was in the last year for OAC.
what i want to say about this is that it's as clear as day that canadians want an ndp government.
it's really depressing what happened last time around with mulcair. but, the electorate remains in the same place that it was in 2015. all the ndp needs to give trudeau a run is somebody willing to stand up and commit.
and, we won't make our votes contingent on immigration, either. it's clear what we want. but we won't vote against our broader interests to get it.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadians-oppose-policies-that-would-align-canada-with-those-of-donald-trump-poll
it's really depressing what happened last time around with mulcair. but, the electorate remains in the same place that it was in 2015. all the ndp needs to give trudeau a run is somebody willing to stand up and commit.
and, we won't make our votes contingent on immigration, either. it's clear what we want. but we won't vote against our broader interests to get it.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadians-oppose-policies-that-would-align-canada-with-those-of-donald-trump-poll
once again: it is in no way clear what trump is trying to accomplish in north korea.
he surely doesn't think he can bully them into giving up their nuclear weapons. why does he think they have nuclear weapons in the first place?
is he trying to look tough in front of the chinese?
there isn't a clear objective, here.
...and so i'm once again left to conclude that this is a made-for-tv movie.
get some popcorn, i guess.
and, we'll have to hope that the north koreans behave rationally in the face of american absurdity.
who is the rogue state, here?
he surely doesn't think he can bully them into giving up their nuclear weapons. why does he think they have nuclear weapons in the first place?
is he trying to look tough in front of the chinese?
there isn't a clear objective, here.
...and so i'm once again left to conclude that this is a made-for-tv movie.
get some popcorn, i guess.
and, we'll have to hope that the north koreans behave rationally in the face of american absurdity.
who is the rogue state, here?
i mean, maybe i should remind you that i was an anti-globalization protestor in the late 90s. remember the battle of seattle? this is where i was politicized.
i've been fighting free trade and globalization for twenty years. it's at the very core of my politics.
and, you think the neo-liberals are any less racist? different types of racism, maybe. not less racist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElUA25rgyeg
i've been fighting free trade and globalization for twenty years. it's at the very core of my politics.
and, you think the neo-liberals are any less racist? different types of racism, maybe. not less racist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElUA25rgyeg
Historically, populist movements have thrived in regions of economic
distress or among demographic groups that are enduring hardship. This
appears to be the case among France’s youth, especially in the deindustrialized northeast. According to a recent Ifop poll, 39 per cent of 18-to-24-year-olds support the FN. Mr. Macron’s centrists attract only 21 per cent of the youth vote, and Mr. Fillon’s conservatives pull in just 9 per cent. Ensuring that young people come out in force is crucial for Ms. Le Pen’s electoral success.
the differences are just exaggerated, here.
- clinton may have worked for bankers, but there was some reason to think she'd push back a little. macron is a banker. full stop. pick your cliche; let's go with foxes and hen houses, although hands in the cookie jar works, too. that makes macron far worse.
- you couldn't take a word trump said seriously. le pen is clearly not the fool that trump is, and she comes from a lineage with a history of standing up for people. her threats are believable.
again: it's lesser evil. they're both terrible. but..
i said during the last election in the states that i agreed with clinton more than i agreed with trump about 53% of the time. that means i agreed with trump over clinton about 47% of the time. so, it was hardly a ringing endorsement, right?
what i'm saying here is that the situation is flipped - because macron is that much worse than clinton, and le pen is that much better than trump, the situation flips over: i end up agreeing with le pen over macron 53% of the time.
not a ringing endorsement. lesser evilism. and with the caveat of understood russian ventriloquists snaking around in the background.
it's more of a brutal rejection of macron. and, what i'm getting at is that my logic might end up replicated fairly widely.
- clinton may have worked for bankers, but there was some reason to think she'd push back a little. macron is a banker. full stop. pick your cliche; let's go with foxes and hen houses, although hands in the cookie jar works, too. that makes macron far worse.
- you couldn't take a word trump said seriously. le pen is clearly not the fool that trump is, and she comes from a lineage with a history of standing up for people. her threats are believable.
again: it's lesser evil. they're both terrible. but..
i said during the last election in the states that i agreed with clinton more than i agreed with trump about 53% of the time. that means i agreed with trump over clinton about 47% of the time. so, it was hardly a ringing endorsement, right?
what i'm saying here is that the situation is flipped - because macron is that much worse than clinton, and le pen is that much better than trump, the situation flips over: i end up agreeing with le pen over macron 53% of the time.
not a ringing endorsement. lesser evilism. and with the caveat of understood russian ventriloquists snaking around in the background.
it's more of a brutal rejection of macron. and, what i'm getting at is that my logic might end up replicated fairly widely.
again: i would have rather seen a real leftist candidate win.
but, le pen has the credibility factor that trump never did. i said over and over again that if i could actually believe trump, i'd endorse him. i never did. but, i believe le pen.
....and, at the end of the day, if i have to choose between a quasi-racist working class candidate and a crypto-racist investor class candidate....well, that isn't actually a choice.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/marine-le-pen-macron-fillion-french-elections-who-will-win-a7600206.html
but, le pen has the credibility factor that trump never did. i said over and over again that if i could actually believe trump, i'd endorse him. i never did. but, i believe le pen.
....and, at the end of the day, if i have to choose between a quasi-racist working class candidate and a crypto-racist investor class candidate....well, that isn't actually a choice.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/marine-le-pen-macron-fillion-french-elections-who-will-win-a7600206.html
if le pen wants to win this, or at least make the vote rigging obvious enough that it cannot be reasonably denied, she needs to make the election a referendum on neo-liberalism and german austerity. that means that she needs to aggressively frame the issue on those terms.
if she frames macron as an out of touch, elitist banker working solely in the interests of the parasitic investor class, she has a chance - because it is true, and because she can credibly claim to protect the welfare state and general interests of the french working class.
if she makes the election about "security" or "terrorism", she will lose. she should avoid this.
and, no jews.
no jews.
she should embrace the very narrative that the establishment wants to use against her, and turn it around on them.
i want to be clear that there isn't a good choice here. but, le pen will probably do less long term damage to the french economy than macron will. this is a lesser evil calculation. if you look into it a little more closely, perhaps you may be surprised to realize you agree with me.
if she frames macron as an out of touch, elitist banker working solely in the interests of the parasitic investor class, she has a chance - because it is true, and because she can credibly claim to protect the welfare state and general interests of the french working class.
if she makes the election about "security" or "terrorism", she will lose. she should avoid this.
and, no jews.
no jews.
she should embrace the very narrative that the establishment wants to use against her, and turn it around on them.
i want to be clear that there isn't a good choice here. but, le pen will probably do less long term damage to the french economy than macron will. this is a lesser evil calculation. if you look into it a little more closely, perhaps you may be surprised to realize you agree with me.
when le pen talks about saving french civilization, she may have a point - because macron is going to sell off the country to the highest bidder, while pushing down crushing austerity from the banks. all of her rhetoric makes far more sense when directed at her immediate opponent, because all of a sudden it's actually true.
how much would disney pay for the eiffel tower, anyways? it's ok - it'll trickle down.
macron is a far greater threat to french civilization than islamic terrorism ever will be.
so, this is more dangerous than you think. i probably wouldn't vote at all, because...i mean, you can vote for the banks or the kremlin. fuck that. the banks are in some way better than the kremlin, right? good luck writing that essay.
the reality is that if the average french voter is to be expected to vote on self-interest, it's not at all clear that macron is the preferable option.
how much would disney pay for the eiffel tower, anyways? it's ok - it'll trickle down.
macron is a far greater threat to french civilization than islamic terrorism ever will be.
so, this is more dangerous than you think. i probably wouldn't vote at all, because...i mean, you can vote for the banks or the kremlin. fuck that. the banks are in some way better than the kremlin, right? good luck writing that essay.
the reality is that if the average french voter is to be expected to vote on self-interest, it's not at all clear that macron is the preferable option.
but, jfk was a misogynistic, racist, mentally unstable, right-wing war criminal. he reflects american "liberalism" fairly well - in the sense that american "liberalism" is what they call conservatism everywhere else in the world. but, i expect far better from the french than to look up to an american psychopath from midway into the last century.
the worst part about the jfk assassination is that it prevented him from being tried at the hague.
the left split the vote. melenchon's numbers came up a little at the end, but not enough. it's hard to understand why you'd vote for hamon when you know he's trailing melenchon by over 10%, and you have a legitimate chance at winning an election. but, it's hardly the first time this has happened, either. it's just irrational behaviour.
if the french elite want to make this about the establishment versus the people, which probably isn't even accurate because on aggregate le pen probably doesn't represent the people any more than macron does, they should not be surprised when people react poorly to the messaging. but, that's exactly what you're going to see - every kind of banker is going to line up behind this guy and expect that voters follow their lead.
le pen is a puppet of the kremlin. she can't win. but, the french have clearly lost.
the worst part about the jfk assassination is that it prevented him from being tried at the hague.
the left split the vote. melenchon's numbers came up a little at the end, but not enough. it's hard to understand why you'd vote for hamon when you know he's trailing melenchon by over 10%, and you have a legitimate chance at winning an election. but, it's hardly the first time this has happened, either. it's just irrational behaviour.
if the french elite want to make this about the establishment versus the people, which probably isn't even accurate because on aggregate le pen probably doesn't represent the people any more than macron does, they should not be surprised when people react poorly to the messaging. but, that's exactly what you're going to see - every kind of banker is going to line up behind this guy and expect that voters follow their lead.
le pen is a puppet of the kremlin. she can't win. but, the french have clearly lost.
Sunday, April 23, 2017
i still haven't seen any actual results. listen: this is a really hard math problem. it's not your average two candidate race. two-three percentage points is a reasonable margin of error for this kind of problem.
you really should not have a lot of faith in the algorithm.
i mean, it could be right, anyways, but you should wait before you move on.
....but, i'm starting to see the angle they're using.
they take a guy and give him every status quo position that there is, but assign him a new party name. and, voila: the status quo is a historic change.
most people are not dumb enough to fall for this and will in the end just not vote. i don't expect that they'll allow le pen to win. so, they're left with lingering resentment and the same basically unstable situation.
five years of macron pushing the same policies that created le pen will just make it that much harder to keep her out of power, the next time.
you really should not have a lot of faith in the algorithm.
i mean, it could be right, anyways, but you should wait before you move on.
....but, i'm starting to see the angle they're using.
they take a guy and give him every status quo position that there is, but assign him a new party name. and, voila: the status quo is a historic change.
most people are not dumb enough to fall for this and will in the end just not vote. i don't expect that they'll allow le pen to win. so, they're left with lingering resentment and the same basically unstable situation.
five years of macron pushing the same policies that created le pen will just make it that much harder to keep her out of power, the next time.
whether this is true or not, it is the reason that the americans won't/can't provide the rebels with air support.
in a doomsday scenario, the americans would no doubt win. but, they'd have to eat a dozen f-*s and swallow a huge amount of pride in the process.
the rebels were supposed to take out the sam sites from the ground, first, to allow for massive strikes - but they couldn't do it.
as an aside: the day that israel can no longer assert air superiority over the broader levant is the day that the balance of power in the region shifts. this was always the fear, here: that syria is going to emerge from this much more powerful and much more assertive than they were at the start.
they should have let assad step down peacefully when he wanted to, years ago. and, the architects of this failed war in syria should be sent to the hague.
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201703171051691543-israeli-plane-downed-over-syria-analysis/
in a doomsday scenario, the americans would no doubt win. but, they'd have to eat a dozen f-*s and swallow a huge amount of pride in the process.
the rebels were supposed to take out the sam sites from the ground, first, to allow for massive strikes - but they couldn't do it.
as an aside: the day that israel can no longer assert air superiority over the broader levant is the day that the balance of power in the region shifts. this was always the fear, here: that syria is going to emerge from this much more powerful and much more assertive than they were at the start.
they should have let assad step down peacefully when he wanted to, years ago. and, the architects of this failed war in syria should be sent to the hague.
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201703171051691543-israeli-plane-downed-over-syria-analysis/
considering that belarus is....
why does belarus exist, anyways? it was basically some despot taking advantage of the collapse of the soviet union, to turn a russian province into a country. it's not a baltic state, even though it was a part of lithuania. you could argue it should be in lithuania, or it should be in poland, or it should be in russia - or even that it should be in ukraine. you could argue it should be split up. but, it's not actually really a thing.
belarus should really not exist.
as it is, it's this kind of client state of the russians. people call putin a dictator, and it's kind of an insult to real dictators; lukashenko is a legit dictator. the guy dresses like fucking hitler. he's like the kim of europe.
...says the guy with the moustache that wears military costumes to work.
anyways.
the russians could solve all their problems if they just annexed belarus. and, i mean, who is going to really push back against this? it's basically a formality.
the reason this would work out so well for them is because of the little enclave of land they have there between lithuania and poland, called the kaliningrad enclave. to clarify the point:
the distance from belarus to kaliningrad can't be more than 50 km. and, they could probably even just buy a corridor of land along the border between lithuania and poland.
there's no reason for all these gymnastics. but, i guess russians like gymnastics, right...
http://www.russia-direct.org/sites/default/files/field/image/Russia-Europe-gas.jpg
why does belarus exist, anyways? it was basically some despot taking advantage of the collapse of the soviet union, to turn a russian province into a country. it's not a baltic state, even though it was a part of lithuania. you could argue it should be in lithuania, or it should be in poland, or it should be in russia - or even that it should be in ukraine. you could argue it should be split up. but, it's not actually really a thing.
belarus should really not exist.
as it is, it's this kind of client state of the russians. people call putin a dictator, and it's kind of an insult to real dictators; lukashenko is a legit dictator. the guy dresses like fucking hitler. he's like the kim of europe.
...says the guy with the moustache that wears military costumes to work.
anyways.
the russians could solve all their problems if they just annexed belarus. and, i mean, who is going to really push back against this? it's basically a formality.
the reason this would work out so well for them is because of the little enclave of land they have there between lithuania and poland, called the kaliningrad enclave. to clarify the point:
the distance from belarus to kaliningrad can't be more than 50 km. and, they could probably even just buy a corridor of land along the border between lithuania and poland.
there's no reason for all these gymnastics. but, i guess russians like gymnastics, right...
http://www.russia-direct.org/sites/default/files/field/image/Russia-Europe-gas.jpg
so, the free market fundamentalists claim that supply management leads to higher prices, whereas the farmers that support it claim it leads to lower prices. which is it?
neither. sometimes, it inflates the price; sometimes, it leads to lower prices than the market would imply. what it actually produces is stability.
now, let me tell you - as a poor person on a fixed income, that stability is what i actually want. i know what the price of eggs is, so i can budget for it; i never have to worry that a price spike is going to screw me over for the month. that stability is worth far more to me than the opportunity to get a good deal in march - if it means i'll get fucked in may, as i no doubt will.
it's funny who it is that seems to be concerned about the poor on this issue, isn't it? they're not your usual anti-poverty activists. in fact, they're usually apologists for big businesses - like factory farms.
regardless, it's not like dairy prices are the only factor creating poverty - or even a measurable factor, really. i promise you that i'm not losing $300/year over dairy, but i am getting $375/yr back on gst, and pretty much the only taxable items i buy are doritos and dr. pepper. it's crazy to take it out of context, like that.
so, it is true that supply management shifts the subsidies from government to consumer, but it's not like the government doesn't further compensate on top of it. further, is it not more fair to make the people that consume the product subsidize the industry they're supporting? and, we need to subsidize in order to compete.
it's a broader social issue to keep the farmers at work - and, we're winning because we did the math.
the reality is that america needs to stop blaming other people for constantly failing at math.
neither. sometimes, it inflates the price; sometimes, it leads to lower prices than the market would imply. what it actually produces is stability.
now, let me tell you - as a poor person on a fixed income, that stability is what i actually want. i know what the price of eggs is, so i can budget for it; i never have to worry that a price spike is going to screw me over for the month. that stability is worth far more to me than the opportunity to get a good deal in march - if it means i'll get fucked in may, as i no doubt will.
it's funny who it is that seems to be concerned about the poor on this issue, isn't it? they're not your usual anti-poverty activists. in fact, they're usually apologists for big businesses - like factory farms.
regardless, it's not like dairy prices are the only factor creating poverty - or even a measurable factor, really. i promise you that i'm not losing $300/year over dairy, but i am getting $375/yr back on gst, and pretty much the only taxable items i buy are doritos and dr. pepper. it's crazy to take it out of context, like that.
so, it is true that supply management shifts the subsidies from government to consumer, but it's not like the government doesn't further compensate on top of it. further, is it not more fair to make the people that consume the product subsidize the industry they're supporting? and, we need to subsidize in order to compete.
it's a broader social issue to keep the farmers at work - and, we're winning because we did the math.
the reality is that america needs to stop blaming other people for constantly failing at math.
i have not been watching french media and do not have any insight into what it is broadcasting. but, this macron character strikes me as an obvious pinata. i think you should expect a surprise.
i don't think it's going to be le pen, who is going to just get destroyed in the second round, anyways. i'm skeptical about the links between trump and putin, but i am not at all skeptical about russia's support for right-wing nationalists in europe. le pen is legitimately a russian pawn. but, she's more comparable to a rand paul in the united states (in several ways, actually). remember: my analysis is that trump was the choice of the american deep state, and that it was being broadcast over media in the weeks leading up to the election. while i have not been watching french media, i think it is safe to rule out the idea that le pen is the choice of the french military, in whatever limited capacity it is that they operate outside of nato.
i do not think isis is responsible for these attacks. i think the russians are responsible for these attacks. even if this tactic were to work, i would expect the french to rig the election against her. i know - i just walked into a forest of hypotheticals, here. the point is that i don't think she's the deep state candidate, like trump was, and that creates a very different scenario.
but, like i say - maybe somebody that's been watching tv in france has a different perspective.
in a situation like this, you would expect the republican party candidate to walk into the vacuum, which is what fillon initially did. it's time to switch parties, right? but, apparently, he's been hit by a lot of scandal, and that ceded some space to macron. an easy way out of this is for the pollsters to exaggerate the effects of the scandals, but you also need to look at the sources of those scandals to work this out and i just haven't done that research. without doing this research, but not entirely a priori, fillon actually strikes me as the most likely victor.
melenchon appears to be my preferred candidate, but i haven't looked too closely into this, either. there's an angle on this - it's a potential way to avoid a legitimate russian puppet from winning, without sparking a civil war in reaction to vote suppression - but these kinds of candidates are usually public enemy #1. if melenchon is allowed to get to the second round, you should be extra careful in deciphering his past and future statements, and you may find out you were misled. again: i have not been consuming french media. but, he's either a persona non grata to the ruling class, or he's a fraud - and you'll find out by how well he is allowed to perform.
there's way too many permutations, here, to come up with a reasonable prediction on how this works. but, i'd guess that the actual front runner, here, is fillon.
i don't think it's going to be le pen, who is going to just get destroyed in the second round, anyways. i'm skeptical about the links between trump and putin, but i am not at all skeptical about russia's support for right-wing nationalists in europe. le pen is legitimately a russian pawn. but, she's more comparable to a rand paul in the united states (in several ways, actually). remember: my analysis is that trump was the choice of the american deep state, and that it was being broadcast over media in the weeks leading up to the election. while i have not been watching french media, i think it is safe to rule out the idea that le pen is the choice of the french military, in whatever limited capacity it is that they operate outside of nato.
i do not think isis is responsible for these attacks. i think the russians are responsible for these attacks. even if this tactic were to work, i would expect the french to rig the election against her. i know - i just walked into a forest of hypotheticals, here. the point is that i don't think she's the deep state candidate, like trump was, and that creates a very different scenario.
but, like i say - maybe somebody that's been watching tv in france has a different perspective.
in a situation like this, you would expect the republican party candidate to walk into the vacuum, which is what fillon initially did. it's time to switch parties, right? but, apparently, he's been hit by a lot of scandal, and that ceded some space to macron. an easy way out of this is for the pollsters to exaggerate the effects of the scandals, but you also need to look at the sources of those scandals to work this out and i just haven't done that research. without doing this research, but not entirely a priori, fillon actually strikes me as the most likely victor.
melenchon appears to be my preferred candidate, but i haven't looked too closely into this, either. there's an angle on this - it's a potential way to avoid a legitimate russian puppet from winning, without sparking a civil war in reaction to vote suppression - but these kinds of candidates are usually public enemy #1. if melenchon is allowed to get to the second round, you should be extra careful in deciphering his past and future statements, and you may find out you were misled. again: i have not been consuming french media. but, he's either a persona non grata to the ruling class, or he's a fraud - and you'll find out by how well he is allowed to perform.
there's way too many permutations, here, to come up with a reasonable prediction on how this works. but, i'd guess that the actual front runner, here, is fillon.
support for supply management is neither nationalist nor insular. what it is is a competing model. and, it doesn't even need to generalize - you can support supply management in one industry and free trade in another, if the conditions suggest one is better than the other. it is the tendency to ignore rational considerations in favour of a uniform solution that generates the term free market fundamentalist.
the free market fundamentalist wants to propose market solutions for industries where markets are easily demonstrated to produce mass failure - such as health care and dairy farming. these industries require some kind of benevolent management in order to function effectively.
we know this because we've done these experiments.
the ideal solution would not just be for states like wisconsin and new york to adopt supply management, but also for these supply management systems to work together with supply management systems in canada, and in mexico.
what is absolutely foolish is to refuse to manage your supply effectively, then blame other people for your mismanagement. but, what else are we to expect from donald trump?
the free market fundamentalist wants to propose market solutions for industries where markets are easily demonstrated to produce mass failure - such as health care and dairy farming. these industries require some kind of benevolent management in order to function effectively.
we know this because we've done these experiments.
the ideal solution would not just be for states like wisconsin and new york to adopt supply management, but also for these supply management systems to work together with supply management systems in canada, and in mexico.
what is absolutely foolish is to refuse to manage your supply effectively, then blame other people for your mismanagement. but, what else are we to expect from donald trump?
Saturday, April 22, 2017
i'm not going to pretend like this is likely to be the beginning of a wider crack down on religion, but it would be a good place to start, if it was.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-jehovahs-witnesses-ban-extremists-religion-christian-sect-vladimir-putin-supreme-court-a7693671.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-jehovahs-witnesses-ban-extremists-religion-christian-sect-vladimir-putin-supreme-court-a7693671.html
Friday, April 21, 2017
i'm not sure that the vacancy tax is going to work in it's intended purpose so much as it's going to attempt to balance out the loss in the tax base that comes from people not physically being in the province to pay taxes. see, if the property wasn't vacant, there would be a taxpayer in it, right? so, the vacancy reduces the tax base. or, it does in the world of corporate logic, which governments seem more and more integrated into. by taxing the unit, you're minimizing the loss in tax revenue that the vacancy creates. i'm actually willing to support it for what it is, without expecting it to minimize speculation (it will, rather, probably drive inflation, in the long run. i mean, you might see it level off for a few weeks or something, but expect prices to rebound dramatically, as the taxes get eaten as inflation). but, this is not in my class interests, anyways; again - it seems like a reasonable tax measure, just don't expect it to do what they're claiming it will.
they maybe should have been honest about it to prevent a backlash.
i've stated here before that i'm in support of rent controls, which is the part of the legislation that actually affects me. they have a majority, right now. let's hope it gets worked out before the next election.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/toronto/ontario-housing-16-big-changes-explained-in-charts/article34757648/
they maybe should have been honest about it to prevent a backlash.
i've stated here before that i'm in support of rent controls, which is the part of the legislation that actually affects me. they have a majority, right now. let's hope it gets worked out before the next election.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/toronto/ontario-housing-16-big-changes-explained-in-charts/article34757648/
actually, i think that the government is realizing that popular support for climate activism is at a low point and taking advantage of it. there was never any kind of real commitment to the issue by this government - everything they've done is a facade, and at times it's been a deeply orwellian one. it only took the slightest hint of negative polling around environmentalism for them to drop the issue altogether.
the reality is that this government is not remotely different than the previous one: it is aggressively promoting an extraction agenda with almost no interest in slowing down emissions. emissions will continue to increase under this government. you don't need to blame it on corruption; it's baked into the bipartisan consensus, on an ideological level.
the ndp aren't any better, either.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/04/21/ottawas-methane-gas-delay-a-real-blow-to-canadas-climate-targets.html
the reality is that this government is not remotely different than the previous one: it is aggressively promoting an extraction agenda with almost no interest in slowing down emissions. emissions will continue to increase under this government. you don't need to blame it on corruption; it's baked into the bipartisan consensus, on an ideological level.
the ndp aren't any better, either.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/04/21/ottawas-methane-gas-delay-a-real-blow-to-canadas-climate-targets.html
farmers in canada do not exist for the purpose of buying american goods, dumped or otherwise, and should not for a moment even consider trump's claims that the united states has any right whatsoever to set prices for goods in foreign countries.
trump has a lot of fucking nerve even bringing it up, actually, and should immediately apologize for overstepping his bounds.
trump has a lot of fucking nerve even bringing it up, actually, and should immediately apologize for overstepping his bounds.
i'd rather see farmers take a greater control in managing their own supply, but i think it's a good idea to manage it. what supply management ultimately protects from is the kind of massive factory farming that is destroying dairy farmers in the midwest. these corporate farms just buy up all the land and send the farmers into the cities to sell their labour.
you'll note the areas of north vietnam and myanmar, as well.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7f/87/46/7f874616b564a8d062e07a7548866517.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7f/87/46/7f874616b564a8d062e07a7548866517.jpg
you have to go back further in history than americans are accustomed to
admitting is relevant, but the timeline is longer in east asia, and the
north of korea has indeed been a part of china, although the south never
has. trump may or may not have fully understood, but the chinese were
no doubt presenting the perspective that they should have control over
all areas that have historically been in the chinese orbit; this is a
perspective they have presented repeatedly, over many years. and, the
north of korea is legitimately in this orbit. it is for this reason that korean unification is not inevitable.
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
international law. i'm a canadian. i have a historical and continued interest in international law. we're the ones that tend to speak up about it.
i accept the reality of the situation, which is that the united states decided quite some time ago that it did not want to be constrained by international law. to me, the problem this presents is how it is that we are to convince them to be constrained by international law, which is admittedly a difficult path to walk, as we are also legitimately the close allies of the united states.
it's kind of like you've got this friend with terrible heart problems, and he just won't stop eating double bacon cheeseburgers three times a day. you kind of feel the urge to say something, but you need to do it in a way that promotes beneficence without sacrificing tact.
this was a low-key issue for me in the last election in canada. while the conservatives didn't stray far from international law principles under their rule in the second half of the 20th century, it was the liberal party that had the legacy of upholding international law in conflicts from the sinai to iraq. it's kind of a consistently liberal ideological principle, as well, in that it upholds states to a rule of law, thereby restricting their actions - perhaps under the threat of sanctions. but, this requires a world where forces are balanced in such a way that the threat of sanctions is real, even if it's unstated.
i think that it's clear, in hindsight, that the united states never really saw the united nations as anything more than a forum to debate the russians in. maybe there were some lofty ambitions for a rule of law floating around in the chattering classes, but the actual levers of american (and british) power don't seem to have ever taken the idea seriously.
the reform movement in canada sought less to discard the rule of law and more to establish a firmer alliance with the united states, for the purposes of further opening oil markets. it was thought that greater integration would have greater persuasive power, but what we learned was that greater integration meant greater imperial control over our resources, which are being put aside for later use.
there is no question that the liberal party's position on international law required some reanalyzing after the failure of the international system to prevent the war in iraq. during the election, i posed the issue as a question: will the liberal party continue to attempt to argue for the international system, given that it appears to be broken? if it accepts that it is broken, what other ideas does it have to attempt to uphold the rule of law? or, will the liberal party carry on the ruling conservative party's policy and accept and adjust to the absence of international law?
in fact, trudeau answered the question in a debate, and it provided a predictive answer: he answered that he thought there were situations where nato could use force outside of the united nations. this is our dauphin, folks, our aristocratic defender of liberalism, through the noblesse oblige of his lineage.
well, we had an answer. i heard it. i didn't like it much. but, it seemed like there was consensus amongst the options presented, so it kind of disappeared as a non-issue.
i remain convinced that a rule of law amongst nations is beneficial to everybody on the planet, but it requires a balance of power where hegemony is not being asserted. hegemony may even exist silently within the rule of law, which is the unrealistic ideal of empires - never truly met. as soon as hegemony asserts itself, though, the rule of law becomes impossible until the hegemony is broken, and an equilibrium reasserts itself. it is the never met responsibility of a good hegemon to allow the equilibrium to reset without force - although the americans have come closest in human history, through rebuilding in germany and japan. in the end, america failed like every other hegemon, and that equilibrium will need to be reasserted with force.
the canadian will need to wait. but, it is with the expectations of a hidden zeal to reform existing institutions for efficacy, whenever the opportunity again arises.
international law has been dead for years.
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/4/19/15345686/syria-un-strike-illegal-un-humanitarian-law
i accept the reality of the situation, which is that the united states decided quite some time ago that it did not want to be constrained by international law. to me, the problem this presents is how it is that we are to convince them to be constrained by international law, which is admittedly a difficult path to walk, as we are also legitimately the close allies of the united states.
it's kind of like you've got this friend with terrible heart problems, and he just won't stop eating double bacon cheeseburgers three times a day. you kind of feel the urge to say something, but you need to do it in a way that promotes beneficence without sacrificing tact.
this was a low-key issue for me in the last election in canada. while the conservatives didn't stray far from international law principles under their rule in the second half of the 20th century, it was the liberal party that had the legacy of upholding international law in conflicts from the sinai to iraq. it's kind of a consistently liberal ideological principle, as well, in that it upholds states to a rule of law, thereby restricting their actions - perhaps under the threat of sanctions. but, this requires a world where forces are balanced in such a way that the threat of sanctions is real, even if it's unstated.
i think that it's clear, in hindsight, that the united states never really saw the united nations as anything more than a forum to debate the russians in. maybe there were some lofty ambitions for a rule of law floating around in the chattering classes, but the actual levers of american (and british) power don't seem to have ever taken the idea seriously.
the reform movement in canada sought less to discard the rule of law and more to establish a firmer alliance with the united states, for the purposes of further opening oil markets. it was thought that greater integration would have greater persuasive power, but what we learned was that greater integration meant greater imperial control over our resources, which are being put aside for later use.
there is no question that the liberal party's position on international law required some reanalyzing after the failure of the international system to prevent the war in iraq. during the election, i posed the issue as a question: will the liberal party continue to attempt to argue for the international system, given that it appears to be broken? if it accepts that it is broken, what other ideas does it have to attempt to uphold the rule of law? or, will the liberal party carry on the ruling conservative party's policy and accept and adjust to the absence of international law?
in fact, trudeau answered the question in a debate, and it provided a predictive answer: he answered that he thought there were situations where nato could use force outside of the united nations. this is our dauphin, folks, our aristocratic defender of liberalism, through the noblesse oblige of his lineage.
well, we had an answer. i heard it. i didn't like it much. but, it seemed like there was consensus amongst the options presented, so it kind of disappeared as a non-issue.
i remain convinced that a rule of law amongst nations is beneficial to everybody on the planet, but it requires a balance of power where hegemony is not being asserted. hegemony may even exist silently within the rule of law, which is the unrealistic ideal of empires - never truly met. as soon as hegemony asserts itself, though, the rule of law becomes impossible until the hegemony is broken, and an equilibrium reasserts itself. it is the never met responsibility of a good hegemon to allow the equilibrium to reset without force - although the americans have come closest in human history, through rebuilding in germany and japan. in the end, america failed like every other hegemon, and that equilibrium will need to be reasserted with force.
the canadian will need to wait. but, it is with the expectations of a hidden zeal to reform existing institutions for efficacy, whenever the opportunity again arises.
international law has been dead for years.
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/4/19/15345686/syria-un-strike-illegal-un-humanitarian-law
the united states is on some kind of deep state contingency plan run by the pentagon, or something. no, listen - it's an important question to understand in grappling with what's happening. is the commander in chief in civilian control of the pentagon, or does the pentagon use the civilian commander in chief as a puppet? it's supposed to work a specific way for a good reason, but laws on paper are no match for the brute force of reality, even if that reality remains obscured to not raise suspicion. but, we've seen a pattern in american hegemony over the last several decades that seems to imply the existence of a plan for global domination, a plan that any sitting president seems to have little shape over. a president at some point may reassert civilian control, but that president will not be donald trump.
it wasn't going to be hillary clinton, either. it seems that trump is kind of morphing into clinton in a lot of ways, right? but, it's just because clinton had already read the plan, and was broadcasting what it was. trump was saying all kinds of things in weird contexts, with false understandings and just broadly not having any clue, because - the fucking guy wouldn't get briefed. if he'd have listened, right?
see, maybe he thought they'd just give him civilian control. like - here's the keys to the white house door, and the master control network over the entire secret service. it's some kind of hex key or something, to lock into the sixth dimension, in which they may be puppeteered. all those career analysts in massive government services would just go home. here you go, boss. right.
so, of course, the reality is that he walks into a largely scripted situation. he's shuffled along, told where to sign, given this and that thing to read. it's the same script they would have given her, right?
i just want to get across that there wasn't a real choice in front of anybody last november in terms of deciding which foreign policy decisions the incoming white house was going to make.
it wasn't going to be hillary clinton, either. it seems that trump is kind of morphing into clinton in a lot of ways, right? but, it's just because clinton had already read the plan, and was broadcasting what it was. trump was saying all kinds of things in weird contexts, with false understandings and just broadly not having any clue, because - the fucking guy wouldn't get briefed. if he'd have listened, right?
see, maybe he thought they'd just give him civilian control. like - here's the keys to the white house door, and the master control network over the entire secret service. it's some kind of hex key or something, to lock into the sixth dimension, in which they may be puppeteered. all those career analysts in massive government services would just go home. here you go, boss. right.
so, of course, the reality is that he walks into a largely scripted situation. he's shuffled along, told where to sign, given this and that thing to read. it's the same script they would have given her, right?
i just want to get across that there wasn't a real choice in front of anybody last november in terms of deciding which foreign policy decisions the incoming white house was going to make.
"Our strategy cannot presume to separate the fight against [ISIS] from
the Syrian people's fight against the Assad regime. They are
inextricably connected." - john mccain
he doesn't mean what you think, though.
listen: mccain is talking in code, and rand paul is pretending to be naive in taking him seriously.
"It is true that the fight against ISIS and the civil war in Syria are connected, but not in the way neocons infer. Overthrowing Assad may actually lead to an Islamist regime that finds common ground with ISIS, not America."
this is completely incoherent, and mccain knows it and paul knows it.
it's easy to agree with rand paul on the surface, and on the broad face of it he's right - the united states should cut it's losses in syria, and evade the kind of firefight it seems intent on provoking. it's true that the strategy of winning the war on the ground isn't working, but that strategy was chosen for good reason, nonetheless: the strategy of overwhelming force has no outcome but disaster.
but, he's spouting russian propaganda - right down to the feigned naivete at the purpose of isis.
...which mccain is not being naive about, at all.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/opinions/less-military-intervention-opinion-paul/
he doesn't mean what you think, though.
listen: mccain is talking in code, and rand paul is pretending to be naive in taking him seriously.
"It is true that the fight against ISIS and the civil war in Syria are connected, but not in the way neocons infer. Overthrowing Assad may actually lead to an Islamist regime that finds common ground with ISIS, not America."
this is completely incoherent, and mccain knows it and paul knows it.
it's easy to agree with rand paul on the surface, and on the broad face of it he's right - the united states should cut it's losses in syria, and evade the kind of firefight it seems intent on provoking. it's true that the strategy of winning the war on the ground isn't working, but that strategy was chosen for good reason, nonetheless: the strategy of overwhelming force has no outcome but disaster.
but, he's spouting russian propaganda - right down to the feigned naivete at the purpose of isis.
...which mccain is not being naive about, at all.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/opinions/less-military-intervention-opinion-paul/
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
see, this is stupid: these are the good kinds of immigrants - the smart ones. you want to keep those.
i mean, we'll take them up here. but i'm not sure we have the same level of opportunity. that's just realism - we have a tenth of the population, and a shitty climate.
well, trump is going to help us get the climate better, too, though. hey, he said he liked canada.
i've been vocal in my view that the entire society - from canada to mexico - requires serious immigration reform. but, trump is doing this the most racist way he can: he's protecting good jobs for white people, and then cutting holes in the fence so low wage industries can avoid paying minimum wage.
and, it's not just racist, it's recessionary, because you're increasing accumulation and discouraging spending.
worse, i don't even think this is what the voters in wisconsin even wanted. i mean, you don't need an engineering degree to work in a cheese factory. although...
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/trump-targets-visas-program-for-highly-skilled-workers-1.3373563
i mean, we'll take them up here. but i'm not sure we have the same level of opportunity. that's just realism - we have a tenth of the population, and a shitty climate.
well, trump is going to help us get the climate better, too, though. hey, he said he liked canada.
i've been vocal in my view that the entire society - from canada to mexico - requires serious immigration reform. but, trump is doing this the most racist way he can: he's protecting good jobs for white people, and then cutting holes in the fence so low wage industries can avoid paying minimum wage.
and, it's not just racist, it's recessionary, because you're increasing accumulation and discouraging spending.
worse, i don't even think this is what the voters in wisconsin even wanted. i mean, you don't need an engineering degree to work in a cheese factory. although...
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/trump-targets-visas-program-for-highly-skilled-workers-1.3373563
weird article at the bbc, as i'm surfing while waiting for something to render.
i need to do some running around today, but the renders are up to mar 23rd, now. i need to prioritize having the material for court ready, so i'm going to push through to the first week of april.
i actually have a theory that the hebrews were initially an iranian tribe before migrating to the mediterranean. it's pretty unorthodox, but it's not without support over the basis of comparative religions.
the reality is that the hebrew god is starkly indo-european in nature, and kind of weird in a semitic context. it kind of seems more like some iranians showed up there in canaan and integrated with the fundamentally egyptian culture.
the standard history reminds people of the exile in babylon, and it's not like that doesn't make sense. but, if you can derive judaism more directly from zoroastrianism, you can break through a lot of contradictions.
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20170406-this-obscure-religion-shaped-the-west
i need to do some running around today, but the renders are up to mar 23rd, now. i need to prioritize having the material for court ready, so i'm going to push through to the first week of april.
i actually have a theory that the hebrews were initially an iranian tribe before migrating to the mediterranean. it's pretty unorthodox, but it's not without support over the basis of comparative religions.
the reality is that the hebrew god is starkly indo-european in nature, and kind of weird in a semitic context. it kind of seems more like some iranians showed up there in canaan and integrated with the fundamentally egyptian culture.
the standard history reminds people of the exile in babylon, and it's not like that doesn't make sense. but, if you can derive judaism more directly from zoroastrianism, you can break through a lot of contradictions.
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20170406-this-obscure-religion-shaped-the-west
no.
stop.
you, yourself no doubt saw this coming, or at least parroted somebody else that did. look through your own social media posts. did you ever post anything criticizing trump for his reality tv bravado, or carefully explaining to trump that the presidency is not a reality tv show?
well, you were wrong - the presidency is very much a reality tv show.
or, at least, it is now.
stop.
you, yourself no doubt saw this coming, or at least parroted somebody else that did. look through your own social media posts. did you ever post anything criticizing trump for his reality tv bravado, or carefully explaining to trump that the presidency is not a reality tv show?
well, you were wrong - the presidency is very much a reality tv show.
or, at least, it is now.
there is no discernible logic in shooting down a missile test, other than the logic of generating material for broadcast on fox at prime time - and that is almost certainly the actual logic being used.
and, you're not supposed to be frightened, either. you're supposed to pump your fists and cheer it on - because the calculation is that you're a retard.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/18/us-military-shoot-down-north-korea-missile-tests
and, you're not supposed to be frightened, either. you're supposed to pump your fists and cheer it on - because the calculation is that you're a retard.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/18/us-military-shoot-down-north-korea-missile-tests
i'm admittedly having a hard time even empathizing with people that take the propaganda seriously anymore, at this point, but i realize the importance of writing articles of this sort.
kind of.
abstractly...
if you need it, here it is:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-suicide-attack-refugee-buses-trump-only-cares-sunni-children-a7687066.html
kind of.
abstractly...
if you need it, here it is:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-suicide-attack-refugee-buses-trump-only-cares-sunni-children-a7687066.html
the basis of this article is that it's ok to illegally bomb syria, so long as they don't kill civilians.
kind of a bait and switch, huh?
i don't concede the point: the united states should not be bombing syria at all, until it is invited to help in clearing the country of terrorists.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/04/18/syria-us-mosque-attack-likely-unlawful
kind of a bait and switch, huh?
i don't concede the point: the united states should not be bombing syria at all, until it is invited to help in clearing the country of terrorists.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/04/18/syria-us-mosque-attack-likely-unlawful
Monday, April 17, 2017
i don't view the messianic religions much differently than a greek scholar would have between constantine and justinian. and, that's not a throwaway statement.
unfortunately, the christians had a habit of burning books that had opinions they didn't like in it, so we've lost a lot of the best critiques. one of the most powerful neo-platonist critiques of christianity came from a well-regarded scholar named porphyry and was called against the christians. we know this was an influential text because it was widely quoted, but we don't have an extant version of it.
remember: at the end of the nightmare, western europe had to translate from arab into latin because we didn't just lose the greek and sometimes latin originals, but we didn't even know how to read greek :\. that's a remarkable thing, isn't it? the greatest empire in the world lost the ability to read it's own language, and most of the texts written in it.
is there any wonder that porphyry wrote the book he did?
the modern equivalents are in hitchens and dawkins, who i've read less of than you might guess. hitchens more so.
i read a lot of isaac asimov when i was very young. that's the real source, here.
unfortunately, the christians had a habit of burning books that had opinions they didn't like in it, so we've lost a lot of the best critiques. one of the most powerful neo-platonist critiques of christianity came from a well-regarded scholar named porphyry and was called against the christians. we know this was an influential text because it was widely quoted, but we don't have an extant version of it.
remember: at the end of the nightmare, western europe had to translate from arab into latin because we didn't just lose the greek and sometimes latin originals, but we didn't even know how to read greek :\. that's a remarkable thing, isn't it? the greatest empire in the world lost the ability to read it's own language, and most of the texts written in it.
is there any wonder that porphyry wrote the book he did?
the modern equivalents are in hitchens and dawkins, who i've read less of than you might guess. hitchens more so.
i read a lot of isaac asimov when i was very young. that's the real source, here.
unless you want to talk about communal land ownership, i have absolutely no interest in indigenous culture at all, and would be just as happy to see it extinct. my interests are solely in a secular & empirical society with strong support for individual rights.
nor is this viewpoint uncommon amongst north americans of mixed ancestry.
nor is this viewpoint uncommon amongst north americans of mixed ancestry.
so, they've got punks showing up waving anarchist flags that think they're fighting against nazis.
these supposed nazis are apparently mostly veterans, no doubt largely on ssris due to ptsd, that are organizing to "defend free speech" against some communist conspiracy that doesn't exist. and, they don't understand the concept of free speech, either.
there's probably some broad abstraction of truth, here, in the vaguest terms possible. and, in that sense i'll pick the communists over the nazis.
but, these people are equally delusional. and, the more astute observation is that this schizophrenic reality in the era of fake news has really permeated the totality of society.
when people can organize into large opposing camps and actually come to physical blows, and nobody on either side has any concept of reality, that portends some scary ramifications in our ability to react to serious threats - and also in our ability to reject false flag attacks.
the proper analyst here is not noam chomsky, it's john cleese.
these supposed nazis are apparently mostly veterans, no doubt largely on ssris due to ptsd, that are organizing to "defend free speech" against some communist conspiracy that doesn't exist. and, they don't understand the concept of free speech, either.
there's probably some broad abstraction of truth, here, in the vaguest terms possible. and, in that sense i'll pick the communists over the nazis.
but, these people are equally delusional. and, the more astute observation is that this schizophrenic reality in the era of fake news has really permeated the totality of society.
when people can organize into large opposing camps and actually come to physical blows, and nobody on either side has any concept of reality, that portends some scary ramifications in our ability to react to serious threats - and also in our ability to reject false flag attacks.
the proper analyst here is not noam chomsky, it's john cleese.
yeah, well, there's going to have to be a lot of litigation to ensure that anybody that was fined or jailed in the past receives the proper compensation, in terms of mass reparations.
i'm not joking. this is going to cost billions. and, the longer they put it off, the more it's going to cost.
had they legalized it in the 70s, they wouldn't be paying out at all.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/marijuana-legal-liberals-charges-possession-1.4070427
i'm not joking. this is going to cost billions. and, the longer they put it off, the more it's going to cost.
had they legalized it in the 70s, they wouldn't be paying out at all.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/marijuana-legal-liberals-charges-possession-1.4070427
Sunday, April 16, 2017
to be clear: i don't have any particular aversion to rebirth celebrations. i'm maybe a little beyond it. but, if it makes you happy, whatever.
i'd just request that you take the time to actually understand what you're doing - and that means researching the history of this over comparative mythologies in order to understand the syncretic basis of it.
you shouldn't look at this as debunking something. rather, you should look at it as better understanding it. if you're getting all of your information from a specific tradition, whatever it is, you're blocking yourself off to the other perspectives.
the rebirth festival is easy enough to understand. it is close to the spring solstice, and meant to represent the end of darkness and beginning of light. i may argue that the astronomy of it is not a reduction but a complication, as it is fascinating on it's own basis. but, if you're so inclined, a better understanding of these themes is likely to deepen your experience, rather than negate it.
i will fully admit that i have an ulterior motive: encouraging people to seek naturalistic explanations of things will likely separate them from the more dangerous components of religious observance. but, i'm not being disingenuous. if you like these holidays, why not learn more about where they came from?
i'd just request that you take the time to actually understand what you're doing - and that means researching the history of this over comparative mythologies in order to understand the syncretic basis of it.
you shouldn't look at this as debunking something. rather, you should look at it as better understanding it. if you're getting all of your information from a specific tradition, whatever it is, you're blocking yourself off to the other perspectives.
the rebirth festival is easy enough to understand. it is close to the spring solstice, and meant to represent the end of darkness and beginning of light. i may argue that the astronomy of it is not a reduction but a complication, as it is fascinating on it's own basis. but, if you're so inclined, a better understanding of these themes is likely to deepen your experience, rather than negate it.
i will fully admit that i have an ulterior motive: encouraging people to seek naturalistic explanations of things will likely separate them from the more dangerous components of religious observance. but, i'm not being disingenuous. if you like these holidays, why not learn more about where they came from?
there is nobody in the world that is more disappointed in north korea's failure to present itself as a feasible threat than donald trump.
he won't even release a statement. maybe he's waiting, in the hopes that the next one will be quick and will justify a response.
i mean, he had to drop his giant bomb in afghanistan. he probably didn't even get any bad guys. what a rip-off, this job is, right?
...and that was after he wasn't allowed to do what he wanted in syria.
they make it seem like you get to be the commander-in-chief, but there's all these egghead generals giving you advice, instead, and telling you you can't do certain things. it's not what they make it out to be at all.
maybe you'll get to play this game next easter, don.
he won't even release a statement. maybe he's waiting, in the hopes that the next one will be quick and will justify a response.
i mean, he had to drop his giant bomb in afghanistan. he probably didn't even get any bad guys. what a rip-off, this job is, right?
...and that was after he wasn't allowed to do what he wanted in syria.
they make it seem like you get to be the commander-in-chief, but there's all these egghead generals giving you advice, instead, and telling you you can't do certain things. it's not what they make it out to be at all.
maybe you'll get to play this game next easter, don.
everything bad that you've ever heard about sugar assumes you're overweight (and, statistically speaking, you probably are) and does not apply to you if you're not.
yes, we've reached this level of absurdity: it's the healthy people that need to do extra research, because the media assumes that you're fat.
(and, you probably are fat, too.)
yes, we've reached this level of absurdity: it's the healthy people that need to do extra research, because the media assumes that you're fat.
(and, you probably are fat, too.)
it's almost like the only people on the continent that actually believed the 80s drug war propaganda grew up into politicians, and are now behaving as automatons, or something.
no, really. that's what happened to the kid in the front of the class that actually believed this shit: she's writing policy for your pseudo-left politicians, because she at some point got confused into thinking that being a liberal is the same thing as being a christian. oops.
whatever. just pass the bills already, and we'll figure out ways to liberalize the laws from there.
no, really. that's what happened to the kid in the front of the class that actually believed this shit: she's writing policy for your pseudo-left politicians, because she at some point got confused into thinking that being a liberal is the same thing as being a christian. oops.
whatever. just pass the bills already, and we'll figure out ways to liberalize the laws from there.
if you're trying to make marijuana less cool, it's just...
marijuana has always been the drugs that losers and outcasts use in order to escape from the conformity of the mainstream. if you don't realize that, here's your wake-up call: you're not one of the cool kids. the cool kids do uppers. they always did.
you can go back as far in time as you want, the constant is that potheads are always losers, and generally by choice. that leaves you with a gradient between people that are losers because they're legit idiots and people that are losers because they're too smart to fit into society.
these tactics to make the drug less hip, if they were successful, might work in reducing cocaine use, or ecstasy use - or alcohol use, being that alcohol is the ultimate "cool kid" drug. but, pot was always the loser drug. and, trying to socially engineer an exaggeration of the point is just increasing it's appeal to it's natural user base of people that don't want to fit in.
marijuana has always been the drugs that losers and outcasts use in order to escape from the conformity of the mainstream. if you don't realize that, here's your wake-up call: you're not one of the cool kids. the cool kids do uppers. they always did.
you can go back as far in time as you want, the constant is that potheads are always losers, and generally by choice. that leaves you with a gradient between people that are losers because they're legit idiots and people that are losers because they're too smart to fit into society.
these tactics to make the drug less hip, if they were successful, might work in reducing cocaine use, or ecstasy use - or alcohol use, being that alcohol is the ultimate "cool kid" drug. but, pot was always the loser drug. and, trying to socially engineer an exaggeration of the point is just increasing it's appeal to it's natural user base of people that don't want to fit in.
is it a little draconian? probably.
do i really care? not really.
do i think it will actually be enforced? probably not...
....and, do i think a court will probably gut it? within a year or two, probably.
i've been over this before. do you know who gives these kids pots? their fathers, or their friends' fathers. that was my first contact: my friend's dad. then, it was my friend's brother.
if they keep the focus of the law to these imaginary bogeyman (that are actually selling addictive drugs, like cocaine), this law will sit in the criminal code, largely unused. if they start going after peoples' dads, it will get struck down in court.
it's not the way i'd choose to do this, but it's not a reason to hold up the legislation.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/justice-minister-defends-14-year-maximum-sentence-for-providing-cannabis-to-minors/article34717884/
do i really care? not really.
do i think it will actually be enforced? probably not...
....and, do i think a court will probably gut it? within a year or two, probably.
i've been over this before. do you know who gives these kids pots? their fathers, or their friends' fathers. that was my first contact: my friend's dad. then, it was my friend's brother.
if they keep the focus of the law to these imaginary bogeyman (that are actually selling addictive drugs, like cocaine), this law will sit in the criminal code, largely unused. if they start going after peoples' dads, it will get struck down in court.
it's not the way i'd choose to do this, but it's not a reason to hold up the legislation.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/justice-minister-defends-14-year-maximum-sentence-for-providing-cannabis-to-minors/article34717884/
"the president is making a lot of progress on this issue." - sean spicer, when asked to explain why donald trump no longer thinks that china is a currency manipulator.
"maybe you're right. the truth is that these guys don't tell me anything." - ronald reagan, when asked about the iran-contra mess.
how long before the first statement becomes the second? or, is it already just about there?
but, you don't understand. this isn't some accident. this is the exact reason they picked trump over clinton, and then rigged the election in his favour.
he's making progress, guys.
"maybe you're right. the truth is that these guys don't tell me anything." - ronald reagan, when asked about the iran-contra mess.
how long before the first statement becomes the second? or, is it already just about there?
but, you don't understand. this isn't some accident. this is the exact reason they picked trump over clinton, and then rigged the election in his favour.
he's making progress, guys.
Saturday, April 15, 2017
i'll be clear: i walked by the first club, and it seemed dead so i walked to the other one, which was also dead. they normally need to clear people out, but it was empty when the lights turned on on this night.
the first club was probably empty for most of the night. there's some christian holiday or something, this weekend? i didn't even realize until i got to the bus stop. and, the first club is a lot more conservative than the second one, so the smoking section isn't as much fun. if i had met somebody outside at the first club, i would have stayed there. the second club is also open a half hour later, which is key. but, despite these drawbacks, the set was probably better at the first club on this night...
...and this is just random, too. in fact, one of the djs that i saw last night at the second club played at the first club last night. i just happened to randomly catch an off night.
i tend to assume that when i go to a club the dj is going to be playing dance music, and one dj is as good as another. the only exception that i make is for industrial music, which i'll always prioritize. industrial >>>> everything else.
but, i should be a little more selective.
i had fun, anyways. the bands i saw earlier were both a little unexpected, but interesting in their own ways. i'll do reviews in the review space, shortly. right now, i'm still editing. i just wish the dj was a little (ok, a lot) more upbeat.
the first club was probably empty for most of the night. there's some christian holiday or something, this weekend? i didn't even realize until i got to the bus stop. and, the first club is a lot more conservative than the second one, so the smoking section isn't as much fun. if i had met somebody outside at the first club, i would have stayed there. the second club is also open a half hour later, which is key. but, despite these drawbacks, the set was probably better at the first club on this night...
...and this is just random, too. in fact, one of the djs that i saw last night at the second club played at the first club last night. i just happened to randomly catch an off night.
i tend to assume that when i go to a club the dj is going to be playing dance music, and one dj is as good as another. the only exception that i make is for industrial music, which i'll always prioritize. industrial >>>> everything else.
but, i should be a little more selective.
i had fun, anyways. the bands i saw earlier were both a little unexpected, but interesting in their own ways. i'll do reviews in the review space, shortly. right now, i'm still editing. i just wish the dj was a little (ok, a lot) more upbeat.
i'm in for the night, and may have grounded myself for the rest of the month. well, i had fun while finances allowed for it. may is only two weeks away.
that's not yet confirmed. i could work something out, still. i'm crafty.
last night was fun in principle, but i have to state something that has been said repeatedly: trap is fucking terrible. and, i'm going to actually explain why, which is what most people don't do. they just say trap is terrible and expect you to get to not doing it anymore. snappy.
the reason that trap is terrible is that you cannot dance to trap. the reason you cannot dance to trap is that it is very, very slow. you'd have to be on k or something.
i repeat: you cannot dance to trap. so, why are djs spinning this in dance clubs?
the reason is that it appeals to pothead dudes, the type that don't like to dance anyways. djs are pretty much all pothead dudes, so you get this echo chamber. and, if you look at the floor after a few minutes, you will confirm the obvious: the women disappear.
so, if you're running a club, this is the option in front of you: you play trap, and you get a sausage party. and then your club dies.
i didn't check the afterhours dj before i went out last night. i just assumed it would be techno. i mean, i don't have a lot of options in front of me, in terms of after hours parties in detroit (believe it or not). but, i actually should have gone to the other club on this night.
in the future, i'll have to check to ensure that trap djs aren't spinning before i go somewhere. but, i can't imagine this shit has much gas left in it's tank, either. it will no doubt go away soon...
that's not yet confirmed. i could work something out, still. i'm crafty.
last night was fun in principle, but i have to state something that has been said repeatedly: trap is fucking terrible. and, i'm going to actually explain why, which is what most people don't do. they just say trap is terrible and expect you to get to not doing it anymore. snappy.
the reason that trap is terrible is that you cannot dance to trap. the reason you cannot dance to trap is that it is very, very slow. you'd have to be on k or something.
i repeat: you cannot dance to trap. so, why are djs spinning this in dance clubs?
the reason is that it appeals to pothead dudes, the type that don't like to dance anyways. djs are pretty much all pothead dudes, so you get this echo chamber. and, if you look at the floor after a few minutes, you will confirm the obvious: the women disappear.
so, if you're running a club, this is the option in front of you: you play trap, and you get a sausage party. and then your club dies.
i didn't check the afterhours dj before i went out last night. i just assumed it would be techno. i mean, i don't have a lot of options in front of me, in terms of after hours parties in detroit (believe it or not). but, i actually should have gone to the other club on this night.
in the future, i'll have to check to ensure that trap djs aren't spinning before i go somewhere. but, i can't imagine this shit has much gas left in it's tank, either. it will no doubt go away soon...
if the situation could be properly analyzed, which is not actually possible, there would ultimately be a specific genetic mutation that would give rise to the first chicken. it is true that speciation would not occur at the point this chicken hatches, but require some time for the allele to become dominant within a subpopulation, and then for that subpopulation to isolate itself - which is usually done physically (through geographic barrier or migration). however, once the dusts settles, we will then need to test for this specific mutation in order to determine whether a bird in front of us is in fact a chicken or merely a near common ancestor to all existing chickens.
such a chicken will hatch from an egg. but, neither of it's parents were chickens.
the egg precedes.
such a chicken will hatch from an egg. but, neither of it's parents were chickens.
the egg precedes.
Friday, April 14, 2017
just an open letter to the various health ministers in canada,
i'll be terse.
i know that you're not the happiest about marijuana legalization, due to concerns about potential public health problems. these are perhaps overblown, but not entirely unfounded. i would not expect marijuana usage to increase, in the long run; we may, however, learn that rates of use have long been even higher than we thought.
what i'm getting at is that any health concerns around marijuana are likely already maximized, as it is.
but, there's a policy that could actually decrease health concerns. it's currently being held up by fears around children that are certainly overblown, if not entirely unfounded.
so long as marijuana is sold to me in dried form, i will continue to smoke. in fact, this is the only reason i continue to sporadically smoke tobacco products, as well.
....but if you were to legalize edibles in a cheap and accessible form (cooking with dried marijuana is prohibitively expensive for most people), it is entirely possible that i may never smoke anything else for the rest of my life.
i think the question of edibles is currently being analyzed the wrong way and would urge you to see it from a different angle.
back in the 90s, when i was in high school, it was marijuana that i was first exposed to, and not alcohol or tobacco. you seem to understand this truth. but, while marijuana has been proven to not be much of a gateway drug after all, it was certainly a gateway for me to tobacco, as a cigarette was used to cover up the smell before going back to class.
i would not have started smoking cigarettes had it not been for my earlier use of marijuana. i cannot be an isolated example.
i might suggest that there are consequently potentially dramatically positive consequences in finding ways to separate marijuana from tobacco, and especially in the minds of youth.
i'll be terse.
i know that you're not the happiest about marijuana legalization, due to concerns about potential public health problems. these are perhaps overblown, but not entirely unfounded. i would not expect marijuana usage to increase, in the long run; we may, however, learn that rates of use have long been even higher than we thought.
what i'm getting at is that any health concerns around marijuana are likely already maximized, as it is.
but, there's a policy that could actually decrease health concerns. it's currently being held up by fears around children that are certainly overblown, if not entirely unfounded.
so long as marijuana is sold to me in dried form, i will continue to smoke. in fact, this is the only reason i continue to sporadically smoke tobacco products, as well.
....but if you were to legalize edibles in a cheap and accessible form (cooking with dried marijuana is prohibitively expensive for most people), it is entirely possible that i may never smoke anything else for the rest of my life.
i think the question of edibles is currently being analyzed the wrong way and would urge you to see it from a different angle.
back in the 90s, when i was in high school, it was marijuana that i was first exposed to, and not alcohol or tobacco. you seem to understand this truth. but, while marijuana has been proven to not be much of a gateway drug after all, it was certainly a gateway for me to tobacco, as a cigarette was used to cover up the smell before going back to class.
i would not have started smoking cigarettes had it not been for my earlier use of marijuana. i cannot be an isolated example.
i might suggest that there are consequently potentially dramatically positive consequences in finding ways to separate marijuana from tobacco, and especially in the minds of youth.
Thursday, April 13, 2017
the reality here in ontario is not likely to change any time soon.
they have to get the federal bill passed, first. the liberals have converted the senate from a rubber stamp into a question mark, so it's not even clear if it will make it through the new guardian council. then, the province needs to write and pass legislation. lastly, somebody will have to decide that it's even worth opening a store over, and it might not be - at least not here.
we haven't had any illegal dispensaries appear, but we do have a pot lounge that lets people smoke inside. it's illustrative of the reality of the situation on the ground: these stores aren't really necessary for distribution.
in fact, here in windsor, i wouldn't expect to see dedicated storefronts at all. nobody would ever bother - they'd just have to start paying taxes. the only way the government supply chain is going to appear is if it goes through the lcbo or the beer store. and, if the price isn't set properly, it will just sit on the shelves.
i know that this isn't what most people want, or what most people want to hear, but it's the truth of it - this idea of dedicated pot stores doesn't make any economic sense. it's just going to over price it to a point that it can't compete with established dealers. if you want it on the shelves, it has to come with almost no overhead.
frankly, i'd like to see it sold at the corner store. but, we can't buy beer at the corner stores here, either.
they have to get the federal bill passed, first. the liberals have converted the senate from a rubber stamp into a question mark, so it's not even clear if it will make it through the new guardian council. then, the province needs to write and pass legislation. lastly, somebody will have to decide that it's even worth opening a store over, and it might not be - at least not here.
we haven't had any illegal dispensaries appear, but we do have a pot lounge that lets people smoke inside. it's illustrative of the reality of the situation on the ground: these stores aren't really necessary for distribution.
in fact, here in windsor, i wouldn't expect to see dedicated storefronts at all. nobody would ever bother - they'd just have to start paying taxes. the only way the government supply chain is going to appear is if it goes through the lcbo or the beer store. and, if the price isn't set properly, it will just sit on the shelves.
i know that this isn't what most people want, or what most people want to hear, but it's the truth of it - this idea of dedicated pot stores doesn't make any economic sense. it's just going to over price it to a point that it can't compete with established dealers. if you want it on the shelves, it has to come with almost no overhead.
frankly, i'd like to see it sold at the corner store. but, we can't buy beer at the corner stores here, either.
obviously, i'm very distracted by geo-politics and having difficulty focusing. i feel like i'm procrastinating, but i'm not sure what i'm procrastinating.
i've decided that the vlogs will come back up on may 15th. that way, i can stagger by solstice. also, my court date is the 11th, so it lets me pull things back past it.
that said, i'm going to do a little editing overnight. maybe it'll settle my head and let me focus.
i've decided that the vlogs will come back up on may 15th. that way, i can stagger by solstice. also, my court date is the 11th, so it lets me pull things back past it.
that said, i'm going to do a little editing overnight. maybe it'll settle my head and let me focus.
ugh.
i'm going to tell you a story. this is even better than the one about the great oxygenation catastrophe, i promise.
thousands of years ago, humans decided (an abuse of notation, surely) to slowly transition away from hunting (as well as gathering, let us not forget) and into living on farms. in the process, they did things like chop down trees to create grazing lands, and then increase the number of livestock living in those grazing lands. the number of humans also increased dramatically. the process, altogether, released a lot of trapped carbon into the atmosphere...
....which led to climate change. specifically, the rate of melting at the poles increased, and this created a rise in sea levels. cities were inundated and lost. it led to serious disruptions in the ways that people lived. the flooding was particularly bad around the persian gulf area, which for a time was swallowed by the sea.
we will probably never know what life was like in these earliest centers of human civilization. but, the earliest records that we have, the world over, identify these floods as a year zero. they may have been a event that brought people together in the face of crisis. the culture around the persian gulf created the stories around gilgamesh to mark this memory, which would eventually merge with a zoroastrian philosophy into the jewish scriptures and disseminate further from there. but, other cultures have similar stories that mark our ancient experiences with anthropogenic climate change.
this is not why we have rainbows. but, the next time a right-wing christian tells you that we can't change the weather, you might want to point out that their own religion is a consequence of exactly that.
i'm going to tell you a story. this is even better than the one about the great oxygenation catastrophe, i promise.
thousands of years ago, humans decided (an abuse of notation, surely) to slowly transition away from hunting (as well as gathering, let us not forget) and into living on farms. in the process, they did things like chop down trees to create grazing lands, and then increase the number of livestock living in those grazing lands. the number of humans also increased dramatically. the process, altogether, released a lot of trapped carbon into the atmosphere...
....which led to climate change. specifically, the rate of melting at the poles increased, and this created a rise in sea levels. cities were inundated and lost. it led to serious disruptions in the ways that people lived. the flooding was particularly bad around the persian gulf area, which for a time was swallowed by the sea.
we will probably never know what life was like in these earliest centers of human civilization. but, the earliest records that we have, the world over, identify these floods as a year zero. they may have been a event that brought people together in the face of crisis. the culture around the persian gulf created the stories around gilgamesh to mark this memory, which would eventually merge with a zoroastrian philosophy into the jewish scriptures and disseminate further from there. but, other cultures have similar stories that mark our ancient experiences with anthropogenic climate change.
this is not why we have rainbows. but, the next time a right-wing christian tells you that we can't change the weather, you might want to point out that their own religion is a consequence of exactly that.
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
the russian collapse into religious backwardsness since the fall of communism is actually quite total.
what is it like, actually? it's like the american south.
...in the 1800s.
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-orthodox-protests-monastery-factory-wont-make-condoms/28185280.html
what is it like, actually? it's like the american south.
...in the 1800s.
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-orthodox-protests-monastery-factory-wont-make-condoms/28185280.html
this is about as good of a source as you get, when it comes to these things.
this is a more convincing explanation than the one coming to us from the white house. sorry, white house. up your game, i guess?
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/12/trump-withholds-syria-sarin-evidence/
this is a more convincing explanation than the one coming to us from the white house. sorry, white house. up your game, i guess?
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/12/trump-withholds-syria-sarin-evidence/
john mccain is a pathological liar.
but, he's on point with his accusations around this.
if the senate was seriously concerned about people in the united states working for russia, the people they'd be investigating would be ron and rand paul. this goes way back, too. they work through the remnants of the john birch society, and their media point man is alex jones. i mean, it's there - i pointed it out years ago. it was climategate that convinced me that jones is a russian spy. and, the coverage around ron paul on rt was always just fawning - it was always crystal clear who the russians supported, and it was always ron paul. but i don't get the impression that trump was ever meaningfully integrated into this network. maybe they thought they were using each other, or maybe trump didn't really understand who he was palling around with. i dunno. but, he wants to work with deep capital and the pentagon, not with kgb propagandists.
montenegro is an obvious strategic advantage without the liabilities of expansion further east, and the only ways to argue against it are through ignorance or malice. i don't get the impression that rand paul would need help locating the country on a map.
whether the people of this country want to be in nato is another question, altogether.
http://time.com/4718958/montenegro-nato-rand-paul/
but, he's on point with his accusations around this.
if the senate was seriously concerned about people in the united states working for russia, the people they'd be investigating would be ron and rand paul. this goes way back, too. they work through the remnants of the john birch society, and their media point man is alex jones. i mean, it's there - i pointed it out years ago. it was climategate that convinced me that jones is a russian spy. and, the coverage around ron paul on rt was always just fawning - it was always crystal clear who the russians supported, and it was always ron paul. but i don't get the impression that trump was ever meaningfully integrated into this network. maybe they thought they were using each other, or maybe trump didn't really understand who he was palling around with. i dunno. but, he wants to work with deep capital and the pentagon, not with kgb propagandists.
montenegro is an obvious strategic advantage without the liabilities of expansion further east, and the only ways to argue against it are through ignorance or malice. i don't get the impression that rand paul would need help locating the country on a map.
whether the people of this country want to be in nato is another question, altogether.
http://time.com/4718958/montenegro-nato-rand-paul/
sure.
but, what happens next is that opportunistic conservatives take control of the situation and swing the party further to the right. it's an opportunity to "widen the tent", guys. or do you want to squander the opportunity, and see the tea party come back?
then, we wake up from the nightmare and realize that rahm emanuel is president. because you didn't want to re-elect trump, and you had to pick somebody that could take advantage of the restlessness in the centre...
well, you'd vote for rahm emanuel instead of trump, wouldn't you? and you actually would, too.
i've been over this repeatedly: why do you only have two parties? you'll never get anywhere as long as you only have two parties. you'll just keep swinging further right.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/james-thompson-ron-estes-kansas-election-215017
but, what happens next is that opportunistic conservatives take control of the situation and swing the party further to the right. it's an opportunity to "widen the tent", guys. or do you want to squander the opportunity, and see the tea party come back?
then, we wake up from the nightmare and realize that rahm emanuel is president. because you didn't want to re-elect trump, and you had to pick somebody that could take advantage of the restlessness in the centre...
well, you'd vote for rahm emanuel instead of trump, wouldn't you? and you actually would, too.
i've been over this repeatedly: why do you only have two parties? you'll never get anywhere as long as you only have two parties. you'll just keep swinging further right.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/james-thompson-ron-estes-kansas-election-215017
there is another reason why it is stupid to pressure the russians and the chinese at the same time, and that is because it brings them together.
if the americans were smart, they would be trying to play them off against each other. the chinese are no friends to the russians. there is a lot of room to position in, there.
but, of course, the americans are not smart.
if you attack them both at the same time, the chinese will build those short term alliances out of necessity, despite the fact that they contradict their long term goals.
if the americans were smart, they would be trying to play them off against each other. the chinese are no friends to the russians. there is a lot of room to position in, there.
but, of course, the americans are not smart.
if you attack them both at the same time, the chinese will build those short term alliances out of necessity, despite the fact that they contradict their long term goals.
i'm going to keep my analysis on north korea terse.
it is a stalemate. it has been for decades. and, it's unclear what the americans think they can gain by breaking it.
it's not even "if". it's "why?". at least there are reasons to get into a fight in syria. does trump want to cross the yalu?
in 2017, the reality is that the united states has no strategic objective in invading korea. it would be reckless and idiotic.
regardless, the old truth remains: you can't declare a war on the north without declaring a war on china. it doesn't matter how irritating the north gets; if they have to, it will be the chinese that take them out, so they can occupy the space directly.
the president is driven by the news cycle.
it is a stalemate. it has been for decades. and, it's unclear what the americans think they can gain by breaking it.
it's not even "if". it's "why?". at least there are reasons to get into a fight in syria. does trump want to cross the yalu?
in 2017, the reality is that the united states has no strategic objective in invading korea. it would be reckless and idiotic.
regardless, the old truth remains: you can't declare a war on the north without declaring a war on china. it doesn't matter how irritating the north gets; if they have to, it will be the chinese that take them out, so they can occupy the space directly.
the president is driven by the news cycle.
maybe i should clarify in specific language: the clark swing was a hidden movement from conservatives to liberals, on the behest of joe clark, and in reaction to stephen harper, that allowed the liberals to hold on to power under paul martin, despite substantial losses to the ndp on their left. this was self-defeating to the right, as the conservatives would have won in 2004 had it not been for the clark swing keeping the liberals in place.
the red tory is similar to the liberal republican. they don't like social conservatism, they don't like wars of aggression and they were concerned about harper's apparent desire to emulate american conservative politics. the whole evangelical thing has never done well here. the clark swing allowed them to define themselves to around 8%. please understand that clark was very aggressive in his endorsement, and that it was acknowledged at the time that he moved older tory voters.
older tory voters. in 2004.
it took harper until 2011 to finally consolidate the red tories, and only in the face of michael ignatieff, who represented everything they feared from harper.
there was a roughly 8% shift from the conservatives to the liberals in the 2015 election.
but, this was always generational. these proportions are bound to shift.
how about i put it to you like this: you don't want to project the clark swing past the life of the man, himself. in fact, his voters are older than him. it will almost certainly pass before he does.
joe clark is 77 years old.
the red tory is similar to the liberal republican. they don't like social conservatism, they don't like wars of aggression and they were concerned about harper's apparent desire to emulate american conservative politics. the whole evangelical thing has never done well here. the clark swing allowed them to define themselves to around 8%. please understand that clark was very aggressive in his endorsement, and that it was acknowledged at the time that he moved older tory voters.
older tory voters. in 2004.
it took harper until 2011 to finally consolidate the red tories, and only in the face of michael ignatieff, who represented everything they feared from harper.
there was a roughly 8% shift from the conservatives to the liberals in the 2015 election.
but, this was always generational. these proportions are bound to shift.
how about i put it to you like this: you don't want to project the clark swing past the life of the man, himself. in fact, his voters are older than him. it will almost certainly pass before he does.
joe clark is 77 years old.
is trudeau subtly trying to tell us he's a crook, with this constant mulroney intrigue?
is that it?
i'm the one who identified the clark swing. i get it.
but, it's just more proof that this government is toxic.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mulroney-cabinet-nafta-1.4056112
is that it?
i'm the one who identified the clark swing. i get it.
but, it's just more proof that this government is toxic.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mulroney-cabinet-nafta-1.4056112
what?
this is some kind of 4chan troll, right?
what the fuck.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/sean-spicer-hitler-chemical-weapons-holocaust-assad
this is some kind of 4chan troll, right?
what the fuck.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/sean-spicer-hitler-chemical-weapons-holocaust-assad
When Trump and his senior officials said, as
they did just two weeks ago, that they had little interest in ridding
Syria of dictator Bashar Assad, Canada was agreeable.
But
when Trump reversed himself, bombed a Syrian government airfield, and
called for Assad’s removal, Trudeau gamely changed course too.
it's the damned truth of it.
so, if you had any question as to why he wants a security council seat, it should be clear: it's to brown-nose the americans with.
if he gets that seat, he's going to decimate his own party.
she's an obscure candidate that the media is giving too much time to because she says controversial things. but, she's neither championed by the small government types, nor by the populist types. shit happens when you have a lot of candidates, but right now she doesn't appear to be a serious candidate.
regardless...
this is why this angle on kids is the wrong angle. no matter how you square this, or how you argue it, whatever effects that pot has on kids can never be an argument to imprison adults. otherwise, we'd bring back alcohol prohibition and make it impossible to buy cigarettes. it's just not what this should be about.
the status quo obviously isn't working with kids. i'm beyond sympathetic to the idea that a new approach is required. but, i remember kids in junior high school drinking vodka out of tupperware containers. there's some level of access that's inevitable.
who will address the issue properly as a means to free up public resources and allow adults to participate in an enjoyable behaviour without risking being arrested?
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/04/11/kellie-leitch-says-marijuana-is-a-dangerous-drug-vows-to-undo-liberal-plan-to-legalize-it.html
regardless...
this is why this angle on kids is the wrong angle. no matter how you square this, or how you argue it, whatever effects that pot has on kids can never be an argument to imprison adults. otherwise, we'd bring back alcohol prohibition and make it impossible to buy cigarettes. it's just not what this should be about.
the status quo obviously isn't working with kids. i'm beyond sympathetic to the idea that a new approach is required. but, i remember kids in junior high school drinking vodka out of tupperware containers. there's some level of access that's inevitable.
who will address the issue properly as a means to free up public resources and allow adults to participate in an enjoyable behaviour without risking being arrested?
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/04/11/kellie-leitch-says-marijuana-is-a-dangerous-drug-vows-to-undo-liberal-plan-to-legalize-it.html
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
given that we already have an unrepresentative body - the senate - i might be willing to entertain ideas about opening it up so that it is proportionally staffed. i mean, bringing party lists into the senate wouldn't be a big change from what already exists. we wouldn't be losing a representative body.
a brief proposal of a bicameral legislature of this sort would be as follows:
1) the house of commons remains riding based. i would like to see it moved to a ranked ballot system, as well.
2) the senate is reformed to be staffed from party lists based on a strict proportional representation.
legislation would continue to largely begin in the house, and then be sent to the senate where it can be thought over a second time, with much sobriety (this was always a joke, right? or was john a. not allowed in the senate premises?).
this actually kind of saves the whole system, as it allows the senate to fulfill it's function in a neary literal manner.
a brief proposal of a bicameral legislature of this sort would be as follows:
1) the house of commons remains riding based. i would like to see it moved to a ranked ballot system, as well.
2) the senate is reformed to be staffed from party lists based on a strict proportional representation.
legislation would continue to largely begin in the house, and then be sent to the senate where it can be thought over a second time, with much sobriety (this was always a joke, right? or was john a. not allowed in the senate premises?).
this actually kind of saves the whole system, as it allows the senate to fulfill it's function in a neary literal manner.
the elder trudeau really turned a lot of things on their heads. he's maybe the only politician i'm aware of that would lie to conservatives, and then govern further left.
the best example of this is the wage + price controls fiasco in the mid 70s, coming out of the opec oil crisis and the resulting stagflation. the conservatives at the time were still old tories, so they were opposed to free trade and in favour of state intervention in the economy. a lot of voters were afraid that their income would be stunted if the government tried to enforce wage controls. so, trudeau campaigned against the conservative party's promise to bring in wage & price controls.
after he had won in large part due to his promise not to bring in wage & price controls, he brought in wage & price controls. like, the day after. with a zeal that made it clear he had balls out lied in your face about it.
that's just the most famous example...
the best example of this is the wage + price controls fiasco in the mid 70s, coming out of the opec oil crisis and the resulting stagflation. the conservatives at the time were still old tories, so they were opposed to free trade and in favour of state intervention in the economy. a lot of voters were afraid that their income would be stunted if the government tried to enforce wage controls. so, trudeau campaigned against the conservative party's promise to bring in wage & price controls.
after he had won in large part due to his promise not to bring in wage & price controls, he brought in wage & price controls. like, the day after. with a zeal that made it clear he had balls out lied in your face about it.
that's just the most famous example...
well, this is good, but like i say - it's kicking the can down the road.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/04/08/new-york-buy-american_n_15874840.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/04/08/new-york-buy-american_n_15874840.html
the show last night was enjoyable.
i didn't realize there was an opening band - i thought it was two opening djs. i needed to sit down for the bulk of the opening band's set 'cause i was a little bit tired all of a sudden after having a cigarette out back. must've been the weather. anyways, i had no idea what i was listening to, but the neo-bjorkian voice and gentle guitars coming from the stage were rather soothing, in the ambience of the cross-legged seating. my kindergarten teacher would have said i was sitting like an indian, but she was a racist old lady and she's probably dead, now. she wouldn't let me hula hoop, either. she even yelled at me for reading, a few times. the old hag. i really hated her. it wasn't her actual name, but i called her missus pajamas - which was close enough. maybe there's a more technically correct yoga term for the posture, but i always thought she was talking about native americans, anyways :\. the point is that my enjoyment of this set was greatly aided by the atmosphere of it, which was zonked right out on the floor. it was kind of exactly what i needed to hear, in the situation of floor tourism that i was in. i was able to stand up for the last song or two...
i went into the floating points set realizing it was a little overhyped, and unsure if i was going to get more 70s rehash or something a little bit more warp records. i didn't really get either; it was more goldie than squarepusher, and enjoyable for the head cave, but not what some people want to claim it is. i don't want to dissuade you from it, because i legitimately had fun with it. i'd just caution you from expecting something that it isn't.
i did not take footage because there kind of wasn't footage. it was dark. i'm pretty sure there was a guitarist there. i'm not sure if there was a drummer there or not, but am leaning towards there not being one there. so, it was more of a dj set in feel if not in fact, and i don't usually take footage of dj sets.
i didn't realize there was an opening band - i thought it was two opening djs. i needed to sit down for the bulk of the opening band's set 'cause i was a little bit tired all of a sudden after having a cigarette out back. must've been the weather. anyways, i had no idea what i was listening to, but the neo-bjorkian voice and gentle guitars coming from the stage were rather soothing, in the ambience of the cross-legged seating. my kindergarten teacher would have said i was sitting like an indian, but she was a racist old lady and she's probably dead, now. she wouldn't let me hula hoop, either. she even yelled at me for reading, a few times. the old hag. i really hated her. it wasn't her actual name, but i called her missus pajamas - which was close enough. maybe there's a more technically correct yoga term for the posture, but i always thought she was talking about native americans, anyways :\. the point is that my enjoyment of this set was greatly aided by the atmosphere of it, which was zonked right out on the floor. it was kind of exactly what i needed to hear, in the situation of floor tourism that i was in. i was able to stand up for the last song or two...
i went into the floating points set realizing it was a little overhyped, and unsure if i was going to get more 70s rehash or something a little bit more warp records. i didn't really get either; it was more goldie than squarepusher, and enjoyable for the head cave, but not what some people want to claim it is. i don't want to dissuade you from it, because i legitimately had fun with it. i'd just caution you from expecting something that it isn't.
i did not take footage because there kind of wasn't footage. it was dark. i'm pretty sure there was a guitarist there. i'm not sure if there was a drummer there or not, but am leaning towards there not being one there. so, it was more of a dj set in feel if not in fact, and i don't usually take footage of dj sets.
i couldn't find the right bouncer last night. i'll have to wait until i can.
i mean, i'm not going to start randomly calling cops. i don't want cops doing random investigations, either. that's a shitty deal for everybody and likely to end with people getting ticketed for j-walking and shit. i'm not doing that.
i'll do the investigation myself and very specifically target any action accordingly. i have to reiterate that i don't know what happened, but that i can't just not react to any random attacks, if they happened, especially if they were politically motivated. i had headaches for weeks. it's potentially a fucking hate crime, guys. but, i need to understand what happened before i got legal on anybody's ass - and, i'm sorry, but you shouldn't begrudge me if i have to do it.
my hearing to have the property owners ordered by the state to build a big, beautiful wall between the units is may 11th. there'll be so much fresh air, your heads will spin, folks. i probably shouldn't have been posting here at all, but need to be a little more guarded now that the date is set.
what about the show last night? well..
i mean, i'm not going to start randomly calling cops. i don't want cops doing random investigations, either. that's a shitty deal for everybody and likely to end with people getting ticketed for j-walking and shit. i'm not doing that.
i'll do the investigation myself and very specifically target any action accordingly. i have to reiterate that i don't know what happened, but that i can't just not react to any random attacks, if they happened, especially if they were politically motivated. i had headaches for weeks. it's potentially a fucking hate crime, guys. but, i need to understand what happened before i got legal on anybody's ass - and, i'm sorry, but you shouldn't begrudge me if i have to do it.
my hearing to have the property owners ordered by the state to build a big, beautiful wall between the units is may 11th. there'll be so much fresh air, your heads will spin, folks. i probably shouldn't have been posting here at all, but need to be a little more guarded now that the date is set.
what about the show last night? well..
Monday, April 10, 2017
i also want to clarify that i'm not, like, opposed to crt or something. whatever that even means.
we really shouldn't even talk about critical race theory as though it's some unique thing, or the ideas are fundamentally black in origin. we should really talk about the racial application of critical theory, which is the broader theory that suggests that justice is not blind, but the consequence of power imbalances. again: i'm an anarchist. i'm all into that.
the power imbalances discussed in critical theory are pretty broad. the classic target in critical theory is actually class, but it can also be used to analyze power imbalances in gender, race, sexual orientation, political affiliation* or whatever else. i used critical theory to analyze the quebec reference succession case when i was in school (the prof was not amused). the basic idea is just that the law works on prejudice: judges come up with reactions first, and then look for answers in the law afterwards, rather than allow the evidence to guide them.
the problem with crt comes when you let it loose into the wild, and in most cases it's not even a problem with crt. it's just a classic case of low information arts majors thinking they can talk about something complicated, and repeatedly failing to really grasp it - and then standing their ground in it rather than learning.
* i think that one is pretty prevalent nowadays, actually, with all of the politicized court battles and seemingly inconsistent court rulings coming out of them.
we really shouldn't even talk about critical race theory as though it's some unique thing, or the ideas are fundamentally black in origin. we should really talk about the racial application of critical theory, which is the broader theory that suggests that justice is not blind, but the consequence of power imbalances. again: i'm an anarchist. i'm all into that.
the power imbalances discussed in critical theory are pretty broad. the classic target in critical theory is actually class, but it can also be used to analyze power imbalances in gender, race, sexual orientation, political affiliation* or whatever else. i used critical theory to analyze the quebec reference succession case when i was in school (the prof was not amused). the basic idea is just that the law works on prejudice: judges come up with reactions first, and then look for answers in the law afterwards, rather than allow the evidence to guide them.
the problem with crt comes when you let it loose into the wild, and in most cases it's not even a problem with crt. it's just a classic case of low information arts majors thinking they can talk about something complicated, and repeatedly failing to really grasp it - and then standing their ground in it rather than learning.
* i think that one is pretty prevalent nowadays, actually, with all of the politicized court battles and seemingly inconsistent court rulings coming out of them.
Scientists generally do not recognize races as biologically meaningful.
Yet scientists, including me, discuss race and describe the racial
composition of our samples. To be clear, I am not advocating that we
ignore race. In fact, there are many dangers in ignoring race as a
social topic. Race is “real”. But race is socially real, not
biologically real. Socially important categories can be very real and
meaningful, but arguably nonetheless arbitrary in nature.
see, i don't offer any dissent, here. but, if we understand this, what does it imply for social interaction amongst people that understand it?
i mean, it's one thing to argue that random, uneducated idiots are usually racist and they're probably denying it if they claim otherwise. i'll probably agree with you, depending on how you state it. it's another to argue that it's a universal that everybody is racist, no matter what, and can never do anything about it.
read the italic part again, please. if you really understand this, what it does it mean to still be racist?
"yes, i understand that race doesn't have a biological existence, and is just a contrived means of statist control. but, i still think you're inferior because i can't help it - despite not being able to state what that even means."
it defies reason.
if i'm able to understand that race doesn't biologically exist, how can i possibly be racist?
now, if you extrapolate that further, you get to the right way to deal with this: we should abolish racism by abolishing the social construct of race - because racism and race are in fact exactly the same thing. that's the rational deduction from this.
it can't happen overnight, of course. but, you can start by teaching your kids that race is pseudo-science, that it has no biological basis and that it's something that only exists in peoples' heads. if you don't put the idea of race into your kids' heads, they won't be able to understand what racism is.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/without-prejudice/201612/race-social-construction
see, i don't offer any dissent, here. but, if we understand this, what does it imply for social interaction amongst people that understand it?
i mean, it's one thing to argue that random, uneducated idiots are usually racist and they're probably denying it if they claim otherwise. i'll probably agree with you, depending on how you state it. it's another to argue that it's a universal that everybody is racist, no matter what, and can never do anything about it.
read the italic part again, please. if you really understand this, what it does it mean to still be racist?
"yes, i understand that race doesn't have a biological existence, and is just a contrived means of statist control. but, i still think you're inferior because i can't help it - despite not being able to state what that even means."
it defies reason.
if i'm able to understand that race doesn't biologically exist, how can i possibly be racist?
now, if you extrapolate that further, you get to the right way to deal with this: we should abolish racism by abolishing the social construct of race - because racism and race are in fact exactly the same thing. that's the rational deduction from this.
it can't happen overnight, of course. but, you can start by teaching your kids that race is pseudo-science, that it has no biological basis and that it's something that only exists in peoples' heads. if you don't put the idea of race into your kids' heads, they won't be able to understand what racism is.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/without-prejudice/201612/race-social-construction
we resisted.
that is something to be proud of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1917
that is something to be proud of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1917
Sunday, April 9, 2017
this article ignores the possibility that the united states - which has the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons on earth - may have smuggled in the sarin through it's contacts with the rebels, which is the theory i'm operating under.
the united states routinely ships weapons to these rebels, and nobody has the authority to inspect these shipments.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-syria-chemical-weapons-20170408-story.html
the united states routinely ships weapons to these rebels, and nobody has the authority to inspect these shipments.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-syria-chemical-weapons-20170408-story.html
so, a peer-reviewed article published by researchers at yale says one thing.
and a not-even-funny skit by a bunch of film majors (if they even got through the program) at the "college humour" youtube channel contradicts it with a vague understanding of a controversial (and entirely analytical) sociological (i almost typed sociolological. freudian slip?) theory via a startlingly poor use of satire.
which source will you take more seriously?
see, i actually know that this is a trick question, though - because most of us are really that stupid. it sounds outrageous when i say it like this, but the actual truth is that most people will actually react better to something that argues the point using emotion than something that argues the point intellectually. nerds don't get laid, so we're probably never going to evolve into cold cyborgs. this is a defect in "human nature" we'll have to deal with. well, maybe it's even a tragic flaw - but let's hope it doesn't take us down, in the end.
i can only sit at a distance and shake my head. that's the story of my life.
and a not-even-funny skit by a bunch of film majors (if they even got through the program) at the "college humour" youtube channel contradicts it with a vague understanding of a controversial (and entirely analytical) sociological (i almost typed sociolological. freudian slip?) theory via a startlingly poor use of satire.
which source will you take more seriously?
see, i actually know that this is a trick question, though - because most of us are really that stupid. it sounds outrageous when i say it like this, but the actual truth is that most people will actually react better to something that argues the point using emotion than something that argues the point intellectually. nerds don't get laid, so we're probably never going to evolve into cold cyborgs. this is a defect in "human nature" we'll have to deal with. well, maybe it's even a tragic flaw - but let's hope it doesn't take us down, in the end.
i can only sit at a distance and shake my head. that's the story of my life.
of course it was the jews.
even when it was the nazis, i knew it was the jews, deep down. it's always them pesky jews, every time...
the collapse into jew-baiting is consistently the death of a conspiracy theory. it represents the point when the conspiracy theory passes out of the realm of reasonable speculation, and into the realm of knuckleheads and white supremacists.
this won't die, it will just pass into the fringes, where it always belonged.
because it was always ridiculous. and, the candidate that proposed it was always ridiculous, too.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/the-happy-go-lucky-jewish-group-that-connects-trump-and-putin-215007
even when it was the nazis, i knew it was the jews, deep down. it's always them pesky jews, every time...
the collapse into jew-baiting is consistently the death of a conspiracy theory. it represents the point when the conspiracy theory passes out of the realm of reasonable speculation, and into the realm of knuckleheads and white supremacists.
this won't die, it will just pass into the fringes, where it always belonged.
because it was always ridiculous. and, the candidate that proposed it was always ridiculous, too.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/the-happy-go-lucky-jewish-group-that-connects-trump-and-putin-215007
yeah. see, this is...
if you put aside the chemical attack thing, and grasp the reality of it - which is that the us is trying to support rebels in a proxy war, but can't provide air support because the russians are blocking it - this intuitively insane proposition is actually tactically necessary, in addition to being insane. and, the fact that this was floating around just cements the argument that the chemical attack line is utter bs.
this is what they're really angling for: they want to take out the air defenses. consequences aside, it's not even clear that they could do it, given that the russians have defenses in place. i mean, yes - the americans in theory have these stealth bombers sitting in idaho, or whatever, that can evade russian defenses. but, the technical ability to evade a defense is not the same thing as the ability to overwhelm it.
i've been arguing for years that the obvious reason that the americans haven't been bombing in syria is that they can't. this was clinton's own level of ignorance (and she was the one calling for a no-fly zone, remember), as a consequence of being misled by extreme hawks.
as i stated before, the us central command no doubt had to face up to the choice in front of them: they could acknowledge that the russians have blocked any moves in the region, or they could go full retard and just start balls out bombing shit. these are caricatures, of course, but just barely - there's a real truth in the extremity of it. there's really no end point in continuing to support these rebel groups, when the russians have air superiority. i guess maybe the hope at some point was that they could overrun the air defences from the ground, but that's obviously not happening any time soon, or probably at all.
so, what's the point in continuing to offer support for terrorist groups, if they have no ability to actually win? the pragmatic basis of it, whether you agreed with it or not, is now lost. it's a "shit or get off the pot" kind of thing.
the smart thing to do is to accept the reality of it and back off. i know trump wants to play war and stuff, but he has no space to play games on this front. maybe he can bomb the faulklands or something. or maybe he can go invade the moon.
https://theintercept.com/2017/04/06/u-s-weighs-saturation-strike-on-syrian-government-in-response-to-chemical-attack/
if you put aside the chemical attack thing, and grasp the reality of it - which is that the us is trying to support rebels in a proxy war, but can't provide air support because the russians are blocking it - this intuitively insane proposition is actually tactically necessary, in addition to being insane. and, the fact that this was floating around just cements the argument that the chemical attack line is utter bs.
this is what they're really angling for: they want to take out the air defenses. consequences aside, it's not even clear that they could do it, given that the russians have defenses in place. i mean, yes - the americans in theory have these stealth bombers sitting in idaho, or whatever, that can evade russian defenses. but, the technical ability to evade a defense is not the same thing as the ability to overwhelm it.
i've been arguing for years that the obvious reason that the americans haven't been bombing in syria is that they can't. this was clinton's own level of ignorance (and she was the one calling for a no-fly zone, remember), as a consequence of being misled by extreme hawks.
as i stated before, the us central command no doubt had to face up to the choice in front of them: they could acknowledge that the russians have blocked any moves in the region, or they could go full retard and just start balls out bombing shit. these are caricatures, of course, but just barely - there's a real truth in the extremity of it. there's really no end point in continuing to support these rebel groups, when the russians have air superiority. i guess maybe the hope at some point was that they could overrun the air defences from the ground, but that's obviously not happening any time soon, or probably at all.
so, what's the point in continuing to offer support for terrorist groups, if they have no ability to actually win? the pragmatic basis of it, whether you agreed with it or not, is now lost. it's a "shit or get off the pot" kind of thing.
the smart thing to do is to accept the reality of it and back off. i know trump wants to play war and stuff, but he has no space to play games on this front. maybe he can bomb the faulklands or something. or maybe he can go invade the moon.
https://theintercept.com/2017/04/06/u-s-weighs-saturation-strike-on-syrian-government-in-response-to-chemical-attack/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)