https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Saturday, January 30, 2016
idek
i took one of these tests too and found out that i was part middle eastern, north african, and south asian. crazy isn't it? i thought i was just half jewish half white.
WashashoreProd
That doesn't sound too far off, actually. Most Jewish people, except converts, have clear Middle Eastern ancestry to begin with, and North African people are more or less white if you're not an Islamophobe.
idek
how are north african people white, theyre black. im so confused
Wabbi wasabi
naaaah they are white xD north africa people are mixed with arab, and it's also fully arab people there
idek
i have never heard of this. i just assumed all people from africa are black. obviously they would be mixed with arab since they are so close. do you know any articles that talk about this sort of thing bc it doesnt really make any sense to me why north africans and arabs are considered white in the US
WashashoreProd
Most people from north Africa are either more or less indigenous (Berber, Egyptian) or a mix of indigenous with a bunch of other things -- Arab, European, Phoenician, whatever. I think Morocco and Algeria have a bunch of people who have some Basque or Gothic DNA in them somewhere that came from ancestors who were kicked out of Spain after the Reconquista (which probably would make them extra-white). I think the dividing line, if such a thing can be said to exist for a concept as muddy as race, is probably somewhere around Sudan/South Sudan. (Not to mention the Sahara Desert, the main reason the Romans and the Bantu peoples never came to blows.)
Of course, Egypt probably has a fair bit of east African DNA floating around from the upper Nile area because of trade connections to Nubian and Ethiopian nations in the old days, and I'd be shocked if most north African nations didn't have a decent-sized population of people of sub-Saharan roots whose ancestors came relatively recently (like, after 1000AD and the spread of Islam), but for the most part I think most people from North Africa would be considered white to someone who wasn't racist.
idek
long story short almost everyone is somewhat mixed and race is just a social construct made up by society to separate people. i wouldnt say its racist if someone who is north african said they werent white.
Wabbi wasabi
My friend is from morocco and that is in north africa, but even if we are both african, she consider her self as arabic or white, i told her once that she is african,she did not believe me and disagreed, because her mother told her that she was Arab or white since she was a little girl,most people I've met who is from the north Africans do not consider themself as african, because that is "black" and they look down on them, not everyone is like that, but most I've met
WashashoreProd
As for what makes someone "white" or whatever -- according to one probably-arbitrary count, there's something like seven "races" (really just broad genetic groups that probably represent settlement waves out of Africa; the number is not to be taken too literally).
The closest to the "original" human race would probably be either the Khoisan (southern Africa) or the Indian Ocean negritos, who look more or less black but have wildly different genetics from any of the African groups. "White" or "Caucasian" is kind of a catchall term for the group that settled from northwest India to Europe and north Africa, with some admixture of Neanderthal; most of the Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European speakers fit into this category, including basically all of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East (except for Ethiopia; east African -- Ethiopian, Somali, etc. is a group unto itself). "Asian" (in the east Asian sense) I think may have branched off of "White" relatively late, and covers basically everyone whose ancestors came from anywhere between the east side of the Urals down to South America.
The people we would think of as "black" would be from west and central Africa, of which the Bantu are probably the single largest group. They probably started in central Africa (they are part of the Niger-Congo language group), but spread all over the continent south of the Sahara; for example, Swahili is a Bantu language originating from East Africa, and a lot of black South Africans are actually a mix of Bantu and Khoisan. (Nelson Mandela looked like pretty much a straight-up mix of both, for example.)
Finally, you have the pygmy groups and the Australian aborigines. The pygmy peoples of Africa represent a separate group that seems to be slowly merging with the black west/central Africans. I'm not sure what the deal with the Australian aborigines is; I believe they're a separate population entirely but I really don't know, and of course by now there's been a lot of European and southeast Asian mixed in as well.
BenjoJames
Erm...where did you think Jews came from?
idek
i know all jews come from the middle east but i just never thought about it
jessica
the dividing line in antiquity was the sahara, and it was really only in egypt where there was substantial mixing.
the indigenous inhabitants are called berbers and are of white-tanned complexion, similar to spaniards or italians.
the carthaginians/phoenicians set up in modern day tunisia and created an empire that included northern africa and southern europe. they built cities all along the mediterranean. the actual fact is that a huge amount of the urban civilization in southern europe developed out of white african colonization.
the carthaginians were eventually conquered by the romans, who incorporated the whole of northern africa into their empire. when you put the roman and carthaginian colonization of north africa together, that's over a thousand years.
the region did not pass directly from romans to arabs. there was a period of chaos in between that lasted several centuries and saw large waves of migration from germany into northern africa - just as it was elsewhere in the roman empire during the empire's collapse. there was a relatively powerful swedish kingdom in the region of tunisia for a few generations. in the end, the emperors (and justinian, especially) retained enough control to settle the barbarians in the countryside.
vikings also settled in north africa in substantial numbers.
there has even been substantial french migration since napoleon.
i took one of these tests too and found out that i was part middle eastern, north african, and south asian. crazy isn't it? i thought i was just half jewish half white.
WashashoreProd
That doesn't sound too far off, actually. Most Jewish people, except converts, have clear Middle Eastern ancestry to begin with, and North African people are more or less white if you're not an Islamophobe.
idek
how are north african people white, theyre black. im so confused
Wabbi wasabi
naaaah they are white xD north africa people are mixed with arab, and it's also fully arab people there
idek
i have never heard of this. i just assumed all people from africa are black. obviously they would be mixed with arab since they are so close. do you know any articles that talk about this sort of thing bc it doesnt really make any sense to me why north africans and arabs are considered white in the US
WashashoreProd
Most people from north Africa are either more or less indigenous (Berber, Egyptian) or a mix of indigenous with a bunch of other things -- Arab, European, Phoenician, whatever. I think Morocco and Algeria have a bunch of people who have some Basque or Gothic DNA in them somewhere that came from ancestors who were kicked out of Spain after the Reconquista (which probably would make them extra-white). I think the dividing line, if such a thing can be said to exist for a concept as muddy as race, is probably somewhere around Sudan/South Sudan. (Not to mention the Sahara Desert, the main reason the Romans and the Bantu peoples never came to blows.)
Of course, Egypt probably has a fair bit of east African DNA floating around from the upper Nile area because of trade connections to Nubian and Ethiopian nations in the old days, and I'd be shocked if most north African nations didn't have a decent-sized population of people of sub-Saharan roots whose ancestors came relatively recently (like, after 1000AD and the spread of Islam), but for the most part I think most people from North Africa would be considered white to someone who wasn't racist.
idek
long story short almost everyone is somewhat mixed and race is just a social construct made up by society to separate people. i wouldnt say its racist if someone who is north african said they werent white.
Wabbi wasabi
My friend is from morocco and that is in north africa, but even if we are both african, she consider her self as arabic or white, i told her once that she is african,she did not believe me and disagreed, because her mother told her that she was Arab or white since she was a little girl,most people I've met who is from the north Africans do not consider themself as african, because that is "black" and they look down on them, not everyone is like that, but most I've met
WashashoreProd
As for what makes someone "white" or whatever -- according to one probably-arbitrary count, there's something like seven "races" (really just broad genetic groups that probably represent settlement waves out of Africa; the number is not to be taken too literally).
The closest to the "original" human race would probably be either the Khoisan (southern Africa) or the Indian Ocean negritos, who look more or less black but have wildly different genetics from any of the African groups. "White" or "Caucasian" is kind of a catchall term for the group that settled from northwest India to Europe and north Africa, with some admixture of Neanderthal; most of the Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European speakers fit into this category, including basically all of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East (except for Ethiopia; east African -- Ethiopian, Somali, etc. is a group unto itself). "Asian" (in the east Asian sense) I think may have branched off of "White" relatively late, and covers basically everyone whose ancestors came from anywhere between the east side of the Urals down to South America.
The people we would think of as "black" would be from west and central Africa, of which the Bantu are probably the single largest group. They probably started in central Africa (they are part of the Niger-Congo language group), but spread all over the continent south of the Sahara; for example, Swahili is a Bantu language originating from East Africa, and a lot of black South Africans are actually a mix of Bantu and Khoisan. (Nelson Mandela looked like pretty much a straight-up mix of both, for example.)
Finally, you have the pygmy groups and the Australian aborigines. The pygmy peoples of Africa represent a separate group that seems to be slowly merging with the black west/central Africans. I'm not sure what the deal with the Australian aborigines is; I believe they're a separate population entirely but I really don't know, and of course by now there's been a lot of European and southeast Asian mixed in as well.
BenjoJames
Erm...where did you think Jews came from?
idek
i know all jews come from the middle east but i just never thought about it
jessica
the dividing line in antiquity was the sahara, and it was really only in egypt where there was substantial mixing.
the indigenous inhabitants are called berbers and are of white-tanned complexion, similar to spaniards or italians.
the carthaginians/phoenicians set up in modern day tunisia and created an empire that included northern africa and southern europe. they built cities all along the mediterranean. the actual fact is that a huge amount of the urban civilization in southern europe developed out of white african colonization.
the carthaginians were eventually conquered by the romans, who incorporated the whole of northern africa into their empire. when you put the roman and carthaginian colonization of north africa together, that's over a thousand years.
the region did not pass directly from romans to arabs. there was a period of chaos in between that lasted several centuries and saw large waves of migration from germany into northern africa - just as it was elsewhere in the roman empire during the empire's collapse. there was a relatively powerful swedish kingdom in the region of tunisia for a few generations. in the end, the emperors (and justinian, especially) retained enough control to settle the barbarians in the countryside.
vikings also settled in north africa in substantial numbers.
there has even been substantial french migration since napoleon.
Friday, January 29, 2016
Thursday, January 28, 2016
i think cenk sort of explained this well, but not really.
the time aggregate isn't useful because it "balances out error". that's not actually a real thing, mathematically speaking - error just doesn't "balance out" like that. that said, if you want an aggregate to "balance out error", what you need to do is do them all at the same time. so, if you had ten firms all doing polling in the same region over the same weekend? then, it "balances out" - because you're increasing the sample size, basically. more people, less error. but it has to be apples and apples.
taking a poll from two weekends ago and averaging it with a poll from last weekend doesn't balance anything out. rather, it amplifies error - because you're aggregating apples and oranges. if you're actually concerned about predicting results, aggregates should be completely ignored. a single snap poll from a trustworthy firm is always better than an aggregate over disparate time periods.
so, why do they do this?
because it's a good measure of branding. it's the kind of thing you do when you want to measure market response to a cereal ad. and, the people that are doing this largely look at the situation as comparable to measuring attitudes in response to advertising. in fact, a lot of the time that's what they're actually being paid to do - not predict outcomes.
so you shouldn't pay very much attention to the rcp averages. it's bad methodology. instead, key in on reliable firms using reliable methods (live interview phone calling) and key in on their most recent snapshots.
the time aggregate isn't useful because it "balances out error". that's not actually a real thing, mathematically speaking - error just doesn't "balance out" like that. that said, if you want an aggregate to "balance out error", what you need to do is do them all at the same time. so, if you had ten firms all doing polling in the same region over the same weekend? then, it "balances out" - because you're increasing the sample size, basically. more people, less error. but it has to be apples and apples.
taking a poll from two weekends ago and averaging it with a poll from last weekend doesn't balance anything out. rather, it amplifies error - because you're aggregating apples and oranges. if you're actually concerned about predicting results, aggregates should be completely ignored. a single snap poll from a trustworthy firm is always better than an aggregate over disparate time periods.
so, why do they do this?
because it's a good measure of branding. it's the kind of thing you do when you want to measure market response to a cereal ad. and, the people that are doing this largely look at the situation as comparable to measuring attitudes in response to advertising. in fact, a lot of the time that's what they're actually being paid to do - not predict outcomes.
so you shouldn't pay very much attention to the rcp averages. it's bad methodology. instead, key in on reliable firms using reliable methods (live interview phone calling) and key in on their most recent snapshots.
they should send her to the icc while they're at it.
i don't support capital punishment. but, what she did in libya deserves it, if anything does.
kelamuni
that old crook is deluded. more vapid right wing conspiracy theories.... and obama is a muslim from kenya. pfft. what a bunch of clowns.
jessica
it's quite vast, isn't it?
i don't support capital punishment. but, what she did in libya deserves it, if anything does.
kelamuni
that old crook is deluded. more vapid right wing conspiracy theories.... and obama is a muslim from kenya. pfft. what a bunch of clowns.
jessica
it's quite vast, isn't it?
i could do without the right-wing drooling. and, his logic is erected on screwy edifices. but, he is actually expressing a kind of epiphany on the issue that one hopes is visionary: the future of israel-palestine relations lies in integration, not in segregation. there is no peace in segregation; there is only peace in integration.
a one-state solution, followed by a civil rights movement, is the only possible path forwards. it may take a generational overturn for this to be understood.
a one-state solution, followed by a civil rights movement, is the only possible path forwards. it may take a generational overturn for this to be understood.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
who cares?
i mean, there's a lot of reasons to avoid alcohol.
1) it makes you retarded.
2) health issues.
3) did i mention that it makes you retarded?
but, whether it's a "sin" or not shouldn't be in the list.
well...unless you're already retarded, i guess.
maybe that's it - maybe this religion thing would make more sense to me if i were to drink myself into a retarded stupor for a few years first.
explains the success of aa, anyways.
i mean, there's a lot of reasons to avoid alcohol.
1) it makes you retarded.
2) health issues.
3) did i mention that it makes you retarded?
but, whether it's a "sin" or not shouldn't be in the list.
well...unless you're already retarded, i guess.
maybe that's it - maybe this religion thing would make more sense to me if i were to drink myself into a retarded stupor for a few years first.
explains the success of aa, anyways.
whenever anything financial goes viral, you can be certain it will be misunderstood. on finance, the left is just as clueless as the right, too.
what this company seems to be doing is actually trying to privatize the loan process, so that your debt is traded on an open market between individuals. this isn't big government centralization. rather, it's a decentralization of the process - and, if followed through logically, threatens to return us to the days of private slave trading.
your student loan debt will be converted into a bond that can be traded on the market. it stands to reason that the person that owns your debt owns your labour, too. so, what happens if they want to cash the bond in?
what this company seems to be doing is actually trying to privatize the loan process, so that your debt is traded on an open market between individuals. this isn't big government centralization. rather, it's a decentralization of the process - and, if followed through logically, threatens to return us to the days of private slave trading.
your student loan debt will be converted into a bond that can be traded on the market. it stands to reason that the person that owns your debt owns your labour, too. so, what happens if they want to cash the bond in?
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
i don't blame her for just forgetting about the issue and moving on.
but, she really ought to contact the ccla and sue the school. you can't fire somebody because they're white. and, the school administrators are government employees.
this is unconstitutional. blatantly.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/01/26/university-of-ottawa-yoga-class-resumes-with-new-teacher.html
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
to clarify: in canada, all universities are public institutions. we do not have private universities. so, these are all public servants with salaries that come directly from the state, not from tuition. doctors are considered public servants in canada, too, although this is a little bit more vague.
regardless, it may actually be prudent to launch a wrongful dismissal suit and a human rights complaint at the same time.
again: i understand why the victim here might not want to take the issue up. but i do think that these people need to be stopped. and, we do have the legal means at our disposal to do it.
Madeleine J. Whitfield I think it was the Student Union, or some such independent body that came up with this ridiculous idea. The governing body of the U of O, the president, board, etc. had nothing to do with it, or so I understand. I have a feeling that someone made an offhand remark one day based on their own need to complain about something; then someone else thought of doing an informal independent survey of about two people, and hey presto! Yoga banned. Isn't anybody held accountable for their actions and opinions at the Student Union?
Louis Picone I agree take it court or arbritration.Give the woman her job back.
Jeffrey Wheeler The student council is out of control. This is unfuckingbelievable. They were - and remain - simply wrong!
Andrew J. Hutton Unless people do sue, it won't change.
jessica amber murray i think the fundamental problem here is that the student union is making hiring decisions. they probably know more about foucault than they know about canadian law; it likely collapses to simple legal ignorance. but, it's ultimately the responsibility of the school's administration to ensure that this doesn't happen. they can't duck out like that.
Andrew J. Hutton Yes. Exactly.
jessica amber murray just as an example of what i mean: i'm actually somewhat of a left-wing activist (i identify as a left libertarian, or as an anarchist) and i can't count how many debates i've had with these people on the ground where they claim that "intent doesn't matter".
and, they'll hold to it. up and down. over and over. it's repeatedly demonstrable.
of course, our legal system is based on the premise that intent is everything. it's less that they don't care. it's actually that they don't know. why? because they're not forced to take "an introduction to law for philosophy students". they might parrot something about liberals being deluded, but the truth is that they actually really just don't know what they're talking about.
and, it's kind of ironic, right - because these are people with advanced degrees. some of them even teach. but they've never even heard of mens rea. and i mean that; it's less a rejection, and more of a lack of exposure to it - the fundamental, basic point of our legal system.
so, there's lots of blame to throw around and everything. people need to educate themselves, and the system is clearly failing to teach them about reality. but, at the end of the day, the most important thing is that you have to put adults in charge of this kind of thing. whether that means taking the whole thing away from them or forcing them to consult with a lawyer, i don't know, but the school has to shoulder it, somehow, and step in to correct it.
Andrew J. Hutton Anyone with moderate ethics knows firing someone for their genetics and replacing them with someone with differing genetics for only that reason regardless of performance is wrong.
jessica amber murray that might seem obvious to you, but what if you were taught in a university course that it's immoral for a white person to "behave like a south asian" because "white privilege" implies that is "theft"? you might have been taught otherwise growing up, and have to weigh those convictions and come to an independent choice. but, you might not have been taught differently. then, the school is an authority and you are ignorant for rejecting what they teach. and, remember: this is being presented to you as a moral conviction, not an ideological debate.
and, what if you were taught that "liberal democracy" has failed to reverse the effects of colonialism, and that the only way to get to a point of true equality is through ameliorative reparations that transfer wealth not from one class to another but from one race to another?
Andrew J. Hutton I could not be taught that. I grew up understanding we are one people separated by education and environment.
jessica amber murray see, i've never been able to swallow it, either. i'm pretty independent-minded. i don't accept much of anything on face value or without some independent research and thinking. but, this is not the norm. most people believe what they're told. and, most people believe that a teacher is a trustworthy source, too.
of course, this particular situation is stupid, no matter how you parse it. south asians are not a disadvantaged group in canada; their per capita income is actually the highest of all ethnic groups. and, to think that any kind of meaningful reparations can be established at such a basic level is foolish. there's a reflection of low entrance requirements, there.
but, it's not as simple as claiming it's immoral. moral systems are pretty fluid. and, the moral systems on campus nowadays are perhaps not what you might expect.
but, she really ought to contact the ccla and sue the school. you can't fire somebody because they're white. and, the school administrators are government employees.
this is unconstitutional. blatantly.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/01/26/university-of-ottawa-yoga-class-resumes-with-new-teacher.html
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
to clarify: in canada, all universities are public institutions. we do not have private universities. so, these are all public servants with salaries that come directly from the state, not from tuition. doctors are considered public servants in canada, too, although this is a little bit more vague.
regardless, it may actually be prudent to launch a wrongful dismissal suit and a human rights complaint at the same time.
again: i understand why the victim here might not want to take the issue up. but i do think that these people need to be stopped. and, we do have the legal means at our disposal to do it.
Madeleine J. Whitfield I think it was the Student Union, or some such independent body that came up with this ridiculous idea. The governing body of the U of O, the president, board, etc. had nothing to do with it, or so I understand. I have a feeling that someone made an offhand remark one day based on their own need to complain about something; then someone else thought of doing an informal independent survey of about two people, and hey presto! Yoga banned. Isn't anybody held accountable for their actions and opinions at the Student Union?
Louis Picone I agree take it court or arbritration.Give the woman her job back.
Jeffrey Wheeler The student council is out of control. This is unfuckingbelievable. They were - and remain - simply wrong!
Andrew J. Hutton Unless people do sue, it won't change.
jessica amber murray i think the fundamental problem here is that the student union is making hiring decisions. they probably know more about foucault than they know about canadian law; it likely collapses to simple legal ignorance. but, it's ultimately the responsibility of the school's administration to ensure that this doesn't happen. they can't duck out like that.
Andrew J. Hutton Yes. Exactly.
jessica amber murray just as an example of what i mean: i'm actually somewhat of a left-wing activist (i identify as a left libertarian, or as an anarchist) and i can't count how many debates i've had with these people on the ground where they claim that "intent doesn't matter".
and, they'll hold to it. up and down. over and over. it's repeatedly demonstrable.
of course, our legal system is based on the premise that intent is everything. it's less that they don't care. it's actually that they don't know. why? because they're not forced to take "an introduction to law for philosophy students". they might parrot something about liberals being deluded, but the truth is that they actually really just don't know what they're talking about.
and, it's kind of ironic, right - because these are people with advanced degrees. some of them even teach. but they've never even heard of mens rea. and i mean that; it's less a rejection, and more of a lack of exposure to it - the fundamental, basic point of our legal system.
so, there's lots of blame to throw around and everything. people need to educate themselves, and the system is clearly failing to teach them about reality. but, at the end of the day, the most important thing is that you have to put adults in charge of this kind of thing. whether that means taking the whole thing away from them or forcing them to consult with a lawyer, i don't know, but the school has to shoulder it, somehow, and step in to correct it.
Andrew J. Hutton Anyone with moderate ethics knows firing someone for their genetics and replacing them with someone with differing genetics for only that reason regardless of performance is wrong.
jessica amber murray that might seem obvious to you, but what if you were taught in a university course that it's immoral for a white person to "behave like a south asian" because "white privilege" implies that is "theft"? you might have been taught otherwise growing up, and have to weigh those convictions and come to an independent choice. but, you might not have been taught differently. then, the school is an authority and you are ignorant for rejecting what they teach. and, remember: this is being presented to you as a moral conviction, not an ideological debate.
and, what if you were taught that "liberal democracy" has failed to reverse the effects of colonialism, and that the only way to get to a point of true equality is through ameliorative reparations that transfer wealth not from one class to another but from one race to another?
Andrew J. Hutton I could not be taught that. I grew up understanding we are one people separated by education and environment.
jessica amber murray see, i've never been able to swallow it, either. i'm pretty independent-minded. i don't accept much of anything on face value or without some independent research and thinking. but, this is not the norm. most people believe what they're told. and, most people believe that a teacher is a trustworthy source, too.
of course, this particular situation is stupid, no matter how you parse it. south asians are not a disadvantaged group in canada; their per capita income is actually the highest of all ethnic groups. and, to think that any kind of meaningful reparations can be established at such a basic level is foolish. there's a reflection of low entrance requirements, there.
but, it's not as simple as claiming it's immoral. moral systems are pretty fluid. and, the moral systems on campus nowadays are perhaps not what you might expect.
the black community is going to have to weigh the pros and cons.
pro: universal health care
con: jew
pro: free education
con: jew
pro: raising the minimum wage
con: jew
as you can see, it's a very tough decision - especially considering that clinton is merely a wannabe jew.
if you want black votes, you have to do the black church thing. that might not last much longer, but it's been true for decades and will be true for at least a few more cycles. and, you know: jew.
it's not the young activists. the reality is that they're probably not going to vote for anybody at all. rather, it's the older, church-centered folks. it's a big hurdle for all of the evangelicals, but it's well known that it's an especially big hurdle amongst black voters.
bernie needs to get some of the black vote, sure. but, he cannot be planning anything around it. because, jew.
pro: universal health care
con: jew
pro: free education
con: jew
pro: raising the minimum wage
con: jew
as you can see, it's a very tough decision - especially considering that clinton is merely a wannabe jew.
if you want black votes, you have to do the black church thing. that might not last much longer, but it's been true for decades and will be true for at least a few more cycles. and, you know: jew.
it's not the young activists. the reality is that they're probably not going to vote for anybody at all. rather, it's the older, church-centered folks. it's a big hurdle for all of the evangelicals, but it's well known that it's an especially big hurdle amongst black voters.
bernie needs to get some of the black vote, sure. but, he cannot be planning anything around it. because, jew.
you know what's going to happen by the time this is done, right - some time in between smile more industries buying the rights to bono and kane shocking the world with his first dick pic internet spread - is that britney will join the cast of desperate housewives.
wait for it.
but, seriously: i'm only getting less than an hour a day, and i only watch it a few times a week, and i can clearly see she's already planning "life after roman". all the comments are pushing for marriage. but, it's clear as day that this relationship is already over. britney just won't walk out due to a fear of being single.
instead, she's blatantly waiting for somebody to take her away. and the fantasy is something out of a harlequin romance novel, basically.
so, roman. listen. you want to prank this girl, hard? then make her think she's getting laid by a sexy pirate, and watch her walk right into it.
she's leaving you, anyways. might as well capitalize on it.
wait for it.
but, seriously: i'm only getting less than an hour a day, and i only watch it a few times a week, and i can clearly see she's already planning "life after roman". all the comments are pushing for marriage. but, it's clear as day that this relationship is already over. britney just won't walk out due to a fear of being single.
instead, she's blatantly waiting for somebody to take her away. and the fantasy is something out of a harlequin romance novel, basically.
so, roman. listen. you want to prank this girl, hard? then make her think she's getting laid by a sexy pirate, and watch her walk right into it.
she's leaving you, anyways. might as well capitalize on it.
fwiw, though, there are digital audio outs on the market and have been for quite a while - they were out first, even. there was the spdif, for example. i have a still functioning sound card from the 90s with an spdif in/out. but, they didn't catch on...
a part of the reason is connectivity, right. the computer was never going to be the center of the sound system - more of an auxiliary in. so, you want the outs to conform to audio industry standards. meaning, you're converting everything to analog at some point. and,
that's kind of the crux of it, right. the complexity in the system is in the conversion to analog. no speaker can take a digital signal; that does not make sense. so, your headphones need to either accept a converted signal or convert the signal themselves. video doesn't really work that way. and, of course, strict data transfer doesn't need to do this kind of conversion at all.
so, there's not any benefit in changing the interface because you really can't increase the data speed on an audio signal. the only way it makes any sense is to put the dacs in the phones. but, that doesn't make any logistical or financial sense.
at the end of the day, the real reason that apple may be doing this may be to force you to buy an ipod and an iphone, rather than just an iphone. it's simply not a comparable technical leap.
a part of the reason is connectivity, right. the computer was never going to be the center of the sound system - more of an auxiliary in. so, you want the outs to conform to audio industry standards. meaning, you're converting everything to analog at some point. and,
that's kind of the crux of it, right. the complexity in the system is in the conversion to analog. no speaker can take a digital signal; that does not make sense. so, your headphones need to either accept a converted signal or convert the signal themselves. video doesn't really work that way. and, of course, strict data transfer doesn't need to do this kind of conversion at all.
so, there's not any benefit in changing the interface because you really can't increase the data speed on an audio signal. the only way it makes any sense is to put the dacs in the phones. but, that doesn't make any logistical or financial sense.
at the end of the day, the real reason that apple may be doing this may be to force you to buy an ipod and an iphone, rather than just an iphone. it's simply not a comparable technical leap.
Monday, January 25, 2016
january, 2012
i'd rather they kept this closed.
personally? i'm both pro-choice and accept the catholic doctrine of life at conception, albeit for genetic reasons. i think the mp is correct to point out that modern scientific concepts of 'life' uphold the traditional view of conception.
that doesn't factor into my decision to be pro-choice, though, nor should it factor into the law. i'm pro-choice because i accept the mother's right to not be inconvenienced - and i've stated it in those terms on purpose - in any way by an unwanted pregnancy or an unwanted child, right up to the point of umbilical cord separation when the child gains rights of it's own.
in order for me to be intellectually consistent, the piece of christian dogma i need to throw away is not life at conception but the sanctity of life. i would need to throw that away to stay consistent on other related issues as well, such as legalized suicide (assisted or not) and euthanasia for people that can't exist without the aid of machines.
so, this is an irrelevancy for me, personally, and i suspect it is for most people on both sides of the debate.
http://nationalpostnews.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/tory-mp-calls-for-abortion-debate-using-modern-medically-accurate-evidence/
i'd rather they kept this closed.
personally? i'm both pro-choice and accept the catholic doctrine of life at conception, albeit for genetic reasons. i think the mp is correct to point out that modern scientific concepts of 'life' uphold the traditional view of conception.
that doesn't factor into my decision to be pro-choice, though, nor should it factor into the law. i'm pro-choice because i accept the mother's right to not be inconvenienced - and i've stated it in those terms on purpose - in any way by an unwanted pregnancy or an unwanted child, right up to the point of umbilical cord separation when the child gains rights of it's own.
in order for me to be intellectually consistent, the piece of christian dogma i need to throw away is not life at conception but the sanctity of life. i would need to throw that away to stay consistent on other related issues as well, such as legalized suicide (assisted or not) and euthanasia for people that can't exist without the aid of machines.
so, this is an irrelevancy for me, personally, and i suspect it is for most people on both sides of the debate.
http://nationalpostnews.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/tory-mp-calls-for-abortion-debate-using-modern-medically-accurate-evidence/
april, 2012
i know he's right - i've concluded the same thing through my own calculations, and while my calculations are undoubtedly less complex, i may argue that the problem of whether this is in our reach or not is perhaps less complex than he's undoubtedly constructed - but i'm still holding out hope that a big break through in quantum computing combined with a revolutionary epiphany may get us closer....
i know it's just hope, though. mortality sucks.
==========
Horgan: Is DARPA [the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] supporting your research at Caltech because it wants to create bionic soldiers?
Koch: No
Horgan: I’ll take your word for it. Have you become a member of the Singularity cult? Because I would find that very depressing.
Koch: Most certainly not. I have an article under revision right now that provides a quantitative argument for why the belief that we will understand the brain of a mouse, let alone that of a human, within a decade is as sound as the belief that the rapture is imminent.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/04/02/christof-koch-on-free-will-the-singularity-and-the-quest-to-crack-consciousness/?WT.mc_id=SA_MindFacebook
i know he's right - i've concluded the same thing through my own calculations, and while my calculations are undoubtedly less complex, i may argue that the problem of whether this is in our reach or not is perhaps less complex than he's undoubtedly constructed - but i'm still holding out hope that a big break through in quantum computing combined with a revolutionary epiphany may get us closer....
i know it's just hope, though. mortality sucks.
==========
Horgan: Is DARPA [the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] supporting your research at Caltech because it wants to create bionic soldiers?
Koch: No
Horgan: I’ll take your word for it. Have you become a member of the Singularity cult? Because I would find that very depressing.
Koch: Most certainly not. I have an article under revision right now that provides a quantitative argument for why the belief that we will understand the brain of a mouse, let alone that of a human, within a decade is as sound as the belief that the rapture is imminent.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/04/02/christof-koch-on-free-will-the-singularity-and-the-quest-to-crack-consciousness/?WT.mc_id=SA_MindFacebook
april 13, 2012
i don't see how any thinking person could see denying marriage or denying a prescription as a right. it's not even a question of positive or negative rights or freedom. in both of these cases, the need to ask permission at all - for permission to ingest a drug or to marry somebody - is really a rights breach; the doctor or priest has the choice between standing in the way of something they have no real place standing in the way of or getting out of the way as a legal formality.
my response to something like this would be to make birth control available over the counter and get the state out of marriage altogether (it's a personal contract).
http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Wildrose+favour+conscience+rights/6414747/story.html
<create meme>
i'm always a civil libertarian.
...except when people act in ways i don't like.
</end meme>
it would be different if doctors denying prescriptions and priests performing marriages weren't both performing functions of the state. i'll grant you that.
but, as they are, a doctor denying a prescription is equivalent to the state denying it - which is functionally carrying out prohibition. similarly with the priest...
so, because they're not acting in an individual capacity but as state functionaries, enforcing their individual beliefs is equivalent to acting oppressively on behalf of the state; we can argue about whether this is just or not, but, so long as they are functionally state actors, if they wish to act oppressively then they should be fired or otherwise restricted from carrying out their *statist* functions.
what i mean is that a priest that does not wish to marry homosexual couples should not be allowed to legally marry heterosexual couples either because he is not willing to accept the state's legal definition of marriage.
and, yes, of course the state/people/democracy determine what marriage (a civil contract) is, not the church. suggestions to the contrary are so specious as to not be worth entertaining.
the more i think about it, the more i think that the best way forward is to prohibit ordained religious people (priests, pastors, whatever) from having the right to perform legal marriages and restricting legal marriage to a purely secular process. that would allow them to have their sacraments as they want them, and deny whoever they want, but would also force *all* couples to go through a *second* legal ceremony.
ultimately, religious and legal marriages are two different things and should be treated differently under the law.
i guess the difference between the way i see it and the way mainstream american pols see it is that i don't think the solution is to create civil unions and make them secondary to religious marriages, i think it's to throw religious ceremonies out of the secular legal realm and restrict them to purely symbolic/sacramental processes.
i mean, the real problem here is that marriage encroaches religion too far into the state, isn't it?
...and maybe doctors should be forced to sign a contract with the state, just like every other employee does with their employer. that contract would certainly have to deny the employee's rights to act independently in contradiction to the will of the employer. doctors that do not wish to abide by their contractual obligations would have the choice of finding another profession or moving elsewhere.
i can cut a little slack with the marriage thing, but i have no patience for a doctor denying a prescription on religious grounds. that's simply a bad doctor, imo, and one that should be immediately de-licensed.
i don't see how any thinking person could see denying marriage or denying a prescription as a right. it's not even a question of positive or negative rights or freedom. in both of these cases, the need to ask permission at all - for permission to ingest a drug or to marry somebody - is really a rights breach; the doctor or priest has the choice between standing in the way of something they have no real place standing in the way of or getting out of the way as a legal formality.
my response to something like this would be to make birth control available over the counter and get the state out of marriage altogether (it's a personal contract).
http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Wildrose+favour+conscience+rights/6414747/story.html
<create meme>
i'm always a civil libertarian.
...except when people act in ways i don't like.
</end meme>
it would be different if doctors denying prescriptions and priests performing marriages weren't both performing functions of the state. i'll grant you that.
but, as they are, a doctor denying a prescription is equivalent to the state denying it - which is functionally carrying out prohibition. similarly with the priest...
so, because they're not acting in an individual capacity but as state functionaries, enforcing their individual beliefs is equivalent to acting oppressively on behalf of the state; we can argue about whether this is just or not, but, so long as they are functionally state actors, if they wish to act oppressively then they should be fired or otherwise restricted from carrying out their *statist* functions.
what i mean is that a priest that does not wish to marry homosexual couples should not be allowed to legally marry heterosexual couples either because he is not willing to accept the state's legal definition of marriage.
and, yes, of course the state/people/democracy determine what marriage (a civil contract) is, not the church. suggestions to the contrary are so specious as to not be worth entertaining.
the more i think about it, the more i think that the best way forward is to prohibit ordained religious people (priests, pastors, whatever) from having the right to perform legal marriages and restricting legal marriage to a purely secular process. that would allow them to have their sacraments as they want them, and deny whoever they want, but would also force *all* couples to go through a *second* legal ceremony.
ultimately, religious and legal marriages are two different things and should be treated differently under the law.
i guess the difference between the way i see it and the way mainstream american pols see it is that i don't think the solution is to create civil unions and make them secondary to religious marriages, i think it's to throw religious ceremonies out of the secular legal realm and restrict them to purely symbolic/sacramental processes.
i mean, the real problem here is that marriage encroaches religion too far into the state, isn't it?
...and maybe doctors should be forced to sign a contract with the state, just like every other employee does with their employer. that contract would certainly have to deny the employee's rights to act independently in contradiction to the will of the employer. doctors that do not wish to abide by their contractual obligations would have the choice of finding another profession or moving elsewhere.
i can cut a little slack with the marriage thing, but i have no patience for a doctor denying a prescription on religious grounds. that's simply a bad doctor, imo, and one that should be immediately de-licensed.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012/04/2012457232669440.html
http://www.masonicinfo.com/illuminati.htm
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=66
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/08/is-the-us-really-responsible-for-post-war-libya/243966/
http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/libyan-rebels-rounding-up-thousands-of-black-citizens-and-immigrants-1.381988
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/22/hillary-clintons-failed-libya-doctrine-2/
http://www.colorlines.com/articles/thousands-kids-lost-parents-us-deportation-system
http://www.masonicinfo.com/illuminati.htm
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=66
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/08/is-the-us-really-responsible-for-post-war-libya/243966/
http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/libyan-rebels-rounding-up-thousands-of-black-citizens-and-immigrants-1.381988
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/22/hillary-clintons-failed-libya-doctrine-2/
http://www.colorlines.com/articles/thousands-kids-lost-parents-us-deportation-system
dammit.
i've still never bought a smartphone. to be frank, i couldn't imagine what anybody actually uses the thing for - it just strikes me as a waste of money. but, i don't have a landline right now, either - and fat chance i'm paying for that. so, i'll have to get something eventually - just so i have a phone.
although, fact is, i haven't had any phone at all in over five years, now. maybe i've just proven that i don't really need one.
but, generally, i wait until technology plateaus and pick up something they can't move at absolute discount. so, if the iphone 7 is coming out, i'd be looking at something like an iphone 3. the idea is that there's basically no loss of meaningful functionality - and that i'd refuse to pay more than $50 for it.
i wouldn't actually buy an apple product, i'd buy something non-proprietary. but, it seems like each new model is inferior to the previous one, which is going to act as a hold on people upgrading and throw a wrench in my careful plan.
i've still never bought a smartphone. to be frank, i couldn't imagine what anybody actually uses the thing for - it just strikes me as a waste of money. but, i don't have a landline right now, either - and fat chance i'm paying for that. so, i'll have to get something eventually - just so i have a phone.
although, fact is, i haven't had any phone at all in over five years, now. maybe i've just proven that i don't really need one.
but, generally, i wait until technology plateaus and pick up something they can't move at absolute discount. so, if the iphone 7 is coming out, i'd be looking at something like an iphone 3. the idea is that there's basically no loss of meaningful functionality - and that i'd refuse to pay more than $50 for it.
i wouldn't actually buy an apple product, i'd buy something non-proprietary. but, it seems like each new model is inferior to the previous one, which is going to act as a hold on people upgrading and throw a wrench in my careful plan.
Sunday, January 24, 2016
i'm just about done with this, so i'll actually be deleting that flood of posts in the next couple of days.
but, did we get a winter?
we didn't get a snow cover. at all. temperatures...
cold snap 3:
jan 16: +3.3/-1.2
jan 17: -1.2/-11.9
jan 18: -8.3/-12.3
jan 19: -5.5/-12.5
jan 20: -7.0/-10.4
jan 21: -3.6/-12.6
jan 22: -2.7/-6.0
jan 23: -0.9/-7.2
jan 24: +1/-8
it looks like we're above zero for the next ten days.
there's no snow. and nothing below -13. but, that's five straight nights of lows below -10 and seven days in a row of subzero temperatures - even if it's only really three days of winter.
so, i must concede that we've had a "technical winter".
but, listen: claiming we might avoid winter in canada, even here in windsor, is pretty outrageous. you might want to take note that i'm conceding on a technicality, here. there has not been anything substantively approaching "winter" in windsor-detroit this year.
but, i'm an honest person and i'll concede, nonetheless.
but, did we get a winter?
we didn't get a snow cover. at all. temperatures...
cold snap 3:
jan 16: +3.3/-1.2
jan 17: -1.2/-11.9
jan 18: -8.3/-12.3
jan 19: -5.5/-12.5
jan 20: -7.0/-10.4
jan 21: -3.6/-12.6
jan 22: -2.7/-6.0
jan 23: -0.9/-7.2
jan 24: +1/-8
it looks like we're above zero for the next ten days.
there's no snow. and nothing below -13. but, that's five straight nights of lows below -10 and seven days in a row of subzero temperatures - even if it's only really three days of winter.
so, i must concede that we've had a "technical winter".
but, listen: claiming we might avoid winter in canada, even here in windsor, is pretty outrageous. you might want to take note that i'm conceding on a technicality, here. there has not been anything substantively approaching "winter" in windsor-detroit this year.
but, i'm an honest person and i'll concede, nonetheless.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/a_peek_at_the_militarys_budget_for_eternal_salvation_20110822
http://www.rawstory.com/2011/08/afl-cio-president-obama-is-aligned-with-tea-party-not-fixing-jobs/
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/2036:union-workers-replaced-with-prison-labor-under-scott-walkers-collective-bargaining-law
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_01_10_afghanpoll.pdf
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/High-cut-offs-drive-students-to-US/articleshow/9499575.cms
http://www.rawstory.com/2011/08/upper-class-people-less-empathetic-than-lower-class-people-study/
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/is-charles-koch-a-closet-liberal/
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/introduction.htm
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_untimely_death_of_francesca_pompilia/
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-to-give-2bn-to-fund-bailouts-in-Europe/articleshow/9463341.cms
[i know it's pravda. but it's at least as entertaining as colbert. and, it's actually a pretty good reminder of why hillary clinton is unelectable.
she's a war criminal.
she should be in jail.
http://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/columnists/01-08-2011/118630-NATO_too_stupid_to_face_reality-0/ ] - august or september, 2011
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/07/cana-j30.html
http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/tightening-pentagons-belt/p25548
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0830/A-troubling-lesson-from-Libya-Don-t-give-up-nukes
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fwl%2Fdc%2Ftheredandtheblack
http://www.rawstory.com/2011/08/afl-cio-president-obama-is-aligned-with-tea-party-not-fixing-jobs/
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/2036:union-workers-replaced-with-prison-labor-under-scott-walkers-collective-bargaining-law
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_01_10_afghanpoll.pdf
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/High-cut-offs-drive-students-to-US/articleshow/9499575.cms
http://www.rawstory.com/2011/08/upper-class-people-less-empathetic-than-lower-class-people-study/
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/is-charles-koch-a-closet-liberal/
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/introduction.htm
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_untimely_death_of_francesca_pompilia/
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-to-give-2bn-to-fund-bailouts-in-Europe/articleshow/9463341.cms
[i know it's pravda. but it's at least as entertaining as colbert. and, it's actually a pretty good reminder of why hillary clinton is unelectable.
she's a war criminal.
she should be in jail.
http://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/columnists/01-08-2011/118630-NATO_too_stupid_to_face_reality-0/ ] - august or september, 2011
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/07/cana-j30.html
http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/tightening-pentagons-belt/p25548
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0830/A-troubling-lesson-from-Libya-Don-t-give-up-nukes
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fwl%2Fdc%2Ftheredandtheblack
what does it mean to "talk like a black person"?
or, even more fundamental: what are your views on intellectual property rights?
those are just a few of the obvious questions that jump when listening to this track. another is:
do you really believe that equality means equality of opportunity?
this just all seems so very right-wing to me. sorry.
the basic concept seems to be separate but equal.
or, even more fundamental: what are your views on intellectual property rights?
those are just a few of the obvious questions that jump when listening to this track. another is:
do you really believe that equality means equality of opportunity?
this just all seems so very right-wing to me. sorry.
the basic concept seems to be separate but equal.
Saturday, January 23, 2016
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/economics/hot_eco_topics/default/11-10-20/don_t_kid_yourself_lower_taxes_usually_mean_reduced_services_and_higher_debt.aspx
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/10/17/texas-conservatives-rejec_n_1016705.html
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/did-george-soros-fund-occupy-wall-street
http://gizmodo.com/5833916/
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ground-zero-mosque-opens-no-one-notic
http://networkedblogs.com/luSz8
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/17-08-2011/118775-Moon_the_incompetent_goon-0/
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/10/17/texas-conservatives-rejec_n_1016705.html
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/did-george-soros-fund-occupy-wall-street
http://gizmodo.com/5833916/
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ground-zero-mosque-opens-no-one-notic
http://networkedblogs.com/luSz8
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/17-08-2011/118775-Moon_the_incompetent_goon-0/
what i've noticed with strawberries, specifically, is that the grocers will buy them, pass the costs down and then watch them sit on the shelf. eventually, they have to cut the price - and then you can pick them up. so, as a consumer, i'm sitting around waiting for the food to go rotten, so i can get it at discount. if they'd just cut the price, they'd move the units at a higher volume, and make up for the loss. so, for the last few months, some of the stores haven't even been carrying strawberries at all. but, i'll come out and say it: at the end of the day, i won't pay exorbitant prices for imported produce. i'll just buy something else. so, again: let's get some local growers going.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/canadian-grocers-struggling-with-produce-shortage/62567/
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/canadian-grocers-struggling-with-produce-shortage/62567/
if you're curious, the results of this were very predictable given the content of canadian law. it's the fear thing that's key. the article actually explains it fairly well...
this sets the precedent. these are the rules. it's a pretty trivial jump from the abstract to the concrete - there was very little ambiguity in how the law should have been applied - but there it is, nonetheless.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/twitter-harassment-trial-verdict-1.3415112
this sets the precedent. these are the rules. it's a pretty trivial jump from the abstract to the concrete - there was very little ambiguity in how the law should have been applied - but there it is, nonetheless.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/twitter-harassment-trial-verdict-1.3415112
i'm not going to pretend that i know how to target democrat-leaning votes in iowa or nebraska or missouri or colorado. i'd have a better handle on seattle or detroit or pittsburgh or minneapolis. even los angeles is sort of alien. so, i'm going to put that down and be quiet.
other than to point out that there's something inherently necessary in resuscitating the electoral powers of the progressive movement (which is very alive, on the ground) if sanders wants to beat clinton, let alone win the presidency.
other than to point out that there's something inherently necessary in resuscitating the electoral powers of the progressive movement (which is very alive, on the ground) if sanders wants to beat clinton, let alone win the presidency.
http://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/fair-trade-and-empire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what-price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-europe-6264091.html
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/pizza-keeps-vegetable-status-on-school-lunch-menus-house-rules
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-only-elected-senator-also-the-most-expensive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what-price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-europe-6264091.html
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/pizza-keeps-vegetable-status-on-school-lunch-menus-house-rules
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-only-elected-senator-also-the-most-expensive
that's two weeks, btw.
cold turkey.
it's in the two-three week window that i usually crack, although i must say this: i don't usually go that long as total, cold turkey. there's usually some kind of break in there. i might buy one of those $1.25 cigars, or maybe bum a smoke when i'm out. normally, what it really means is "two-three weeks without buying a pack".
but, this is totally cold turkey. so, it's different. and, i think i'm consequently just about there.
i guess i have about another week of data archival ahead of me. so, that will be three weeks - cold turkey. and, i can't see why i'd look back after that...
cold turkey.
it's in the two-three week window that i usually crack, although i must say this: i don't usually go that long as total, cold turkey. there's usually some kind of break in there. i might buy one of those $1.25 cigars, or maybe bum a smoke when i'm out. normally, what it really means is "two-three weeks without buying a pack".
but, this is totally cold turkey. so, it's different. and, i think i'm consequently just about there.
i guess i have about another week of data archival ahead of me. so, that will be three weeks - cold turkey. and, i can't see why i'd look back after that...
Friday, January 22, 2016
in a few hours, it'll be 13 days cold turkey - which at the very least indicates i'm serious about this.
as i previously stated, i'm in the process of collecting writing from various sources. i should get through the first phase of this today, and be over a hurdle by the end of the weekend. this *is* actually important for the period discs, even if it is writing rather than music.
so, i'm working. productively, even. really. i may even meet my feb 1 release date.
as i previously stated, i'm in the process of collecting writing from various sources. i should get through the first phase of this today, and be over a hurdle by the end of the weekend. this *is* actually important for the period discs, even if it is writing rather than music.
so, i'm working. productively, even. really. i may even meet my feb 1 release date.
dec, 2011
the ignored drawback of choosing charity over public aid is that, while it eliminates a means of questionably justified coercion, it also removes aid work from public oversight, allowing financial dictatorships to pick and choose which causes they wish to support based on their own whims and amusements. that prioritizes wealth over research as a factor in decision making. philanthropists should consequently be regulated.
to put it another way, these are resources that should be controlled by the community and not by what amounts to the modern equivalent of feudal landowners.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/sunday-review/policy-making-billionaires.html?pagewanted=all
the ignored drawback of choosing charity over public aid is that, while it eliminates a means of questionably justified coercion, it also removes aid work from public oversight, allowing financial dictatorships to pick and choose which causes they wish to support based on their own whims and amusements. that prioritizes wealth over research as a factor in decision making. philanthropists should consequently be regulated.
to put it another way, these are resources that should be controlled by the community and not by what amounts to the modern equivalent of feudal landowners.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/sunday-review/policy-making-billionaires.html?pagewanted=all
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3AlqISZaTSy2EJ%3Acepr.net%2Fblogs%2Fbeat-the-press%2Fthe-myth-of-profligate-euro-zone-countries+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a\
Spain had a budget surplus before the economic collapse. Spain had a budget surplus before the economic collapse. Spain had a budget surplus before the economic collapse.
Perhaps repeating this line three times will help the type of people who have columns in the Washington Post on the euro zone crisis get some understanding of the issue. Today we get a lecture on southern country profligacy from Daniel M. Price. Yesterday, Post columnist Matt Miller told us how he misleads his daughter about the nature of the euro zone crisis and suggested that the rest of us be equally misleading with our own children.
The reality is that most of the countries currently facing debt troubles were not profligate prior to the crisis. While it may be reasonable to describe Greece as being profligate, the only euro zone country that looks much like Greece is Greece. The other euro zone crisis countries had hugely better finances in the years leading up to the crisis.
Italy, the closest Greece competitor among euro zone crisis countries, had relatively small budget deficits in the years before the crisis. Its debt to GDP ratio fell from 93.7 percent of GDP in 2001 to 87.3 percent of GDP in 2007. In other words, the deficits of these years were completely sustainable.
Spain ran budget surpluses in the years from 2005-2007. Its debt to GDP ratio fell from 50.3 percent in 2000 to 26.5 percent of GDP in 2007. There is no remotely plausibly story of government profligacy here.
In short, people who describe the euro zone crisis as a story of excessive government deficits are pushing an ideological agenda that has nothing to do with reality. The story of the current deficits of the non-Greece countries is the story of the collapse of housing bubbles that threw the euro zone economies into a severe downturn. The European Central Bank (ECB) has magnified the problem by maintaining relatively tight monetary policy in order to maintain very low inflation and also explicitly asserting that it would not act as a lender of last resort to the heavily indebted countries.
Blaming government profligacy may be useful to those who want to see cuts in social spending, but it is not a story that is based in reality. It conceals the incompetence/greed of the private sector bankers who fueled the bubble. It also ignores the recklessness of the ECB of clinging to its inflation obsession even in the midst of a crisis that threatens the survival of the euro and could cause millions of additional workers to lose their job.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/20/lost_in_detention_as_obama_admin
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/11/9/defense_secretary_nominee_robert_gates_tied
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-01-22/news/mn-397_1_biden
Spain had a budget surplus before the economic collapse. Spain had a budget surplus before the economic collapse. Spain had a budget surplus before the economic collapse.
Perhaps repeating this line three times will help the type of people who have columns in the Washington Post on the euro zone crisis get some understanding of the issue. Today we get a lecture on southern country profligacy from Daniel M. Price. Yesterday, Post columnist Matt Miller told us how he misleads his daughter about the nature of the euro zone crisis and suggested that the rest of us be equally misleading with our own children.
The reality is that most of the countries currently facing debt troubles were not profligate prior to the crisis. While it may be reasonable to describe Greece as being profligate, the only euro zone country that looks much like Greece is Greece. The other euro zone crisis countries had hugely better finances in the years leading up to the crisis.
Italy, the closest Greece competitor among euro zone crisis countries, had relatively small budget deficits in the years before the crisis. Its debt to GDP ratio fell from 93.7 percent of GDP in 2001 to 87.3 percent of GDP in 2007. In other words, the deficits of these years were completely sustainable.
Spain ran budget surpluses in the years from 2005-2007. Its debt to GDP ratio fell from 50.3 percent in 2000 to 26.5 percent of GDP in 2007. There is no remotely plausibly story of government profligacy here.
In short, people who describe the euro zone crisis as a story of excessive government deficits are pushing an ideological agenda that has nothing to do with reality. The story of the current deficits of the non-Greece countries is the story of the collapse of housing bubbles that threw the euro zone economies into a severe downturn. The European Central Bank (ECB) has magnified the problem by maintaining relatively tight monetary policy in order to maintain very low inflation and also explicitly asserting that it would not act as a lender of last resort to the heavily indebted countries.
Blaming government profligacy may be useful to those who want to see cuts in social spending, but it is not a story that is based in reality. It conceals the incompetence/greed of the private sector bankers who fueled the bubble. It also ignores the recklessness of the ECB of clinging to its inflation obsession even in the midst of a crisis that threatens the survival of the euro and could cause millions of additional workers to lose their job.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/20/lost_in_detention_as_obama_admin
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/11/9/defense_secretary_nominee_robert_gates_tied
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-01-22/news/mn-397_1_biden
dec, 2011
looks like i'm waiting a few days. i expected the decision to be ripped to shreds, even by a lot of conservatives.
to be clear...
the agreement is that the various governments will force balanced budgets on themselves without the use of integrated monetary policy. this completely misunderstands the problem. the problem is monetary, not fiscal. this is equivalent to implementing a de facto gold standard in the euro. the result in the satellite countries will be very difficult to manage, as they all have individual economies with individual stimulus requirements.
this will not rein in debt, it will spiral debt out of control as austerity exponentially shrinks the economy into a deflationary spiral.
don't just divest. emigrate. this is going to get ugly.
http://econ.st/vtQ6Ma
http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/30/news/economy/economy-europe-deflation/
looks like i'm waiting a few days. i expected the decision to be ripped to shreds, even by a lot of conservatives.
to be clear...
the agreement is that the various governments will force balanced budgets on themselves without the use of integrated monetary policy. this completely misunderstands the problem. the problem is monetary, not fiscal. this is equivalent to implementing a de facto gold standard in the euro. the result in the satellite countries will be very difficult to manage, as they all have individual economies with individual stimulus requirements.
this will not rein in debt, it will spiral debt out of control as austerity exponentially shrinks the economy into a deflationary spiral.
don't just divest. emigrate. this is going to get ugly.
http://econ.st/vtQ6Ma
http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/30/news/economy/economy-europe-deflation/
http://www.haaretz.com/iran-is-too-rational-to-attack-israel-1.402481
http://www.rawstory.com/2011/12/tougher-drug-laws-mean-nearly-13-arrested-by-age-23/
http://www.haaretz.com/israeli-woman-refuses-ultra-orthodox-dictate-to-move-to-back-of-bus-1.402021
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201112/testify-comes-the-latin-word-testicle
http://www.rawstory.com/2011/12/tougher-drug-laws-mean-nearly-13-arrested-by-age-23/
http://www.haaretz.com/israeli-woman-refuses-ultra-orthodox-dictate-to-move-to-back-of-bus-1.402021
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201112/testify-comes-the-latin-word-testicle
the future of conflict!
don't miss out! don't be left behind...
http://www.cnas.org/media-events/cnas-in-the-news/articles/the-south-china-sea-is-the-future-of-conflict - .UuJIThBOnIU
you actually want to read it more like a sales brochure for military equipment - which is surreal and disgusting and absolutely accurate all at the same time.
don't miss out! don't be left behind...
http://www.cnas.org/media-events/cnas-in-the-news/articles/the-south-china-sea-is-the-future-of-conflict - .UuJIThBOnIU
you actually want to read it more like a sales brochure for military equipment - which is surreal and disgusting and absolutely accurate all at the same time.
10-01-2016: dropped section
this is a section from the tenth that the device deallocated because i physically dropped it. it was recovered after the fact in a chkdsk and is uploaded here as a standalone file. i discuss the effects of quitting smoking.
see, the writing in these skits is actually often fairly subtle.
it's been clear the whole time that these were skits, but i was wondering if they were actually his parents or not. clearly, what's happened here is that "dad" has taken off all right - no doubt because he's not getting paid. he's not coming back, either. twisting the narrative around like this is something he seems to do fairly often.
it's been clear the whole time that these were skits, but i was wondering if they were actually his parents or not. clearly, what's happened here is that "dad" has taken off all right - no doubt because he's not getting paid. he's not coming back, either. twisting the narrative around like this is something he seems to do fairly often.
i'm going to point something out here that you won't see pointed out elsewhere and is probably very relevant:
1) the female appears to be an upper class indian.
2) the driver appears to be a lower class arab.
so, i don't think the observation of her skin colour and ethnic background is entirely irrelevant, it's just that you have to put it in context; i think that what you're seeing here is a normal class relationship in india, with the difference being that, in india, the lower class arab would not dare defend himself.
to be clear: what i'm saying is that it seems as though she is behaving in a racist manner.
1) the female appears to be an upper class indian.
2) the driver appears to be a lower class arab.
so, i don't think the observation of her skin colour and ethnic background is entirely irrelevant, it's just that you have to put it in context; i think that what you're seeing here is a normal class relationship in india, with the difference being that, in india, the lower class arab would not dare defend himself.
to be clear: what i'm saying is that it seems as though she is behaving in a racist manner.
i find the cluster in the alps very curious.
is this a still existing measure of hannibal's army?
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-X-map.png
is this a still existing measure of hannibal's army?
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-X-map.png
what he's talking about is mt-dna haplotype X, and his presentation here is incredibly inaccurate.
the mt-dna is traced through maternal lineages, and it is indeed a little bit curious to find it in north america. this is not because it clusters specifically with jews - in fact, it does not. it actually clusters with greeks. search terms would be "mt-dna haplotype X". the wiki map is good at showing where it clusters.
it clusters as a minority lineage everywhere it exists, so it is very difficult to try and determine it's origin using migration patterns. molecular testing has suggested that the lineage probably originated in central asia and migrated over to the americas with the bering land bridge, while it also stayed behind in asia and floated towards greece. but, molecular testing of this sort is a kind of house of cards argument.
a more interesting - and probably more correct - suggestion is the idea that it may be a carthaginian lineage. this would suggest pre-columbian transoceanic contact - which is an idea that is increasingly gaining momentum. we can measure the effect of colonialism in the native american gene pool (you may have noticed that many people that identify as natives actually look very white; in fact, some tribes report upwards of 90% european dna on the male side). it's entirely reasonable to suggest that carthaginian contact may have left some evidence of itself.
but, this is not the dominant theory. the dominant theory is that X developed in the steppes and found it's way into the greek speaking areas by genetic drift, then spread around those areas through trade.
the mt-dna is traced through maternal lineages, and it is indeed a little bit curious to find it in north america. this is not because it clusters specifically with jews - in fact, it does not. it actually clusters with greeks. search terms would be "mt-dna haplotype X". the wiki map is good at showing where it clusters.
it clusters as a minority lineage everywhere it exists, so it is very difficult to try and determine it's origin using migration patterns. molecular testing has suggested that the lineage probably originated in central asia and migrated over to the americas with the bering land bridge, while it also stayed behind in asia and floated towards greece. but, molecular testing of this sort is a kind of house of cards argument.
a more interesting - and probably more correct - suggestion is the idea that it may be a carthaginian lineage. this would suggest pre-columbian transoceanic contact - which is an idea that is increasingly gaining momentum. we can measure the effect of colonialism in the native american gene pool (you may have noticed that many people that identify as natives actually look very white; in fact, some tribes report upwards of 90% european dna on the male side). it's entirely reasonable to suggest that carthaginian contact may have left some evidence of itself.
but, this is not the dominant theory. the dominant theory is that X developed in the steppes and found it's way into the greek speaking areas by genetic drift, then spread around those areas through trade.
i believe that the use of the words new american is a sort of a code that suggests that marco is essentially a front for the john birch society (that is, the koch brothers). whenever you see those words together, you should be a little wary.
examples:
center for a new american security
project for a new american century
...and, of course, the new american magazine, itself.
the religious thing has been a front from the beginning. that's the actual history lesson. those guys were all deists. and, marco's master is likewise not his god but his handlers.
examples:
center for a new american security
project for a new american century
...and, of course, the new american magazine, itself.
the religious thing has been a front from the beginning. that's the actual history lesson. those guys were all deists. and, marco's master is likewise not his god but his handlers.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
thank you for the birthday check, too
nana
I was beginning to worry you didn't receive it as I mailed it 10 days ago,so much for canada post fast delivery.I hope you are enjoying the good winter weather as we are.Hard to believe it is 6% today & even more crazy it was 16% on xmas day.I hope all is well with you,we miss you.luv nana.
jessica
i quit smoking cold turkey on the 9th, and have actually only been outside once since (to get groceries). in fact, i've basically been bed-ridden for the last two and a half weeks. i'm very serious about it this time, so i'm just restricting myself to zero-stress activities like reading and typing. i think i should be able to get out of bed at about the month point. so, it may have sat in my mail box for a few days...
nana
Good for you I am very glad to hear you are quitting,not only for your health but also it is such a waste of money.I have recently switched my services from rogers to bell,mostly because of the fees.I am saving $90.00 per month so not small change!I hope you are up & about again now.I had to buy a new printer & got a different brand'' Epson'', I really wished you were here to set it up for me,as you know how lame i can be around electronics.your mother came over to do the job & got everything running smoothly.When you get to be my age technology becomes a problem.Must run now, Leo is picking me up to go shopping.Bye Bye.
I was beginning to worry you didn't receive it as I mailed it 10 days ago,so much for canada post fast delivery.I hope you are enjoying the good winter weather as we are.Hard to believe it is 6% today & even more crazy it was 16% on xmas day.I hope all is well with you,we miss you.luv nana.
jessica
i quit smoking cold turkey on the 9th, and have actually only been outside once since (to get groceries). in fact, i've basically been bed-ridden for the last two and a half weeks. i'm very serious about it this time, so i'm just restricting myself to zero-stress activities like reading and typing. i think i should be able to get out of bed at about the month point. so, it may have sat in my mail box for a few days...
nana
Good for you I am very glad to hear you are quitting,not only for your health but also it is such a waste of money.I have recently switched my services from rogers to bell,mostly because of the fees.I am saving $90.00 per month so not small change!I hope you are up & about again now.I had to buy a new printer & got a different brand'' Epson'', I really wished you were here to set it up for me,as you know how lame i can be around electronics.your mother came over to do the job & got everything running smoothly.When you get to be my age technology becomes a problem.Must run now, Leo is picking me up to go shopping.Bye Bye.
what are the oscars? what do they measure? what does it mean when somebody gets an oscar?
jada seems to be approaching the issue from the same lens as kayne was - that the oscars actually legitimately reflect excellency in the field of acting. so, to get an oscar is a form of recognition for that excellence. jada seems to be upset for the same reason as kanye, which is also the same reason nicki minaj was upset - they felt they produced something excellent and they should be acknowledged for that excellence. they think they won the talent show, kind of thing, and it's an injustice that they are (or their preferred choice is) being ignored.
(audience laughter)
vivian, here, seems to be taking a different perspective - namely that the oscars are a kind of promotional tool, and should be awarded not based on total excellency but on more of a needs-based basis. that is, they should go to the actors that demonstrate the best potential and need the most exposure. to vivian, the oscars should be used as a way to establish a career.
their different deductions come from their different perspectives.
if you think the oscars are all about massaging your own ego, it follows that they should only go to established icons - and so it must be all about acknowledgement. the obvious racial biases that exist across all american institutions become a clear reason to boycott the institution; because, from that perspective, it is truly all about reaching the top of a hierarchy. yet, if you think the oscars are to be seen as a launching pad that has little reflection on actual performance or actual talent, then that logic makes no sense - winning an oscar is just another public relations tactic.
so, who is right?
i'm leaning towards vivian. but, not because the oscars are racist; rather, because the oscars have no artistic credibility. if they had any credibility at all, i would agree with jada. but, they don't. so, i agree with vivian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9eY-kKXBnQ
jada seems to be approaching the issue from the same lens as kayne was - that the oscars actually legitimately reflect excellency in the field of acting. so, to get an oscar is a form of recognition for that excellence. jada seems to be upset for the same reason as kanye, which is also the same reason nicki minaj was upset - they felt they produced something excellent and they should be acknowledged for that excellence. they think they won the talent show, kind of thing, and it's an injustice that they are (or their preferred choice is) being ignored.
(audience laughter)
vivian, here, seems to be taking a different perspective - namely that the oscars are a kind of promotional tool, and should be awarded not based on total excellency but on more of a needs-based basis. that is, they should go to the actors that demonstrate the best potential and need the most exposure. to vivian, the oscars should be used as a way to establish a career.
their different deductions come from their different perspectives.
if you think the oscars are all about massaging your own ego, it follows that they should only go to established icons - and so it must be all about acknowledgement. the obvious racial biases that exist across all american institutions become a clear reason to boycott the institution; because, from that perspective, it is truly all about reaching the top of a hierarchy. yet, if you think the oscars are to be seen as a launching pad that has little reflection on actual performance or actual talent, then that logic makes no sense - winning an oscar is just another public relations tactic.
so, who is right?
i'm leaning towards vivian. but, not because the oscars are racist; rather, because the oscars have no artistic credibility. if they had any credibility at all, i would agree with jada. but, they don't. so, i agree with vivian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9eY-kKXBnQ
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
the reason that trump is the best choice for the republicans is that he has a legitimate chance of swinging partisan democrats - those traditionally working class, union-stiff types (mostly white) that are, today, kind of irked about their employment prospects, and may end up preferring trump's analysis over sanders', god bless their uneducated souls.
Daniel65
Buying Sun newspapers was a waste of money. It's a right wing rag that the general public ignores.
jessica murray
actually, i think shutting down the sun chain - if that's what this works out as - is the greatest thing to happen to canadian journalism since the internet.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/postmedia-job-cuts-1.3410497
Buying Sun newspapers was a waste of money. It's a right wing rag that the general public ignores.
jessica murray
actually, i think shutting down the sun chain - if that's what this works out as - is the greatest thing to happen to canadian journalism since the internet.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/postmedia-job-cuts-1.3410497
a quarter of a percent cut will not have any effect on anything or anyone at all.
well, that's not completely true. it will reduce interest on the debt.
just keep it above zero, please.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/bank-of-canada-rate-advancer-1.3408694
well, that's not completely true. it will reduce interest on the debt.
just keep it above zero, please.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/bank-of-canada-rate-advancer-1.3408694
i think this guy might be missing the idea that the attacks are ironic - sounds kind of like what we've been hearing *from* alberta directed at the rest of the country for decades now, doesn't it?
pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, alberta. quit yer whining, too.
maybe it would do them some good to freeze in the dark for a little bit. take them down a notch.
it's truly honestly hard to care - because they've simply never reciprocated.
the best introduction to reciprocal altruism that i'm aware of is a film by dawkins, although i cannot recall the name of it. alberta has been playing a losing strategy. and, it's just catching up to it.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/letter-from-oilpatch-worker-to-trudeau-incites-backlash-1.3410343
pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, alberta. quit yer whining, too.
maybe it would do them some good to freeze in the dark for a little bit. take them down a notch.
it's truly honestly hard to care - because they've simply never reciprocated.
the best introduction to reciprocal altruism that i'm aware of is a film by dawkins, although i cannot recall the name of it. alberta has been playing a losing strategy. and, it's just catching up to it.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/letter-from-oilpatch-worker-to-trudeau-incites-backlash-1.3410343
see, i don't...
can a conservative explain to me why you want to be at this meeting?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-not-invited-isis-paris-meeting-1.3409420
Kopaja _Avenger
I'm not a conservative but I'll try to explain. Being in that room actually allows Canada to sway the group to a plan that actually may work. If we are not in the room we cant tell others why the agreed to plan may fail or garner opposite to desired results (which keeps on happening).
jessica murray
yeah, you're not a conservative - you're too naive.
imrighton
It should be obvious but then you ask that a "conservative" give you an explanation. So you are no doubt a Lib partisan playing dumb.
We are engaged in a war Jessica. Our allies are holding important strategic, planning sessions. We aren't invited. Decisions will be made affecting our military operations and Canada won't have a say. We have been sent to the kid's table.
jessica murray
well, no. i've been over this many times. i'm many degrees to the left of the liberal party.
you're not really answering the question: why, exactly, do you want to be involved in this war?
i mean, from my perspective it was more like we were stuck in something we couldn't get out of. we didn't really have the choice of withdrawal. if the americans are going to give us that option, i'd say we should jump at it.
can a conservative explain to me why you want to be at this meeting?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-not-invited-isis-paris-meeting-1.3409420
Kopaja _Avenger
I'm not a conservative but I'll try to explain. Being in that room actually allows Canada to sway the group to a plan that actually may work. If we are not in the room we cant tell others why the agreed to plan may fail or garner opposite to desired results (which keeps on happening).
jessica murray
yeah, you're not a conservative - you're too naive.
imrighton
It should be obvious but then you ask that a "conservative" give you an explanation. So you are no doubt a Lib partisan playing dumb.
We are engaged in a war Jessica. Our allies are holding important strategic, planning sessions. We aren't invited. Decisions will be made affecting our military operations and Canada won't have a say. We have been sent to the kid's table.
jessica murray
well, no. i've been over this many times. i'm many degrees to the left of the liberal party.
you're not really answering the question: why, exactly, do you want to be involved in this war?
i mean, from my perspective it was more like we were stuck in something we couldn't get out of. we didn't really have the choice of withdrawal. if the americans are going to give us that option, i'd say we should jump at it.
this is a great example of how clueless the media is.
rate cuts have to be really big to affect the economy. if you want to buy a house, are you going to change your mind because the interest rate is a quarter of a percent lower? if it even *is*? there's no guarantee that the central bank changing it's inter-bank lending rate will have any effect on interest rates that you or i have to deal with. that's still an external market. and, if you weren't thinking about buying a house, is a quarter of a percent going to make you jump at it?
a three-five percent change might make you change your mind. a 0.25% change? it's like it didn't even happen, right.
the bank knows that. the government knows that. economists know that. it's only the media that doesn't know this.
so, why do this?
the answer is that the government is about to create a lot of debt through stimulus spending. that's actually not bad, either, because the economy is dead - although see my recent repost on keynes for some healthy skepticism. but, if you're going to create a lot of debt, it is optimal to do so in an environment with minimal interest rates - because then you're paying less interest on the debt.
the article says nothing about this. you won't find one that does. it says something about not needing to cut rates because of the stimulus spending. which is total fucking derp derp derp.....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bank-of-canada-rate-advancer-1.3408694
rate cuts have to be really big to affect the economy. if you want to buy a house, are you going to change your mind because the interest rate is a quarter of a percent lower? if it even *is*? there's no guarantee that the central bank changing it's inter-bank lending rate will have any effect on interest rates that you or i have to deal with. that's still an external market. and, if you weren't thinking about buying a house, is a quarter of a percent going to make you jump at it?
a three-five percent change might make you change your mind. a 0.25% change? it's like it didn't even happen, right.
the bank knows that. the government knows that. economists know that. it's only the media that doesn't know this.
so, why do this?
the answer is that the government is about to create a lot of debt through stimulus spending. that's actually not bad, either, because the economy is dead - although see my recent repost on keynes for some healthy skepticism. but, if you're going to create a lot of debt, it is optimal to do so in an environment with minimal interest rates - because then you're paying less interest on the debt.
the article says nothing about this. you won't find one that does. it says something about not needing to cut rates because of the stimulus spending. which is total fucking derp derp derp.....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bank-of-canada-rate-advancer-1.3408694
what are the oscars? what do they measure? what does it mean when somebody gets an oscar?
jada seems to be approaching the issue from the same lens as kayne was - that the oscars actually legitimately reflect excellency in the field of acting. so, to get an oscar is a form of recognition for that excellence. jada seems to be upset for the same reason as kanye, which is also the same reason nicki minaj was upset - they felt they produced something excellent and they should be acknowledged for that excellence. they think they won the talent show, kind of thing, and it's an injustice that they are (or their preferred choice is) being ignored.
(audience laughter)
vivian, here, seems to be taking a different perspective - namely that the oscars are a kind of promotional tool, and should be awarded not based on total excellency but on more of a needs-based basis. that is, they should go to the actors that demonstrate the best potential and need the most exposure. to vivian, the oscars should be used as a way to establish a career.
their different deductions come from their different perspectives.
if you think the oscars are all about massaging your own ego, it follows that they should only go to established icons - and so it must be all about acknowledgement. the obvious racial biases that exist across all american institutions become a clear reason to boycott the institution; because, from that perspective, it is truly all about reaching the top of a hierarchy. yet, if you think the oscars are to be seen as a launching pad that has little reflection on actual performance or actual talent, then that logic makes no sense - winning an oscar is just another public relations tactic.
so, who is right?
i'm leaning towards vivian. but, not because the oscars are racist; rather, because the oscars have no artistic credibility. if they had any credibility at all, i would agree with jada. but, they don't. so, i agree with vivian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9eY-kKXBnQ
jada seems to be approaching the issue from the same lens as kayne was - that the oscars actually legitimately reflect excellency in the field of acting. so, to get an oscar is a form of recognition for that excellence. jada seems to be upset for the same reason as kanye, which is also the same reason nicki minaj was upset - they felt they produced something excellent and they should be acknowledged for that excellence. they think they won the talent show, kind of thing, and it's an injustice that they are (or their preferred choice is) being ignored.
(audience laughter)
vivian, here, seems to be taking a different perspective - namely that the oscars are a kind of promotional tool, and should be awarded not based on total excellency but on more of a needs-based basis. that is, they should go to the actors that demonstrate the best potential and need the most exposure. to vivian, the oscars should be used as a way to establish a career.
their different deductions come from their different perspectives.
if you think the oscars are all about massaging your own ego, it follows that they should only go to established icons - and so it must be all about acknowledgement. the obvious racial biases that exist across all american institutions become a clear reason to boycott the institution; because, from that perspective, it is truly all about reaching the top of a hierarchy. yet, if you think the oscars are to be seen as a launching pad that has little reflection on actual performance or actual talent, then that logic makes no sense - winning an oscar is just another public relations tactic.
so, who is right?
i'm leaning towards vivian. but, not because the oscars are racist; rather, because the oscars have no artistic credibility. if they had any credibility at all, i would agree with jada. but, they don't. so, i agree with vivian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9eY-kKXBnQ
it is often stated that, as individuals, we produce a large amount of trash.
i'm calling bullshit on this claim. that is to say that i don't believe i create much of any trash at all. extrapolating, it would be completely inaccurate to shoulder the trash-generation burden upon all of us equally, or suggest we are all equally culpable. the truth is more along the lines of that a very small percentage of people produce an absolutely astounding amount of trash. we should be focusing on the culprits and coercing and ostracizing them to behave more responsibly as individuals, not socializing the responsibility.
to demonstrate my claim, i am going to record how long it takes for me to fill a shopping bag full of trash. it's just your standard shopping bag. and it's just every day trash.
i believe that it will take me at least a year to fill this bag worth of trash. so, how much am i *actually* adding to the landfill this year? less than a shopping bag's worth of highly compressible plastic...
that is, almost nothing at all. if i can do it, you can do it too!
i'm calling bullshit on this claim. that is to say that i don't believe i create much of any trash at all. extrapolating, it would be completely inaccurate to shoulder the trash-generation burden upon all of us equally, or suggest we are all equally culpable. the truth is more along the lines of that a very small percentage of people produce an absolutely astounding amount of trash. we should be focusing on the culprits and coercing and ostracizing them to behave more responsibly as individuals, not socializing the responsibility.
to demonstrate my claim, i am going to record how long it takes for me to fill a shopping bag full of trash. it's just your standard shopping bag. and it's just every day trash.
i believe that it will take me at least a year to fill this bag worth of trash. so, how much am i *actually* adding to the landfill this year? less than a shopping bag's worth of highly compressible plastic...
that is, almost nothing at all. if i can do it, you can do it too!
Monday, January 18, 2016
so, is it still not winter yet?
cold snap 1:
jan 3: +0.9/-4.3
jan 4: -3.6/-11.4
jan 5: -2.4/ -13.2
jan 6: +1.9/-6.8
and, that -11.4 was late on the 4th and the -13.2 was early on the 5th, so we actually only got a few hours of cold weather. that's an autumn cold snap. most generously, this is four days - not the five required to define a winter.
cold snap 2:
jan 10: +5.4/-7.3
jan 11: -7.3/-12.1
jan 12: -2.9/-9.2
jan 13: -8.5/-11.1
jan 14: 0.5/-8.2
so, this was a more extended period of cold. but, it did not produce a snow cover (there was a dusting of snow that disappeared in the rain storm we got right after). and, it's still not a solid 5 days of cold - although it is very close. this is still late autumn weather, not winter weather. remember: this is canada. we need stringent definitions of sustained cold, not just a cold snap.
cold snap 3:
jan 16: +3.3/-1.2
jan 17: -1.2/-11.9
jan 18: cold
jan 19: cold
jan 20: cold
jan 21: warming up
we'll have to see. it's shaping up to be very close. and, if you take the broader view from the 10th-25th, it could be seen as a two-week period of winter.
but, the long range after the 21st suggests a very early spring.
i may have to concede the point on the length of cold snap #3. but, it will be very close. and, i'm not there yet.
cold snap 1:
jan 3: +0.9/-4.3
jan 4: -3.6/-11.4
jan 5: -2.4/ -13.2
jan 6: +1.9/-6.8
and, that -11.4 was late on the 4th and the -13.2 was early on the 5th, so we actually only got a few hours of cold weather. that's an autumn cold snap. most generously, this is four days - not the five required to define a winter.
cold snap 2:
jan 10: +5.4/-7.3
jan 11: -7.3/-12.1
jan 12: -2.9/-9.2
jan 13: -8.5/-11.1
jan 14: 0.5/-8.2
so, this was a more extended period of cold. but, it did not produce a snow cover (there was a dusting of snow that disappeared in the rain storm we got right after). and, it's still not a solid 5 days of cold - although it is very close. this is still late autumn weather, not winter weather. remember: this is canada. we need stringent definitions of sustained cold, not just a cold snap.
cold snap 3:
jan 16: +3.3/-1.2
jan 17: -1.2/-11.9
jan 18: cold
jan 19: cold
jan 20: cold
jan 21: warming up
we'll have to see. it's shaping up to be very close. and, if you take the broader view from the 10th-25th, it could be seen as a two-week period of winter.
but, the long range after the 21st suggests a very early spring.
i may have to concede the point on the length of cold snap #3. but, it will be very close. and, i'm not there yet.
it's actually a relatively understood phenomenon. it's not really that the tiger is lonely, tigers do tend to live alone in the wild, and more that dropping a goat in plain sight isn't setting off it's instincts to hunt. further, tigers are advanced mammals and consequently relatively smart creatures - it no doubt was able to compute that the stream of food was constant. so, you put those things together and what you get is something more along the lines of the idea that the tiger is *bored*.
but, it only explains half of the issue. i have somewhat of a hunch that the tiger may soon try and mate with the goat. that might be what's actually going on.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/tiger-and-his-prey-form-an-unlikely-friendship/62466/
but, it only explains half of the issue. i have somewhat of a hunch that the tiger may soon try and mate with the goat. that might be what's actually going on.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/tiger-and-his-prey-form-an-unlikely-friendship/62466/
Dec 26, 2011
bookmark these links. they have everything you need to prove the 'kerosene can't melt steel' folks wrong.
the key point of error on their behalf is that they're trying to use the melting point of steel, which is when steel turns into liquid, as a reference point. it is true that kerosene will not liquify steel. but, you don't have to liquify steel to make it incapable of holding up tonnes and tonnes worth of mass. clearly? all you have to do is soften it up. think that through, it's obvious.
that means that they shouldn't be focusing on the melting point but on something called the critical point, which is a well defined engineering term. the critical point of steel is not absolute. thinking like that misunderstands what the term means. the critical point refers to a building, not a material. so, you ask what the critical point of a steel beam in a building is, and that depends on the weight that the building needs to hold up. more weight, lower critical point. there's a nice graph in the pdf that shows that it's as low as 200 C for very heavy loads.
that means that they're wrong. kerosene can burn plenty hot to get past the critical point.
http://dubious-maxims.blogspot.com/2006/08/kerosene-wont-melt-steel.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel - Fire_resistance
www.lmc.ep.usp.br/people/valdir/wp-content/artigos/jbsmse.pdf
bookmark these links. they have everything you need to prove the 'kerosene can't melt steel' folks wrong.
the key point of error on their behalf is that they're trying to use the melting point of steel, which is when steel turns into liquid, as a reference point. it is true that kerosene will not liquify steel. but, you don't have to liquify steel to make it incapable of holding up tonnes and tonnes worth of mass. clearly? all you have to do is soften it up. think that through, it's obvious.
that means that they shouldn't be focusing on the melting point but on something called the critical point, which is a well defined engineering term. the critical point of steel is not absolute. thinking like that misunderstands what the term means. the critical point refers to a building, not a material. so, you ask what the critical point of a steel beam in a building is, and that depends on the weight that the building needs to hold up. more weight, lower critical point. there's a nice graph in the pdf that shows that it's as low as 200 C for very heavy loads.
that means that they're wrong. kerosene can burn plenty hot to get past the critical point.
http://dubious-maxims.blogspot.com/2006/08/kerosene-wont-melt-steel.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel - Fire_resistance
www.lmc.ep.usp.br/people/valdir/wp-content/artigos/jbsmse.pdf
nov 28, 2011
didn't i say something about this yesterday? solipsism alert...
i've rambled about this before, but not here. the major flaw in modern economics - and, yes, i started with mankiw's horrendous text - is that it repeatedly assigns causal relations based on theory rather than experiment. to call that flunkie science would be being nice.
those nice little graphs where you take an intersection point back and forth are mostly complete nonsense from a scientific perspective because there aren't studies to back them up, just supposedly pristine logic.
a perfect example of the flawed causal relations is the idea that cutting taxes increases jobs. i'm not the first person that's pointed this out, but maybe it's less realized that the discipline routinely produces arguments that are equally causally terrible. and, it's as a causal relation that these things are presented, as though there's some physical force in the universe that is as powerful as any magnetic force that demands that one necessarily leads to the other.
in reality, it's a bad argument based on utopian caricatures of human nature. in fact, dozens of the causal relations presented are....
it's admittedly hard to do experiments in economics. but, data is slowly building. and, when it does, the unsettling conclusion is going to be that they don't even have correlation, let alone causality.
our system of economics is really in an incredibly primitive aristotlian stage of philosophy. we need a newton to reform the system into a science, and then an einstein to actually understand it.
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/98/new-spirit-economics.html
didn't i say something about this yesterday? solipsism alert...
i've rambled about this before, but not here. the major flaw in modern economics - and, yes, i started with mankiw's horrendous text - is that it repeatedly assigns causal relations based on theory rather than experiment. to call that flunkie science would be being nice.
those nice little graphs where you take an intersection point back and forth are mostly complete nonsense from a scientific perspective because there aren't studies to back them up, just supposedly pristine logic.
a perfect example of the flawed causal relations is the idea that cutting taxes increases jobs. i'm not the first person that's pointed this out, but maybe it's less realized that the discipline routinely produces arguments that are equally causally terrible. and, it's as a causal relation that these things are presented, as though there's some physical force in the universe that is as powerful as any magnetic force that demands that one necessarily leads to the other.
in reality, it's a bad argument based on utopian caricatures of human nature. in fact, dozens of the causal relations presented are....
it's admittedly hard to do experiments in economics. but, data is slowly building. and, when it does, the unsettling conclusion is going to be that they don't even have correlation, let alone causality.
our system of economics is really in an incredibly primitive aristotlian stage of philosophy. we need a newton to reform the system into a science, and then an einstein to actually understand it.
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/98/new-spirit-economics.html
sept 6, 2011
"but you didn't even sign kyoto!"
"sure we did."
"ok. but, you didn't implement it."
"well, we were studying it."
"and how long were you going to study it?"
"until we could come up with an economically feasible solution. you know, the economy is important. we are the british liberal party."
"ok, but if we don't have a clean world we can live in, growth won't mean much, will it?"
"we agree. but, we weren't willing to act in ways that would ravage the economy. we had to try and find a way that would balance both of these concerns."
"you took too long, so long that it seemed like you weren't doing anything."
"but, we were doing something. we had all kinds of commissions set up and they wrote all kinds of reports for parliament. that's how our system works."
"we need action now and can't wait for this."
"then you should join us. we have mountains of reports, now. we have plans...you have ideas, too. we can work together."
"you will ask us to compromise too much."
"the truth is that you don't have a choice. you can risk joining us and accomplishing nothing, or you can continue on with the certainty of accomplishing nothing."
"but you didn't even sign kyoto!"
"sure we did."
"ok. but, you didn't implement it."
"well, we were studying it."
"and how long were you going to study it?"
"until we could come up with an economically feasible solution. you know, the economy is important. we are the british liberal party."
"ok, but if we don't have a clean world we can live in, growth won't mean much, will it?"
"we agree. but, we weren't willing to act in ways that would ravage the economy. we had to try and find a way that would balance both of these concerns."
"you took too long, so long that it seemed like you weren't doing anything."
"but, we were doing something. we had all kinds of commissions set up and they wrote all kinds of reports for parliament. that's how our system works."
"we need action now and can't wait for this."
"then you should join us. we have mountains of reports, now. we have plans...you have ideas, too. we can work together."
"you will ask us to compromise too much."
"the truth is that you don't have a choice. you can risk joining us and accomplishing nothing, or you can continue on with the certainty of accomplishing nothing."
sept 4, 2011
yes, i was rooting for clinton in '08. exclusively. barry struck me as a conservative from day one.
of course, i'm from canada. bernie sanders would be a moderate up here.
i remember watching hillary on tv when i was a kid. i remember the work she did with trying to get some health reform through.
...and she struck me as genuine. real.
are we talking about the same hillary clinton?
we actually might not be.
regardless, those images stuck in my mind. i conceive of her as a fighter, somebody with a conscience, and that's rare in politics.
are we talking about the same hillary?
we actually might not be.
she didn't even hold an office at the time, besides that of first lady. yet, she was spending all of her time trying to get humanitarian legislation pushed through congress, feed starving kids and end wars. why? for her legacy? her husband's? it didn't seem that way, and i don't think it was. it seemed like she was just driven by a desire for positive change.
...and that's very rare in politics.
are we talking about the same hillary?
actually...
(edit: i just love that i pulled out bernie sanders, of all the people i could have picked. i could have picked kucinich, for example.
it's true, though.
in canada, obama would be widely seen as a conservative, hillary would be seen as a right-wing liberal and bernie sanders would be pretty much dead center. in fact, jill stein would be barely left of center.)
yes, i was rooting for clinton in '08. exclusively. barry struck me as a conservative from day one.
of course, i'm from canada. bernie sanders would be a moderate up here.
i remember watching hillary on tv when i was a kid. i remember the work she did with trying to get some health reform through.
...and she struck me as genuine. real.
are we talking about the same hillary clinton?
we actually might not be.
regardless, those images stuck in my mind. i conceive of her as a fighter, somebody with a conscience, and that's rare in politics.
are we talking about the same hillary?
we actually might not be.
she didn't even hold an office at the time, besides that of first lady. yet, she was spending all of her time trying to get humanitarian legislation pushed through congress, feed starving kids and end wars. why? for her legacy? her husband's? it didn't seem that way, and i don't think it was. it seemed like she was just driven by a desire for positive change.
...and that's very rare in politics.
are we talking about the same hillary?
actually...
(edit: i just love that i pulled out bernie sanders, of all the people i could have picked. i could have picked kucinich, for example.
it's true, though.
in canada, obama would be widely seen as a conservative, hillary would be seen as a right-wing liberal and bernie sanders would be pretty much dead center. in fact, jill stein would be barely left of center.)
aug 13, 2011
i'm breaking with keynes, but it's not because i think he was wrong, although i've never been in absolute agreement in the first place, nor am i adopting austrian or marxist economic theory. what i think is that the world has changed and that keynes' theory is no longer realistic. i don't have an answer, but let me provide a more realistic example of what happens to stimulus money:
joe, who has been unemployed for six months and is now deeply in debt, gets a job from the government digging ditches. he takes his first pay check and gives half to the bank. he spends the other half buying necessities at walmart.
when he pays his rent, it goes to an offshore property holding company. when he buys gas, it goes to a foreign-owned cartel. when he pays his utilities, it goes to a trans-national corporation.
the end result is that the amount of money in circulation is not being increased. the shop keeper or the local mechanic don't have more money to spend because they're now all salaried employees of large corporations. they don't get wage increases from stimulus that's for sure! so, in actuality, nobody has more money to spend and the theory collapses. stimulus today is really just a handout to banks and big business. it's almost like another kind of corporate subsidy.
that doesn't mean keynes was wrong, it just means that his theory is only applicable within a society that is dominated by independent businesses, which is not our society.
if we want keynes' theory to work, we'll have to go back to independent contractors and a society where money changes hand person to person, not person to organization.
if we want to maintain a corporatist system of government and large, centralized manufacturing conglomerates then we need to find a different approach to getting money circulating again.
what we have right now are these banks and massive corporate institutions acting like giant money vacuums, sucking up every cent, acting as incredible blocks on circulation.
whatever solution we come up with is going to have be rooted in stopping these institutions from taking all of the money out of circulation and it's probably going to have to be radical: inflation adjusted pay rates, personal debt forgiveness, incredible corporate tax hikes, mandated charitable contributions, societal salary caps....
harsh truth, world: keynesian policy worked pretty well under capitalism. it doesn't work anymore because we don't have capitalism anymore.
....so, bring back capitalism or build an economic theory based on corporatism, which is neither market fundamentalist (austrian) nor socialist. they won't work in this system, either...
applying a theory for a capitalist system to a corporatist state is always going to fail.
it's not and never has been a question of which theory is "best", "right" or "correct". this is economics, not religion. the question is which theory is most applicable to the reality around us, and that's going to change as the systems change. it's dynamic...
to my knowledge, there isn't really a valid fascist economic theory, but we're quickly coming up on the choice between writing one and revolutionizing society to a system where a theory does exist.
i'm not denying the multiplier effect in theory if applied to a closed economy that is dominated by independent actors, but i don't think a local multiplier effect can apply in a global market defined by free trade agreements that is dominated by massive transnational corporations and nearly static pay rates, especially not in a market that produces nearly nothing. i also think the barriers to circulation are not rooted in government policy but in the private sector and that the more important goal is to reform corporate practices through government; de-regulation has been a part of the cause of this problem, and furthering it is not a solution to it.
i'm not swinging right, i'm just concluding that the world we live in bears almost no resemblance to the one that keynes lived in.
in fact, i'd even go so far as to state it bluntly: one of the consequences of the adoption of global free trade agreements is the collapse of keynesian economic theory, and that didn't really start happening until the 80s. if we're going to have global free trade, we're going to have to leave keynes behind.
the idea that walmart, gap and guess are going to put 90% of what they get back into the economy is absurd. the workers don't see a dime from increased demand, and what the companies do invest, they invest in asia. the result is just a trickling-up and out....
i'm breaking with keynes, but it's not because i think he was wrong, although i've never been in absolute agreement in the first place, nor am i adopting austrian or marxist economic theory. what i think is that the world has changed and that keynes' theory is no longer realistic. i don't have an answer, but let me provide a more realistic example of what happens to stimulus money:
joe, who has been unemployed for six months and is now deeply in debt, gets a job from the government digging ditches. he takes his first pay check and gives half to the bank. he spends the other half buying necessities at walmart.
when he pays his rent, it goes to an offshore property holding company. when he buys gas, it goes to a foreign-owned cartel. when he pays his utilities, it goes to a trans-national corporation.
the end result is that the amount of money in circulation is not being increased. the shop keeper or the local mechanic don't have more money to spend because they're now all salaried employees of large corporations. they don't get wage increases from stimulus that's for sure! so, in actuality, nobody has more money to spend and the theory collapses. stimulus today is really just a handout to banks and big business. it's almost like another kind of corporate subsidy.
that doesn't mean keynes was wrong, it just means that his theory is only applicable within a society that is dominated by independent businesses, which is not our society.
if we want keynes' theory to work, we'll have to go back to independent contractors and a society where money changes hand person to person, not person to organization.
if we want to maintain a corporatist system of government and large, centralized manufacturing conglomerates then we need to find a different approach to getting money circulating again.
what we have right now are these banks and massive corporate institutions acting like giant money vacuums, sucking up every cent, acting as incredible blocks on circulation.
whatever solution we come up with is going to have be rooted in stopping these institutions from taking all of the money out of circulation and it's probably going to have to be radical: inflation adjusted pay rates, personal debt forgiveness, incredible corporate tax hikes, mandated charitable contributions, societal salary caps....
harsh truth, world: keynesian policy worked pretty well under capitalism. it doesn't work anymore because we don't have capitalism anymore.
....so, bring back capitalism or build an economic theory based on corporatism, which is neither market fundamentalist (austrian) nor socialist. they won't work in this system, either...
applying a theory for a capitalist system to a corporatist state is always going to fail.
it's not and never has been a question of which theory is "best", "right" or "correct". this is economics, not religion. the question is which theory is most applicable to the reality around us, and that's going to change as the systems change. it's dynamic...
to my knowledge, there isn't really a valid fascist economic theory, but we're quickly coming up on the choice between writing one and revolutionizing society to a system where a theory does exist.
i'm not denying the multiplier effect in theory if applied to a closed economy that is dominated by independent actors, but i don't think a local multiplier effect can apply in a global market defined by free trade agreements that is dominated by massive transnational corporations and nearly static pay rates, especially not in a market that produces nearly nothing. i also think the barriers to circulation are not rooted in government policy but in the private sector and that the more important goal is to reform corporate practices through government; de-regulation has been a part of the cause of this problem, and furthering it is not a solution to it.
i'm not swinging right, i'm just concluding that the world we live in bears almost no resemblance to the one that keynes lived in.
in fact, i'd even go so far as to state it bluntly: one of the consequences of the adoption of global free trade agreements is the collapse of keynesian economic theory, and that didn't really start happening until the 80s. if we're going to have global free trade, we're going to have to leave keynes behind.
the idea that walmart, gap and guess are going to put 90% of what they get back into the economy is absurd. the workers don't see a dime from increased demand, and what the companies do invest, they invest in asia. the result is just a trickling-up and out....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)