i'm very disappointed in gavin newsome's decision to abandon a clean-energy transportation project.
i guess chevron got their money's worth, in the end.
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
that said...
the toronto transit system is not a municipal system at this point, it is a component of a large, regional system that spans a number of municipalities, as well as a collection of rural regions. this is a system that already extends deep into ontario in every direction and could very well find itself overseeing electric rail connections to detroit, to sudbury and to montreal within the next few decades.
i would support the integration of the ttc with the go trains under the model of a kind of crown corporation. the reality of regional transit means the surrounding cities need a say, too - not just the toronto city council. but, i'd like to see the operating decisions made at the municipal level.
one possibility would be a board that has x number of members from the different cities, perhaps even chosen directly. so, toronto may get 60% of the seats or something, but cities like hamilton and kitchener would get some seats, too.
a pure upload is dangerous, as it is giving the government a valuable asset to sell for a song to it's buddies. but, it's probably not the right idea, anyways.
the toronto transit system is not a municipal system at this point, it is a component of a large, regional system that spans a number of municipalities, as well as a collection of rural regions. this is a system that already extends deep into ontario in every direction and could very well find itself overseeing electric rail connections to detroit, to sudbury and to montreal within the next few decades.
i would support the integration of the ttc with the go trains under the model of a kind of crown corporation. the reality of regional transit means the surrounding cities need a say, too - not just the toronto city council. but, i'd like to see the operating decisions made at the municipal level.
one possibility would be a board that has x number of members from the different cities, perhaps even chosen directly. so, toronto may get 60% of the seats or something, but cities like hamilton and kitchener would get some seats, too.
a pure upload is dangerous, as it is giving the government a valuable asset to sell for a song to it's buddies. but, it's probably not the right idea, anyways.
they're going to sell it off to their cronies.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2019/02/12/province-and-city-release-framework-for-deal-to-upload-torontos-subway-to-queens-park.html
https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2019/02/12/province-and-city-release-framework-for-deal-to-upload-torontos-subway-to-queens-park.html
see, and what you have to understand is that this isn't a financial decision, it's a social engineering tactic by a government that wants to turn the clocks back - and has an alarming amount of support for it.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2019/02/06/experts-call-ontarios-full-day-kindergarten-visionary-the-ford-government-is-eyeing-changes.html
https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2019/02/06/experts-call-ontarios-full-day-kindergarten-visionary-the-ford-government-is-eyeing-changes.html
it's like playing whack-a-mole: you round up a bunch of suits on corruption charges, and the system just regenerates them instantly.
you have to get to the root cause, which means abolishing capitalism itself.
in the mean time, we have a choice of equally corrupt bourgeois parties with differing social policies and competing social visions. that's what elections need to be about, not some red herring about corruption.
you have to get to the root cause, which means abolishing capitalism itself.
in the mean time, we have a choice of equally corrupt bourgeois parties with differing social policies and competing social visions. that's what elections need to be about, not some red herring about corruption.
"this just in, frank...
there are new allegations coming in tonight that capitalism is corrupt. i repeat: there are allegations coming in that capitalism is corrupt. are these claims credible, frank?"
*pause*
*snicker*
*click*
"we appear to have lost frank. but, we'll be following these shocking revelations as more information comes in."
there are new allegations coming in tonight that capitalism is corrupt. i repeat: there are allegations coming in that capitalism is corrupt. are these claims credible, frank?"
*pause*
*snicker*
*click*
"we appear to have lost frank. but, we'll be following these shocking revelations as more information comes in."
i suspect that most people don't care about construction firms buying contracts in libya any more than i do. the thing is that the media might insist that they ought to.
i think trudeau can get out of this fairly easily by creating a good distraction.
i would like to see the liberals knocked down to a minority, and trudeau slowly pushed out, but i don't want to see the conservatives sweep to power on a corruption scandal. yuck.
i think trudeau can get out of this fairly easily by creating a good distraction.
i would like to see the liberals knocked down to a minority, and trudeau slowly pushed out, but i don't want to see the conservatives sweep to power on a corruption scandal. yuck.
so, i have to point this out every once in a while because there really does seem to be some evidence that somebody is masquerading as me, or at the least not going out of their way to deny a misidentification.
i am an openly transgendered male to female canadian citizen in my late 30s. i was born in ottawa, ontario in the early 1980s and have lived in windsor, ontario since mid-2013. both of my parents were born in canada, and to my knowledge all of my grandparents were born in canada, as well (albeit rather scattered across the country). i currently have grandparents in victoria, ottawa, florida and presumably hell, if anywhere at all. my mother lives in ottawa; my father is dead.
my mother is of mixed european and asian heritage, but would identify as european. my father's ancestry is not entirely clear, but probably includes jewish, italian, quebecois and native american ancestry. he may also have some african american ancestry. he never did a dna test, to my knowledge, but my step-mother was a lab technician at the red cross, and confirmed that he had a rare blood type which is indicative of the presence of some kind of south asian ancestry, which he was unable to explain via his family's legends. two possibilities are some kind of inuit ancestry (possible inuit/cree mixing) and potentially some kind of gypsy ancestor. it's his own father that seems to have been of a complex ancestry. his mother was adopted, and raised a zito.
i was raised without a religion, identify as an atheist and would consider myself culturally white, if ethnically mixed. i was told and assumed i was of white european ancestry until i was in my early 20s, although in hindsight it seems as though people at school and work made different assumptions. i have spent most of my life completely oblivious to this.
my skin colour is in fact highly reactive to variations in sunlight, and will modulate from nordic white to a heavy italian brown based on how much time i've recently spent in the sun. i tan easily, and don't burn.
i have recently made an attempt to centralize my internet presence around this blog and can in good faith claim that profiles not listed from this account do not belong to me. i repeat: if you cannot link to a profile from this page, you should have a high level of confidence that the person that owns that profile is not me.
specifically:
- i rarely post at facebook nowadays. this blog was meant to provide me with a way to migrate out of facebook. i have one profile (jessica amber murray) and some pages related to the music. that is all.
- i have one reddit account with no more than a handful of posts. i do not frequent reddit, and have little intellectual respect for it as a community. i would celebrate if the servers were hit by an asteroid, and the site was forever abolished.
- i have one twitter account that is essentially a parody. i just really don't tweet.
- while i did finally purchase a smart phone in mid-2017, i do not have a sim card, and rarely use it. i purchased a chromebook in late 2018 that i expect to use much more frequently.
- i have not been to detroit since may, 2018 and may not be back for some time, still.
- i do not play any video games at all whatsoever, and have never had an interest in first-person type shooter games. i have never owned a modern game console; i had a sega genesis in the early 90s, but i had entirely lost interest in it by the time i was 15 and never upgraded it to something newer. i played a lot of civ 2 in high school, but i haven't touched it in years.
- i don't know anything about 4chan or trade bitcoins or use tor or go into the darkweb or anything like that.
as mentioned: it should be easy to identify if a profile belongs to me because i will link to it from this page. and, if i don't link to it from this page, you should have confidence that it is not my profile.
clearly, any imposters have decided they have something to gain from the charade, and if they continue to trick you then it's worth their time. i'm simply not going to spend my time chasing these people down. there is one specific high school student in new york that i am aware of that uses my previous youtube handle as a twitter id, and that i have confronted, but it should be clear that this person is not me. i am also vaguely aware of a supposed "doppelganger" in detroit that i may have even spent some time partying with, but i can only clarify that i live in canada and let you figure it out.
it is ultimately your responsibility to take me seriously when i tell you what profiles are mine and which ones aren't - and the longer you feed the imposters, the longer they'll carry on the charade.
i am an openly transgendered male to female canadian citizen in my late 30s. i was born in ottawa, ontario in the early 1980s and have lived in windsor, ontario since mid-2013. both of my parents were born in canada, and to my knowledge all of my grandparents were born in canada, as well (albeit rather scattered across the country). i currently have grandparents in victoria, ottawa, florida and presumably hell, if anywhere at all. my mother lives in ottawa; my father is dead.
my mother is of mixed european and asian heritage, but would identify as european. my father's ancestry is not entirely clear, but probably includes jewish, italian, quebecois and native american ancestry. he may also have some african american ancestry. he never did a dna test, to my knowledge, but my step-mother was a lab technician at the red cross, and confirmed that he had a rare blood type which is indicative of the presence of some kind of south asian ancestry, which he was unable to explain via his family's legends. two possibilities are some kind of inuit ancestry (possible inuit/cree mixing) and potentially some kind of gypsy ancestor. it's his own father that seems to have been of a complex ancestry. his mother was adopted, and raised a zito.
i was raised without a religion, identify as an atheist and would consider myself culturally white, if ethnically mixed. i was told and assumed i was of white european ancestry until i was in my early 20s, although in hindsight it seems as though people at school and work made different assumptions. i have spent most of my life completely oblivious to this.
my skin colour is in fact highly reactive to variations in sunlight, and will modulate from nordic white to a heavy italian brown based on how much time i've recently spent in the sun. i tan easily, and don't burn.
i have recently made an attempt to centralize my internet presence around this blog and can in good faith claim that profiles not listed from this account do not belong to me. i repeat: if you cannot link to a profile from this page, you should have a high level of confidence that the person that owns that profile is not me.
specifically:
- i rarely post at facebook nowadays. this blog was meant to provide me with a way to migrate out of facebook. i have one profile (jessica amber murray) and some pages related to the music. that is all.
- i have one reddit account with no more than a handful of posts. i do not frequent reddit, and have little intellectual respect for it as a community. i would celebrate if the servers were hit by an asteroid, and the site was forever abolished.
- i have one twitter account that is essentially a parody. i just really don't tweet.
- while i did finally purchase a smart phone in mid-2017, i do not have a sim card, and rarely use it. i purchased a chromebook in late 2018 that i expect to use much more frequently.
- i have not been to detroit since may, 2018 and may not be back for some time, still.
- i do not play any video games at all whatsoever, and have never had an interest in first-person type shooter games. i have never owned a modern game console; i had a sega genesis in the early 90s, but i had entirely lost interest in it by the time i was 15 and never upgraded it to something newer. i played a lot of civ 2 in high school, but i haven't touched it in years.
- i don't know anything about 4chan or trade bitcoins or use tor or go into the darkweb or anything like that.
as mentioned: it should be easy to identify if a profile belongs to me because i will link to it from this page. and, if i don't link to it from this page, you should have confidence that it is not my profile.
clearly, any imposters have decided they have something to gain from the charade, and if they continue to trick you then it's worth their time. i'm simply not going to spend my time chasing these people down. there is one specific high school student in new york that i am aware of that uses my previous youtube handle as a twitter id, and that i have confronted, but it should be clear that this person is not me. i am also vaguely aware of a supposed "doppelganger" in detroit that i may have even spent some time partying with, but i can only clarify that i live in canada and let you figure it out.
it is ultimately your responsibility to take me seriously when i tell you what profiles are mine and which ones aren't - and the longer you feed the imposters, the longer they'll carry on the charade.
Monday, February 11, 2019
this "job uncertainty" with the federal shutdown is probably driving people nuts. trump almost certainly missed his chance to sway the democrats, i already went over why stopping and starting is a losing strategy and why his only real chance now is to shut the government down until the next election and hope the apathy completely dismantles the democrats, but it's some pretty nasty psychological warfare on the actual workers.
so, i'm trying to see it from their perspective. what would i do?
the actual reality is that if i had a government job in dc, i'd be single in a cheap apartment. i wouldn't own a car or even pay for public transit - i'd bike or walk. no kids. so, i'd be spending something like 30% of my income on rent and food and putting the other 70% away for retirement.
if you told me i don't have to go to work for the next six months, i'd take advantage of the opportunity to go out and live an actual life.
in fact, you might have a hard time getting me to come back...
so, i'm trying to see it from their perspective. what would i do?
the actual reality is that if i had a government job in dc, i'd be single in a cheap apartment. i wouldn't own a car or even pay for public transit - i'd bike or walk. no kids. so, i'd be spending something like 30% of my income on rent and food and putting the other 70% away for retirement.
if you told me i don't have to go to work for the next six months, i'd take advantage of the opportunity to go out and live an actual life.
in fact, you might have a hard time getting me to come back...
Sunday, February 10, 2019
i point the same thing out every time these cash-for-influence stories come up.
first, i want to point out that there's a difference between the kind of corruption you saw in something like the sponsorship scandal - which i think is harmless - and the kind of kind of corruption you see in the ford government, where they're essentially selling off public services to campaign donors, which is extremely dangerous. there's a big difference between what you might call "political favouritism", which is a longstanding issue for the liberals, and literally putting the government up for sale, which is what the tories tend to do - and you shouldn't conflate favouritism with restructuring. one is an inevitable consequence of democracy, while the other is absolutely toxic to it.
but, what i have to point out whenever this comes up is how horribly ignorant people sound when they try to make the influence of money an issue in elections, as though this is something that can be reformed or gotten rid of. it's one thing to hear an idealistic teenager talk like this, but have these people not read the republic? plato's argument remains the most cogent exploration of the topic i've seen. this used to be required reading to get out of high school; nowadays, you can write major op-eds in national papers completely ignoring it, or even run for president by loudly demonstrating that you've never even heard of it - because so many voters haven't read it.
plato lays down the flat truth by explaining that corruption is a necessary trade-off for the freedoms provided by democracy, and then actually uses it as an argument against democracy (and in favour of what the enlightenment resurrected as enlightened despotism). we don't have to follow him in his conclusion to accept the basic point, in the convincing terms he lays it out in: that you can't have democracy without corruption, and any successful reforms within a democracy to root out corruption would necessarily render that democracy a tyranny. freedom and corruption are, in fact, exactly the same thing.
so, we need to make a choice - if we want to live in a democracy, we have to accept some level of corruption as normal. and, if we don't want to tolerate some level of corruption, then we need to embrace some form of autocratic government instead.
if the accusations surrounding snc-lavelin are true, i don't know how that affects me, as an artist living in windsor. i don't see any particular reason to care; to me, this is an acceptable level of corruption for me to exchange for my freedom. i can't even articulate an argument to the contrary.
so, don't expect much analysis from this space - i don't care about political interference around contracts for construction firms in libya.
first, i want to point out that there's a difference between the kind of corruption you saw in something like the sponsorship scandal - which i think is harmless - and the kind of kind of corruption you see in the ford government, where they're essentially selling off public services to campaign donors, which is extremely dangerous. there's a big difference between what you might call "political favouritism", which is a longstanding issue for the liberals, and literally putting the government up for sale, which is what the tories tend to do - and you shouldn't conflate favouritism with restructuring. one is an inevitable consequence of democracy, while the other is absolutely toxic to it.
but, what i have to point out whenever this comes up is how horribly ignorant people sound when they try to make the influence of money an issue in elections, as though this is something that can be reformed or gotten rid of. it's one thing to hear an idealistic teenager talk like this, but have these people not read the republic? plato's argument remains the most cogent exploration of the topic i've seen. this used to be required reading to get out of high school; nowadays, you can write major op-eds in national papers completely ignoring it, or even run for president by loudly demonstrating that you've never even heard of it - because so many voters haven't read it.
plato lays down the flat truth by explaining that corruption is a necessary trade-off for the freedoms provided by democracy, and then actually uses it as an argument against democracy (and in favour of what the enlightenment resurrected as enlightened despotism). we don't have to follow him in his conclusion to accept the basic point, in the convincing terms he lays it out in: that you can't have democracy without corruption, and any successful reforms within a democracy to root out corruption would necessarily render that democracy a tyranny. freedom and corruption are, in fact, exactly the same thing.
so, we need to make a choice - if we want to live in a democracy, we have to accept some level of corruption as normal. and, if we don't want to tolerate some level of corruption, then we need to embrace some form of autocratic government instead.
if the accusations surrounding snc-lavelin are true, i don't know how that affects me, as an artist living in windsor. i don't see any particular reason to care; to me, this is an acceptable level of corruption for me to exchange for my freedom. i can't even articulate an argument to the contrary.
so, don't expect much analysis from this space - i don't care about political interference around contracts for construction firms in libya.
Friday, February 8, 2019
this lisa mcleod character is really demonstrating herself to be horrifically incompetent, and this is a good example of the kind of idiocy that one expects from a conservative government in this country. they don't even operate under a right-wing ideology, they're just openly nihilistic and destructive.
autism is a lifelong problem. and, yes - it's expensive. but, that's exactly why it needs to be socialized; it's the perfect example of when a government should step in, according to any conservative ideology i've ever read. if you were to ask any conservative philosopher that's ever existed what a government should actually do, "take care of autistic people" would be in the list of core responsibilities, along with jailing poor people and conquering savages in order to steal their resources.
the reason is that it's a full time job for whomever has to do it. if you force a family into this role, you're completely eliminating any ability they have to be self-sufficient. if it's a two income family, it becomes a one income family; if it's a one income family, it ends up reliant on some kind of assistance. so, any economist will tell you that the consequences of trying to save money like this are just going to end up costing you more.
but, beyond that, there's a human element to this. having an autistic child in a society without a social support system is a brutal life sentence. what is the argument? god's will? it's so pathetically backwards...
and, for what? an accounting identity?
there's no question that previous governments have underfunded the system. but, what lisa mcleod is doing with this is not how an advanced civilization deals with a complex social problem, it's how barbarians cull the weak.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/autism-services-funding-parents-react-1.5010316
autism is a lifelong problem. and, yes - it's expensive. but, that's exactly why it needs to be socialized; it's the perfect example of when a government should step in, according to any conservative ideology i've ever read. if you were to ask any conservative philosopher that's ever existed what a government should actually do, "take care of autistic people" would be in the list of core responsibilities, along with jailing poor people and conquering savages in order to steal their resources.
the reason is that it's a full time job for whomever has to do it. if you force a family into this role, you're completely eliminating any ability they have to be self-sufficient. if it's a two income family, it becomes a one income family; if it's a one income family, it ends up reliant on some kind of assistance. so, any economist will tell you that the consequences of trying to save money like this are just going to end up costing you more.
but, beyond that, there's a human element to this. having an autistic child in a society without a social support system is a brutal life sentence. what is the argument? god's will? it's so pathetically backwards...
and, for what? an accounting identity?
there's no question that previous governments have underfunded the system. but, what lisa mcleod is doing with this is not how an advanced civilization deals with a complex social problem, it's how barbarians cull the weak.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/autism-services-funding-parents-react-1.5010316
ok.
so, it seems like cory booker is a black democrat (tm), whereas kamala harris just a democrat who happens to be dark-skinned.
it's too early, still. but, harris - a californian elitist - may have a hard-time competing with a guy that knows how to sing in the choir; don't be surprised if she's actually barely competitive in the south. the flip side is that harris may end up destroying booker in the bigger liberal cities like chicago, new york, detroit.
the left's chance to capitalize on this may rely on harris' ability to cut deeply enough into booker's lead in the south, to force him into what are pyrrhic victories, while having no chance of winning, herself.
i know the media likes her chances, but she's dominated. if she ends up with booker running strong in the south, and a left liberal running strong in the north, she gets squeezed out.
i guess her best chance is to try to run as the leftist candidate. that might not be believable on it's face, but if the left doesn't show up, that's her path.
booker, meanwhile needs to stop her from killing them both off.
the south may surprise me, though. i know that the demographics are changing, and the traditional church circuit is becoming less important. i couldn't imagine that this is the election where urban secularism finally overpowers the black church, but it could expose some weaknesses. the best case scenario is probably that it just hopelessly splits the vote for both of them.
i don't expect warren to make it iowa. and i don't expect biden to actually run.
so, it seems like cory booker is a black democrat (tm), whereas kamala harris just a democrat who happens to be dark-skinned.
it's too early, still. but, harris - a californian elitist - may have a hard-time competing with a guy that knows how to sing in the choir; don't be surprised if she's actually barely competitive in the south. the flip side is that harris may end up destroying booker in the bigger liberal cities like chicago, new york, detroit.
the left's chance to capitalize on this may rely on harris' ability to cut deeply enough into booker's lead in the south, to force him into what are pyrrhic victories, while having no chance of winning, herself.
i know the media likes her chances, but she's dominated. if she ends up with booker running strong in the south, and a left liberal running strong in the north, she gets squeezed out.
i guess her best chance is to try to run as the leftist candidate. that might not be believable on it's face, but if the left doesn't show up, that's her path.
booker, meanwhile needs to stop her from killing them both off.
the south may surprise me, though. i know that the demographics are changing, and the traditional church circuit is becoming less important. i couldn't imagine that this is the election where urban secularism finally overpowers the black church, but it could expose some weaknesses. the best case scenario is probably that it just hopelessly splits the vote for both of them.
i don't expect warren to make it iowa. and i don't expect biden to actually run.
lol.
it doesn't matter what's true, right?
https://www.rt.com/news/450925-pompeo-america-obligated-fights-iran-venezuela/
it doesn't matter what's true, right?
https://www.rt.com/news/450925-pompeo-america-obligated-fights-iran-venezuela/
this sounds like a technologically-driven, rational way to deal with skills shortages without allowing the culture to be overrun with labour surpluses. it has some obvious potential for abuse, but i've been clear that i think the problem we're having is that we're relying too much on market theory, and not doing enough planning. so, this sounds like the right change in approach, at least.
and, of course, such a program could and should be used to prioritize local employment needs over immigration.
the caveat is that this is quebec, where they often come up with superior ideas and then fudge the implementation. but, let's hope they get it right - because it sounds like it could be a model to be exported.
i would like to see the feds listen and react, and they do tend to be more open to different ideas from quebec, for obvious electoral reasons, rather than condemn and attack in a manner that is both tone deaf and counterproductive. the 20th century model of immigration does need to change with the technology, and adjust to differing immigration pushes and pulls.
this sounds so simple and obvious that it just might work.....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/coalition-avenir-quebec-immigration-bill-1.5009402
and, of course, such a program could and should be used to prioritize local employment needs over immigration.
the caveat is that this is quebec, where they often come up with superior ideas and then fudge the implementation. but, let's hope they get it right - because it sounds like it could be a model to be exported.
i would like to see the feds listen and react, and they do tend to be more open to different ideas from quebec, for obvious electoral reasons, rather than condemn and attack in a manner that is both tone deaf and counterproductive. the 20th century model of immigration does need to change with the technology, and adjust to differing immigration pushes and pulls.
this sounds so simple and obvious that it just might work.....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/coalition-avenir-quebec-immigration-bill-1.5009402
Thursday, February 7, 2019
i don't know anything more about corruption in the pmo than anybody else, although any sane analysis of democracy (beginning with plato) would argue it must be there.
but, i immediately pointed out that the most likely cause of the indigenous attorney getting sacked was a refusal - or the perception of a refusal - to take particular types of instruction.
i wouldn't be surprised if the story ends up being that the pmo didn't feel comfortable intervening, rather than that they actually did.
but, i'm sure there's a story there. and, i would expect that conspiracy theorists will find more salacious details by focusing on the new appointee rather than the old one.
but, i immediately pointed out that the most likely cause of the indigenous attorney getting sacked was a refusal - or the perception of a refusal - to take particular types of instruction.
i wouldn't be surprised if the story ends up being that the pmo didn't feel comfortable intervening, rather than that they actually did.
but, i'm sure there's a story there. and, i would expect that conspiracy theorists will find more salacious details by focusing on the new appointee rather than the old one.
as ted is a sophisticated financial expert, he surely understand that if you taxed poor people at...really at all....then they wouldn't be able to buy anything and the economy would collapse. then, stocks would fall, and his hard done by parasitic upper class would have to get jobs - with wages so low that they can't pay taxes.
if there's a structural problem here, and i'm not convinced there is, then it doesn't help to get the rich angry at the poor.
the problem is that wages are too low. if you support policies that boost wages, then you pull people into higher tax brackets.
but, it's just an accounting trick, at the end of the day, because the monetary system is circular - it doesn't really matter if you force employers to pay out or you send people checks. what's important is making sure that poor people have enough money to spend.
https://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/taxes/trudeau-is-right-40-of-canadians-dont-pay-income-taxes-which-means-someone-else-is-picking-up-the-bill
if there's a structural problem here, and i'm not convinced there is, then it doesn't help to get the rich angry at the poor.
the problem is that wages are too low. if you support policies that boost wages, then you pull people into higher tax brackets.
but, it's just an accounting trick, at the end of the day, because the monetary system is circular - it doesn't really matter if you force employers to pay out or you send people checks. what's important is making sure that poor people have enough money to spend.
https://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/taxes/trudeau-is-right-40-of-canadians-dont-pay-income-taxes-which-means-someone-else-is-picking-up-the-bill
that said, my experience suggests that there may be a serious ignorance problem with low wage workers around the question of what kind of tax return they're entitled to, if they'd actually do their taxes. i would suspect that millions of dollars in refunds probably go unclaimed because legions of minimum wage workers are simply too stupid to fill out the forms.
i used to have this argument with people that i worked with all of the time, when they complained about the money being taken off their check. and, i'd ask them point blank - did you do your taxes?
"no. but, don't tell anybody, i don't want to get in trouble."
i can't count the number of people i tried to explain this to, and essentially nobody believed me when i did. they seemed to expect that if they did their taxes, they'd have to pay them - so they just don't do them. they had no idea that there's a check with their name on it sitting at the cra. really...
i guess it's a cost-benefit analysis as to whether non-tory governments want to get the word out or not. they might pick up some working class voters - but at the cost of giving them their taxes back.
i used to have this argument with people that i worked with all of the time, when they complained about the money being taken off their check. and, i'd ask them point blank - did you do your taxes?
"no. but, don't tell anybody, i don't want to get in trouble."
i can't count the number of people i tried to explain this to, and essentially nobody believed me when i did. they seemed to expect that if they did their taxes, they'd have to pay them - so they just don't do them. they had no idea that there's a check with their name on it sitting at the cra. really...
i guess it's a cost-benefit analysis as to whether non-tory governments want to get the word out or not. they might pick up some working class voters - but at the cost of giving them their taxes back.
as a poor person, i can confirm that i do not pay income taxes. even when i was working, i always received tax refunds at the end of the year to the point that i can say with clear confidence that i have not ever paid any income taxes at all.
while i do pay consumption taxes in theory, essentially all of the money that i actually spend is on food, which is not taxed. while i do not receive yearly tax refunds on disability, because i do not pay payroll taxes, i do get gst and hst rebates that work out to about $65/month from the province and $100, quarterly, from the feds. so, i get back about $90/month in taxes - and might spent $5, tops, most months.
by my calculations, harper's gst cut put something like $10/year back in my pocket.
in fact, i'd like to spin the situation around on the tories - and demand that they stop with the nonsense about how cutting taxes benefits the poor, because it doesn't, considering that it's usually tied to cuts in services.
while i do pay consumption taxes in theory, essentially all of the money that i actually spend is on food, which is not taxed. while i do not receive yearly tax refunds on disability, because i do not pay payroll taxes, i do get gst and hst rebates that work out to about $65/month from the province and $100, quarterly, from the feds. so, i get back about $90/month in taxes - and might spent $5, tops, most months.
by my calculations, harper's gst cut put something like $10/year back in my pocket.
in fact, i'd like to spin the situation around on the tories - and demand that they stop with the nonsense about how cutting taxes benefits the poor, because it doesn't, considering that it's usually tied to cuts in services.
Wednesday, February 6, 2019
laverdiere should just up and join the liberal party, already.
don't be surprised if she crosses. and good riddance.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ndp-shifts-position-on-sensitive-venezuela-issue-despite-differences-of-opinion-inside-party
don't be surprised if she crosses. and good riddance.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ndp-shifts-position-on-sensitive-venezuela-issue-despite-differences-of-opinion-inside-party
so, these are not the timelines i wanted, but i at least managed to get all of the email sorted into folders over the last two days.
you can't finish doing all of the things unless you do all of the things, first. so, that's one of the things. finished. just keep going...
i think i should have heard something back on the print destruction request by now, and will need to look into next steps. i am preparing myself for the need to sue the rcmp over this - which i'm willing to do on principle. any law that allows that cops to keep prints on an arrest for being annoying in applying for an apartment is clearly overly broad and needs to be struck down by the court.
i mean, it'll be easier if they just do it.
but, i'm willing to go to the supreme court if they don't.
you can't finish doing all of the things unless you do all of the things, first. so, that's one of the things. finished. just keep going...
i think i should have heard something back on the print destruction request by now, and will need to look into next steps. i am preparing myself for the need to sue the rcmp over this - which i'm willing to do on principle. any law that allows that cops to keep prints on an arrest for being annoying in applying for an apartment is clearly overly broad and needs to be struck down by the court.
i mean, it'll be easier if they just do it.
but, i'm willing to go to the supreme court if they don't.
well, the media is reporting that the s-300 missile defense system is finally operational in syria.
i don't want to be dismissive of the israeli capabilities - it's quite well known that they have very well trained pilots and, perhaps more importantly, very advanced hacking and espionage abilities, which is especially important in contrast with the russians, who are still dominant in hardware manufacturing but are decades behind on the software side. the israelis may very well find themselves able to shut the system down remotely with minimal effort; i would not expect the russians to be able to defend themselves from an israeli systems blitz, in the long run - the israelis will eventually solve this problem.
if the system is at least operational in the short run, the next question to ask is what kind of coverage exists. i would suspect that there will remain weak spots that can be exploited, and the israelis will find them. it will be up to the russians to adjust.
but, if the israelis are serious about these attacks until at least election day, we'll see how serious the defenses are.
i don't want to be dismissive of the israeli capabilities - it's quite well known that they have very well trained pilots and, perhaps more importantly, very advanced hacking and espionage abilities, which is especially important in contrast with the russians, who are still dominant in hardware manufacturing but are decades behind on the software side. the israelis may very well find themselves able to shut the system down remotely with minimal effort; i would not expect the russians to be able to defend themselves from an israeli systems blitz, in the long run - the israelis will eventually solve this problem.
if the system is at least operational in the short run, the next question to ask is what kind of coverage exists. i would suspect that there will remain weak spots that can be exploited, and the israelis will find them. it will be up to the russians to adjust.
but, if the israelis are serious about these attacks until at least election day, we'll see how serious the defenses are.
this is the same bullshit conspiracy theory the us state department was pushing.
https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2019/01/statement-on-health-and-security-of-canadian-diplomatic-staff-in-havana-cuba.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2019/01/statement-on-health-and-security-of-canadian-diplomatic-staff-in-havana-cuba.html
one would have expected the old liberals to push back.
but, the new liberals will no doubt make it a point to rhetorically impugn the cuban government as war criminals.
if pressed on the point, freeland may even move to align on the blockade.
our policies have changed.
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/mckenna-trump-trudeau-on-collision-course-over-cuba-sanctions-281906/
but, the new liberals will no doubt make it a point to rhetorically impugn the cuban government as war criminals.
if pressed on the point, freeland may even move to align on the blockade.
our policies have changed.
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/mckenna-trump-trudeau-on-collision-course-over-cuba-sanctions-281906/
when america purchased louisiana, the french in the area really assimilated remarkably well. i don't know how much emigration occurred, but i know the french are still there - i meet some of them in detroit.
on the other hand, the british conquered the french settlements in canada, which at the time included a chunk of the american upper midwest, with the final battle happening in 1763. i suspect the difference between conquest and purchase is the reason our french remain french - just as your spanish remain spanish.
so, the proper way to convert what american textbooks say about hispanics is to replace them with references to the french. and, the french are indeed the second largest ethnic group in canada, by a good distance. while there was some early spanish exploration up the coast, the british and spanish did not come into anything resembling a conflict in the areas we now call canada. besides the conquered french settlements, the only other european power we found ourselves in competition with was the russians - a competition that of course continues to this day over the arctic. well, i guess we've had some skirmishes with the danes over greenland, too.
but, we didn't have this tapestry of european colonies. delaware was a swedish colony. new york was a dutch colony. pennsylvania was a german colony. there's nothing like that, here - it's just the british and the french, with the russians to the north and the far west. it's true that we settled large amounts of northern and eastern europeans on the plains, but that was directed - there weren't ukrainian or finish or norwegian colonies, just large amounts of migration.
the scots and welsh came with the brits, as elsewhere in the empire. and we took in a lot of irish in the nineteenth century, as the americans did, too - as well as italians in the early 20th. but, up until 1970, we really didn't have the kind of diversity that the united states had, with all of these conquered territories being organized into semi-autonomous states. we had the british and the french. and the natives...
so, there's the comparison between the french in canada and the hispanics in the united states. there is also a comparison between blacks in the united states and indigenous groups in canada, although it is much weaker. and, where immigration is shared (irish, italians) you can draw those comparisons. beyond that, much of the demographic analysis really breaks down as incoherent.
our largest visible minority group is "south asians". american demographics don't generally - from what i've seen - separate between south and east and west asians, but just put "asian" on the survey and leave it at that, which is kind of useless if you want any meaningful analysis. if you add it up, canada is nearly 15% "asian" - meaning asians are numerically as important in canada as blacks are in the united states, although they don't tend to vote as a block. in fact, south asians tend to vote liberal while east asians tend to vote conservative, which i might argue ought to be the other way around, but is based on weird historicisms that are hard to explain in this space. it's not hard to understand why chinese immigrants may have an attachment to free market economics, but they tend to be less social conservative; on the other hand, south asian immigrants tend to be very traditional and kind of ideal conservative voters, but often end up voting liberal (or ndp) due to the left being a little more inviting. i would hazard a guess that this might flip over in the second or third generation. it might have already happened in toronto.
the point is that, behind the french, which occupy the role in canada that hispanics do in the united states, the next largest voting bloc is recent immigrants from asia - mostly middle or upper class, highly educated and generally relatively pro-market, a stark contrast with the bloc of black voters in the united states.
you'd think the liberals would know this, right? it's increasingly unclear.
i'm going to hope that it's just one prominent advisor that can get axed, and not systemic. but, it might be.
on the other hand, the british conquered the french settlements in canada, which at the time included a chunk of the american upper midwest, with the final battle happening in 1763. i suspect the difference between conquest and purchase is the reason our french remain french - just as your spanish remain spanish.
so, the proper way to convert what american textbooks say about hispanics is to replace them with references to the french. and, the french are indeed the second largest ethnic group in canada, by a good distance. while there was some early spanish exploration up the coast, the british and spanish did not come into anything resembling a conflict in the areas we now call canada. besides the conquered french settlements, the only other european power we found ourselves in competition with was the russians - a competition that of course continues to this day over the arctic. well, i guess we've had some skirmishes with the danes over greenland, too.
but, we didn't have this tapestry of european colonies. delaware was a swedish colony. new york was a dutch colony. pennsylvania was a german colony. there's nothing like that, here - it's just the british and the french, with the russians to the north and the far west. it's true that we settled large amounts of northern and eastern europeans on the plains, but that was directed - there weren't ukrainian or finish or norwegian colonies, just large amounts of migration.
the scots and welsh came with the brits, as elsewhere in the empire. and we took in a lot of irish in the nineteenth century, as the americans did, too - as well as italians in the early 20th. but, up until 1970, we really didn't have the kind of diversity that the united states had, with all of these conquered territories being organized into semi-autonomous states. we had the british and the french. and the natives...
so, there's the comparison between the french in canada and the hispanics in the united states. there is also a comparison between blacks in the united states and indigenous groups in canada, although it is much weaker. and, where immigration is shared (irish, italians) you can draw those comparisons. beyond that, much of the demographic analysis really breaks down as incoherent.
our largest visible minority group is "south asians". american demographics don't generally - from what i've seen - separate between south and east and west asians, but just put "asian" on the survey and leave it at that, which is kind of useless if you want any meaningful analysis. if you add it up, canada is nearly 15% "asian" - meaning asians are numerically as important in canada as blacks are in the united states, although they don't tend to vote as a block. in fact, south asians tend to vote liberal while east asians tend to vote conservative, which i might argue ought to be the other way around, but is based on weird historicisms that are hard to explain in this space. it's not hard to understand why chinese immigrants may have an attachment to free market economics, but they tend to be less social conservative; on the other hand, south asian immigrants tend to be very traditional and kind of ideal conservative voters, but often end up voting liberal (or ndp) due to the left being a little more inviting. i would hazard a guess that this might flip over in the second or third generation. it might have already happened in toronto.
the point is that, behind the french, which occupy the role in canada that hispanics do in the united states, the next largest voting bloc is recent immigrants from asia - mostly middle or upper class, highly educated and generally relatively pro-market, a stark contrast with the bloc of black voters in the united states.
you'd think the liberals would know this, right? it's increasingly unclear.
i'm going to hope that it's just one prominent advisor that can get axed, and not systemic. but, it might be.
but, i need to point something else out, because there's a consistency at play around it - somebody in the pmo is using an american textbook or something, because they seem to be basing their policy on american demographics.
trudeau seems to care more about black history month than trump does. but, it's directed at 0.5% of the population. the remaining african-canadian population is mostly carribbean (or directly from africa) and does not have the same history, or any attachment to "black history month". the pmo just thinks it's governing from sacramento.
likewise, our "latino" population - spanish-speaking canadians - is something like 1% of the population, and not localized in any specific region, except perhaps toronto. they're mostly middle class, and a variety of racial categories - many from south america, and pasty white. so, we don't have a mass of hispanic voters with a defined agenda to kowtow to. we don't have a miami. we have normalized trade relations with cuba.
there are more people of chinese, indian and philipino descent in canada than there are hispanics - and, as of 2016, are nearly as many arabs. given population growth, in 2019, there must already be more arabs than hispanics in canada.
yet, if you were to look at canadian foreign policy across the board since 2015, from nafta to venezuela, you'd think trudeau had a powerful hispanic bloc to answer to.
it must be in the textbook, it's the only explanation, but it's just not there in real life.
trudeau seems to care more about black history month than trump does. but, it's directed at 0.5% of the population. the remaining african-canadian population is mostly carribbean (or directly from africa) and does not have the same history, or any attachment to "black history month". the pmo just thinks it's governing from sacramento.
likewise, our "latino" population - spanish-speaking canadians - is something like 1% of the population, and not localized in any specific region, except perhaps toronto. they're mostly middle class, and a variety of racial categories - many from south america, and pasty white. so, we don't have a mass of hispanic voters with a defined agenda to kowtow to. we don't have a miami. we have normalized trade relations with cuba.
there are more people of chinese, indian and philipino descent in canada than there are hispanics - and, as of 2016, are nearly as many arabs. given population growth, in 2019, there must already be more arabs than hispanics in canada.
yet, if you were to look at canadian foreign policy across the board since 2015, from nafta to venezuela, you'd think trudeau had a powerful hispanic bloc to answer to.
it must be in the textbook, it's the only explanation, but it's just not there in real life.
in purely geostrategic terms - if we want to get into it - what canada wants is for venezuela to stop producing, or start exporting solely to china, or something, just anything to stop them from contributing to the glut in american oil supply, because our resources are landlocked and we're currently getting ripped off.
helping the americans get venezuela back on track is a policy that is directly harmful to us.
yet...
helping the americans get venezuela back on track is a policy that is directly harmful to us.
yet...
see, we kind of went through this in the middle east, as well, and these analyses are so weirdly american-centric, in ways that i'm not sure the government even has it's head around.
let's suppose that this useful idiot guaido can pull off a bloodless coup, and manage to get elections up and running in the country. what happens on the day after?
well, the oil starts pumping.
and prices go down.
good for america, right?
well, did they think this through? they didn't. because, in purely geostrategic terms, we are in competition with venezuela for the american oil market - and we benefit by anything that keeps the country unstable, and the oil off the market.
i hardly think a slash in global oil prices is what the liberals are hoping for the day before the election.
the only thing this government is thinking about is brown-nosing the president. it's sad that we've been reduced to this. but, here we are.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canadas-leadership-on-venezuela-is-misguided-misdirected-and-a/
let's suppose that this useful idiot guaido can pull off a bloodless coup, and manage to get elections up and running in the country. what happens on the day after?
well, the oil starts pumping.
and prices go down.
good for america, right?
well, did they think this through? they didn't. because, in purely geostrategic terms, we are in competition with venezuela for the american oil market - and we benefit by anything that keeps the country unstable, and the oil off the market.
i hardly think a slash in global oil prices is what the liberals are hoping for the day before the election.
the only thing this government is thinking about is brown-nosing the president. it's sad that we've been reduced to this. but, here we are.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canadas-leadership-on-venezuela-is-misguided-misdirected-and-a/
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
the irony is, of course, that canadian mining companies are some of the worst human rights abusers in the hemisphere.
i have a different proposal for how the rome statute should be used, namely to bring canadian mining companies to justice.
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/thoughts/essays/conflictoflaw.html
i have a different proposal for how the rome statute should be used, namely to bring canadian mining companies to justice.
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/thoughts/essays/conflictoflaw.html
this is actually completely outrageous.
what a horrible mockery of the rome statute.
http://www.oas.org/documents/eng/press/Venezuela-Executive-Summary.pdf
what a horrible mockery of the rome statute.
http://www.oas.org/documents/eng/press/Venezuela-Executive-Summary.pdf
the media wants you to believe that this election was rigged.
but, the opposition boycotted the vote.
so, it's quite clear that maduro won - the opposition refused to vote.
a more pressing question is what would have happened if the opposition would have shown up. as this has been going on for years, it's not clear how close it would be.
and, i mean, of course there's going to be some irregularities - there are everywhere. but, you fundamentally cannot claim an election was rigged when the opposition didn't show up; the government wasn't even given the opportunity to meaningfully rig it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/world/americas/venezuela-election-opposition-boycott.html
but, the opposition boycotted the vote.
so, it's quite clear that maduro won - the opposition refused to vote.
a more pressing question is what would have happened if the opposition would have shown up. as this has been going on for years, it's not clear how close it would be.
and, i mean, of course there's going to be some irregularities - there are everywhere. but, you fundamentally cannot claim an election was rigged when the opposition didn't show up; the government wasn't even given the opportunity to meaningfully rig it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/world/americas/venezuela-election-opposition-boycott.html
to clarify a specific point about the elections in venezuela, though.
the corporatist media presents a half-truth when they point out that the opposition doesn't take part in the elections. that much is actually true - and i don't think anybody debates the point. what the media declines to clarify is that the opposition routinely boycotts the elections.
even if maduro were to give in to the ridiculous demand from the eu to call an election (and, can maduro demand a new vote on brexit while we're at it?), recent history suggests that the opposition would be unlikely to take part in it.
there is consequently somewhat of a level of uncertainty attached to the outcome, but it isn't due to state repression. the reality is that it's not entirely clear just how big the opposition actually is, because they've been boycotting elections for the last ten years. marches are a bad metric - they could be representative of a very well organized bourgeois minority, as is generally assumed, or they could be representative of a much larger bloc. but, they don't vote. so, we don't know - we're robbed of the ability to compare what we see in the pictures to what we can quantitatively analyse, and are left to our biases to try and work it through.
they want to make you think that the opposition is outlawed, oppressed, intimidated - and that is a lie. rather, they are holding strong to what are now very old accusations, always presented without proof, to uphold a years-long boycott.
and, we just don't know what the numbers really are, at this point.
the corporatist media presents a half-truth when they point out that the opposition doesn't take part in the elections. that much is actually true - and i don't think anybody debates the point. what the media declines to clarify is that the opposition routinely boycotts the elections.
even if maduro were to give in to the ridiculous demand from the eu to call an election (and, can maduro demand a new vote on brexit while we're at it?), recent history suggests that the opposition would be unlikely to take part in it.
there is consequently somewhat of a level of uncertainty attached to the outcome, but it isn't due to state repression. the reality is that it's not entirely clear just how big the opposition actually is, because they've been boycotting elections for the last ten years. marches are a bad metric - they could be representative of a very well organized bourgeois minority, as is generally assumed, or they could be representative of a much larger bloc. but, they don't vote. so, we don't know - we're robbed of the ability to compare what we see in the pictures to what we can quantitatively analyse, and are left to our biases to try and work it through.
they want to make you think that the opposition is outlawed, oppressed, intimidated - and that is a lie. rather, they are holding strong to what are now very old accusations, always presented without proof, to uphold a years-long boycott.
and, we just don't know what the numbers really are, at this point.
oh, i see irwin cotler is on it.
this is a guy that wants to put people in jail for saying mean things to people - and has fought hard to enforce the laws. when i say that canada is somewhat of an embarrassment on free speech laws, irwin cotler is one of the primary reasons why.
some "human rights expert".
but, one may also note how strange it is to see the post pushing talking points by irwin fucking cotler, of all people.
this is a guy that wants to put people in jail for saying mean things to people - and has fought hard to enforce the laws. when i say that canada is somewhat of an embarrassment on free speech laws, irwin cotler is one of the primary reasons why.
some "human rights expert".
but, one may also note how strange it is to see the post pushing talking points by irwin fucking cotler, of all people.
an Organization of American States panel of human rights experts
how do you even finish reading an article with that line in it?
yikes.
was kissinger on the board? how about oliver north?
they no doubt meant to say an OAS panel of liberal interventionists and neoconservative war criminals...
i have not seen a single credible source criticize the elections in venezuela since, like, 1999, or whenever it was that chavez won. all i've seen is a periodic, if tiring, repudiation of all of these right-wing smear campaigns.
what is "right" here is to stand up for the rule of law, respect their sovereignty and avoid interfering in their country. what is "wrong" here is to intervene in the situation for our own economic self-interest.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/canadian-unions-helped-fund-delegation-that-gave-glowing-review-of-venezuela-election-widely-seen-as-illegitimate?video_autoplay=true
how do you even finish reading an article with that line in it?
yikes.
was kissinger on the board? how about oliver north?
they no doubt meant to say an OAS panel of liberal interventionists and neoconservative war criminals...
i have not seen a single credible source criticize the elections in venezuela since, like, 1999, or whenever it was that chavez won. all i've seen is a periodic, if tiring, repudiation of all of these right-wing smear campaigns.
what is "right" here is to stand up for the rule of law, respect their sovereignty and avoid interfering in their country. what is "wrong" here is to intervene in the situation for our own economic self-interest.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/canadian-unions-helped-fund-delegation-that-gave-glowing-review-of-venezuela-election-widely-seen-as-illegitimate?video_autoplay=true
“I think we can do that,” Simons said. “I just don’t think this bill, as
currently written, accomplishes what it sets out to do.”
well, then resign your post on the fucking guardian council, and run for elected office on a mandate to change it.
https://nationalpost.com/news/senators-promise-robust-review-of-bill-c-69-as-provincial-angst-deepens-over-trudeau-energy-reforms
well, then resign your post on the fucking guardian council, and run for elected office on a mandate to change it.
https://nationalpost.com/news/senators-promise-robust-review-of-bill-c-69-as-provincial-angst-deepens-over-trudeau-energy-reforms
Monday, February 4, 2019
and, is bernier a threat in quebec?
well, he has two positions that most people know about - he wants to modify immigration policies (which is likely to do well in the rural areas) and he wants to end supply management (which is likely to do terribly in rural areas).
he would, in theory, make more sense in alberta, but he's a distant francophone. bernier lost to scheer in quebec, remember - and that's in a province with a small conservative movement, and little centre of gravity. in quebec, nobody joins the conservative party looking for career advancement.
so, if i'm a dairy farmer in quebec - the target of his immigration policies - am i going to vote against my economic self-interest to uphold some cultural attachment to quebec? not unless i'm a buffoon - and the quebecois don't vote against themselves like this, like kentuckians do. and, especially not if the bloc are offering the same nationalist policies without the attack on supply management.
he's apparently running around 6% in quebec, but we see this with the greens all of the time - it's a mirage. it's partly the math of sampling. but, you should also read into it as apathy.
regardless, even if he can muster 4%, i would expect that to be broadly distributed rather than localized. quebec is known for close races, so a 2-3% swing could absolutely lose the conservatives a few seats. but, it would be difficult to isolate from the noise.
the media is unlikely to step away from this, as it seems to like the narrative of bernier playing spoiler. but, i don't suspect the numbers will actually pan out - this is just statistical noise, in the end.
well, he has two positions that most people know about - he wants to modify immigration policies (which is likely to do well in the rural areas) and he wants to end supply management (which is likely to do terribly in rural areas).
he would, in theory, make more sense in alberta, but he's a distant francophone. bernier lost to scheer in quebec, remember - and that's in a province with a small conservative movement, and little centre of gravity. in quebec, nobody joins the conservative party looking for career advancement.
so, if i'm a dairy farmer in quebec - the target of his immigration policies - am i going to vote against my economic self-interest to uphold some cultural attachment to quebec? not unless i'm a buffoon - and the quebecois don't vote against themselves like this, like kentuckians do. and, especially not if the bloc are offering the same nationalist policies without the attack on supply management.
he's apparently running around 6% in quebec, but we see this with the greens all of the time - it's a mirage. it's partly the math of sampling. but, you should also read into it as apathy.
regardless, even if he can muster 4%, i would expect that to be broadly distributed rather than localized. quebec is known for close races, so a 2-3% swing could absolutely lose the conservatives a few seats. but, it would be difficult to isolate from the noise.
the media is unlikely to step away from this, as it seems to like the narrative of bernier playing spoiler. but, i don't suspect the numbers will actually pan out - this is just statistical noise, in the end.
in canada, support for the international rule of law - for better or worse, whatever the consequence - is one of the things that makes a liberal a liberal. and, because our right has historically been moderate, it has broad, nationalist support as a model, as well.
if you're willing or eager to act outside of the united nations on this kind of thing, you're in the wrong party - and broadly even in the wrong country.
if you're willing or eager to act outside of the united nations on this kind of thing, you're in the wrong party - and broadly even in the wrong country.
somebody do a poll on whether donating, card-carrying members of the liberal party support acting outside of the united nations in venezuela. and word it like that. don't talk about supporting one faction or the other, as though we have any business doing so - talk about whether you support the institution of the united nations and adherence to the international rule of law or not.
i wouldn't expect more than 10% of them would support what the government is doing. i wouldn't even expect much more than 40% of conservatives would support this kind of thing. it's completely unheard of, here.
support for the united nations as the basis of canadian foreign policy is foundational in the party base - as important as support for universal health care. it's one of the key, defining issues of canadian liberalism. canada simply doesn't stand with the united states when it acts outside of the un, it just doesn't do this, it goes to the un and seeks an international consensus, then seeks to find a way to moderate america's policies around the edges.
i'm not even willing to get into a debate about the merits of the action, it's too absurd to even bother. the point here is ideological.
this is the kind of thing that got ignatieff completely routed. and, if the party holds to it, it should be looking at 2011 for a baseline, even if it's unclear who steps into the void.
the bloc are at least ready to step in in quebec. the greens might step in a few places elsewhere....
whatever they're projecting, here - some kind of rfk-style anti-communism or something - it isn't canadian. and, canadians are not going to stand for it.
i wouldn't expect more than 10% of them would support what the government is doing. i wouldn't even expect much more than 40% of conservatives would support this kind of thing. it's completely unheard of, here.
support for the united nations as the basis of canadian foreign policy is foundational in the party base - as important as support for universal health care. it's one of the key, defining issues of canadian liberalism. canada simply doesn't stand with the united states when it acts outside of the un, it just doesn't do this, it goes to the un and seeks an international consensus, then seeks to find a way to moderate america's policies around the edges.
i'm not even willing to get into a debate about the merits of the action, it's too absurd to even bother. the point here is ideological.
this is the kind of thing that got ignatieff completely routed. and, if the party holds to it, it should be looking at 2011 for a baseline, even if it's unclear who steps into the void.
the bloc are at least ready to step in in quebec. the greens might step in a few places elsewhere....
whatever they're projecting, here - some kind of rfk-style anti-communism or something - it isn't canadian. and, canadians are not going to stand for it.
i was initially leaning towards the liberals losing their majority in october.
but. if they continue walking down the path they're on, they're going to lose outright.
it's one thing when the government does this kind of thing behind the scenes, as a part of a careful balancing of various powers. but, there is no appetite for white supremacist imperialist war mongering in canada, especially not as a kind of jingoist electioneering tactic.
it is a ballot issue amongst enough voters to matter - not because of the specific situation, but because of the general tone.
canada is supposed to act through the united nations on situations such as these. and, i would call on the liberal party to stop obsequiously supporting the monroe doctrine and reassert it's party's historical policies on this matter.
but. if they continue walking down the path they're on, they're going to lose outright.
it's one thing when the government does this kind of thing behind the scenes, as a part of a careful balancing of various powers. but, there is no appetite for white supremacist imperialist war mongering in canada, especially not as a kind of jingoist electioneering tactic.
it is a ballot issue amongst enough voters to matter - not because of the specific situation, but because of the general tone.
canada is supposed to act through the united nations on situations such as these. and, i would call on the liberal party to stop obsequiously supporting the monroe doctrine and reassert it's party's historical policies on this matter.
why not just write the check to lockheed martin?
this is disgusting. and, they should expect it to backfire - this will be unpopular, here.
it's not the money, it's a tone issue.
unfortunately, there is no opposition in the country that is able to hit them on this.
https://globalnews.ca/video/4922143/trudeau-announces-53-million-investment-to-support-venezuelans
this is disgusting. and, they should expect it to backfire - this will be unpopular, here.
it's not the money, it's a tone issue.
unfortunately, there is no opposition in the country that is able to hit them on this.
https://globalnews.ca/video/4922143/trudeau-announces-53-million-investment-to-support-venezuelans
this took far too long, but it's done. sort of.
i still need to organize it to by month and zip it up for later.
it runs from sept, 2003 to may, 2016, with a gap in mid 2004 (when i did not have internet access) and another gap from mid 2008 to mid 2010, but i think can fill in the second gap with an archive put away on a dvd somewhere.
and, that is the last step in the tree i'm building: i'll need to go through all of the physical media i've got lying around and file it by year.
once that's finished, i'll swing myself back around to mid-2013 in order to get back to the rebuild, one more time. i expect to be back to where i was (late 2016) relatively quickly. and, getting to the end of 2016 means getting back to the alter-reality, and ultimately trying to finish the period one disc by the end of the year.
i still need to organize it to by month and zip it up for later.
it runs from sept, 2003 to may, 2016, with a gap in mid 2004 (when i did not have internet access) and another gap from mid 2008 to mid 2010, but i think can fill in the second gap with an archive put away on a dvd somewhere.
and, that is the last step in the tree i'm building: i'll need to go through all of the physical media i've got lying around and file it by year.
once that's finished, i'll swing myself back around to mid-2013 in order to get back to the rebuild, one more time. i expect to be back to where i was (late 2016) relatively quickly. and, getting to the end of 2016 means getting back to the alter-reality, and ultimately trying to finish the period one disc by the end of the year.
Sunday, February 3, 2019
i was hoping for some good shots of sexy eskimos, though.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/02/this-polar-vortex-should-have-been-colder/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/02/this-polar-vortex-should-have-been-colder/
Michigan passed a law to criminalise the practice in 2017, following the
start of the case, but the law is not retrospective, and Nagarwala and
others cannot be tried for past alleged offences.
fuck.
they could charge her with assault, though - and should.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/22/us-is-moving-backwards-female-genital-mutilation-ruling-a-blow-to-girls-at-risk
fuck.
they could charge her with assault, though - and should.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/22/us-is-moving-backwards-female-genital-mutilation-ruling-a-blow-to-girls-at-risk
this is one of those things where canadian law is exactly the opposite - we have no provincial criminal code at all, all criminal cases are prosecuted at the federal level, and commercial issues of the sort referenced are dealt with by the provinces.
if ontario tried to pass legislation banning fgm under jail time, the same thing would happen. so, i understand the ruling.
but, shouldn't the attorney general in michigan immediately take over the case, then?
this is very much the kind of nightmare scenario that leftists imagine when they warn about the dangers of "religious freedom". there has to be some way out of essentially condoning this as an allowable religious practice.
they should have just charged her with assault with a deadly weapon.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2018/11/20/female-genital-mutilation-michigan/1991712002/
if ontario tried to pass legislation banning fgm under jail time, the same thing would happen. so, i understand the ruling.
but, shouldn't the attorney general in michigan immediately take over the case, then?
this is very much the kind of nightmare scenario that leftists imagine when they warn about the dangers of "religious freedom". there has to be some way out of essentially condoning this as an allowable religious practice.
they should have just charged her with assault with a deadly weapon.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2018/11/20/female-genital-mutilation-michigan/1991712002/
trying to prevent another tsunami, i suppose.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/asia/indonesia-teens-publicly-flogged-for-cuddling-intl/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/asia/indonesia-teens-publicly-flogged-for-cuddling-intl/
Saturday, February 2, 2019
as the situation unfolds, what trump is demonstrating with the border wall funding issue is that the government doesn't operate anything at all like a business, and that he doesn't understand that.
i pointed out that an extended shut down would likely lead to a revolt in the democratic base, which would be unlikely to hold to solidarity on opposition to a border wall in the face of meaningful inconvenience, and the slow understanding that the party's policies on migrants are not in their self-interest. i pointed out that the initial reaction would be to attack trump, but this would slowly lead to apathy all around, which would harm the democrats more than the republicans. trump's best strategy was consequently to hold to his guns until the democrats gave up. if you wanted to compare this to a market transaction, he'd be undercuttting the competition with his superior resources in a more dedicated and ideological base of core supporters.
but, he folded at what seemed like the worst possible moment. now, he's talking about shutting the government down again, which is flatly insane - he just lost the fight, now he wants to do it again? what? he had a clear winning strategy, and threw it away. now, if he follows through with this, he's going to get primaried and lose...
it's taken me some time to clue in, but i think that the reason this isn't making any sense is that he's approaching the situation like a business deal, rather than a government negotiation. this was in some sense obvious, but i guess we all miss the obvious some times, particularly when it's entirely irrational. you would, frankly, expect the point to be corrected by now. i don't remember the reagan administration, but what i've read about it suggests that even the gipper, that old dumbass, had the ability to learn in office. trump's stupidity seems to really be singular...
...and, here we have it: trump thinks the government is just like a business, and that he's carrying out some kind of business negotiation. he's the ceo of the republican party, while pelosi is the ceo of the democratic party. and, he thinks they are both driven by an obligation to maximize profit for shareholders.
it's the last point where the whole thing breaks down as incoherent, and you start to understand what he's doing.
so, rather than wait pelosi out, what trump was initially trying to do was intimidate her. it was some kind of dominance tactic. if they actually were both ceos of corporations, he would be costing her a lot of money by withholding the contract. the temporary re-opening of the government would be intended to remind her shareholders of how much money they're losing, and what they stand to gain by signing the contract. then, taking that away would push the shareholders into pressuring pelosi into making concessions, to prevent them from losing money.
his tactics are anti-social, and in the long-run would no doubt create a reputation that precedes him - donald trump would become a man that you try to avoid doing business with. but, they would probably be effective when applied as necessary, so long as the dominant motive is about profit.
but, nancy pelosi does not have a group of shareholders to pressure her, or at least not literally. what she has are voters that want to elect her - electors in the proletariat. their self-interest is very different; they are not looking to make money by signing a contract, but to keep the government open to access services (and, in some cases, to avoid signing the contract at all). there is no way to apply the model.
opening and closing the government like this is just going to make it clear that the president is responsible for it.
observers are looking at trump and wondering if he's off his rocker. but, this is simply what happens when you let a business person run for office - this is the inevitable consequence of applying business world realities and tactics to political negotiations. he's simply living in a parallel reality.
so, he will no doubt continue to do outlandish things, until this gets resolved, or he gets thrown out. but, try and keep what i'm saying in mind as you try to understand what he's doing - you might find it to be a useful decryption algorithm.
i pointed out that an extended shut down would likely lead to a revolt in the democratic base, which would be unlikely to hold to solidarity on opposition to a border wall in the face of meaningful inconvenience, and the slow understanding that the party's policies on migrants are not in their self-interest. i pointed out that the initial reaction would be to attack trump, but this would slowly lead to apathy all around, which would harm the democrats more than the republicans. trump's best strategy was consequently to hold to his guns until the democrats gave up. if you wanted to compare this to a market transaction, he'd be undercuttting the competition with his superior resources in a more dedicated and ideological base of core supporters.
but, he folded at what seemed like the worst possible moment. now, he's talking about shutting the government down again, which is flatly insane - he just lost the fight, now he wants to do it again? what? he had a clear winning strategy, and threw it away. now, if he follows through with this, he's going to get primaried and lose...
it's taken me some time to clue in, but i think that the reason this isn't making any sense is that he's approaching the situation like a business deal, rather than a government negotiation. this was in some sense obvious, but i guess we all miss the obvious some times, particularly when it's entirely irrational. you would, frankly, expect the point to be corrected by now. i don't remember the reagan administration, but what i've read about it suggests that even the gipper, that old dumbass, had the ability to learn in office. trump's stupidity seems to really be singular...
...and, here we have it: trump thinks the government is just like a business, and that he's carrying out some kind of business negotiation. he's the ceo of the republican party, while pelosi is the ceo of the democratic party. and, he thinks they are both driven by an obligation to maximize profit for shareholders.
it's the last point where the whole thing breaks down as incoherent, and you start to understand what he's doing.
so, rather than wait pelosi out, what trump was initially trying to do was intimidate her. it was some kind of dominance tactic. if they actually were both ceos of corporations, he would be costing her a lot of money by withholding the contract. the temporary re-opening of the government would be intended to remind her shareholders of how much money they're losing, and what they stand to gain by signing the contract. then, taking that away would push the shareholders into pressuring pelosi into making concessions, to prevent them from losing money.
his tactics are anti-social, and in the long-run would no doubt create a reputation that precedes him - donald trump would become a man that you try to avoid doing business with. but, they would probably be effective when applied as necessary, so long as the dominant motive is about profit.
but, nancy pelosi does not have a group of shareholders to pressure her, or at least not literally. what she has are voters that want to elect her - electors in the proletariat. their self-interest is very different; they are not looking to make money by signing a contract, but to keep the government open to access services (and, in some cases, to avoid signing the contract at all). there is no way to apply the model.
opening and closing the government like this is just going to make it clear that the president is responsible for it.
observers are looking at trump and wondering if he's off his rocker. but, this is simply what happens when you let a business person run for office - this is the inevitable consequence of applying business world realities and tactics to political negotiations. he's simply living in a parallel reality.
so, he will no doubt continue to do outlandish things, until this gets resolved, or he gets thrown out. but, try and keep what i'm saying in mind as you try to understand what he's doing - you might find it to be a useful decryption algorithm.
no, you scientifically illiterate idiots.
the polar vortex is neither evidence for nor against global warming, but an isolated event that is occurring independently of the slow increase in global temperatures. it is variation in the climate system. and, it is driven entirely by the sun.
...except to point out that the premise that the media hoopla is based on is actually wrong: the effects of the polar vortex on mid latitudes is not increasing, but decreasing. we're not experiencing colder winters, but warmer ones.
the climate models point out that we should be seeing weaker winters, on average. and, those models are absolutely correct - our winters are getting shorter and less intense. and, this is the consensus view amongst climate scientists: our winters will continue to get shorter and less powerful, over time.
but, again: i'm not arguing with the science. the science agrees with me, or, to be more succinct, i'm simply stating the science.
what i'm arguing with is click bait by the "liberal" media, which is ultimately not helping the movement against the oil industry, by publishing dubious articles that damage their own credibility.
so, to recap. and i'm done with this until next year:
1) the polar vortex is a strictly solar phenomenon that has nothing to do with global warming.
2) our winters at the current solar minima have been less intense than they were in previous solar minimas. that is, the polar vortex is retreating, on the longer scale.
3) the polar vortex is retreating on the longer scale due to global warming - which will lead to shorter, less intense winters.
4) that said, as we are at solar minima, our current cold blast is a consequence of the solar cycle. and, if the sun has an extended minima, this could slow down global warming, with exaggerated effects in the northern hemisphere.
5) the media is pushing a series of strawmen, false dichotomies and red herrings around the topic that are merely serving to confuse the fuck out of people, for clickbait and ideological purity.
you're no doubt horribly confused. that's a shame.
the polar vortex is neither evidence for nor against global warming, but an isolated event that is occurring independently of the slow increase in global temperatures. it is variation in the climate system. and, it is driven entirely by the sun.
...except to point out that the premise that the media hoopla is based on is actually wrong: the effects of the polar vortex on mid latitudes is not increasing, but decreasing. we're not experiencing colder winters, but warmer ones.
the climate models point out that we should be seeing weaker winters, on average. and, those models are absolutely correct - our winters are getting shorter and less intense. and, this is the consensus view amongst climate scientists: our winters will continue to get shorter and less powerful, over time.
but, again: i'm not arguing with the science. the science agrees with me, or, to be more succinct, i'm simply stating the science.
what i'm arguing with is click bait by the "liberal" media, which is ultimately not helping the movement against the oil industry, by publishing dubious articles that damage their own credibility.
so, to recap. and i'm done with this until next year:
1) the polar vortex is a strictly solar phenomenon that has nothing to do with global warming.
2) our winters at the current solar minima have been less intense than they were in previous solar minimas. that is, the polar vortex is retreating, on the longer scale.
3) the polar vortex is retreating on the longer scale due to global warming - which will lead to shorter, less intense winters.
4) that said, as we are at solar minima, our current cold blast is a consequence of the solar cycle. and, if the sun has an extended minima, this could slow down global warming, with exaggerated effects in the northern hemisphere.
5) the media is pushing a series of strawmen, false dichotomies and red herrings around the topic that are merely serving to confuse the fuck out of people, for clickbait and ideological purity.
you're no doubt horribly confused. that's a shame.
if trudeau thinks he's the most likely recipient of an anti-ford backlash, he's got another thing coming.
the feds might want to take a closer look at the results of the last provincial election. as baffling as doug ford is, he couldn't exist without the liberals being unpopular here, in whatever demographics they're unpopular in. trudeau is very much an extension of the mcguinty-wynne government, and not much of an antidote.
normally, this would be fertile ground for the ndp, but they've evaporated. and, if the ndp can't get themselves in order quickly, ontario is consequently going to be a very serious wild card in october, as the populace struggles to find somewhere to turn to.
https://torontosun.com/news/national/lilley-liberal-mp-says-lets-whack-ontario-premier-doug-ford
the feds might want to take a closer look at the results of the last provincial election. as baffling as doug ford is, he couldn't exist without the liberals being unpopular here, in whatever demographics they're unpopular in. trudeau is very much an extension of the mcguinty-wynne government, and not much of an antidote.
normally, this would be fertile ground for the ndp, but they've evaporated. and, if the ndp can't get themselves in order quickly, ontario is consequently going to be a very serious wild card in october, as the populace struggles to find somewhere to turn to.
https://torontosun.com/news/national/lilley-liberal-mp-says-lets-whack-ontario-premier-doug-ford
Friday, February 1, 2019
listen. i'm not afraid to state what i think about this, and it's that every skyscraper on this continent should be taken into common ownership, administered by co-operatives of the people that live in them and operated at cost, to the point that any year-over-year surpluses should be redistributed to the tenants.
as a society, we should have absolutely no tolerance for the premise of profiteering from housing - just as we have no tolerance for profiteering from health care.
it's just not something that a market should exist in; it's something that should be seen as a right.
as a society, we should have absolutely no tolerance for the premise of profiteering from housing - just as we have no tolerance for profiteering from health care.
it's just not something that a market should exist in; it's something that should be seen as a right.
i don't expect to hear anybody start talking about abolishing the rentier class.
but, i think it's a valid question to ask: why should anybody profit off of charging somebody rent in the first place? what justification is there for this?
until we grapple with this fundamental question, we're going to have issues with poverty on both sides of the border.
but, i think it's a valid question to ask: why should anybody profit off of charging somebody rent in the first place? what justification is there for this?
until we grapple with this fundamental question, we're going to have issues with poverty on both sides of the border.
they get to the point close to the end, which is that these bills are really just a subsidy to landowners, and are in the end just going to inflate the rent. then, under the guise of "targeted tax breaks", they essentially impose a values test on who is eligible for the tax breaks. families get the money, single people (and queer people, who are often the ones that need it the most) don't.
this issue has really been studied to death, and it's well understood that the most efficient approach is to just go with a gai or negative income tax, and get rid of the bureaucracy. this both saves money on administration (and the deadweight cost on this is that you're going to end up forking out billions in salaries and benefits to unionized social workers - if you want to be fiscally conservative about it) and cuts out these values tests that just end up as coercive means to enforce socially conservative value systems on the poor - to essentially restrict access to the poor people you like, while kicking the poor people you don't like out on the street. but, even a gai has to deal with inflation at some point, and aim pretty low to avoid being a tax cut for property owners.
you can't really put band aids over the fundamental relationship of property being theft. a society that upholds property as a right is going to have masses of impoverished people in it as a necessary corollary - these things are intrinsically connected, and it can't be undone without addressing the actual point. you can throw money at the poor all day, if you're not addressing the property imbalance, you're not solving anything. there are historical solutions around the idea of government housing, which actually address the issue by socializing property, but nobody wants to walk down that path, as it is in contradiction to the prevailing ideology of the washington consensus.
but, vox missed the point on purpose.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/30/18183769/democrat-poverty-plans-2020-presidential-kamala-harris-booker-gillibrand
this issue has really been studied to death, and it's well understood that the most efficient approach is to just go with a gai or negative income tax, and get rid of the bureaucracy. this both saves money on administration (and the deadweight cost on this is that you're going to end up forking out billions in salaries and benefits to unionized social workers - if you want to be fiscally conservative about it) and cuts out these values tests that just end up as coercive means to enforce socially conservative value systems on the poor - to essentially restrict access to the poor people you like, while kicking the poor people you don't like out on the street. but, even a gai has to deal with inflation at some point, and aim pretty low to avoid being a tax cut for property owners.
you can't really put band aids over the fundamental relationship of property being theft. a society that upholds property as a right is going to have masses of impoverished people in it as a necessary corollary - these things are intrinsically connected, and it can't be undone without addressing the actual point. you can throw money at the poor all day, if you're not addressing the property imbalance, you're not solving anything. there are historical solutions around the idea of government housing, which actually address the issue by socializing property, but nobody wants to walk down that path, as it is in contradiction to the prevailing ideology of the washington consensus.
but, vox missed the point on purpose.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/30/18183769/democrat-poverty-plans-2020-presidential-kamala-harris-booker-gillibrand
and, warren does not support single-payer. at all.
you don't have to ask her, directly. it's clear from where she stands in the spectrum as a pro-market moderate conservative.
you would expect warren to support legislation that breaks up the big insurance companies and forces them to compete on an open market, not a system that monopolizes insurance.
https://slate.com/business/2019/01/elizabeth-warren-dodges-kamala-harris-medicare-for-all-question.html
you don't have to ask her, directly. it's clear from where she stands in the spectrum as a pro-market moderate conservative.
you would expect warren to support legislation that breaks up the big insurance companies and forces them to compete on an open market, not a system that monopolizes insurance.
https://slate.com/business/2019/01/elizabeth-warren-dodges-kamala-harris-medicare-for-all-question.html
see, this is a smoke and mirrors campaign - we don't know where she stands on this.
i said i was open to listening, and what i'm hearing is mixed signals.
can we not find a candidate with a reasonable age that has some conviction on this?
https://slate.com/business/2019/01/single-payer-health-care-kamala-harris-democrats-2020-medicare-for-all.html
i said i was open to listening, and what i'm hearing is mixed signals.
can we not find a candidate with a reasonable age that has some conviction on this?
https://slate.com/business/2019/01/single-payer-health-care-kamala-harris-democrats-2020-medicare-for-all.html
there are still arms treaties left to withdraw from?
all of these systems should be completely shut down - i oppose all of it, across the board. but, these treaties aren't worth the paper they're written on. and, the anti-war movement has been slacking, in the face of a an islamicist uprising that had to be annihilated.
i usually side with the anti-war side (the caveat being that fascism cannot be tolerated, in any form, christian or muslim), but i'm not an idealist, i'm a realist. and the reality is that we may have to get back to a more dangerous type of mutually assured destruction before we can rebuild popular support for disarmament.
so, i'd rather the americans stop pulling out of these treaties. but, i'm not naive enough to think they follow them, anyways.
all of these systems should be completely shut down - i oppose all of it, across the board. but, these treaties aren't worth the paper they're written on. and, the anti-war movement has been slacking, in the face of a an islamicist uprising that had to be annihilated.
i usually side with the anti-war side (the caveat being that fascism cannot be tolerated, in any form, christian or muslim), but i'm not an idealist, i'm a realist. and the reality is that we may have to get back to a more dangerous type of mutually assured destruction before we can rebuild popular support for disarmament.
so, i'd rather the americans stop pulling out of these treaties. but, i'm not naive enough to think they follow them, anyways.
there's nothing that a kamala harris or a cory booker can do to squeeze out of this, either. if you're kamala harris, you have to sweep the south - that's how you win. so, you have to beat cory booker. and vice versa.
what i'm getting across is solely a tactical consideration. the south is a problem for the left, because they skew towards conservative value systems. and, i'm just being realistic about something that the field won't openly talk about; the tactic for decades has been that you do your pilgrimage through the black churches, gnash your teeth at the social conservatism and gun culture, and hope it works out - all the while trying to avoid saying something that's going to make you sound like a hypocrite to your base of urban liberals.
this has not helped the left achieve it's goals. it has not helped the democratic party. and, it has not helped the united states of america.
the ideal would be to leave the south behind, but you can't. except, now you can.
most of these states are not going to be in play in the general. there's no broader value in winning the south in the primary; it's just a distraction from the more important battle ground states in the midwest.
if you can get the centrist candidates into a protracted fight in the south, that just frees up resources to fight in the midwest. and, as i say - if they're black, they can't avoid that. to them, this is the only strategy they have, and they know it.
the left needs to know that the only strategy it has is to abandon the south, and the only way it can do that is to split the vote. so, it should count it's blessings and get out of the way....
what i'm getting across is solely a tactical consideration. the south is a problem for the left, because they skew towards conservative value systems. and, i'm just being realistic about something that the field won't openly talk about; the tactic for decades has been that you do your pilgrimage through the black churches, gnash your teeth at the social conservatism and gun culture, and hope it works out - all the while trying to avoid saying something that's going to make you sound like a hypocrite to your base of urban liberals.
this has not helped the left achieve it's goals. it has not helped the democratic party. and, it has not helped the united states of america.
the ideal would be to leave the south behind, but you can't. except, now you can.
most of these states are not going to be in play in the general. there's no broader value in winning the south in the primary; it's just a distraction from the more important battle ground states in the midwest.
if you can get the centrist candidates into a protracted fight in the south, that just frees up resources to fight in the midwest. and, as i say - if they're black, they can't avoid that. to them, this is the only strategy they have, and they know it.
the left needs to know that the only strategy it has is to abandon the south, and the only way it can do that is to split the vote. so, it should count it's blessings and get out of the way....
i will reiterate this statement: it is beneficial to the left to have harris and booker running against each other in the deep south, as it will prevent either of them from running up the score in states like georgia. the tactic should be to let them destroy each other. and, in fact this is the only possible tactic that doesn't end with another corporatist democrat.
this is fortuitous - it's good luck. and, a few more strong black, centrist candidates can only help split the southern vote up even more, to the left's benefit - in fact, to the left's requirement if it wants to actually win the primary.
necessary conditions are in place. we should be excited about this.
but, now we need to find a candidate - and the candidate should be under 75 years old, which is not much of a request, is it?
i want to see this candidate be openly atheist. it's time. the demographics are finally here for a strong, youth-driven atheist movement on the left.
this is fortuitous - it's good luck. and, a few more strong black, centrist candidates can only help split the southern vote up even more, to the left's benefit - in fact, to the left's requirement if it wants to actually win the primary.
necessary conditions are in place. we should be excited about this.
but, now we need to find a candidate - and the candidate should be under 75 years old, which is not much of a request, is it?
i want to see this candidate be openly atheist. it's time. the demographics are finally here for a strong, youth-driven atheist movement on the left.
good.
i have not been paying attention to concert schedules since around june, and i know i missed some stuff in the fall (i would have liked to see gang gang dance, but i think the rest was stuff i've seen in the last few years; that's something i'll have to backtrack on and figure out). i simply don't know what information the border cops have access to, but i don't think i should have any problems - that's something i'm trying to figure out. but, regardless, the weather since mid october has been prohibitive given the tunnel. even heading out for a $5 punk show would have required me to spend the night and come back in the morning.
if the weather clears up for mid february, and i get a proper response on my information request, i could maybe start being a little more social again relatively soon.
there's just nothing to do in windsor, really. that one bar i used to go to sometimes has shifted out of an indie demographic and to a more ethnic one; math rock nights are out, soul groove nights are in. i'm not hating, i'm just not interested.
but, it's been a year since i've done anything, now. i'm sure i'll be eager to look around for concerts in the spring, one way or another. there will come a night when i just need to get out of the house...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/detroit-windsor-tunnel-reopens-after-more-than-a-year-1.5000468
i have not been paying attention to concert schedules since around june, and i know i missed some stuff in the fall (i would have liked to see gang gang dance, but i think the rest was stuff i've seen in the last few years; that's something i'll have to backtrack on and figure out). i simply don't know what information the border cops have access to, but i don't think i should have any problems - that's something i'm trying to figure out. but, regardless, the weather since mid october has been prohibitive given the tunnel. even heading out for a $5 punk show would have required me to spend the night and come back in the morning.
if the weather clears up for mid february, and i get a proper response on my information request, i could maybe start being a little more social again relatively soon.
there's just nothing to do in windsor, really. that one bar i used to go to sometimes has shifted out of an indie demographic and to a more ethnic one; math rock nights are out, soul groove nights are in. i'm not hating, i'm just not interested.
but, it's been a year since i've done anything, now. i'm sure i'll be eager to look around for concerts in the spring, one way or another. there will come a night when i just need to get out of the house...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/detroit-windsor-tunnel-reopens-after-more-than-a-year-1.5000468
what the ipcc initially demonstrated was that the warming observed over the second half of the 20th century could not be associated with solar activity, because they were moving in opposite directions.
that is, the temperature was increasing, while the sun was weakening. so, we couldn't be getting warmer as a result of the sun because the sun was getting colder; it would then follow that we ought to be getting colder, if not for global warming. the second part of this is equally important, but it got largely dropped by the media.
so, missed in the media's take on this was that the correlation between the sun and the climate was actually quite robust up until the year 1900, and especially broke down after the year 1980. there's this oft-repeated line - even by publishing scientists - that the ipcc disproved any connection between the sun and the climate, which is anything but the actual truth; the report actually demonstrated a very strong connection between solar output and the climate up until 1980, and then demonstrated that there had been a break in the connection, which had to be caused by something else. after ruling everything else out, it then pointed to us as the last remaining culprit.
i mean, this is the fundamental breakthrough by the ipcc - that we were interfering with the sun. and, in order to establish that we were really interfering with the sun, that we're really to blame, you had to demonstrate the historical link, first. so, a big part of the study is proving the link between the sun and the weather, not debunking it.
so, the argument in the ipcc goes as follows:
1) the earth's climate is strongly correlated with the sun from antiquity up until the middle of the 20th century. and, much effort is put into demonstrating this, because it must be shown to be true to conclude that carbon emissions are altering the climate.
2) starting around 1980, the correlation breaks.
3) after ruling out many potential causes for the break in this correlation, the last remaining answer is carbon emissions.
4) therefore, anthropogenic climate change.
but, after demonstrating that the sun was the main driver of the earth's climate for the last 6 billion years, the ipcc then forgets about it.
meanwhile, the sun has been getting colder and colder since 1985 - while we've continued to get warmer and warmer.
well, sort of.
it is in fact absolutely necessary that we answer the following question: if the earth and the sun are moving in opposite directions since 1980 because of global warming, what rates of change are required to maintain or overturn the break?
because, you have to understand the following point: if we succeed in stabilizing the atmosphere, we will once again be at the mercy of the sun. and, if the sun has crashed, we're going to crash, too.
it's ultimately a rate game. if the sun cools fast enough, it will overpower the emissions; on the other hand, if emissions skyrocket, the sun's influence wanes. everybody is using statistics to try and figure this out, but it's actually a calculus problem - we're talking about optimizing rates of change, and figuring out how curves intersect with each other. and, if you want a good model, you have to take both factors into consideration, because that is what the ipcc proved - that, in the absence of carbon emissions, the sun dominates the climate.
what the studies i've seen predict is that expected emissions rates will dominantly overpower expected decreases in solar output - that global warming will win this fight. but, what that means is that the global mean temperature will continue to increase, not that regional variation will be eliminated.
we know how the vortex works. we know it's driven by the sun. and, there is little reason to expect that the historical pattern won't reassert itself, even if it's muted.
the last error that i'll point out is the idea that these blasts of cold air are creating an overall cooling effect. it may seem extreme, but that's just because we're not used to it. the truth is that these supposedly brutal winters over the last five years are still mild compared to historical solar minimums. if the thing you're trying to prove is why the winters are getting colder, your premise is wrong - because they aren't, and you can see that once you compare minima to minima. if you plot the average winter temperatures in a city like ottawa or windsor (or moscow) going back 100 years, what you get is an increasing wave function, and you can pull out the warming trend by drawing a line with positive slope (or increasing curve) through the troughs of the wave. at solar minimum, these expanded polar vortices used to be longer and more brutal than they are now.
i'm old enough that i remember the minimum in the 90s; i'm sure you can find somebody that remembers the 70s, at least. it's a 22 year cycle, not an 11 year one. our experience with this vortex is nothing compared to theirs. they'd get this for weeks.
so, we need to ask the opposite question: why don't we have long, cold winters like we used to?
and, in that sense i will concede a different point: the reason you think it's so damned cold is because of global warming.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001
that is, the temperature was increasing, while the sun was weakening. so, we couldn't be getting warmer as a result of the sun because the sun was getting colder; it would then follow that we ought to be getting colder, if not for global warming. the second part of this is equally important, but it got largely dropped by the media.
so, missed in the media's take on this was that the correlation between the sun and the climate was actually quite robust up until the year 1900, and especially broke down after the year 1980. there's this oft-repeated line - even by publishing scientists - that the ipcc disproved any connection between the sun and the climate, which is anything but the actual truth; the report actually demonstrated a very strong connection between solar output and the climate up until 1980, and then demonstrated that there had been a break in the connection, which had to be caused by something else. after ruling everything else out, it then pointed to us as the last remaining culprit.
i mean, this is the fundamental breakthrough by the ipcc - that we were interfering with the sun. and, in order to establish that we were really interfering with the sun, that we're really to blame, you had to demonstrate the historical link, first. so, a big part of the study is proving the link between the sun and the weather, not debunking it.
so, the argument in the ipcc goes as follows:
1) the earth's climate is strongly correlated with the sun from antiquity up until the middle of the 20th century. and, much effort is put into demonstrating this, because it must be shown to be true to conclude that carbon emissions are altering the climate.
2) starting around 1980, the correlation breaks.
3) after ruling out many potential causes for the break in this correlation, the last remaining answer is carbon emissions.
4) therefore, anthropogenic climate change.
but, after demonstrating that the sun was the main driver of the earth's climate for the last 6 billion years, the ipcc then forgets about it.
meanwhile, the sun has been getting colder and colder since 1985 - while we've continued to get warmer and warmer.
well, sort of.
it is in fact absolutely necessary that we answer the following question: if the earth and the sun are moving in opposite directions since 1980 because of global warming, what rates of change are required to maintain or overturn the break?
because, you have to understand the following point: if we succeed in stabilizing the atmosphere, we will once again be at the mercy of the sun. and, if the sun has crashed, we're going to crash, too.
it's ultimately a rate game. if the sun cools fast enough, it will overpower the emissions; on the other hand, if emissions skyrocket, the sun's influence wanes. everybody is using statistics to try and figure this out, but it's actually a calculus problem - we're talking about optimizing rates of change, and figuring out how curves intersect with each other. and, if you want a good model, you have to take both factors into consideration, because that is what the ipcc proved - that, in the absence of carbon emissions, the sun dominates the climate.
what the studies i've seen predict is that expected emissions rates will dominantly overpower expected decreases in solar output - that global warming will win this fight. but, what that means is that the global mean temperature will continue to increase, not that regional variation will be eliminated.
we know how the vortex works. we know it's driven by the sun. and, there is little reason to expect that the historical pattern won't reassert itself, even if it's muted.
the last error that i'll point out is the idea that these blasts of cold air are creating an overall cooling effect. it may seem extreme, but that's just because we're not used to it. the truth is that these supposedly brutal winters over the last five years are still mild compared to historical solar minimums. if the thing you're trying to prove is why the winters are getting colder, your premise is wrong - because they aren't, and you can see that once you compare minima to minima. if you plot the average winter temperatures in a city like ottawa or windsor (or moscow) going back 100 years, what you get is an increasing wave function, and you can pull out the warming trend by drawing a line with positive slope (or increasing curve) through the troughs of the wave. at solar minimum, these expanded polar vortices used to be longer and more brutal than they are now.
i'm old enough that i remember the minimum in the 90s; i'm sure you can find somebody that remembers the 70s, at least. it's a 22 year cycle, not an 11 year one. our experience with this vortex is nothing compared to theirs. they'd get this for weeks.
so, we need to ask the opposite question: why don't we have long, cold winters like we used to?
and, in that sense i will concede a different point: the reason you think it's so damned cold is because of global warming.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001
Thursday, January 31, 2019
this is from 1959.
the fact is that the factors underlying weakening in the polar vortex is something we understood before anybody even uttered the phrase "climate change".
we don't need new research to uncover something we've understood for decades. we just need to collect evidence and watch the theories we already have prove themselves - which is exactly what's happening.
the fundamental point is this: as the polar vortex is a solar phenomenon, you should consult solar scientists about how it works. and, when the solar scientists tell you "we don't need dubious speculations from people dabbling well outside their field about melting sea ice to understand how this works", that should be enough to put the issue to rest.
anthropogenic climate change is a real thing.
but, it has nothing to do with the polar vortex, which is controlled by the sun.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/JZ064i007p00749
the fact is that the factors underlying weakening in the polar vortex is something we understood before anybody even uttered the phrase "climate change".
we don't need new research to uncover something we've understood for decades. we just need to collect evidence and watch the theories we already have prove themselves - which is exactly what's happening.
the fundamental point is this: as the polar vortex is a solar phenomenon, you should consult solar scientists about how it works. and, when the solar scientists tell you "we don't need dubious speculations from people dabbling well outside their field about melting sea ice to understand how this works", that should be enough to put the issue to rest.
anthropogenic climate change is a real thing.
but, it has nothing to do with the polar vortex, which is controlled by the sun.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/JZ064i007p00749
i need to be clear.
this isn't a situation where the original author came up with a bad mechanism that's been savaged by physicists.
absolutely no mechanism to describe this clearly physically impossible transfer of energy has been presented at all.
she has a correlation and a hunch. that's it. but, correlation is not causality.
and, we already have a decades old theory that perfectly describes what is actually happening - we don't need new research, we already understand this.
this isn't a situation where the original author came up with a bad mechanism that's been savaged by physicists.
absolutely no mechanism to describe this clearly physically impossible transfer of energy has been presented at all.
she has a correlation and a hunch. that's it. but, correlation is not causality.
and, we already have a decades old theory that perfectly describes what is actually happening - we don't need new research, we already understand this.
another example.
this article - apparently written by a science correspondent - has the temerity to link to a document that was not peer reviewed or even published in a journal, but sent to nature as a letter. this is worse than incompetent, but sneaky, as it brings in the authority of nature as a journal, while undermining it at the same time, as the article was not actually published by nature at all, and in fact was presumably rejected by it if it showed up in the letters section.
think of it like an op-ed.
and, the "journalist" then has the stupidity to claim that this widely rejected hypothesis is a "fact". wrong.
but, why does she sink to such an absurd low? because she's pushing an agenda, and can't find a decent source. if she could find a better source, she would have published it. one doesn't exist.
why is the cbc giving the denialist right this kind of fuel? they yell that this is a giant hoax, despite all evidence to the contrary - then the media gives them the evidence that they need to make a credible argument. it's madness.
grown-ups are able to understand that the world is complicated. we don't need to be force-fed lies in order to avoid being distracted. the actual fact is that we're undergoing a decline in tsi, and this decline is weakening the force that bottles up the polar winds, leading to extreme outbursts of cold in the northern hemisphere. and, so long as the sun's output remains weak, we should in fact expect this to continue - whether we reduce our carbon emissions or not.
the theory that this article - and so many others - are citing argues that melting polar ice is elevating energy from sea level into the troposphere. this is in contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics. worse, the author does not provide a mechanism, she cites some statistics and then waves her hands - it's magic. then, she wonders why nobody takes her seriously, except liberal journalists trying to argue that it's cold because of global warming, because they don't want to confuse people that have a grade ten science education as a part of their masters in comparative literature.
the correct theory talks about energy levels moving downwards into the atmosphere, in obeyance with the laws of thermodynamics. as the polar vortex happens in the atmosphere, the correct theory talks about things that affect the atmosphere - and melting sea ice is not one of them.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-polar-vortex-1.4998820
this article - apparently written by a science correspondent - has the temerity to link to a document that was not peer reviewed or even published in a journal, but sent to nature as a letter. this is worse than incompetent, but sneaky, as it brings in the authority of nature as a journal, while undermining it at the same time, as the article was not actually published by nature at all, and in fact was presumably rejected by it if it showed up in the letters section.
think of it like an op-ed.
and, the "journalist" then has the stupidity to claim that this widely rejected hypothesis is a "fact". wrong.
but, why does she sink to such an absurd low? because she's pushing an agenda, and can't find a decent source. if she could find a better source, she would have published it. one doesn't exist.
why is the cbc giving the denialist right this kind of fuel? they yell that this is a giant hoax, despite all evidence to the contrary - then the media gives them the evidence that they need to make a credible argument. it's madness.
grown-ups are able to understand that the world is complicated. we don't need to be force-fed lies in order to avoid being distracted. the actual fact is that we're undergoing a decline in tsi, and this decline is weakening the force that bottles up the polar winds, leading to extreme outbursts of cold in the northern hemisphere. and, so long as the sun's output remains weak, we should in fact expect this to continue - whether we reduce our carbon emissions or not.
the theory that this article - and so many others - are citing argues that melting polar ice is elevating energy from sea level into the troposphere. this is in contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics. worse, the author does not provide a mechanism, she cites some statistics and then waves her hands - it's magic. then, she wonders why nobody takes her seriously, except liberal journalists trying to argue that it's cold because of global warming, because they don't want to confuse people that have a grade ten science education as a part of their masters in comparative literature.
the correct theory talks about energy levels moving downwards into the atmosphere, in obeyance with the laws of thermodynamics. as the polar vortex happens in the atmosphere, the correct theory talks about things that affect the atmosphere - and melting sea ice is not one of them.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-polar-vortex-1.4998820
and, this focuses more explicitly on the effects in the northern hemisphere.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535
this is a little older, but it's maybe a little easier to read.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4758621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4758621/
this is just one article, and it is exploring just one facet of a complicated thing.
if you really want to understand this, you shouldn't go sorting through periodicals, but should just pick up a textbook in meteorology that explains how the polar vortex is a solar phenomenon - it is essentially a swirling mass of cold air that is kept in check by solar radiation, and that both tightens up when radiation is increased and starts to break apart and expand when solar radiation decreases. as the earth moves around the sun in a roughly elliptical orbit, on an angle, that creates fluctuations in the amount of radiation hitting the earth, an expansion (and subsequent contraction) is something that happens every year, and we've known about it for decades. it's in the textbooks...you don't need need recent periodicals....it's well understood, already...
so, i'm not citing this - which is a recent paper from a very good source - to prove any specific point.
what i'm doing is trying to direct you to what the actual scientific community - not the liberal media - is considering right now to try and understand what is happening in the northern hemisphere, specifically.
this is a starting point for further research, not an authoritative end point.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13351-018-7101-2
if you really want to understand this, you shouldn't go sorting through periodicals, but should just pick up a textbook in meteorology that explains how the polar vortex is a solar phenomenon - it is essentially a swirling mass of cold air that is kept in check by solar radiation, and that both tightens up when radiation is increased and starts to break apart and expand when solar radiation decreases. as the earth moves around the sun in a roughly elliptical orbit, on an angle, that creates fluctuations in the amount of radiation hitting the earth, an expansion (and subsequent contraction) is something that happens every year, and we've known about it for decades. it's in the textbooks...you don't need need recent periodicals....it's well understood, already...
so, i'm not citing this - which is a recent paper from a very good source - to prove any specific point.
what i'm doing is trying to direct you to what the actual scientific community - not the liberal media - is considering right now to try and understand what is happening in the northern hemisphere, specifically.
this is a starting point for further research, not an authoritative end point.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13351-018-7101-2
the sad truth is that all of these people walking around saying "it's cold because of global warming", because they read a piece in the atlantic or the nation or something, are just as clueless as the people that still think iraq had weapons of mass destruction, because fox still won't drop the lie, years later.
it's the same repetition of lies pushed down from the top, and the same inability to think critically that allows people to fall for them.
these people are mirror reflections of each other - both convinced they know the truth, and both led astray by dishonest media.
it's the same repetition of lies pushed down from the top, and the same inability to think critically that allows people to fall for them.
these people are mirror reflections of each other - both convinced they know the truth, and both led astray by dishonest media.
see, this is the kind of thing i'm talking about.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/how-frigid-polar-vortex-blasts-are-linked-to-global-warming-climate-change-connection-weather-environment/123443/
this idea is being presented here as though they're providing a science lesson, when they are in fact presenting what amounts to a fringe theory that has been widely ridiculed by physicists. the authors have not even presented a mechanism by which this "amplification" can occur, in contradiction to the basic laws of thermodynamics. it is a theory in the colloquial sense - a hunch, with little supporting data to back it up, and one that has been roundly denounced as incoherent, at that.
even the known climate change sites, like climate skeptic, tend to step away from this as bunk. the publications that are pushing it are not science journals, but liberal political sites like the nation that want to maintain a narrative - all weather on the planet has the same cause.
but, you don't have to choose between what we understand about the sun and what we understand about the greenhouse effect. both of these things are, in fact, happening at the same time. and, in this case, they're acting against each other.
i don't expect to win this argument, because i'm not having it with scientists. but, ask a physicist about "arctic amplification". you won't like their response.
what i'm more concerned about with this is the media. it was one thing when this was a new idea, and we could throw it out there for debate; but that's already happened, now, and it's been discarded as nonsense. yet, the liberal press continues to run with it, oblivious to what the science actually says about it, because it aligns with an ideological perspective. and, that is dangerous - because we've seen the consequences of it on the right.
there have been studies done on people that watch fox news that have concluded that they understand less about the world than people that don't watch the news at all, because all they're able to regurgitate is an ideology that's been pushed down to them. when the left starts pushing debunked science like "arctic amplification" in order to fit an ideological perspective, and oblivious to what the science actually says on the matter, it is essentially just repeating the fox news model. and, we're going to end up with the same problems on the left that exist on the right - if we don't already have them.
on top of that, you're essentially giving the right what it's asking for. climate change is real, and a serious problem that needs to be addressed. but, "arctic amplification" is exactly what the idiots in the right-wing media are accusing the left of - it's essentially a liberal hoax. by continuing to push bad science, you're converting a strawman argument into an actual truth.
we have centuries of data to use to understand how the sun affects the polar vortex. it's not a new theory, it's tested and understood science. and, we know that what we're seeing in the northern hemisphere is what we should expect from an extended solar minimum. there's nothing controversial here.
we just have to understand that the world is complicated, and that the things we experience have multiple complicated causes to them that often don't align well with the kinds of simplistic narratives pushed by the media.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/how-frigid-polar-vortex-blasts-are-linked-to-global-warming-climate-change-connection-weather-environment/123443/
this idea is being presented here as though they're providing a science lesson, when they are in fact presenting what amounts to a fringe theory that has been widely ridiculed by physicists. the authors have not even presented a mechanism by which this "amplification" can occur, in contradiction to the basic laws of thermodynamics. it is a theory in the colloquial sense - a hunch, with little supporting data to back it up, and one that has been roundly denounced as incoherent, at that.
even the known climate change sites, like climate skeptic, tend to step away from this as bunk. the publications that are pushing it are not science journals, but liberal political sites like the nation that want to maintain a narrative - all weather on the planet has the same cause.
but, you don't have to choose between what we understand about the sun and what we understand about the greenhouse effect. both of these things are, in fact, happening at the same time. and, in this case, they're acting against each other.
i don't expect to win this argument, because i'm not having it with scientists. but, ask a physicist about "arctic amplification". you won't like their response.
what i'm more concerned about with this is the media. it was one thing when this was a new idea, and we could throw it out there for debate; but that's already happened, now, and it's been discarded as nonsense. yet, the liberal press continues to run with it, oblivious to what the science actually says about it, because it aligns with an ideological perspective. and, that is dangerous - because we've seen the consequences of it on the right.
there have been studies done on people that watch fox news that have concluded that they understand less about the world than people that don't watch the news at all, because all they're able to regurgitate is an ideology that's been pushed down to them. when the left starts pushing debunked science like "arctic amplification" in order to fit an ideological perspective, and oblivious to what the science actually says on the matter, it is essentially just repeating the fox news model. and, we're going to end up with the same problems on the left that exist on the right - if we don't already have them.
on top of that, you're essentially giving the right what it's asking for. climate change is real, and a serious problem that needs to be addressed. but, "arctic amplification" is exactly what the idiots in the right-wing media are accusing the left of - it's essentially a liberal hoax. by continuing to push bad science, you're converting a strawman argument into an actual truth.
we have centuries of data to use to understand how the sun affects the polar vortex. it's not a new theory, it's tested and understood science. and, we know that what we're seeing in the northern hemisphere is what we should expect from an extended solar minimum. there's nothing controversial here.
we just have to understand that the world is complicated, and that the things we experience have multiple complicated causes to them that often don't align well with the kinds of simplistic narratives pushed by the media.
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
i'm not going to repeat the same thing that i've posted about the weather 100 times already. yes, the oceans and atmosphere are warming due to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide. but, the polar vortex is a solar phenomenon, and these blasts of cold air are a consequence of decreasing solar output.
here on the canadian side of detroit, it's been a relatively mild winter - but was a very bleak fall. the temperature just dropped one day in mid october and never recovered, but it didn't get worse, either. so, we had three months of stasis in the period of the year that usually features the greatest amount of change. what's hitting us this week is exaggerated, but we're at looking at double digits and rain again by saturday, so if we end up with a total of four days of actual winter, no matter how extreme, that's not a bad outcome, overall.
for right now, i'm not even looking outside. i'm happy curled up in my blanket, thanks.
here on the canadian side of detroit, it's been a relatively mild winter - but was a very bleak fall. the temperature just dropped one day in mid october and never recovered, but it didn't get worse, either. so, we had three months of stasis in the period of the year that usually features the greatest amount of change. what's hitting us this week is exaggerated, but we're at looking at double digits and rain again by saturday, so if we end up with a total of four days of actual winter, no matter how extreme, that's not a bad outcome, overall.
for right now, i'm not even looking outside. i'm happy curled up in my blanket, thanks.
i'll take this as the mayor's coming out.
it's ok. nothing wrong with it.
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/mbze4q/mayor-apologizes-for-wanting-to-sodomize-justin-trudeau-with-pipeline-pig
it's ok. nothing wrong with it.
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/mbze4q/mayor-apologizes-for-wanting-to-sodomize-justin-trudeau-with-pipeline-pig
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
this ufo may be full of little green men, methinks.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/south-america/russian-passenger-jet-arrives-in-venezuela-rumours-swirl-20190130-p50uhc.html
https://www.smh.com.au/world/south-america/russian-passenger-jet-arrives-in-venezuela-rumours-swirl-20190130-p50uhc.html
except that we won't - we'll show up five minutes early, looking for brownie points, trying to "mend the relationship".
and, they'll toss us aside like the sycophants that we really are.
mccallum was perhaps the last true representative of the old guard in the liberal party, that argued for multilateralism and saw canada as a middle power that could act as an intermediary. his removal was actually deeply symbolic, which is what i was trying to get at. today, the liberals just want to be the 51st province, just like the conservatives - and he will no doubt be replaced by some american educated sinologist that upholds the cia-backed washington consensus.
we're a client state.
and, canadians need to wake up to this and push back on it.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/29/the-united-states-doesnt-have-your-back/
and, they'll toss us aside like the sycophants that we really are.
mccallum was perhaps the last true representative of the old guard in the liberal party, that argued for multilateralism and saw canada as a middle power that could act as an intermediary. his removal was actually deeply symbolic, which is what i was trying to get at. today, the liberals just want to be the 51st province, just like the conservatives - and he will no doubt be replaced by some american educated sinologist that upholds the cia-backed washington consensus.
we're a client state.
and, canadians need to wake up to this and push back on it.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/29/the-united-states-doesnt-have-your-back/
listen.
the way you have to understand the world right now, and this has actually been true for many years, is that you've got kasparov sitting in russia, and all these short-sighted capitalist idiots running amok with their heads cut off everywhere else, bumping into each other, setting off their guns, for their own self-interest.
it's sort of like one of those guys down in central park, that will play 30 games of chess at once and beat everybody.
i don't think that putin is a genius, it's more like idiocracy, in the sense that russia is the only traditional empire left standing. it's easy to win when nobody else plays.
what's killing america is it's entitlement, it's insistence on some concept of manifest destiny. it doesn't think it has to play. so, it's easy to beat.
i considered being quiet; i desperately want netanyahu removed. but, i decided that he probably can't stop it, anyways - and it's probably in everybody's interests that it's transparent.
iran's language is challenging, and it would help everybody if they'd just shut the fuck up. but, russia's interests are not altered by america's withdrawal, no matter how enticing the bear hug.
conversely, america might want to take note of what sane american commentators have been pointing out for decades - that israel is not a reliable ally in the middle east. did you see how quickly they bolted to putin at the smallest sign of moderation? what kind of ally is this?
the way you have to understand the world right now, and this has actually been true for many years, is that you've got kasparov sitting in russia, and all these short-sighted capitalist idiots running amok with their heads cut off everywhere else, bumping into each other, setting off their guns, for their own self-interest.
it's sort of like one of those guys down in central park, that will play 30 games of chess at once and beat everybody.
i don't think that putin is a genius, it's more like idiocracy, in the sense that russia is the only traditional empire left standing. it's easy to win when nobody else plays.
what's killing america is it's entitlement, it's insistence on some concept of manifest destiny. it doesn't think it has to play. so, it's easy to beat.
i considered being quiet; i desperately want netanyahu removed. but, i decided that he probably can't stop it, anyways - and it's probably in everybody's interests that it's transparent.
iran's language is challenging, and it would help everybody if they'd just shut the fuck up. but, russia's interests are not altered by america's withdrawal, no matter how enticing the bear hug.
conversely, america might want to take note of what sane american commentators have been pointing out for decades - that israel is not a reliable ally in the middle east. did you see how quickly they bolted to putin at the smallest sign of moderation? what kind of ally is this?
great!
i'm not a student and haven't been for a while, so i'll be keeping my distance this time. but, i need to point out that this isn't going to be as easy as it was in quebec.
organizers should be looking at the situation as an opportunity to build a movement. the reason the strikes were so large and successful in quebec is that this movement already existed due to years of organizing. there is no parallel movement in ontario.
that's fine. go out and build one. then there will be.
https://www.marxist.ca/socialist-fightback-student/1480-cfs-votes-for-ontario-student-strike-what-happens-now.html
i'm not a student and haven't been for a while, so i'll be keeping my distance this time. but, i need to point out that this isn't going to be as easy as it was in quebec.
organizers should be looking at the situation as an opportunity to build a movement. the reason the strikes were so large and successful in quebec is that this movement already existed due to years of organizing. there is no parallel movement in ontario.
that's fine. go out and build one. then there will be.
https://www.marxist.ca/socialist-fightback-student/1480-cfs-votes-for-ontario-student-strike-what-happens-now.html
there we go.
that's what i like to see.
maybe there's some hope for this province and this country, after all.
let's shut this province down until ford is defeated.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/01/27/hundreds-of-students-protest-doug-fords-osap-cuts-in-toronto_a_23654156/?ncid=other_topvideos_cp1pj3fgmfs&utm_campaign=top_videos
that's what i like to see.
maybe there's some hope for this province and this country, after all.
let's shut this province down until ford is defeated.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/01/27/hundreds-of-students-protest-doug-fords-osap-cuts-in-toronto_a_23654156/?ncid=other_topvideos_cp1pj3fgmfs&utm_campaign=top_videos
Monday, January 28, 2019
well, they're going after the oil in venezuela, and that's the sign i was looking for to suggest this is serious, not a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
did trump re-open the government to start a war?
you could maybe ask the question of why they didn't go after venezuela in the first place; it's clearly an easier target than iraq. but, when america inherited britain's policy on iraq, it also inherited britain's strategic perspective - and a war to steal oil from iraq is certainly the more rational option, from london.
the timing of this is all very suspect. and, frankly, they may regret getting what they wished for - they find that whatever comes next is far worse for their own interests. maduro is completely reliant on america for everything; you'd think they'd want to keep it that way. but, american policy in venezuela is 99% about the oil, so when the sanctions come down it means they're following through with it. i've been saying for years that if they wanted regime change, they'd target the oil - and here we go.
the intent is probably to produce a military revolt, which is more likely to lead to a junta than an election. this kid they've got working the streets is a useful idiot. and, then you get the guerilla warfare for the next 20 years, like in columbia.
it's not very smart, tactically. but, the president's poll numbers aren't very good...
this kind of thing litters roman history, and we see what happened in the end. solidarity with the campesinos. your grandchildren will reap the rewards of their arrogance.
did trump re-open the government to start a war?
you could maybe ask the question of why they didn't go after venezuela in the first place; it's clearly an easier target than iraq. but, when america inherited britain's policy on iraq, it also inherited britain's strategic perspective - and a war to steal oil from iraq is certainly the more rational option, from london.
the timing of this is all very suspect. and, frankly, they may regret getting what they wished for - they find that whatever comes next is far worse for their own interests. maduro is completely reliant on america for everything; you'd think they'd want to keep it that way. but, american policy in venezuela is 99% about the oil, so when the sanctions come down it means they're following through with it. i've been saying for years that if they wanted regime change, they'd target the oil - and here we go.
the intent is probably to produce a military revolt, which is more likely to lead to a junta than an election. this kid they've got working the streets is a useful idiot. and, then you get the guerilla warfare for the next 20 years, like in columbia.
it's not very smart, tactically. but, the president's poll numbers aren't very good...
this kind of thing litters roman history, and we see what happened in the end. solidarity with the campesinos. your grandchildren will reap the rewards of their arrogance.
and, i think i figured out how to recover my deleted email, too.
so, what i have is three giant pst files, although i think there's mostly overlap. when you clear the deleted items folder, the data stays in the pst file until you "compact " it, which is something i did not do. the one at 1.9 gb reads about 35,000 emails but there some to be a large amount of inaccessible emails; i know there's 60,000 inaccessible emails in the 1.4 gb one from analyzing it with a commercial software that i couldn't find a key for, and i can't read anything at all with this one in outlook. i also have a 2.4 gb past file that is full of already deleted items that cannot be accessed at all.
when i was trying to figure this out last week, the first thing i tried was to delete the index file using a hex editor, but i'm realizing i did it wrong. i actually deleted it outright; i should have zeroed it out. i guess that makes more sense, but you follow instructions when you're doing this kind of thing, and the hack said to delete it - so that's what i did. i've gone back and zeroed out the 1.4 one and it's picking up about 37,000 emails, which seems partial, but it's a start.
so, what i have is three giant pst files, although i think there's mostly overlap. when you clear the deleted items folder, the data stays in the pst file until you "compact " it, which is something i did not do. the one at 1.9 gb reads about 35,000 emails but there some to be a large amount of inaccessible emails; i know there's 60,000 inaccessible emails in the 1.4 gb one from analyzing it with a commercial software that i couldn't find a key for, and i can't read anything at all with this one in outlook. i also have a 2.4 gb past file that is full of already deleted items that cannot be accessed at all.
when i was trying to figure this out last week, the first thing i tried was to delete the index file using a hex editor, but i'm realizing i did it wrong. i actually deleted it outright; i should have zeroed it out. i guess that makes more sense, but you follow instructions when you're doing this kind of thing, and the hack said to delete it - so that's what i did. i've gone back and zeroed out the 1.4 one and it's picking up about 37,000 emails, which seems partial, but it's a start.
yeah, we're looking at actual winter here this week, and i don't want to think about going out in it.
i'm not going to actual file anything until i get a response from the investigation into the officer, anyways.
for right now, i'd rather be filing data.
so, i'll start making calls near the end of the week...
i'm not going to actual file anything until i get a response from the investigation into the officer, anyways.
for right now, i'd rather be filing data.
so, i'll start making calls near the end of the week...
well, i have some good news if you want to call it that - i'm back up on the laptop and ready to get back to what i was doing.
the last part of rebuilding the os was reconstructing all of the symbolic links in the user directories. i was getting some weird behaviour, like the start menu not acting right, so i did a clean install to one of the new disks i've had sitting, in order to get a listing of the symbolic links. them, i build them all up from scratch using the command line. not complicated, but time consuming; it is now done, and everything seems to be working correctly.
as mentioned, this mess at least gets all of the stray data from the pc ready to be filed, which i should be able to get back to shortly.
i also found another pst file - 2.5 gb of deleted data. my missing emails are no doubt in there, and i know they're recoverable, it's just a question of finding out how to do it without paying for it.
so, that was the day - copying data around and reconstructing symbolic links. it's done. and, i can start fresh in the morning.
the last part of rebuilding the os was reconstructing all of the symbolic links in the user directories. i was getting some weird behaviour, like the start menu not acting right, so i did a clean install to one of the new disks i've had sitting, in order to get a listing of the symbolic links. them, i build them all up from scratch using the command line. not complicated, but time consuming; it is now done, and everything seems to be working correctly.
as mentioned, this mess at least gets all of the stray data from the pc ready to be filed, which i should be able to get back to shortly.
i also found another pst file - 2.5 gb of deleted data. my missing emails are no doubt in there, and i know they're recoverable, it's just a question of finding out how to do it without paying for it.
so, that was the day - copying data around and reconstructing symbolic links. it's done. and, i can start fresh in the morning.
Sunday, January 27, 2019
i essentially can't know if this person was really afraid of me or not. the crown agreed that there was no objective basis for fear and dropped the case, but what little i know about this person suggests to me that she has some kind of mental illness, implying that she may have been experiencing real fear without any sort of rational basis.
i mean, it's entirely possible. people are afraid of all kinds of stupid things. i don't have to accuse her of dishonesty - she might be insane.
but, regardless, what she essentially did was conclude that, because i'm disabled, i must pose a threat to her. her fear was constructed solely on the basis of discrimination. the officer should have pointed out that i don't have any kind of criminal record, and there's consequently no grounds for arrest. instead, he played into her irrational prejudices.
i'm a feminist in the sense that i believe in equality across the genders, and to me that means that you don't get to define your experiences differently. a feminist may look at this and claim her experiences are being invalidated - i think the point is that you can't be validating experiences rooted in prejudice, and her experience absolutely needs to be not just invalidated but denounced as wrong.
the irony is that i wouldn't have had a case, otherwise. i was trolling her to get a response, and i got a little more than what i wanted.
i'll call to look into the recordings on monday.
i mean, it's entirely possible. people are afraid of all kinds of stupid things. i don't have to accuse her of dishonesty - she might be insane.
but, regardless, what she essentially did was conclude that, because i'm disabled, i must pose a threat to her. her fear was constructed solely on the basis of discrimination. the officer should have pointed out that i don't have any kind of criminal record, and there's consequently no grounds for arrest. instead, he played into her irrational prejudices.
i'm a feminist in the sense that i believe in equality across the genders, and to me that means that you don't get to define your experiences differently. a feminist may look at this and claim her experiences are being invalidated - i think the point is that you can't be validating experiences rooted in prejudice, and her experience absolutely needs to be not just invalidated but denounced as wrong.
the irony is that i wouldn't have had a case, otherwise. i was trolling her to get a response, and i got a little more than what i wanted.
i'll call to look into the recordings on monday.
just to clarify the point, in case it's not clear - but it should be. the thing is that people are dishonest, and i already know that i'm dealing with known liars.
back in september, i was arrested and charged with criminal harassment. the justice released me without meaningful conditions because she felt that the charges should not have been filed, but i was not able to get the charges dropped until november.
i have never met this person. i do not believe i know their real name(s). i have never been to this person's house, and do not know where they live - nor is there any reason to think i would want to go their house or work place. i have never seen a picture of this person, nor would i be able to identify them if i were to meet them. nor did i know the gender of the person i was communicating with, or their age.
the sole communication i've had with this person is in the form of responding to an ad for an apartment.
the charges claimed that my repeated attempts to apply for the ad constituted repeated unwanted communication. now, you can say what you want about repeatedly replying for an ad, but these communications were solely business-like in nature. as mentioned, i was communicating with what was a faceless advertisement with no information about the owner(s) of the property. i did know how many people i was communicating with or what their role in the business was. all communication was strictly related to the question of renting an apartment, or the legal consequences of discriminating against me on the basis of a disability.
to claim that this is "harassment" or "stalking" is merely to misunderstand what these terms mean. i acknowledge repeatedly applying for the ad, and quite aggressively. i reject that this constitutes stalking, in any way.
so, how did this happen?
well, i indicated to the property owner that i was going to file a discrimination suit. what she did was try to arrest me before i could get the suit filed. i will be filing the suit, and still have several months to do so, but i am waiting for a few things to work themselves out, first. as there was no evidence i posed any threat to her, the entire basis of her report was strictly discriminatory - i am suing her for filing a discriminatory false report to get me arrested, essentially.
however, i primarily blame the officer for the situation. crazy property owners exist, but they require enabling cops in order to be dangerous to the general public. i had had previous problems with the officer that arrested me, related to conflicts with smokers in the building that i lived in. the officer is a homophobe, a misogynist, a transphobe, a drug user and a smoker; he did not like me, and wanted to bring me in for daring to stand up for my rights as a non-smoker, and being openly queer in the process. the people in the building did not like me either for that reason, as it was a low income building full of drug addicts with right-wing social views, and he was essentially carrying through with their prejudices, however powerful his own may be.
i dealt with a handful of cops during this period, and only had problems with this specific one.
i am not under investigation of any crime, at this point. there was no evidence that i posed any threat to anybody, and the charges were consequently dropped.
however, i am awaiting the results of an investigation into the officer's conduct before i file for grievances under a constitutional challenge.
stalking is a serious crime. but, because it is a serious crime, police officers have a responsibility to be very careful in how they approach any potential stalking scenario. frivolous or trivial charges that are filed in order to inflate an officer's ego or carry out the whims of a wealthy landowner are unacceptable in any scenario, but are doubly unacceptable when it comes to charges such as this, as false charges of this nature both degrade the authority and integrity of law enforcement and have serious consequences for falsely accused parties.
to an extent, i walked into this. i fully understood that my behaviour was not illegal, and dared the cop to arrest me. he walked into it. and, now he's going to spend the rest of his life dealing with this - and i'm going to be seeking a large cash settlement for an arrest that shouldn't have happened, and the suffering i've incurred as a result of it.
as mentioned, i'm looking at three major lawsuits this year:
1) i will be suing the cops for breaching my constitutional rights in multiple ways and causing me all kinds of grief, including an infringement on my s. 6 rights to travel
2) i will be suing the person that filed false charges against me for discrimination in housing
3) i will be seeking information about my father's estate, in order to determine whether i have a worthwhile claim or not.
back in september, i was arrested and charged with criminal harassment. the justice released me without meaningful conditions because she felt that the charges should not have been filed, but i was not able to get the charges dropped until november.
i have never met this person. i do not believe i know their real name(s). i have never been to this person's house, and do not know where they live - nor is there any reason to think i would want to go their house or work place. i have never seen a picture of this person, nor would i be able to identify them if i were to meet them. nor did i know the gender of the person i was communicating with, or their age.
the sole communication i've had with this person is in the form of responding to an ad for an apartment.
the charges claimed that my repeated attempts to apply for the ad constituted repeated unwanted communication. now, you can say what you want about repeatedly replying for an ad, but these communications were solely business-like in nature. as mentioned, i was communicating with what was a faceless advertisement with no information about the owner(s) of the property. i did know how many people i was communicating with or what their role in the business was. all communication was strictly related to the question of renting an apartment, or the legal consequences of discriminating against me on the basis of a disability.
to claim that this is "harassment" or "stalking" is merely to misunderstand what these terms mean. i acknowledge repeatedly applying for the ad, and quite aggressively. i reject that this constitutes stalking, in any way.
so, how did this happen?
well, i indicated to the property owner that i was going to file a discrimination suit. what she did was try to arrest me before i could get the suit filed. i will be filing the suit, and still have several months to do so, but i am waiting for a few things to work themselves out, first. as there was no evidence i posed any threat to her, the entire basis of her report was strictly discriminatory - i am suing her for filing a discriminatory false report to get me arrested, essentially.
however, i primarily blame the officer for the situation. crazy property owners exist, but they require enabling cops in order to be dangerous to the general public. i had had previous problems with the officer that arrested me, related to conflicts with smokers in the building that i lived in. the officer is a homophobe, a misogynist, a transphobe, a drug user and a smoker; he did not like me, and wanted to bring me in for daring to stand up for my rights as a non-smoker, and being openly queer in the process. the people in the building did not like me either for that reason, as it was a low income building full of drug addicts with right-wing social views, and he was essentially carrying through with their prejudices, however powerful his own may be.
i dealt with a handful of cops during this period, and only had problems with this specific one.
i am not under investigation of any crime, at this point. there was no evidence that i posed any threat to anybody, and the charges were consequently dropped.
however, i am awaiting the results of an investigation into the officer's conduct before i file for grievances under a constitutional challenge.
stalking is a serious crime. but, because it is a serious crime, police officers have a responsibility to be very careful in how they approach any potential stalking scenario. frivolous or trivial charges that are filed in order to inflate an officer's ego or carry out the whims of a wealthy landowner are unacceptable in any scenario, but are doubly unacceptable when it comes to charges such as this, as false charges of this nature both degrade the authority and integrity of law enforcement and have serious consequences for falsely accused parties.
to an extent, i walked into this. i fully understood that my behaviour was not illegal, and dared the cop to arrest me. he walked into it. and, now he's going to spend the rest of his life dealing with this - and i'm going to be seeking a large cash settlement for an arrest that shouldn't have happened, and the suffering i've incurred as a result of it.
as mentioned, i'm looking at three major lawsuits this year:
1) i will be suing the cops for breaching my constitutional rights in multiple ways and causing me all kinds of grief, including an infringement on my s. 6 rights to travel
2) i will be suing the person that filed false charges against me for discrimination in housing
3) i will be seeking information about my father's estate, in order to determine whether i have a worthwhile claim or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)