Saturday, April 30, 2016
shit hillary said vol 45
“We now finally are where we need to be. We have a strategy and a commitment to go after ISIS, which is a danger to us, as well as the region, and we finally have a UN Security Council resolution bringing the world together to go after a political transition in Syria.”
at
23:59
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to rubio angling for a spot on the ticket (and trump's optimal vp logic)
the headline should say:
"marco rubio continues to do what he's told, as establishment finally buys the trump brand."
if you were still unclear up to this point, this is the clincher: trump is now the establishment candidate. otherwise, rubio would still be saying mean things about him - because that's what rubio does: what he's told.
the thinking is probably that rubio will help trump win some actual conservatives. but, it's the same incompetence we've seen through the entire race. he's been spent. i mean, that's why he lost everywhere - the facade was blown off.
rubio will probably hurt trump more than he helps him.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/marco-rubio-warming-up-to-donald-trump/2275308
if trump is serious, he needs to go full retard. he'd be better off with somebody like jesse ventura. i'm not joking. he'll blow the conservative vote, but what is the conservative vote? it's not that much, really.
i mean, think about this: the epiphany of trump winning is that conservatism is pretty much a dead philosophy. it's been clear in the northeast and the west coast and most of canada for quite a while, now. the surprise is that it's pretty much dead in the south, too - except amongst black democrats, oddly enough. it's still kicking in the midwest, it seems, but it's probably it's last stand. eight years from now, it'll likely be on the absolute fringe.
so, what does trump do? he listens to the establishment - the establishment he just beat the snot out of - and toys with getting a conservative as vp.
he doesn't even understand his own phenomenon. that's the level of dipshit we've got, here.
trump wants anything but a conservative (quiet down, canadians) as a running mate. what he really wants is a libertarian. ideas...
1) jesse ventura. i don't think he'd do it.
2) rand paul. i don't think he'd do it, either.
3) ron paul. you know, i think he might, actually.
4) bob barr. ??.
5) glenn beck <-!!!!
6) gary johnson. ??.
trump/beck. holy shit. i'm already laughing.
but, i'm serious - this is the right tactic. he's never going to win conservatives - and he just proved there aren't enough of them to win a fucking primary, anyways. he wants to go after liberals.
can arnold be vp?
"marco rubio continues to do what he's told, as establishment finally buys the trump brand."
if you were still unclear up to this point, this is the clincher: trump is now the establishment candidate. otherwise, rubio would still be saying mean things about him - because that's what rubio does: what he's told.
the thinking is probably that rubio will help trump win some actual conservatives. but, it's the same incompetence we've seen through the entire race. he's been spent. i mean, that's why he lost everywhere - the facade was blown off.
rubio will probably hurt trump more than he helps him.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/marco-rubio-warming-up-to-donald-trump/2275308
if trump is serious, he needs to go full retard. he'd be better off with somebody like jesse ventura. i'm not joking. he'll blow the conservative vote, but what is the conservative vote? it's not that much, really.
i mean, think about this: the epiphany of trump winning is that conservatism is pretty much a dead philosophy. it's been clear in the northeast and the west coast and most of canada for quite a while, now. the surprise is that it's pretty much dead in the south, too - except amongst black democrats, oddly enough. it's still kicking in the midwest, it seems, but it's probably it's last stand. eight years from now, it'll likely be on the absolute fringe.
so, what does trump do? he listens to the establishment - the establishment he just beat the snot out of - and toys with getting a conservative as vp.
he doesn't even understand his own phenomenon. that's the level of dipshit we've got, here.
trump wants anything but a conservative (quiet down, canadians) as a running mate. what he really wants is a libertarian. ideas...
1) jesse ventura. i don't think he'd do it.
2) rand paul. i don't think he'd do it, either.
3) ron paul. you know, i think he might, actually.
4) bob barr. ??.
5) glenn beck <-!!!!
6) gary johnson. ??.
trump/beck. holy shit. i'm already laughing.
but, i'm serious - this is the right tactic. he's never going to win conservatives - and he just proved there aren't enough of them to win a fucking primary, anyways. he wants to go after liberals.
can arnold be vp?
at
20:38
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to if bernie would split the left (he may prevent a split by running!)
(in reply to somebody's comment)
but, hillary also supports war against iran and mass deportations - along with the tpp and nafta. the wall is never getting built. and, did you know that clinton supports a constitutional amendment to limit abortion access?
i think most leftists would have to concede that trump is the lesser evil on foreign policy [he actually seems to be an isolationist, and seems to want to dismantle the empire - whereas hillary is a bellicose interventionist that will no doubt launch at least three unnecessary wars] and just flat out better on trade. his positions on trade and foreign policy are legitimately closer to sanders', although nowhere near as appealing.
where trump is really scary is his fiscal policy. i don't think he's going to punish anybody for getting an abortion. i do think he'll probably bankrupt the country.
...which is why you should probably expect hillary to run to the right of trump. while clinton may demolish him in a two-way race, it's going to be by winning red states - and by being more appealing to conservatives than trump is. so, clinton wins 40 states, sure. but, the result is that even the moderate left ends up disenfranchised.
i think he needs to wait until at least july to decide. but, i actually don't think that sanders really has a choice. if he doesn't run, what is going to happen is that jill stein is going to show up on the map in a big way. i share the author's view that sanders will win a three-way race, as clinton essentially pushes trump out of the spectrum and becomes the republican nominee. but, stein cannot win - not from where she is. so, if he doesn't run, stein could very well split the vote badly enough to screw things up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/case-for-sanders-running-independent-if-clinton-nominee_b_9803982.html
to put it another way: somebody is going to run to the left of clinton, and that person is going to generate significant support. the real question is whether that person is:
1) not a factor. so, you could see something like clinton 55, trump 35, stein 10. that's a huge boost for the third party, but clinton wins anyways.
2) enough of a factor to split. so, then you'd get something like clinton 45, trump 35, stein 20 - but the electoral college would be kind to trump. that would be the reverse of the perot scenario that elected bill clinton.
3) or enough to actually win. then, you'd get something like clinton 25, trump 35, sanders 38, stein 2.
it ought to be a very delicate decision, made at the very last minute. and, if (3) is made to prevent (2)? it's actually "unsplitting the vote".
i don't think you can put sanders back in the tube. his supporters are going to be looking for another option, which right now is likely to be stein.
but, hillary also supports war against iran and mass deportations - along with the tpp and nafta. the wall is never getting built. and, did you know that clinton supports a constitutional amendment to limit abortion access?
i think most leftists would have to concede that trump is the lesser evil on foreign policy [he actually seems to be an isolationist, and seems to want to dismantle the empire - whereas hillary is a bellicose interventionist that will no doubt launch at least three unnecessary wars] and just flat out better on trade. his positions on trade and foreign policy are legitimately closer to sanders', although nowhere near as appealing.
where trump is really scary is his fiscal policy. i don't think he's going to punish anybody for getting an abortion. i do think he'll probably bankrupt the country.
...which is why you should probably expect hillary to run to the right of trump. while clinton may demolish him in a two-way race, it's going to be by winning red states - and by being more appealing to conservatives than trump is. so, clinton wins 40 states, sure. but, the result is that even the moderate left ends up disenfranchised.
i think he needs to wait until at least july to decide. but, i actually don't think that sanders really has a choice. if he doesn't run, what is going to happen is that jill stein is going to show up on the map in a big way. i share the author's view that sanders will win a three-way race, as clinton essentially pushes trump out of the spectrum and becomes the republican nominee. but, stein cannot win - not from where she is. so, if he doesn't run, stein could very well split the vote badly enough to screw things up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/case-for-sanders-running-independent-if-clinton-nominee_b_9803982.html
to put it another way: somebody is going to run to the left of clinton, and that person is going to generate significant support. the real question is whether that person is:
1) not a factor. so, you could see something like clinton 55, trump 35, stein 10. that's a huge boost for the third party, but clinton wins anyways.
2) enough of a factor to split. so, then you'd get something like clinton 45, trump 35, stein 20 - but the electoral college would be kind to trump. that would be the reverse of the perot scenario that elected bill clinton.
3) or enough to actually win. then, you'd get something like clinton 25, trump 35, sanders 38, stein 2.
it ought to be a very delicate decision, made at the very last minute. and, if (3) is made to prevent (2)? it's actually "unsplitting the vote".
i don't think you can put sanders back in the tube. his supporters are going to be looking for another option, which right now is likely to be stein.
at
19:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
it was always about the price of oil. the criticism was that they tied themselves too strongly to the price of oil, thereby reducing the country's fiscal situation to the whim of global investors. so, when the price of oil comes down, you get huge deficits - and when it comes up, you get huge surpluses. you fix this by recreating a stable tax base, so the country can better deal with the volatility in oil prices.
oil was expected to stay low this year. it hasn't - it has risen. so, we're getting surpluses instead of deficits. it was largely agreed that the liberals low-balled the projections, but it was also largely agreed that the price would stay low.
this is not the point. it's a red herring. it's the situation of relying on oil prices that is the problem that needs to be resolved. and, the fact that we're in this situation cannot be spun out of - it is flat fiscal incompetence. if the government decides to hold to it, it's just carrying on the incompetence. an advanced nation requires an actual tax base.
(of course, i don't particularly care, anyways. i only care about keeping the imf vultures away. i'm just saying.)
www.cbc.ca/news/business/ottawa-federal-surplus-deficit-1.3559175
oil was expected to stay low this year. it hasn't - it has risen. so, we're getting surpluses instead of deficits. it was largely agreed that the liberals low-balled the projections, but it was also largely agreed that the price would stay low.
this is not the point. it's a red herring. it's the situation of relying on oil prices that is the problem that needs to be resolved. and, the fact that we're in this situation cannot be spun out of - it is flat fiscal incompetence. if the government decides to hold to it, it's just carrying on the incompetence. an advanced nation requires an actual tax base.
(of course, i don't particularly care, anyways. i only care about keeping the imf vultures away. i'm just saying.)
www.cbc.ca/news/business/ottawa-federal-surplus-deficit-1.3559175
at
09:31
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Friday, April 29, 2016
shit hillary said vol 44
"I am advocating the no-fly zone both because I think it would help us on the ground to protect Syrians; I’m also advocating it because I think it gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia."
at
23:59
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to how trump is morphing into bush III
"We’re getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the world."
that could be a direct quote from bush. and, it's probably neither coincidence nor calculation - rather, i suspect that this speech was literally written by bush' old speechwriters.
but, something else is curious. if you take away the two or three lines about trade and the opaque barbs at obama, it sounds exactly like something hillary would say.
trump's mild appeal as a possible lesser evil is fading fast as he gets in line and becomes a spokesperson for the republican old guard. if you voted for him to flip the tpp, you've been had. might it have been a ploy from the start?
please vote for jill stein or do not vote at all.
http://time.com/4309786/read-donald-trumps-america-first-foreign-policy-speech/
that could be a direct quote from bush. and, it's probably neither coincidence nor calculation - rather, i suspect that this speech was literally written by bush' old speechwriters.
but, something else is curious. if you take away the two or three lines about trade and the opaque barbs at obama, it sounds exactly like something hillary would say.
trump's mild appeal as a possible lesser evil is fading fast as he gets in line and becomes a spokesperson for the republican old guard. if you voted for him to flip the tpp, you've been had. might it have been a ploy from the start?
please vote for jill stein or do not vote at all.
http://time.com/4309786/read-donald-trumps-america-first-foreign-policy-speech/
at
15:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to an anecdote by max blumenthal about sanders, warren and aipac
interesting sanders anecdote. and, i don't think this is news, i was just watching this as i was eating. nor is it the crux of the talk. i'm just saying....
nobody's ever argued that sanders is ideal. he's still a lesser evil. and, i've frankly never really taken his bit about corruption seriously - it's just politics.
i've heard elizabeth warren explain away her votes for israeli action by saying something like "america needs an ally in the middle east.". it's the same fundamental policy that's been in place since 1973. it's about the - reasonable - american refusal to accept the saudis as a full ally. it's not about any particular support for israeli policy, and really never has been. it's just all about the geo-political realities around controlling the oil supply.and, the palestinians just get thrown under the bus.
even that said, sanders has taken some really bold positions on the campaign trail. it may not be far enough for most activists, but, even on this issue, it's still incomparably better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HdHkdnc7iA
i think that, if you follow the argument properly, the best thing that activists in the united states can do on the palestine issue is support the shift to renewable energy. if we can get off oil, we can get off israel, too. you're bluntly not likely to see positive changes in american policy in the region until the shift to energy independence is completed.
nobody's ever argued that sanders is ideal. he's still a lesser evil. and, i've frankly never really taken his bit about corruption seriously - it's just politics.
i've heard elizabeth warren explain away her votes for israeli action by saying something like "america needs an ally in the middle east.". it's the same fundamental policy that's been in place since 1973. it's about the - reasonable - american refusal to accept the saudis as a full ally. it's not about any particular support for israeli policy, and really never has been. it's just all about the geo-political realities around controlling the oil supply.and, the palestinians just get thrown under the bus.
even that said, sanders has taken some really bold positions on the campaign trail. it may not be far enough for most activists, but, even on this issue, it's still incomparably better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HdHkdnc7iA
i think that, if you follow the argument properly, the best thing that activists in the united states can do on the palestine issue is support the shift to renewable energy. if we can get off oil, we can get off israel, too. you're bluntly not likely to see positive changes in american policy in the region until the shift to energy independence is completed.
at
14:27
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the supreme court argument [red herring...]
so, now it's about the supreme court, apparently - bernie supporters should support hillary to stop the republicans from stacking the supreme court. is that a better argument?
it's not. it's just a restatement of the other arguments, and the response is the same as it is with the other arguments.
first, let's acknowledge that it's a desperate reaction. what it states is that you can't win the argument that hillary is substantively better than trump, so you're just not making it. instead, you're essentially changing the topic. so, it's a red herring. when you say hillary isn't better than trump, that doesn't somehow not apply to the supreme court nominees.
what would hillary's supreme court nominees look like? they'd be pretty shitty, no doubt - designed to protect corporate power and uphold the status quo. and, remember: hillary supports a constitutional amendment to limit abortion rights. she only came out in favour of gay marriage after the court ruling, and only because of the court ruling. she is a conservative, so you should expect her to appoint conservatives. the best case is the status quo; a realistic expectation is actually a shift to the right, as she'll no doubt replace the democrats that resign with justices that are more conservative.
so, like everything else about hillary, you should expect her supreme court nominations to be horrendous. disastrous, even. but, they'll be chosen in such a way as to not rock boats. you won't realize the shit has hit the fan until it does, if you do at all. so, we get this continuing shift to the right without anybody noticing.
what about trump? well, you'd expect little subtlety in his picks, although i don't think you should take him seriously on the abortion thing. but, let's say you do. let's say he literally appoints judge judy. and, let's say he somehow gets her confirmed. people are going to riot.
so, what do you want? do you want eight more years of the status quo, where they're fucking everybody over and nobody reacts? or do you want some serious pushback?
it's not. it's just a restatement of the other arguments, and the response is the same as it is with the other arguments.
first, let's acknowledge that it's a desperate reaction. what it states is that you can't win the argument that hillary is substantively better than trump, so you're just not making it. instead, you're essentially changing the topic. so, it's a red herring. when you say hillary isn't better than trump, that doesn't somehow not apply to the supreme court nominees.
what would hillary's supreme court nominees look like? they'd be pretty shitty, no doubt - designed to protect corporate power and uphold the status quo. and, remember: hillary supports a constitutional amendment to limit abortion rights. she only came out in favour of gay marriage after the court ruling, and only because of the court ruling. she is a conservative, so you should expect her to appoint conservatives. the best case is the status quo; a realistic expectation is actually a shift to the right, as she'll no doubt replace the democrats that resign with justices that are more conservative.
so, like everything else about hillary, you should expect her supreme court nominations to be horrendous. disastrous, even. but, they'll be chosen in such a way as to not rock boats. you won't realize the shit has hit the fan until it does, if you do at all. so, we get this continuing shift to the right without anybody noticing.
what about trump? well, you'd expect little subtlety in his picks, although i don't think you should take him seriously on the abortion thing. but, let's say you do. let's say he literally appoints judge judy. and, let's say he somehow gets her confirmed. people are going to riot.
so, what do you want? do you want eight more years of the status quo, where they're fucking everybody over and nobody reacts? or do you want some serious pushback?
at
13:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Thursday, April 28, 2016
shit hillary said vol 43
“Adults are not fulfilling their responsibility to talk to young people about the future, about how they should view their lives, about self-discipline and other values they should have. It’s not birth control, but self-control.”
at
16:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
sewer blockage
jessica
hi.
there's a really severe sewer blockage somewhere around my unit that seems to have clicked in overnight. i know that's vague, but i don't actually know where the blockage is. but, i do know that, the last time i had a block like this (two years ago), the eel company told me that the block was probably off the property and the city should have taken care of it. the toilet is currently inoperable due to the block [it takes ten minutes to drain and takes nothing with it].
i will have to call my landlord. but, i'm just wondering what the process is in getting the city to clear it's side of the lines, in case that's what the issue is (as i think it is).
i live at 805 marion.
311
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your email.
The City of Windsor offers an eeling program, I would suggest contacting the Public Works Maintenance Department immediately to schedule an appointment. Public Works maintenance can be reached at 519-255-6326. I have also provided The City of Windsor Eeling Program Link:
http://www.citywindsor.ca/residents/maintenanceandfieldservices/Sewers-/Pages/Eeling-Program.aspx
Thank you for using the City of Windsor 311 services.
(phone call made)
jessica
hi.
i have contacted them, and they are offering the eeling service at a charge that i can't place on the property owners without their consent. but i want to be clear that i believe that the blockage is not on the property - that it is in the actual sewer, and is a combination of things like coffee cups, tree branches and other trash that washed into the sewer from the street. i consequently feel like this is something the city should be dealing with through a different method than eeling through a cleanout, like by sending a truck to clear out the sewers. it just strikes me as unfair for my landlord to pick up the bill on something that is affecting the entire neighbourhood [simply because i'm pushy enough to force him to]. and, fwiw, the water level in the sewers on my side of the street is very high, while the water level in the sewers across the street is not - i think it's very clear the blockage is not on his property.
is there a different program for this that places the cost on the city, where it really belongs?
311
Good Afternoon Jessica,
I am so sorry to hear about the sewer blockage at your resident.
Can you please provide your address and if possible your contact information and I will register a Service Request to have your street sewer cleaned of the tree branches and other trash that has washed into the street sewer and I will also submit a Street Sweeping request to Environmental Services so the street can be cleared of waste.
Thank you for using the City of Windsor 311 services.
jessica
i'm at 805 marion.
can i ask how long you expect such a request to take to process and result in a clearing?
311
Good Afternoon,
A sewer complaint's duration can be up to 10 business day. I've have including your comments in the Service Request and also flagged your e-mail as Emergency. Your Service Request No. for your Sewer Complaint is 16-000 10159 in case you need to contact Public Works Maintenance.
Thank you for using the City of Windsor 311 services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Windsor - 311 Automated Response E-mail Notification - DO NOT REPLY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for using 311!
Your request has been added to the service request tracking system.
Request Type: Sewer Complaint
Your reference number is: 16-00015159.
Click here to view the status of your service request online.
Alternatively, you can call 311 for follow-up by quoting your reference number.
hi.
there's a really severe sewer blockage somewhere around my unit that seems to have clicked in overnight. i know that's vague, but i don't actually know where the blockage is. but, i do know that, the last time i had a block like this (two years ago), the eel company told me that the block was probably off the property and the city should have taken care of it. the toilet is currently inoperable due to the block [it takes ten minutes to drain and takes nothing with it].
i will have to call my landlord. but, i'm just wondering what the process is in getting the city to clear it's side of the lines, in case that's what the issue is (as i think it is).
i live at 805 marion.
311
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your email.
The City of Windsor offers an eeling program, I would suggest contacting the Public Works Maintenance Department immediately to schedule an appointment. Public Works maintenance can be reached at 519-255-6326. I have also provided The City of Windsor Eeling Program Link:
http://www.citywindsor.ca/residents/maintenanceandfieldservices/Sewers-/Pages/Eeling-Program.aspx
Thank you for using the City of Windsor 311 services.
(phone call made)
jessica
hi.
i have contacted them, and they are offering the eeling service at a charge that i can't place on the property owners without their consent. but i want to be clear that i believe that the blockage is not on the property - that it is in the actual sewer, and is a combination of things like coffee cups, tree branches and other trash that washed into the sewer from the street. i consequently feel like this is something the city should be dealing with through a different method than eeling through a cleanout, like by sending a truck to clear out the sewers. it just strikes me as unfair for my landlord to pick up the bill on something that is affecting the entire neighbourhood [simply because i'm pushy enough to force him to]. and, fwiw, the water level in the sewers on my side of the street is very high, while the water level in the sewers across the street is not - i think it's very clear the blockage is not on his property.
is there a different program for this that places the cost on the city, where it really belongs?
311
Good Afternoon Jessica,
I am so sorry to hear about the sewer blockage at your resident.
Can you please provide your address and if possible your contact information and I will register a Service Request to have your street sewer cleaned of the tree branches and other trash that has washed into the street sewer and I will also submit a Street Sweeping request to Environmental Services so the street can be cleared of waste.
Thank you for using the City of Windsor 311 services.
jessica
i'm at 805 marion.
can i ask how long you expect such a request to take to process and result in a clearing?
311
Good Afternoon,
A sewer complaint's duration can be up to 10 business day. I've have including your comments in the Service Request and also flagged your e-mail as Emergency. Your Service Request No. for your Sewer Complaint is 16-000 10159 in case you need to contact Public Works Maintenance.
Thank you for using the City of Windsor 311 services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Windsor - 311 Automated Response E-mail Notification - DO NOT REPLY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for using 311!
Your request has been added to the service request tracking system.
Request Type: Sewer Complaint
Your reference number is: 16-00015159.
Click here to view the status of your service request online.
Alternatively, you can call 311 for follow-up by quoting your reference number.
at
12:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
more good news (plumbing)
jessica
i'm just the messenger. i don't want all this shit to be happening, either.
the toilet is swirling slowly again. the pump is also hyperactive. it's the same as before: the drains need to be cleared, and the basement is probably going to eventually flood if they're not. i first noticed the pump yesterday when i was doing laundry and the slow toilet swirl this morning, meaning something backed up over night but it's been building up for a while.
i'll just remind you that the last clog was deep enough in the line that it was probably on city property. so, i don't know if there's a process to get the city to clear the lines, or if they'll pay for it that way.
(pause)
i just want to update that "slow flush" is more like "no flush". the toilet is really not operable. it's taking something like ten minutes to drain - it' stuck.
i'm going to see what information i can find about the city clearing the lines, and then see if i can get paul to call the line cleaners. this is really kind of a must-clear-asap type blockage. nothing is actually flushing at all.
(pause)
i have contacted the city and they will send an eel through for $95.00 - although they claim they won't charge you if it's from tree branches.
what i actually think is causing the blockage is a combination of trash that flowed in from the street - coffee cups, tree branches, french fry containers, etc. if you look at the sewers on this side of the street, they're a foot from the top; if you look at the sewers on the other side of the street, you can't even see the water. it's pretty clear that the block is on the street...
so, i'm pushing back a little and trying to figure out if there's a way to get the city to clear the sewers. i don't think it's fair to force the bill on you, when you're clearing a public line that benefits the entire neighbourhood, for the simple reason that i'm pro-active enough to push for an answer and the neighbour next door isn't.
if i don't get a response, or the response is negative, i suppose i'm waiting on permission from you or paul to call 311 back to get the eel in. the toilet does not work, and i can't be sitting with a bowl full of crap for an extended period.
(pause)
ok.
i've got the city coming to clear the sewers from the outside. i don't know when, yet.
they said up to ten business days, but that it's been flagged as emergency.
i'm comfortable waiting until tomorrow, but i don't think i can wait the weekend out.
(pause)
paul came down and plunged it and it seems like it cleared the immediate obstruction, but that doesn't make any sense, and i'm remaining skeptical. it almost seems like it was already cleared, somehow. i mean, i was gone all night last night - it was fine before i left, and it was fine when i came home and went to bed. it was even fine immediately when i woke up. but, the drain then got progressively worse over the day. that doesn't strike me as consistent with a local issue. it's almost more like something migrated into the pipes. an air bubble, even? but, whatever the cause, it is cleared - for now.
i'll say that i noticed something this morning in the bowl that was red and sort of bloody and seemed to be gurgling up. i made note of it because it was very bright red, and i wasn't sure what it was - it caught my eye. like it shouldn't have been there kind of thing. i had made some nachos when i got home last night, and thought it was probably just some salsa from a kleenex or something. but, i'm starting to wonder. the next flush is when it started to flush slowly - seemingly randomly.
there's other signs that there's still something funny. gurgling sounds. i'm glad the toilet works, but the service order for the cleaning in the outside sewer is still in progress and i'm not going to cancel it.
(pause)
lastly - and curiously - i went to throw something away a little after 17:00 and there was actually an enwin vehicle doing something to the manhole in the laneway next door. if they were clearing, that adds up.
i think it's all good.
the landlord
Jessica, I spoke to Paul and he said no other toilets (4 toilets) where backed up and the sewer, sinks etc have no sign of drainage problems. The conclusion was that your toilet was clogged with toilet paper. Please make aware to Paul as soon as possible when an issue arises so it can be handled quickly. Please do not rely on me reading my e-mails and please make sure it is not just you plugging up the toilet. I do not know why you would call the city since it is only when all toilets and sewer are backed up and then we would call a plumber with a snake to unplug to the city sewer. After taking that measure; and if that did not solve an issue with drainage, the next action would be, call the city. We would have to determine that it would be necessary to call the city after a thorough investigation. Please do not jump the gun and please do not put excessive amounts of toilet paper down the toilet sewer drain. Please deposit other uses of toilet paper to the garbage, such as blowing your nose etc , Please only flush paper that you wipe your butt with down the toilet. This is the wise way to make sure that a toilet does not plug up the system.
jessica
i really don't think that's what happened. and, as i've mentioned, there is no known cause - i had not defecated in the toilet before it began to slow.
in fact, the sinks remain very slow and it's a matter of time before you'll need to come clear the line. i repeat: there remains evidence of a clog in the main line.
there was a truck outside clearing the sewers a little before he came down. the truth is that the toilet was already unclogged before he plunged it - and you could see that if you looked. i nearly asked him to flush first, but it would have been risky because there was the normal amount of water (which was actually clear) in the bowl.
you wouldn't expect the toilets on the first floor to slow down until the one in the basement has already overflowed. it backs up through the lowest point - that's me, and only me.
again: it's impossible that i clogged the toilet. it worked when i left. it was clogged when i came back. the only way that the toilet could have clogged is if somebody came in and used it when i was gone.
but, as mentioned, it wasn't clogged - a truck cleared the sewers from outside.
(pause)
but, to answer your question: why would i call the city?
because i do not think the clog is on your property; i think it's on city property. it's not your responsibility, as a property owner, to clear out the sewers on the street.
you should keep that link handy. the city clears for free. and, i do believe that that was and remains the solution.
you really should *not* call the plumber and waste $100 on a snake until you've called the city to clear the street sewers, which are the actual problem, for free.
(pause)
i've been running a vlog for the last few months. it's not really popular or anything, it's more just something to do. and, this was kind of a boring day because all i did was freak out about the toilet.
it was set to publish tonight at 12:30, but i've published it a few hours early to make the point.
if you watch the whole thing (15 minutes), you'll get a better handle of what happened (and there is actually footage of the truck at the end).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOSGGEm_9Kw
the landlord
Jessica, I see the toilet is draining slow. I have seen this before and sometimes something large may have fallen in the toilet and is jammed in the toilet trap. Some times things fall in that are too large and get jammed. We may have to pull the toilet and turn it upside down. In the video when your where outside on the street, you where looking at the storm sewer. That is where all the evesdroughs and surface water are collected. The pipe from the toilets is connected to the Sanitary sewer much deeper under the streets. This is a closed sewer that you can not see. Google storm sewer vs sanitary sewer so you understand the difference. I will get around asap to check your problem.
jessica
remember when we had this discussion last year or the year before and i contacted the city's engineering department and they explained that there's a combined sewer system in windsor, rather than separate sanitary lines?
the systems in this house are such that if we get a hurricane or something, it could very well backup. and, if the storm drains get blocked, it *is* going to affect the plumbing.
i do still think that's what actually happened and the truck outside was pushing through leaves and other debris. and, that kind of spring cleaning of the storm drains should probably be done on at least a yearly basis.
there's an interesting article here about sewage run-offs from storm drain overflows:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/brown-stuff-in-windsor-waterways-could-be-human-feces-city-says-1.2782594
the landlord
To the best of my knowledge that is not possible for any city sewer system to be connected into a storm sewer or vice versa by city engineering. In fact if anyone connects storm to a sanitary sewer and are caught they would be fined. Our storm sewer is not connected to the Sanitary and we are in compliance. If illegal hookups are affecting our property from back pressure or over taxed sanitary sewer, your toilet would be overflowing with black shit all over the floor. Paul has cleared your toilet and it is flowing good right now. Please contact Paul ASAP to see the problem visually first hand if you think it is happening when there is a heavy rain or just after. This way we can determine your toilets condition and call the city to the condition if in fact city sanitary is a backup condition. Please call Paul to deal with this condition and do not send me e-mails, I cannot respond quickly.
jessica
this was the email i got from the city last year.
i really think that it's important that you understand the way the plumbing down here works, both for my own benefit and your own benefit.
the sewers in this area are over 100 years old. they were built before it became common to separate drain and sanitary sewers. as such, THERE IS A COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM ATTACHED TO THIS PROPERTY.
and, what that means is that the plumbing system is subject to effects from external conditions like blocked storm drains and heavy rains.
i have explained this in multiple ways. i mean, you can lead a horse to water, right? but, let's get this clear, please, for future concerns. because i will not behave as though the plumbing exists in a way that it doesn't simply because you refuse to listen to good evidence. and, if you refuse to accept the reality, i will have no choice but to take matters into my own hands when it is necessary and bypass you to get the work done.
this is the email from the city:
I would like to clear up a few points in your email.
While your landlord may be correct in that the house may be serviced by separate storm and sanitary connections (I can't confirm that), both these connections would outlet to the same combined sewer in the road. There is only one sewer Cataraqui and one on Marion, and they are both combined sewers meaning that they accept both rain water and sewage.
With respect to the Wyandotte project, there is no sewer work being undertaken as part of that project. Windsor Utilities is replacing the watermain and services and the City will reconstruct the pavement following that work. This project would have no impact on the sewers servicing your property.
You are most likely correct in that there is a correlation between rainfall and the slow running plumbing in your house. This is due to the combined nature of the sewer that services your property. During rain events, combined sewers fill with rainwater and therefore have limited capacity to accept flows from buildings.
With respect to the apartment building across the street from you, all rainfall runoff from this property would have entered the sewer system via foundation drains prior to the fire, so the fact that the basement may have flooded and the water is now entering the floor drain would change the drainage pattern very little. In fact, rainwater entering the sewers from this property would be very small in proportion to that coming from the catchbasins draining the roads in the area.
With respect to abandonment of the connections servicing the apartment building, that would be addressed when the building is demolished by the Building Department. If you have concerns regarding the state of the building, please contact the Building Department via 311.
Hopefully, this answers some of your questions. Please contact me if you want to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely;
------------. P.Eng.
A/Contracts Co-ordinator
the landlord
Jessica, what does this have to do with our building and the fact that your toilet does not overflow from the city backing up or a back due to overtaxed sewer system from rain water. Is it your belief that your toilet was plugged from a overtaxed or old city sewer? Please specify clearly? Paul cleared your toilet with all the paper in it which could not have come from anyone else but you as he tells me. Your toilet has been cleared and ever since Paul has cleared it you have not reported to Paul any other circumstance since he cleared it. No one can enter your place except you and Paul. Feel free to call the City to keep the city sewers cleared if this helps you. As far as your toilet getting plugged, you have to look at the circumstance of one plugged situation and not multiple problems as Paul or I understand. If you had multiple situations please update Paul so he understands your concern with dates, times, frequencies, etc. and any heavy rainfall occurring. Once we document these situations we will have evidence that we can report to the city. Heavy Rain falls must be the root cause to overtax the Illegal over flows to the city sewer. You must first report to Paul ASAP so we can assess the circumstance to have evidence of ongoing problems which so far is not evident to us. So far there is no evidence that we have documented of the city system backing up or causing your toilet to be plugged or any of our toilets in the building to be affected. We have no evidence of this so far. We will have to pay close attention and document details from now on to build a case. You cannot wait for me to look at e-mails to respond promptly to a situation when I do not read my e-mails every day. Paul and you are the Key to the documentation.
Paul can call and request the city to clear their system if that helps you with peace of mind. So if that is what you are requesting then please ask Paul to call the city to request a sewer servicing. Paul will read this e-mail. You have the power to ask him to call and he can call the city once he has an understanding of your concern. I will speak to Paul also.
jessica
well, like i say, we don't really agree about what happened. you can see in the video that there wasn't initially anything substantial in the toilet (some urine, and a couple of pieces of toilet paper - that's not going to create a clog). i suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
i apologize if i'm coming off as standoffish, it's just that a blocked mainline isn't something i want to play with, and if i think it's the city's lines then i'm going to call them as soon as i identify a problem in order to try and get them cleared outside. it's not just the rain. it's also the fact that people throw all kinds of garbage in the sewers. i don't want to sit around and argue about what the problem is. it's known that the lines in this area are very old and should really be replaced - it's just that it would cost a substantial sum for the city to do it.
as i mentioned, it wasn't just the toilet - the sinks were also draining slowly and sending through air bubbles when they drained. that's the classic sign of a blocked main. which, you wouldn't expect to back up upstairs because it's not the lowest point. you'd have to have a huge mess down here before it becomes an issue upstairs. on that level, i guess i'm the canary, right? i'm going to notice issues before anybody else does.
after the toilet cleared, the sinks were still draining slowly. so, it seemed like it was better but that more work was going to be necessary.
BUT, since then the issue has largely resolved itself. and, consistently, the sewers in the front have also come down about a meter. so, i'm left to conclude that the lines outside have drained and the issue went away with it.
so, i *don't* think anything requires any immediate attention.
but, i *do* think that it's going to remain a constant concern due to the infrastructure in the neighbourhood. and, rather than contact you and have a talk about this or that, i'm going to just jump to calling the city. because if the thing blows up while we're arguing about it....
when i was talking to the city, the impression i got was that they understand that the issue is structural and that periodic calls to get the lines cleared are actually expected. i mean, we can document it and send them a report, but you wouldn't be telling them anything they don't know. they know the lines need to be replaced. it's just, where do you get billions of dollars to do it? it's more cost effective to send out a truck to clear the lines when they get full of trash.
but, like i say - they've come down about a meter since then. we should expect that they'll clog again, eventually. but, they seem to be ok for now.
i'm just the messenger. i don't want all this shit to be happening, either.
the toilet is swirling slowly again. the pump is also hyperactive. it's the same as before: the drains need to be cleared, and the basement is probably going to eventually flood if they're not. i first noticed the pump yesterday when i was doing laundry and the slow toilet swirl this morning, meaning something backed up over night but it's been building up for a while.
i'll just remind you that the last clog was deep enough in the line that it was probably on city property. so, i don't know if there's a process to get the city to clear the lines, or if they'll pay for it that way.
(pause)
i just want to update that "slow flush" is more like "no flush". the toilet is really not operable. it's taking something like ten minutes to drain - it' stuck.
i'm going to see what information i can find about the city clearing the lines, and then see if i can get paul to call the line cleaners. this is really kind of a must-clear-asap type blockage. nothing is actually flushing at all.
(pause)
i have contacted the city and they will send an eel through for $95.00 - although they claim they won't charge you if it's from tree branches.
what i actually think is causing the blockage is a combination of trash that flowed in from the street - coffee cups, tree branches, french fry containers, etc. if you look at the sewers on this side of the street, they're a foot from the top; if you look at the sewers on the other side of the street, you can't even see the water. it's pretty clear that the block is on the street...
so, i'm pushing back a little and trying to figure out if there's a way to get the city to clear the sewers. i don't think it's fair to force the bill on you, when you're clearing a public line that benefits the entire neighbourhood, for the simple reason that i'm pro-active enough to push for an answer and the neighbour next door isn't.
if i don't get a response, or the response is negative, i suppose i'm waiting on permission from you or paul to call 311 back to get the eel in. the toilet does not work, and i can't be sitting with a bowl full of crap for an extended period.
(pause)
ok.
i've got the city coming to clear the sewers from the outside. i don't know when, yet.
they said up to ten business days, but that it's been flagged as emergency.
i'm comfortable waiting until tomorrow, but i don't think i can wait the weekend out.
(pause)
paul came down and plunged it and it seems like it cleared the immediate obstruction, but that doesn't make any sense, and i'm remaining skeptical. it almost seems like it was already cleared, somehow. i mean, i was gone all night last night - it was fine before i left, and it was fine when i came home and went to bed. it was even fine immediately when i woke up. but, the drain then got progressively worse over the day. that doesn't strike me as consistent with a local issue. it's almost more like something migrated into the pipes. an air bubble, even? but, whatever the cause, it is cleared - for now.
i'll say that i noticed something this morning in the bowl that was red and sort of bloody and seemed to be gurgling up. i made note of it because it was very bright red, and i wasn't sure what it was - it caught my eye. like it shouldn't have been there kind of thing. i had made some nachos when i got home last night, and thought it was probably just some salsa from a kleenex or something. but, i'm starting to wonder. the next flush is when it started to flush slowly - seemingly randomly.
there's other signs that there's still something funny. gurgling sounds. i'm glad the toilet works, but the service order for the cleaning in the outside sewer is still in progress and i'm not going to cancel it.
(pause)
lastly - and curiously - i went to throw something away a little after 17:00 and there was actually an enwin vehicle doing something to the manhole in the laneway next door. if they were clearing, that adds up.
i think it's all good.
the landlord
Jessica, I spoke to Paul and he said no other toilets (4 toilets) where backed up and the sewer, sinks etc have no sign of drainage problems. The conclusion was that your toilet was clogged with toilet paper. Please make aware to Paul as soon as possible when an issue arises so it can be handled quickly. Please do not rely on me reading my e-mails and please make sure it is not just you plugging up the toilet. I do not know why you would call the city since it is only when all toilets and sewer are backed up and then we would call a plumber with a snake to unplug to the city sewer. After taking that measure; and if that did not solve an issue with drainage, the next action would be, call the city. We would have to determine that it would be necessary to call the city after a thorough investigation. Please do not jump the gun and please do not put excessive amounts of toilet paper down the toilet sewer drain. Please deposit other uses of toilet paper to the garbage, such as blowing your nose etc , Please only flush paper that you wipe your butt with down the toilet. This is the wise way to make sure that a toilet does not plug up the system.
jessica
i really don't think that's what happened. and, as i've mentioned, there is no known cause - i had not defecated in the toilet before it began to slow.
in fact, the sinks remain very slow and it's a matter of time before you'll need to come clear the line. i repeat: there remains evidence of a clog in the main line.
there was a truck outside clearing the sewers a little before he came down. the truth is that the toilet was already unclogged before he plunged it - and you could see that if you looked. i nearly asked him to flush first, but it would have been risky because there was the normal amount of water (which was actually clear) in the bowl.
you wouldn't expect the toilets on the first floor to slow down until the one in the basement has already overflowed. it backs up through the lowest point - that's me, and only me.
again: it's impossible that i clogged the toilet. it worked when i left. it was clogged when i came back. the only way that the toilet could have clogged is if somebody came in and used it when i was gone.
but, as mentioned, it wasn't clogged - a truck cleared the sewers from outside.
(pause)
but, to answer your question: why would i call the city?
because i do not think the clog is on your property; i think it's on city property. it's not your responsibility, as a property owner, to clear out the sewers on the street.
you should keep that link handy. the city clears for free. and, i do believe that that was and remains the solution.
you really should *not* call the plumber and waste $100 on a snake until you've called the city to clear the street sewers, which are the actual problem, for free.
(pause)
i've been running a vlog for the last few months. it's not really popular or anything, it's more just something to do. and, this was kind of a boring day because all i did was freak out about the toilet.
it was set to publish tonight at 12:30, but i've published it a few hours early to make the point.
if you watch the whole thing (15 minutes), you'll get a better handle of what happened (and there is actually footage of the truck at the end).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOSGGEm_9Kw
the landlord
Jessica, I see the toilet is draining slow. I have seen this before and sometimes something large may have fallen in the toilet and is jammed in the toilet trap. Some times things fall in that are too large and get jammed. We may have to pull the toilet and turn it upside down. In the video when your where outside on the street, you where looking at the storm sewer. That is where all the evesdroughs and surface water are collected. The pipe from the toilets is connected to the Sanitary sewer much deeper under the streets. This is a closed sewer that you can not see. Google storm sewer vs sanitary sewer so you understand the difference. I will get around asap to check your problem.
jessica
remember when we had this discussion last year or the year before and i contacted the city's engineering department and they explained that there's a combined sewer system in windsor, rather than separate sanitary lines?
the systems in this house are such that if we get a hurricane or something, it could very well backup. and, if the storm drains get blocked, it *is* going to affect the plumbing.
i do still think that's what actually happened and the truck outside was pushing through leaves and other debris. and, that kind of spring cleaning of the storm drains should probably be done on at least a yearly basis.
there's an interesting article here about sewage run-offs from storm drain overflows:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/brown-stuff-in-windsor-waterways-could-be-human-feces-city-says-1.2782594
the landlord
To the best of my knowledge that is not possible for any city sewer system to be connected into a storm sewer or vice versa by city engineering. In fact if anyone connects storm to a sanitary sewer and are caught they would be fined. Our storm sewer is not connected to the Sanitary and we are in compliance. If illegal hookups are affecting our property from back pressure or over taxed sanitary sewer, your toilet would be overflowing with black shit all over the floor. Paul has cleared your toilet and it is flowing good right now. Please contact Paul ASAP to see the problem visually first hand if you think it is happening when there is a heavy rain or just after. This way we can determine your toilets condition and call the city to the condition if in fact city sanitary is a backup condition. Please call Paul to deal with this condition and do not send me e-mails, I cannot respond quickly.
jessica
this was the email i got from the city last year.
i really think that it's important that you understand the way the plumbing down here works, both for my own benefit and your own benefit.
the sewers in this area are over 100 years old. they were built before it became common to separate drain and sanitary sewers. as such, THERE IS A COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM ATTACHED TO THIS PROPERTY.
and, what that means is that the plumbing system is subject to effects from external conditions like blocked storm drains and heavy rains.
i have explained this in multiple ways. i mean, you can lead a horse to water, right? but, let's get this clear, please, for future concerns. because i will not behave as though the plumbing exists in a way that it doesn't simply because you refuse to listen to good evidence. and, if you refuse to accept the reality, i will have no choice but to take matters into my own hands when it is necessary and bypass you to get the work done.
this is the email from the city:
I would like to clear up a few points in your email.
While your landlord may be correct in that the house may be serviced by separate storm and sanitary connections (I can't confirm that), both these connections would outlet to the same combined sewer in the road. There is only one sewer Cataraqui and one on Marion, and they are both combined sewers meaning that they accept both rain water and sewage.
With respect to the Wyandotte project, there is no sewer work being undertaken as part of that project. Windsor Utilities is replacing the watermain and services and the City will reconstruct the pavement following that work. This project would have no impact on the sewers servicing your property.
You are most likely correct in that there is a correlation between rainfall and the slow running plumbing in your house. This is due to the combined nature of the sewer that services your property. During rain events, combined sewers fill with rainwater and therefore have limited capacity to accept flows from buildings.
With respect to the apartment building across the street from you, all rainfall runoff from this property would have entered the sewer system via foundation drains prior to the fire, so the fact that the basement may have flooded and the water is now entering the floor drain would change the drainage pattern very little. In fact, rainwater entering the sewers from this property would be very small in proportion to that coming from the catchbasins draining the roads in the area.
With respect to abandonment of the connections servicing the apartment building, that would be addressed when the building is demolished by the Building Department. If you have concerns regarding the state of the building, please contact the Building Department via 311.
Hopefully, this answers some of your questions. Please contact me if you want to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely;
------------. P.Eng.
A/Contracts Co-ordinator
the landlord
Jessica, what does this have to do with our building and the fact that your toilet does not overflow from the city backing up or a back due to overtaxed sewer system from rain water. Is it your belief that your toilet was plugged from a overtaxed or old city sewer? Please specify clearly? Paul cleared your toilet with all the paper in it which could not have come from anyone else but you as he tells me. Your toilet has been cleared and ever since Paul has cleared it you have not reported to Paul any other circumstance since he cleared it. No one can enter your place except you and Paul. Feel free to call the City to keep the city sewers cleared if this helps you. As far as your toilet getting plugged, you have to look at the circumstance of one plugged situation and not multiple problems as Paul or I understand. If you had multiple situations please update Paul so he understands your concern with dates, times, frequencies, etc. and any heavy rainfall occurring. Once we document these situations we will have evidence that we can report to the city. Heavy Rain falls must be the root cause to overtax the Illegal over flows to the city sewer. You must first report to Paul ASAP so we can assess the circumstance to have evidence of ongoing problems which so far is not evident to us. So far there is no evidence that we have documented of the city system backing up or causing your toilet to be plugged or any of our toilets in the building to be affected. We have no evidence of this so far. We will have to pay close attention and document details from now on to build a case. You cannot wait for me to look at e-mails to respond promptly to a situation when I do not read my e-mails every day. Paul and you are the Key to the documentation.
Paul can call and request the city to clear their system if that helps you with peace of mind. So if that is what you are requesting then please ask Paul to call the city to request a sewer servicing. Paul will read this e-mail. You have the power to ask him to call and he can call the city once he has an understanding of your concern. I will speak to Paul also.
jessica
well, like i say, we don't really agree about what happened. you can see in the video that there wasn't initially anything substantial in the toilet (some urine, and a couple of pieces of toilet paper - that's not going to create a clog). i suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
i apologize if i'm coming off as standoffish, it's just that a blocked mainline isn't something i want to play with, and if i think it's the city's lines then i'm going to call them as soon as i identify a problem in order to try and get them cleared outside. it's not just the rain. it's also the fact that people throw all kinds of garbage in the sewers. i don't want to sit around and argue about what the problem is. it's known that the lines in this area are very old and should really be replaced - it's just that it would cost a substantial sum for the city to do it.
as i mentioned, it wasn't just the toilet - the sinks were also draining slowly and sending through air bubbles when they drained. that's the classic sign of a blocked main. which, you wouldn't expect to back up upstairs because it's not the lowest point. you'd have to have a huge mess down here before it becomes an issue upstairs. on that level, i guess i'm the canary, right? i'm going to notice issues before anybody else does.
after the toilet cleared, the sinks were still draining slowly. so, it seemed like it was better but that more work was going to be necessary.
BUT, since then the issue has largely resolved itself. and, consistently, the sewers in the front have also come down about a meter. so, i'm left to conclude that the lines outside have drained and the issue went away with it.
so, i *don't* think anything requires any immediate attention.
but, i *do* think that it's going to remain a constant concern due to the infrastructure in the neighbourhood. and, rather than contact you and have a talk about this or that, i'm going to just jump to calling the city. because if the thing blows up while we're arguing about it....
when i was talking to the city, the impression i got was that they understand that the issue is structural and that periodic calls to get the lines cleared are actually expected. i mean, we can document it and send them a report, but you wouldn't be telling them anything they don't know. they know the lines need to be replaced. it's just, where do you get billions of dollars to do it? it's more cost effective to send out a truck to clear the lines when they get full of trash.
but, like i say - they've come down about a meter since then. we should expect that they'll clog again, eventually. but, they seem to be ok for now.
at
07:22
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
27-04-2016: finally finishing spring cleaning & catching a weird band (ada) in detroit
concert footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnBe0WIxVY8
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/04/27.html
previous vlog:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGiA6m5fIBw
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnBe0WIxVY8
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/04/27.html
previous vlog:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGiA6m5fIBw
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
at
03:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
27-04-2016: ada - ?? (detroit)
their music:
https://adamaine.bandcamp.com
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/04/27.html
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPVoDwebhUk
https://adamaine.bandcamp.com
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/04/27.html
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPVoDwebhUk
at
22:47
Location:
Detroit, MI, USA
the furnace is leaking again...
while i think it needs to be caulked down here, i do suspect that something is loose upstairs.
at
10:10
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i've found myself very sleepy this week due to a variety of things, including going cold turkey on coffee for a bit. i want to get my fluids up before i go back on it. it's working, too. see, i have a problem with not drinking enough water. i think it will resolve itself once i can turn the heat off in here (this has been a slow spring, here).
so, it took me a week to do a day's worth of spring cleaning. but it is now actually done. finally. i'll have to do laundry this afternoon, and then some filing tomorrow.
so, will i have anything up by the end of the month? no. but, i should be back on track by the start of may.
i've managed to just lose a whole year. it sucks. but, it's the way it had to be.
so, it took me a week to do a day's worth of spring cleaning. but it is now actually done. finally. i'll have to do laundry this afternoon, and then some filing tomorrow.
so, will i have anything up by the end of the month? no. but, i should be back on track by the start of may.
i've managed to just lose a whole year. it sucks. but, it's the way it had to be.
at
07:06
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the cruz-kasich agreement (it's idiotic, tactically)
also: i think that, in indiana, kasich voters are going to be more likely to back trump than cruz. the reason is that it's a socially conservative state anyways, so cruz has kasich dominated. if you're voting for kasich, it's because you consider yourself a moderate. trump is more moderate than cruz, so you'd think they'd rank him as their second choice.
it's kind of the flip of the northeast overall, but the same logic as it applies to kasich voters. cruz finished in third place in four out of five states tonight. kasich voters clearly didn't see the prospect of rallying behind cruz to be very appealing. and, it's not some collapse in logic - it's simply that they (broadly) ranked cruz behind trump in terms of preference. so, they're not going to vote for cruz to stop trump if they prefer trump to cruz. they're just going to shrug and vote for kasich.
in indiana, cruz should probably want kasich to pull those voters away from trump. so, removing kasich is actually probably going to hurt him. if they were going to vote for cruz (to stop trump or some other reason), they would have voted for him in the first place.
it's just more evidence that cruz and his team are just absolute fucking idiots. it's this ultra-competitive mindset that blinds them to any kind of co-operative strategy. they're utility monsters. it's the consequence of unrestrained egoism, selfishness as a virtue - predictable, really. yes: he should have pulled back in the northeast to give kasich a better chance [and don't say that was unpredictable. it was absolutely obvious, from weeks out.]. but, he doesn't want kasich to drop out of the midwest, as he's splitting the "moderates" and actually helping him.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-28/in-indiana-the-deal-to-stop-trump-may-be-backfiring
it's kind of the flip of the northeast overall, but the same logic as it applies to kasich voters. cruz finished in third place in four out of five states tonight. kasich voters clearly didn't see the prospect of rallying behind cruz to be very appealing. and, it's not some collapse in logic - it's simply that they (broadly) ranked cruz behind trump in terms of preference. so, they're not going to vote for cruz to stop trump if they prefer trump to cruz. they're just going to shrug and vote for kasich.
in indiana, cruz should probably want kasich to pull those voters away from trump. so, removing kasich is actually probably going to hurt him. if they were going to vote for cruz (to stop trump or some other reason), they would have voted for him in the first place.
it's just more evidence that cruz and his team are just absolute fucking idiots. it's this ultra-competitive mindset that blinds them to any kind of co-operative strategy. they're utility monsters. it's the consequence of unrestrained egoism, selfishness as a virtue - predictable, really. yes: he should have pulled back in the northeast to give kasich a better chance [and don't say that was unpredictable. it was absolutely obvious, from weeks out.]. but, he doesn't want kasich to drop out of the midwest, as he's splitting the "moderates" and actually helping him.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-28/in-indiana-the-deal-to-stop-trump-may-be-backfiring
at
04:18
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
ok, so is voting for cruz the smarter choice? see, that's my analysis - trump got the gift of ted cruz. even this late, i still think the major reason that people are holding to trump is that anything at all is better than ted cruz.
at
03:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the illegitimate primaries and sanders' politicking around them
no surprises tonight, although the closed primaries are not somehow more legitimate tonight than they were last week. it's still a flawed process, and the outcome is still not very convincing. and, hillary's reaction, through surrogates, is strongly suggesting the need for an independent run.
yes, sanders knows he won't be the democratic party nominee, and it's hard to believe he ever really thought he would be. but, he's also been clear that his endorsement of hillary clinton is not a sure thing - and it shouldn't be. don't expect the media to be able to understand this, because it can't think outside of binary, two-party politics.
see, hillary is not very good at working with others. she's an effective autocrat, but she's not good at making concessions. and, frankly, i don't think she feels she needs to - i think she thinks she won a mandate. but, she's only won a mandate with democrats, and sanders is not really a democrat.
the way that this process is supposed to work in the mind of the party establishment (and probably in the mind of most liberals) is that they have the primary, the candidate with the best ideas wins and the candidates that lose rally around the winner. that, in their minds, is "democracy".
but, leftists have never believed that democracy is reduced to a voting decision, nor have we ever believed that a majority mandate negates the views of the minority. we believe in tough negotiations through civil disobedience and spoiled ballots, if necessary. and, we're not going to support the hillary that we see in front of us. we're just not.
the reality is that sanders is making demands that he cannot truly believe that clinton will accept - and is, in the process, preparing himself for a re-exit of the party he was never really a member of.
i mean, do you think hillary clinton is going to support tuition-free public colleges and universities? or that she'll ban fracking? really?
and, see, this is the irony of the way the media works - it functions so strongly on branding that it even confuses itself. bernie is supposed to be the honest one. so, he couldn't possibly be engaging in politics, could he?
he is. and, the reason he's giving her conditions she'll never accept is that he has no intentions of supporting her.
yes, sanders knows he won't be the democratic party nominee, and it's hard to believe he ever really thought he would be. but, he's also been clear that his endorsement of hillary clinton is not a sure thing - and it shouldn't be. don't expect the media to be able to understand this, because it can't think outside of binary, two-party politics.
see, hillary is not very good at working with others. she's an effective autocrat, but she's not good at making concessions. and, frankly, i don't think she feels she needs to - i think she thinks she won a mandate. but, she's only won a mandate with democrats, and sanders is not really a democrat.
the way that this process is supposed to work in the mind of the party establishment (and probably in the mind of most liberals) is that they have the primary, the candidate with the best ideas wins and the candidates that lose rally around the winner. that, in their minds, is "democracy".
but, leftists have never believed that democracy is reduced to a voting decision, nor have we ever believed that a majority mandate negates the views of the minority. we believe in tough negotiations through civil disobedience and spoiled ballots, if necessary. and, we're not going to support the hillary that we see in front of us. we're just not.
the reality is that sanders is making demands that he cannot truly believe that clinton will accept - and is, in the process, preparing himself for a re-exit of the party he was never really a member of.
i mean, do you think hillary clinton is going to support tuition-free public colleges and universities? or that she'll ban fracking? really?
and, see, this is the irony of the way the media works - it functions so strongly on branding that it even confuses itself. bernie is supposed to be the honest one. so, he couldn't possibly be engaging in politics, could he?
he is. and, the reason he's giving her conditions she'll never accept is that he has no intentions of supporting her.
at
02:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
shit hillary said vol 42
"Research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this--and support programs that reinforce the idea that abstinence at a young age is not just the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do"
at
01:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
shit hillary said vol 41
"And that's why last week I called on our president to decide he would not attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympics because that is a public and very obvious ratification of our government's approval of the Beijing government's actions.
Unless the Chinese began to take very visible steps to begin to end the suppression of the Tibetans and undermining their culture and religious beliefs, and if we could get more cooperation out of the Chinese government with respect to Sudan.
And, of course, I would welcome even more action on behalf of human rights. But the challenge is, how do we try to influence the Chinese government? And I believe we have missed many opportunities during the Bush administration to do so.
In fact, I think it's fair to say our policy toward China is incoherent and that has not been in the best interest of our values or our strategic interest. So I would urge the president at least to consider and, therefore, publicly say that he will not be attending the opening ceremonies.
And let's see whether the Chinese government begins to respond because that for them would be a great loss of face and perhaps we would get more cooperation."
Unless the Chinese began to take very visible steps to begin to end the suppression of the Tibetans and undermining their culture and religious beliefs, and if we could get more cooperation out of the Chinese government with respect to Sudan.
And, of course, I would welcome even more action on behalf of human rights. But the challenge is, how do we try to influence the Chinese government? And I believe we have missed many opportunities during the Bush administration to do so.
In fact, I think it's fair to say our policy toward China is incoherent and that has not been in the best interest of our values or our strategic interest. So I would urge the president at least to consider and, therefore, publicly say that he will not be attending the opening ceremonies.
And let's see whether the Chinese government begins to respond because that for them would be a great loss of face and perhaps we would get more cooperation."
at
00:39
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
shit hillary said vol 40
"I am surprised and offended by the decision of the Appeals Court of the 9th Circuit and hope that it will be promptly appealed and overturned. I believe that the Court has misinterpreted the intent of the framers of the Constitution and has sought to undermine one of the bedrock values of our democracy -- that we are indeed "one nation under God," as embodied in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
While our men and women in uniform are battling overseas and defending us here at home to preserve the freedom that we all cherish for our country and its citizens, we should never forget the blessings of Divine Providence that undergird our nation. That includes the freedom to recite the pledge of allegiance in our nation's schools. I can only imagine how they will feel about this decision as they risk their lives for our values.
And the children of America, who share a bond with each other and with our nation by reciting the pledge each day -- what effect will a decision like this have on them? It will cause them to wonder about the ways in which our beliefs can be stretched, our heritage can be assaulted. It is the wrong decision, and it is an unfair decision -- especially unfair to those who defend our nation, and to the young people who will inherit our nation's future.
Ours is a nation founded by people of faith. People of faith have helped lead some of the most significant movements of social justice throughout our history -- to end slavery, to win civil rights for all Americans. No one is required to have faith, and our government does not impose faith on its citizens. But ours is the most faith-filled nation on Earth, and there is no moral or Constitutional argument why our pledge of allegiance cannot acknowledge our commonly held belief that ours is one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I am honored to support S. 292, the Pledge of Allegiance resolution, and I hope that the rule of law will be upheld by an ultimate rejection of this wrongheaded decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals."
While our men and women in uniform are battling overseas and defending us here at home to preserve the freedom that we all cherish for our country and its citizens, we should never forget the blessings of Divine Providence that undergird our nation. That includes the freedom to recite the pledge of allegiance in our nation's schools. I can only imagine how they will feel about this decision as they risk their lives for our values.
And the children of America, who share a bond with each other and with our nation by reciting the pledge each day -- what effect will a decision like this have on them? It will cause them to wonder about the ways in which our beliefs can be stretched, our heritage can be assaulted. It is the wrong decision, and it is an unfair decision -- especially unfair to those who defend our nation, and to the young people who will inherit our nation's future.
Ours is a nation founded by people of faith. People of faith have helped lead some of the most significant movements of social justice throughout our history -- to end slavery, to win civil rights for all Americans. No one is required to have faith, and our government does not impose faith on its citizens. But ours is the most faith-filled nation on Earth, and there is no moral or Constitutional argument why our pledge of allegiance cannot acknowledge our commonly held belief that ours is one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I am honored to support S. 292, the Pledge of Allegiance resolution, and I hope that the rule of law will be upheld by an ultimate rejection of this wrongheaded decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals."
at
00:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
25/26-04-2016: repeatedly unable to get the day started (total caffeine crash)
chained vlog forward:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPVoDwebhUk
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPVoDwebhUk
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
at
23:59
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Monday, April 25, 2016
j reacts to the cruz-kasich co-operative agreement [too little, too late]
this would have mattered if it were applied to the primaries that are tomorrow. i've commented on this in depth - it was the smart strategy....last month. now, it's too late. in fairness, there are reports that kasich understood things as they are, but cruz wouldn't co-operate.
hindsight is 20/20, ted.
it's an adult thing to admit when you're wrong. but, he ought to have just lost the argument, for good.
presuming he sweeps tomorrow, he won't need any of these states outright, and the states that cruz is conceding are proportional (meaning it doesn't matter).
the reality is that trump has already won. and, it's 100% cruz' fault.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/25/ted-cruz-and-john-kasich-team-up-in-deal-to-stop-trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CpRCc4Jre8
hindsight is 20/20, ted.
it's an adult thing to admit when you're wrong. but, he ought to have just lost the argument, for good.
presuming he sweeps tomorrow, he won't need any of these states outright, and the states that cruz is conceding are proportional (meaning it doesn't matter).
the reality is that trump has already won. and, it's 100% cruz' fault.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/25/ted-cruz-and-john-kasich-team-up-in-deal-to-stop-trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CpRCc4Jre8
at
02:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Sunday, April 24, 2016
hrmmn. black people blamed for something due to questionable exit polling, despite the data ultimately showing that there wasn't really any meaningful skew. sounds familiar. wonder if there's a pattern....
at
07:17
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the growing implications of the race (or gender) v class debate
this race v class thing again. it's the issue of our time. it's not new; you can trace it back to the 60s. and, i've pointed out a few times that it's older than that - it's the very idea that the united states was founded on: get the slaves fighting over race so they forget about class and don't fight us (because then we're fucked). but the way it's begun to manifest itself over the last few years, one could posit since occupy, has exposed larger fracture points that the democratic primary seems to have taken to a boil: the debate is not really about 'race v class' anymore, if it ever was at all, it's now just really all about class. and, when i say that, what i mean is that it divides the left very cleanly into liberals and socialists.
if you think it's about race, what you're arguing for is equality of opportunity. so, is it any surprise that you're voting for clinton? you're not really that keen on the unrealistic ideas and lofty ideals on the left in the first place. what you want is a system that gives everybody a fair opportunity to climb up the hierarchy. so, is it about race? it's not - it's about class, and your insistence that it not be abolished, because you want to climb your way up a few rungs and be in a position of greater status and wealth. you have a fundamentally competitive, calvinist, market-oriented, capitalist outlook on society. you just want to make sure the rules are fair - that nobody is starting off from a privileged position. you're a liberal.
but, if you think it's all about class, you're focused more on equality of outcome. you're a sanders supporter. when you argue for equal opportunities to education, it's because education is a human right - not because you think everybody should have the same starting points. you think everybody should have equal access to healthcare, too. it's a right! it's not something you should have to earn, or something that hard work should provide you with advantages in. you don't assign much importance to climbing up any hierarchy, because you don't think there should even be a hierarchy to climb at all. or, you may be a little bit of an existential nihilist about it, too. you have a fundamentally co-operative, egalitarian, distributive justice based, communitarian outlook on society, which should be designed so that people can enjoy their lives from cradle to grave, not spend almost all of it fighting for position in a chart. you're a socialist.
i think you can connect these ideas to the different movements that have defined the last five years, too. occupy was all about class, and is pretty strongly behind sanders. black lives matter was all about race, and seems to be mostly supporting clinton. one is a fundamentally liberal movement with a fundamentally liberal outlook; the other is very much in the tradition of socialism.
i understand that there is a need on the left to build broader movements that integrate different racial organizations, so the idea of breaking movements apart like this may be kneejerked against by many. i'd probably make the same argument, myself. but, that is merely a restatement of my position: it's all about class. is what you're saying any different? and, the more push back i hear on the point, the more i realize that it's coming from viewpoints that are thoroughly liberal and genuinely do not wish to abolish class at all. does a common cause actually exist?
perhaps some sober reflection is in order.
if you think it's about race, what you're arguing for is equality of opportunity. so, is it any surprise that you're voting for clinton? you're not really that keen on the unrealistic ideas and lofty ideals on the left in the first place. what you want is a system that gives everybody a fair opportunity to climb up the hierarchy. so, is it about race? it's not - it's about class, and your insistence that it not be abolished, because you want to climb your way up a few rungs and be in a position of greater status and wealth. you have a fundamentally competitive, calvinist, market-oriented, capitalist outlook on society. you just want to make sure the rules are fair - that nobody is starting off from a privileged position. you're a liberal.
but, if you think it's all about class, you're focused more on equality of outcome. you're a sanders supporter. when you argue for equal opportunities to education, it's because education is a human right - not because you think everybody should have the same starting points. you think everybody should have equal access to healthcare, too. it's a right! it's not something you should have to earn, or something that hard work should provide you with advantages in. you don't assign much importance to climbing up any hierarchy, because you don't think there should even be a hierarchy to climb at all. or, you may be a little bit of an existential nihilist about it, too. you have a fundamentally co-operative, egalitarian, distributive justice based, communitarian outlook on society, which should be designed so that people can enjoy their lives from cradle to grave, not spend almost all of it fighting for position in a chart. you're a socialist.
i think you can connect these ideas to the different movements that have defined the last five years, too. occupy was all about class, and is pretty strongly behind sanders. black lives matter was all about race, and seems to be mostly supporting clinton. one is a fundamentally liberal movement with a fundamentally liberal outlook; the other is very much in the tradition of socialism.
i understand that there is a need on the left to build broader movements that integrate different racial organizations, so the idea of breaking movements apart like this may be kneejerked against by many. i'd probably make the same argument, myself. but, that is merely a restatement of my position: it's all about class. is what you're saying any different? and, the more push back i hear on the point, the more i realize that it's coming from viewpoints that are thoroughly liberal and genuinely do not wish to abolish class at all. does a common cause actually exist?
perhaps some sober reflection is in order.
at
06:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
shit hillary said vol 39
"Now we have to figure out how we can see through thick vegetation to find Joseph Kony.”
at
00:17
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Saturday, April 23, 2016
shit hillary said vol 38
"We do believe getting it (oil dispute with Sudan) resolved is very much in South Sudan's interests. Because a percentage of something is better than a percentage of nothing, especially in an interim agreement, while you explore other ways of getting your oil to market, which I strongly urge you to do."
at
23:55
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i don't think this is important enough to necessitate an overhaul of the nation's toilet infrastructure or anything, but, moving forward, what i'd actually like to see is not gender-neutral bathrooms but single occupant stalls. instead of two bathrooms with five or six stalls each, why not 10-12 single stalls? i think that deals with a wide variety of other issues, as well, like moms with young boys.
Maharshi Desai
It is biologically impossible to change ur chromosomes, which decide ur gender. Therefore, transgendered people don't exist.
jessica
this is actually scientifically wrong and just another stupid right-wing talking point to throw down beside climate change denial and intelligent design.
what your chromosomes code for is not your biological sex but your hormone configuration. it's your hormones that then actually determine your biological sex. so, the chromosomes determine your hormones, which determine your sex. it follows that you can actually change your sex by modifying your hormones.
now, you obviously can't undo the biological changes that happen during development - you can't suck your penis back in or blow your vagina out. well, not without surgery anyways. but, if you take a fetus that is at the stage before sexual differentiation then you can actually stimulate opposite reactions with hormonal flushes. that is, if you take an xy fetus and flush it in estrogen, then the testes will not descend - it will develop a vagina. and if you take an xx fetus and flush it in testosterone, then the testes will descend - it will develop a penis.
it's another take on the evangelical idea of life at conception, god's plan, etc. but it's wrong. sex = hormones. chromosomes just tell your body which hormones to make. and, if you flip the chemistry, you flip the outcome.
UTubeHobby
Isn't hormones the problem? I know a pregnant woman takes on more male hormones when she is pregnant, so she deals with facial hair, for example. Everything goes back to normal after she gives birth, so why wouldn't the people who 'feel' like a female or male just balance out their hormones?
jessica
well, that is what they're doing. but i don't think i'm really following the question.
Utubehobby
For those who feel like they are a woman let's say. Why don't they just take more male hormones? Isn't it an imbalance? Sorry, I don't mean to be rude or silly. I'm trying to understand.
jessica
gender is really just a way to arbitrarily categorize your personality and is mostly, if not entirely, learned behaviour. there's no such thing as brain sex, and no evidence that gender identity has anything to do with hormone imbalances. so, transsexuality is mostly not a genetic condition, but a consequence of environmental conditions. the short answer is that it consequently wouldn't actually address the issue at hand, it would just lead to stronger feelings of alienation.
but, the way that gender identity interacts with hormones is in truth not at all currently understood and is actually probably very complicated. as one random example, i can state that i've never grown any hair on my chest - which is strange, because all the men on both sides of my family are very hairy (my father is jewish, cree, french & italian and was the type that actually had his shirt puff out from hair growth kind of thing - a practical gorilla). it could be a coincidence, no doubt. but, it's certainly curious, anyways, that i've simply never grown any chest hair. there are a number of similar physical curiosities i could run off that strike me as likely genetic in origin.
so, if i were to take testosterone, it would no doubt put hair on my chest, sure. and, i'm open to the idea that the fact that i don't have any hair on my chest may have the same partial cause as the gender identity (even if i'll argue that it's mostly learned). but, that testosterone is not going to affect my personality, and consequently is not going to affect my gender, even as it exaggerates my physical sex in the other direction.
i'm just trying to avoid the typical "gender and sex are different things" response, because the terms you normally get it in are both insufficient and broadly wrong.
sf
They tried that, resulting in the individuals killing themselves. If you give a person the wrong hormones, they end up depressed, having dysphoria and kill themselves eventually if they aren't allowed to stop. So, giving a cis male, female hormones would result in them being depressed and killing themselves. Giving a trans woman female hormones does the opposite. It reduces dysphoria and depression and improving quality of life.
here a study about hormones in trans people and quality of life:
http://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)33856-X/abstract
jessica
i just want to point out that this is overly reductionist in thought. it's not just a chemical imbalance, and isn't magically fixed with a set of coloured pills. there's a lot more to it than that.
hormones can help in reducing depression, in certain circumstances - which include a positive, supportive environment. however, they can also lead to horrific outcomes in other circumstances. and, the reality is that the rate of reversion is actually quite high.
there's a big part of this that reduces to the idea of a life choice. there is a decision that is made to transition, and sometimes it turns out to be the wrong one. but, as liberals, that is something that should be embraced and celebrated, not something that should be explained away or swept aside with what is, in truth, largely pseudo-science.
i have no shame in standing up in an auditorium and saying this is my decision and i expect you to respect it.
Maharshi Desai
It is biologically impossible to change ur chromosomes, which decide ur gender. Therefore, transgendered people don't exist.
jessica
this is actually scientifically wrong and just another stupid right-wing talking point to throw down beside climate change denial and intelligent design.
what your chromosomes code for is not your biological sex but your hormone configuration. it's your hormones that then actually determine your biological sex. so, the chromosomes determine your hormones, which determine your sex. it follows that you can actually change your sex by modifying your hormones.
now, you obviously can't undo the biological changes that happen during development - you can't suck your penis back in or blow your vagina out. well, not without surgery anyways. but, if you take a fetus that is at the stage before sexual differentiation then you can actually stimulate opposite reactions with hormonal flushes. that is, if you take an xy fetus and flush it in estrogen, then the testes will not descend - it will develop a vagina. and if you take an xx fetus and flush it in testosterone, then the testes will descend - it will develop a penis.
it's another take on the evangelical idea of life at conception, god's plan, etc. but it's wrong. sex = hormones. chromosomes just tell your body which hormones to make. and, if you flip the chemistry, you flip the outcome.
UTubeHobby
Isn't hormones the problem? I know a pregnant woman takes on more male hormones when she is pregnant, so she deals with facial hair, for example. Everything goes back to normal after she gives birth, so why wouldn't the people who 'feel' like a female or male just balance out their hormones?
jessica
well, that is what they're doing. but i don't think i'm really following the question.
Utubehobby
For those who feel like they are a woman let's say. Why don't they just take more male hormones? Isn't it an imbalance? Sorry, I don't mean to be rude or silly. I'm trying to understand.
jessica
gender is really just a way to arbitrarily categorize your personality and is mostly, if not entirely, learned behaviour. there's no such thing as brain sex, and no evidence that gender identity has anything to do with hormone imbalances. so, transsexuality is mostly not a genetic condition, but a consequence of environmental conditions. the short answer is that it consequently wouldn't actually address the issue at hand, it would just lead to stronger feelings of alienation.
but, the way that gender identity interacts with hormones is in truth not at all currently understood and is actually probably very complicated. as one random example, i can state that i've never grown any hair on my chest - which is strange, because all the men on both sides of my family are very hairy (my father is jewish, cree, french & italian and was the type that actually had his shirt puff out from hair growth kind of thing - a practical gorilla). it could be a coincidence, no doubt. but, it's certainly curious, anyways, that i've simply never grown any chest hair. there are a number of similar physical curiosities i could run off that strike me as likely genetic in origin.
so, if i were to take testosterone, it would no doubt put hair on my chest, sure. and, i'm open to the idea that the fact that i don't have any hair on my chest may have the same partial cause as the gender identity (even if i'll argue that it's mostly learned). but, that testosterone is not going to affect my personality, and consequently is not going to affect my gender, even as it exaggerates my physical sex in the other direction.
i'm just trying to avoid the typical "gender and sex are different things" response, because the terms you normally get it in are both insufficient and broadly wrong.
sf
They tried that, resulting in the individuals killing themselves. If you give a person the wrong hormones, they end up depressed, having dysphoria and kill themselves eventually if they aren't allowed to stop. So, giving a cis male, female hormones would result in them being depressed and killing themselves. Giving a trans woman female hormones does the opposite. It reduces dysphoria and depression and improving quality of life.
here a study about hormones in trans people and quality of life:
http://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)33856-X/abstract
jessica
i just want to point out that this is overly reductionist in thought. it's not just a chemical imbalance, and isn't magically fixed with a set of coloured pills. there's a lot more to it than that.
hormones can help in reducing depression, in certain circumstances - which include a positive, supportive environment. however, they can also lead to horrific outcomes in other circumstances. and, the reality is that the rate of reversion is actually quite high.
there's a big part of this that reduces to the idea of a life choice. there is a decision that is made to transition, and sometimes it turns out to be the wrong one. but, as liberals, that is something that should be embraced and celebrated, not something that should be explained away or swept aside with what is, in truth, largely pseudo-science.
i have no shame in standing up in an auditorium and saying this is my decision and i expect you to respect it.
at
02:19
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
conservatives have just never gotten over this idea that humans aren't property. your kids have rights, including the right to an education, and if you're going to warp that to the point that it's no longer recognizable then the government has a responsibility to step in and uphold the kids' right. this idea that you have the right to imprint your own beliefs in your kids is incoherent within any consistent rights theory. it's just a lingering remnant of chattel slavery.
at
01:49
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i was saying something like this...
--
Make no mistake: I am not suggesting that liberals adopt a fuzzy, gentler version of their politics. I am not suggesting they compromise their issues for the sake of playing nice. What I am suggesting is that they consider how the issues they actually fight for have drifted away from their egalitarian intentions.
I am suggesting that they notice how hating and ridiculing the people they say they want to help has led them to stop helping those people, too.
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism
--
Make no mistake: I am not suggesting that liberals adopt a fuzzy, gentler version of their politics. I am not suggesting they compromise their issues for the sake of playing nice. What I am suggesting is that they consider how the issues they actually fight for have drifted away from their egalitarian intentions.
I am suggesting that they notice how hating and ridiculing the people they say they want to help has led them to stop helping those people, too.
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism
at
01:25
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the relevance of chris hedges in the current election cycle
i'm not exactly a fan of chris hedges. in fact, he tends to piss me off. he's a smart guy and everything, and his heart is often in the right place, but he carries around a lot of class supremacy with him. he tries to hide it, bit he's also a bit of a religious fundamentalist on certain issues. overall, he's legitimately a good spokesperson for the modern american pseudo-left - even if i constantly find these tendencies to be almost enraging.
i was just watching this as i was eating, and i think it's topical insofar as the current election is concerned, specifically regarding the "bernie or bust argument". he's essentially laying out the likely outcome of a trump presidency.
more broadly, and i hadn't thought of this until now, but if you're familiar with some of his recent writing, it really is fairly interesting in the context of a potential trump presidency.
so, there's plenty of people arguing that maybe we should just step back and let it happen - that it's a better alternative than just letting hillary drag this corpse of america around for another eight years. i think hedges is actually a good source to consult regarding what might actually happen, should this tactic be adopted. and, this is really just a tease of it.
if i'm selling books for hedges, i'll reiterate that he's a little bit unstable at times and his arrogance can tend to really piss me off. but, he's probably pretty close to right regarding this specific thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDSNqow4SwM
i was just watching this as i was eating, and i think it's topical insofar as the current election is concerned, specifically regarding the "bernie or bust argument". he's essentially laying out the likely outcome of a trump presidency.
more broadly, and i hadn't thought of this until now, but if you're familiar with some of his recent writing, it really is fairly interesting in the context of a potential trump presidency.
so, there's plenty of people arguing that maybe we should just step back and let it happen - that it's a better alternative than just letting hillary drag this corpse of america around for another eight years. i think hedges is actually a good source to consult regarding what might actually happen, should this tactic be adopted. and, this is really just a tease of it.
if i'm selling books for hedges, i'll reiterate that he's a little bit unstable at times and his arrogance can tend to really piss me off. but, he's probably pretty close to right regarding this specific thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDSNqow4SwM
at
00:37
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Friday, April 22, 2016
21-04-2016: floundering the day away while deciding to not go to defeater
defeater set from 2012:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOjshU_Gk2A
i am wearing the same outfit as in the thumbnail (hair was a little lighter, then).
--
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOjshU_Gk2A
i am wearing the same outfit as in the thumbnail (hair was a little lighter, then).
--
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
at
17:27
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to pre-polling for april 26th and what it says about the future
so, i suggested that either kasich would win every state on the 26th or trump would sweep the delegates. i don't think there's a state on tuesday that cruz can finish second in, but it doesn't look like anybody is taking a serious run for kasich, either.
the results on tuesday are going to be similar to the results from new york. it wasn't because cruz insulted new yorkers. it's because his policies are considered to be insane by northeasterners, and kasich is...in truth, it's probably just not enough time. if cruz had dropped out, kasich might have been able to take a run. even in a two person race, cruz never had a serious chance of getting to 30%, let alone winning.
the projections throw around the number of 100 delegates for trump on tuesday. i think it's going to be closer to 150. the hope was that kasich could keep trump under 50%, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.
as for bernie? harsh reality at this point is: don't expect him to win any states at all on the 26th. i would expect him to do better than the polling in maryland due to bias (and that should hold, there, because the rules aren't as strict as new york - and, if you look it up, you'll see the predictions have consistently overestimated the effects of race), but it's not going to be enough. best case scenario is splits everywhere.
you'll note that my path called for near splits on the 26th. i suggested he should be aiming to pick up 50 delegates, mostly in pennsylvania, in order to close the distance to about 100. but, that was built on a win in new york taking him from 200 to 150, rather than a loss taking him from 200 to 250.
it's not a disaster, mathematically - there's enough delegates up on the 26th that he could, in theory, make up 150 and get back on track. but, the polling isn't projecting this.
realistically, he should be hoping to walk out of the 26th with the difference less than 300. and, he probably won't be able to keep it to that.
moving forward, i expect her to win indiana & west virginia by substantial margins - indiana will look like ohio, and west virginia will look like tennessee. the next state he'll have a real chance in will be oregon, but the difference will be nearly 400 delegates by the time he gets there.
i don't like it, either. sorry.
yeah. the media is out to lunch. the republican nomination is over. it's not even close.
trump currently has 847.
conn: 25 (take most)
del: 16 (take all)
mary: 38 (take all)
penn: 71 (take all)
ri: 10 (prop)
that's 160 on tuesday. let's round down to 153, so we can say he has around 1000 after tuesday. that would mean he'd need around 250.
california: 172 (take all)
new jersey: 51 (take all)
that's 220. and, despite what media suggests, california is not in play.
oregon: 28 (prop)
wash: 44 (prop)
nm: 24 (prop)
so, that's 96 proportional. surely, he can average 30% in those states. so, there's your win.
not used:
indiana: 57 (take-all - this is unclear)
wv: 34 (probably trump, but weird rules)
nebraska: 36 (cruz)
montana: 24 (cruz)
south dakota: 29 (cruz)
if he wins indiana and gets 15-20 from wv, he's got more than 1300 delegates. and, that's a realistic target, too.
so, that's done.
the results on tuesday are going to be similar to the results from new york. it wasn't because cruz insulted new yorkers. it's because his policies are considered to be insane by northeasterners, and kasich is...in truth, it's probably just not enough time. if cruz had dropped out, kasich might have been able to take a run. even in a two person race, cruz never had a serious chance of getting to 30%, let alone winning.
the projections throw around the number of 100 delegates for trump on tuesday. i think it's going to be closer to 150. the hope was that kasich could keep trump under 50%, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.
as for bernie? harsh reality at this point is: don't expect him to win any states at all on the 26th. i would expect him to do better than the polling in maryland due to bias (and that should hold, there, because the rules aren't as strict as new york - and, if you look it up, you'll see the predictions have consistently overestimated the effects of race), but it's not going to be enough. best case scenario is splits everywhere.
you'll note that my path called for near splits on the 26th. i suggested he should be aiming to pick up 50 delegates, mostly in pennsylvania, in order to close the distance to about 100. but, that was built on a win in new york taking him from 200 to 150, rather than a loss taking him from 200 to 250.
it's not a disaster, mathematically - there's enough delegates up on the 26th that he could, in theory, make up 150 and get back on track. but, the polling isn't projecting this.
realistically, he should be hoping to walk out of the 26th with the difference less than 300. and, he probably won't be able to keep it to that.
moving forward, i expect her to win indiana & west virginia by substantial margins - indiana will look like ohio, and west virginia will look like tennessee. the next state he'll have a real chance in will be oregon, but the difference will be nearly 400 delegates by the time he gets there.
i don't like it, either. sorry.
yeah. the media is out to lunch. the republican nomination is over. it's not even close.
trump currently has 847.
conn: 25 (take most)
del: 16 (take all)
mary: 38 (take all)
penn: 71 (take all)
ri: 10 (prop)
that's 160 on tuesday. let's round down to 153, so we can say he has around 1000 after tuesday. that would mean he'd need around 250.
california: 172 (take all)
new jersey: 51 (take all)
that's 220. and, despite what media suggests, california is not in play.
oregon: 28 (prop)
wash: 44 (prop)
nm: 24 (prop)
so, that's 96 proportional. surely, he can average 30% in those states. so, there's your win.
not used:
indiana: 57 (take-all - this is unclear)
wv: 34 (probably trump, but weird rules)
nebraska: 36 (cruz)
montana: 24 (cruz)
south dakota: 29 (cruz)
if he wins indiana and gets 15-20 from wv, he's got more than 1300 delegates. and, that's a realistic target, too.
so, that's done.
at
04:17
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to questions about whether bernie is angling for a run
see, i think he would have stopped already if he wasn't planning on it. but, i also think he's waiting to make the choice. if june comes around, and she's twenty points ahead nationally? well, no. if june comes around and he's beating her by ten points? probably, yeah. and, we know that growth is not infinite, but the direction of the curve suggests a run.
i do think he'll do everything he possibly can to win the nomination, though - and i he can, he'll take it. he'd legitimately rather run as a democrat. it makes everything easier.
but, i just have to think he knows his odds, and i couldn't imagine what else he's planning around. it depends on everything, of course. but the thinking has to be that he gets to the convention pretty close in delegates, and with all the momentum, and then marches the left out of the party once and for all.
i don't even think you need to pull out the indictment. what if he's beating her by 10% in national polls? consistently? right now, it's still ambiguous whether one candidate is polling stronger than the other. by june, it may not be.
i do think he'll do everything he possibly can to win the nomination, though - and i he can, he'll take it. he'd legitimately rather run as a democrat. it makes everything easier.
but, i just have to think he knows his odds, and i couldn't imagine what else he's planning around. it depends on everything, of course. but the thinking has to be that he gets to the convention pretty close in delegates, and with all the momentum, and then marches the left out of the party once and for all.
i don't even think you need to pull out the indictment. what if he's beating her by 10% in national polls? consistently? right now, it's still ambiguous whether one candidate is polling stronger than the other. by june, it may not be.
at
03:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the cluelessness of voting for hillary explicitly to stop trump
but, i just want to remind you: over the next few months, you're going to hear all kinds of horrible things about donald trump. and, most of them will be true, on at least some level. but, what you're not going to hear - and are going to have to constantly remind yourself - is that almost all of it applies equally well to clinton.
so, for example, consider the border fence. terrible policy, sure. but, clinton's policy is, in fact, essentially identical. she's a lot less crude about it, but she favours continuing obama's mass deportation policies. one candidate is being sold to white xenophobes that blame minorities for class inequality, whereas the other is being sold to minority voters that blame white people for class inequality (see the trick, there?). but, the policies are not actually meaningfully different. if you're not fully expecting clinton to deport even more people than obama, you're not paying attention.
or, you could look at iran. hillary is, in fact, itching to bomb iran. she's entirely in line with john mccain and dick cheney. absolute neo-con. there is a difference in appearance: she knows a little about the situation, whereas trump is just trying to sound tough. there's no reason to expect any real substantive policy difference.
and you can go down this list for a while. you won't pull out much of a difference. the few things where there is a difference (trade, war) maybe ought to lean you towards trump - if you're an actual leftist, that is, and don't just like wearing the shirt and the hipster status attached to it.
so, i mean, if you don't like trump that's fine. i don't like him either. i couldn't imagine voting for him. just make sure you know where hillary stands before you vote for her, against trump - because you might be disappointed when you get exactly what you voted against.
but, maybe you still think obama is a peace candidate, too? you should have never thought that. he couldn't have been more clear.
so, for example, consider the border fence. terrible policy, sure. but, clinton's policy is, in fact, essentially identical. she's a lot less crude about it, but she favours continuing obama's mass deportation policies. one candidate is being sold to white xenophobes that blame minorities for class inequality, whereas the other is being sold to minority voters that blame white people for class inequality (see the trick, there?). but, the policies are not actually meaningfully different. if you're not fully expecting clinton to deport even more people than obama, you're not paying attention.
or, you could look at iran. hillary is, in fact, itching to bomb iran. she's entirely in line with john mccain and dick cheney. absolute neo-con. there is a difference in appearance: she knows a little about the situation, whereas trump is just trying to sound tough. there's no reason to expect any real substantive policy difference.
and you can go down this list for a while. you won't pull out much of a difference. the few things where there is a difference (trade, war) maybe ought to lean you towards trump - if you're an actual leftist, that is, and don't just like wearing the shirt and the hipster status attached to it.
so, i mean, if you don't like trump that's fine. i don't like him either. i couldn't imagine voting for him. just make sure you know where hillary stands before you vote for her, against trump - because you might be disappointed when you get exactly what you voted against.
but, maybe you still think obama is a peace candidate, too? you should have never thought that. he couldn't have been more clear.
at
02:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
so, you know that i frequent message boards. and i know that it's 90% people doing their jobs. but, you have to give trump's pr team some credit, even if you don't like his policies.
these are real-life talking point by paid trump hacks, who (like most of the country) are simply not taking ted cruz seriously anymore:
1) Ted Cruz has a pay as you go flip phone.
2) Ted Cruz wears Donald Trump Pajamas.
3) Ted Cruz keeps his khakis on during sex.
4) When at a steakhouse, Ted Cruz orders salmon.
5) Ted Cruz has every episode of Murder She Wrote on his DVR.
6) Ted Cruz’s default search engine is Bing.
7) Ted Cruz orders off of the kids’ menu.
8) Ted Cruz kisses his dad on the mouth.
9) Ted Cruz is no longer allowed to cut his own bangs.
these are real-life talking point by paid trump hacks, who (like most of the country) are simply not taking ted cruz seriously anymore:
1) Ted Cruz has a pay as you go flip phone.
2) Ted Cruz wears Donald Trump Pajamas.
3) Ted Cruz keeps his khakis on during sex.
4) When at a steakhouse, Ted Cruz orders salmon.
5) Ted Cruz has every episode of Murder She Wrote on his DVR.
6) Ted Cruz’s default search engine is Bing.
7) Ted Cruz orders off of the kids’ menu.
8) Ted Cruz kisses his dad on the mouth.
9) Ted Cruz is no longer allowed to cut his own bangs.
at
01:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
shit hillary said vol 37
"I am very grateful that I had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought."
at
00:19
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Thursday, April 21, 2016
shit hillary said vol 36
"One of the major accomplishments in the execution of this responsibility occurred in 1998 when the Congress passed and my husband signed into law the International Religious Freedom Act. That Act incorporated, as a foundational element of United States foreign policy, the ideals of religious freedom on which our own nation was founded. And it required our government to designate a nation as a Country of Particular Concern if that nation's government had either engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom defined as systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of freedom of religion as outlined in international human rights documents. That helped to put the spotlight on countries that were not living up to the ideals or even their stated commitment in their own documents to religious freedom."
at
23:53
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
A total of 17,465 people died from overdosing on illicit drugs like heroin and cocaine in 2014, while 25,760 people died from overdosing on prescription drugs, including painkillers and tranquilizers like Valium, according to CDC figures.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marijuana-overdose-deaths_us_5716468ee4b0060ccda452ad
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marijuana-overdose-deaths_us_5716468ee4b0060ccda452ad
at
21:37
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this is such an absurd strawman - to the point that i see no particular reason to debate it. i'll even concede the point: so long as we have gendered bathrooms, obvious cis gendered dudes in bad wigs shouldn't use the one designated for women.
at
21:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
20-04-2016: 4/20 in detroit (imperial death march: melt banana, melvins, napalm death)
concert footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rYXwTfmJiI
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/04/20.html
previous vlog:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZhDGD6OoJI
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rYXwTfmJiI
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/04/20.html
previous vlog:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZhDGD6OoJI
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
at
02:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
20-04-2016: melt banana - infection defective (detroit)
their music:
http://www.melt-banana.net/
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/04/20.html
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPd2kz0SUg8
my music:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com
http://www.melt-banana.net/
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/04/20.html
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPd2kz0SUg8
my music:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com
at
20:45
Location:
Detroit, MI, USA
19-04-2016: winter archiving is over; hello to spring cockroaches (& new york primary)
chained vlog forward:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPd2kz0SUg8
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPd2kz0SUg8
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
at
14:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
it took me a while to figure out what was going on here. the doctor was kind of vague. we agreed i should be checked for stroke symptoms, and there weren't any. he told me it was probably a migraine, and i agreed, but it just struck me as a little extreme. so i've been worried about tumours, degenerative diseases...
in fact, i think what happened was a condition called transient aphasia (explained: https://migraine.com/blog/migraine-symptoms-transient-aphasia/) that is associated with severe migraines. i actually mention in the video that i'm experiencing "tracers", which is usually referred to as an "aura" in the migraine literature. but i actually manage to get myself in aphasia a little after 40:00.
in fact, i think what happened was a condition called transient aphasia (explained: https://migraine.com/blog/migraine-symptoms-transient-aphasia/) that is associated with severe migraines. i actually mention in the video that i'm experiencing "tracers", which is usually referred to as an "aura" in the migraine literature. but i actually manage to get myself in aphasia a little after 40:00.
at
13:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the inherently anti-democratic nature of two-party political systems
i think this is half-right. but, it is stuck in two-party politics.
i've lived my whole life in a three-party system. we have a conservative party that is roughly equivalent to the american democrats [in the late 70s, when it was morning in america for the conservative movement, the canadian conservative party was campaigning on legalizing marijuana]. clinton & obama would both be tories in canada. we have a liberal party that is historically more equivalent to the american green party - but would also be the party of your elizabeth warrens. and, we have an ndp that has historically been a socialist party and advocated for things like state-controlled industry. in fact, they succeeded in nationalizing the oil industry for a while. sanders would be a member of the ndp in canada.
your republican party would be a fringe movement in canada. the closest thing would be the social credit party, but it's a bad comparison, over all.
now, the spectrum may be skewed left up here. but, that's not really the point i'm getting at. the point is that we have three parties, not two, and so we have three orientations: right, left and center. in practice, it's neither the left nor the right that run the country - it's the liberal party in the center.
we could do this a few different ways. i like to bring in the idea of dialectics. because, if you look at the old literature, democracy has something to do with dialectics. the thing is that america has never really understood this, though. there's this idea in the american political philosophy that if you get right and left at each other's throat, you end up with synthesis in the form of bipartisanship. so, you hear this all over the spectrum. working together across the aisle. it's scary language, on some level - reflective of a one-party state. but, if you know where it comes from, you get that what it's really about is synthesis.
except that has never been what has happened. in a two-party system, you never get any kind of real synthesis. what you get are tugs and pulls on the center. you get pendulums sweeping back and forth. the right hand erases the left hand, and then the left hand erases the right - in the long run, it is the opposite of synthesis.
the reagan era undid the fdr era. and, the next generation will return the favour and throw reagan in the dustbin, as it resurrects fdr. will this go on forever? will the pendulum swing into perpetuity?
if so, the founders will have failed - they intended for synthesis. the two party system was about dialectics, not pendulums.
and, what of canada, then? well, the three-party system actually presents a functional dialectic by sending thesis and anti-thesis to the partisan extremes, and letting serious policy happen in the centre. so, it happens to be that the same party that brought us single-payer health care in the 60s also brought us balanced budgets in the 90s. by existing in the center, and synthesizing ideas from the parties on the left and right, the liberals are able to govern broadly empirically - and not ideologically.
i've been saying this for months, actually. matthew is absolutely right to point out that the democrats are not a party of the left, and at all. but, the solution is not for the left to take over the democrats. matthew also correctly points out that this will help the right more than it will help the left. the solution is for the left to stop co-operating with the democrats, to spin itself off and let the democrats sit in the middle. to me, the great excitement surrounding sanders is that he might be the catalyst to construct this three-party system, and finally let the dialectic work.
remember: conservatives are only wrong about 85% of the time.
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/20/11466376/bernie-sanders-future-democrats
i've lived my whole life in a three-party system. we have a conservative party that is roughly equivalent to the american democrats [in the late 70s, when it was morning in america for the conservative movement, the canadian conservative party was campaigning on legalizing marijuana]. clinton & obama would both be tories in canada. we have a liberal party that is historically more equivalent to the american green party - but would also be the party of your elizabeth warrens. and, we have an ndp that has historically been a socialist party and advocated for things like state-controlled industry. in fact, they succeeded in nationalizing the oil industry for a while. sanders would be a member of the ndp in canada.
your republican party would be a fringe movement in canada. the closest thing would be the social credit party, but it's a bad comparison, over all.
now, the spectrum may be skewed left up here. but, that's not really the point i'm getting at. the point is that we have three parties, not two, and so we have three orientations: right, left and center. in practice, it's neither the left nor the right that run the country - it's the liberal party in the center.
we could do this a few different ways. i like to bring in the idea of dialectics. because, if you look at the old literature, democracy has something to do with dialectics. the thing is that america has never really understood this, though. there's this idea in the american political philosophy that if you get right and left at each other's throat, you end up with synthesis in the form of bipartisanship. so, you hear this all over the spectrum. working together across the aisle. it's scary language, on some level - reflective of a one-party state. but, if you know where it comes from, you get that what it's really about is synthesis.
except that has never been what has happened. in a two-party system, you never get any kind of real synthesis. what you get are tugs and pulls on the center. you get pendulums sweeping back and forth. the right hand erases the left hand, and then the left hand erases the right - in the long run, it is the opposite of synthesis.
the reagan era undid the fdr era. and, the next generation will return the favour and throw reagan in the dustbin, as it resurrects fdr. will this go on forever? will the pendulum swing into perpetuity?
if so, the founders will have failed - they intended for synthesis. the two party system was about dialectics, not pendulums.
and, what of canada, then? well, the three-party system actually presents a functional dialectic by sending thesis and anti-thesis to the partisan extremes, and letting serious policy happen in the centre. so, it happens to be that the same party that brought us single-payer health care in the 60s also brought us balanced budgets in the 90s. by existing in the center, and synthesizing ideas from the parties on the left and right, the liberals are able to govern broadly empirically - and not ideologically.
i've been saying this for months, actually. matthew is absolutely right to point out that the democrats are not a party of the left, and at all. but, the solution is not for the left to take over the democrats. matthew also correctly points out that this will help the right more than it will help the left. the solution is for the left to stop co-operating with the democrats, to spin itself off and let the democrats sit in the middle. to me, the great excitement surrounding sanders is that he might be the catalyst to construct this three-party system, and finally let the dialectic work.
remember: conservatives are only wrong about 85% of the time.
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/20/11466376/bernie-sanders-future-democrats
at
11:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
spring bug update
i've caught two in the last twelve hours (one around midnight, the other around 8:00 am) near the front door, which is a little different. essentially every roach i've ever seen in here has been near the plumbing on the far side - in the kitchen usually, or maybe in the bathroom or sometimes in the closet in the bedroom. but always clearly near the plumbing as a water source. so, to see two of them come in from the other side like this is a little different.
so, i did some liberal spraying along each of the four doorways around the two entrances. i suppose we'll find out how many get trapped in it over the next few days. but, it seems to suggest there's been a population increase in the back area. it's generally stated that seeing roaches in the day is a bad sign.
i haven't seen any on the plumbing side yet this year, but i will be doing spring cleaning over the weekend - which means spraying behind the appliances and replacing the steel wool.
the headaches have subsided. and i want to be clear that i wasn't trying to be accusatory. i was just trying to figure out if the unit was sprayed when i wasn't here, as that struck me as a likely explanation for what was happening. pure intuition. and, obviously, i would like to be informed when the unit is going to be sprayed, if the unit is going to be sprayed. but i wouldn't have raised the issue if i wasn't getting dramatic symptoms coming from the air - not just headaches, actually, but visual hallucinations (tracers) and at one point an inability to speak. i mean, i spent a day in the hospital. they told me i had a migraine, and maybe that was it, but it kind of seems like i was poisoned. again: i'm not making accusations, exactly, i'm more just contemplating possibilities. however, because i've sprayed down here this morning, i've now contaminated myself regarding any testing. i wouldn't have sprayed if i didn't think it was gone, anyways. at the very least, realize this: if there was spraying down here this month, i got some pretty nasty side effects from it. so, that shouldn't happen again without telling me what's happening so i can adjust...
so, i did some liberal spraying along each of the four doorways around the two entrances. i suppose we'll find out how many get trapped in it over the next few days. but, it seems to suggest there's been a population increase in the back area. it's generally stated that seeing roaches in the day is a bad sign.
i haven't seen any on the plumbing side yet this year, but i will be doing spring cleaning over the weekend - which means spraying behind the appliances and replacing the steel wool.
the headaches have subsided. and i want to be clear that i wasn't trying to be accusatory. i was just trying to figure out if the unit was sprayed when i wasn't here, as that struck me as a likely explanation for what was happening. pure intuition. and, obviously, i would like to be informed when the unit is going to be sprayed, if the unit is going to be sprayed. but i wouldn't have raised the issue if i wasn't getting dramatic symptoms coming from the air - not just headaches, actually, but visual hallucinations (tracers) and at one point an inability to speak. i mean, i spent a day in the hospital. they told me i had a migraine, and maybe that was it, but it kind of seems like i was poisoned. again: i'm not making accusations, exactly, i'm more just contemplating possibilities. however, because i've sprayed down here this morning, i've now contaminated myself regarding any testing. i wouldn't have sprayed if i didn't think it was gone, anyways. at the very least, realize this: if there was spraying down here this month, i got some pretty nasty side effects from it. so, that shouldn't happen again without telling me what's happening so i can adjust...
at
08:23
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i am now moving this laptop back into the bedroom, and getting ready to turn the pc back on. the last thing i have to do on the laptop is clean this page up, but it won't make sense to do that right away - i'll have to do it as i'm rebuilding the alter-reality (and the period disc) from 1996 on. and, in order to get there, i still have to sort through some things, to make sure i've found everything i can.
i don't know if there are still usenet or mailing list archives for me to access online, but it's secondary to finding what i can in squirelled away pst files first, anyways. iirc, it was about mid-1997 that i started rambling on the internet. the alter-reality starts in the summer of 1996, and will consequently kick back in around july. but, then i've got a year before i need to worry about it. and, i consequently may put it off for a little while, depending on how fast i find things.
i'm hitting a strange show tonight (melt banana / melvins...and i'll probably stay for napalm death, too, depending on set times), because it's 4/20. but, i think i should get through most of this scavenging by the end of the day, too. and, then i can get back to finishing what i started doing back in december.
almost there. seriously.
and what do i have to show for it? well, i've pulled down over a gb of text from the internet. 1.2 gb. of text. stored in word documents. i jest you not, this is the truth. message boards. youtube. email. facebook. it's 1.2 gb of text. since 2011. and understand this: i have many times more than this from before 2011. so, when i claim that i'm building an alter-reality with a lot of writing....
it'll be really obvious what i'm doing as soon as i start doing it. and i'm just about there.
and, did i mention that i quit smoking, too? that was really important. and, frankly, this was a pretty productive way to do that. time is a strange intangible and everything. i'd prefer it if we weren't stuck running out of it. and, i may be lucky enough to catch the cut-off point after all. i'm beginning to think i was too pessimistic. but, i don't regret this. and, if i can catch immortality after all, then i'm just setting myself up for it. hey, that cut-off point is coming soon, whether i catch it or not.
i don't know if there are still usenet or mailing list archives for me to access online, but it's secondary to finding what i can in squirelled away pst files first, anyways. iirc, it was about mid-1997 that i started rambling on the internet. the alter-reality starts in the summer of 1996, and will consequently kick back in around july. but, then i've got a year before i need to worry about it. and, i consequently may put it off for a little while, depending on how fast i find things.
i'm hitting a strange show tonight (melt banana / melvins...and i'll probably stay for napalm death, too, depending on set times), because it's 4/20. but, i think i should get through most of this scavenging by the end of the day, too. and, then i can get back to finishing what i started doing back in december.
almost there. seriously.
and what do i have to show for it? well, i've pulled down over a gb of text from the internet. 1.2 gb. of text. stored in word documents. i jest you not, this is the truth. message boards. youtube. email. facebook. it's 1.2 gb of text. since 2011. and understand this: i have many times more than this from before 2011. so, when i claim that i'm building an alter-reality with a lot of writing....
it'll be really obvious what i'm doing as soon as i start doing it. and i'm just about there.
and, did i mention that i quit smoking, too? that was really important. and, frankly, this was a pretty productive way to do that. time is a strange intangible and everything. i'd prefer it if we weren't stuck running out of it. and, i may be lucky enough to catch the cut-off point after all. i'm beginning to think i was too pessimistic. but, i don't regret this. and, if i can catch immortality after all, then i'm just setting myself up for it. hey, that cut-off point is coming soon, whether i catch it or not.
at
06:27
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to sanders losing in new york (and what he should do next)
so, i got in before the results - it was clear this was going to happen within a few days of the vote, even if i didn't realize the consequences of a closed primary far ahead of the vote (as so few did, apparently).
but, i still don't think it really says anything about clinton's relationship to blacks, in general. it says a lot about clinton's relationship to older, wealthy blacks. but, that was never in question. she does well with older, wealthy whites, too.
it's true she did well in the less wealthy areas, too. but, i want you to realize how absurd this reaction is: the sample size was too small to draw any meaningful conclusions from. that is absolutely ridiculous, but it's also absolutely true. if you hit the new york times results precinct by precinct, you'll have a hard time finding a precinct with more than 400 cast ballots. the harsh reality is that you can't draw any meaningful conclusions from such a biased sample. the fact that they're mostly life-long democrats is probably more important than anything else.
the remaining states aren't going to be as bad in terms of voter suppression, and should provide a better sample. i really wanted new york to give us better data, but the arcane rules that are in place make it even less useful than the previous collections.
anybody that is attempting to use the new york results to demonstrate something that was predicted about demographics, or use it to predict something in the future about demographics, is being dishonest. the only thing of any real value that the data from new york tells us is that dyed-in-the-wool life-long partisan democrats are strongly supportive of the clinton dynasty. which is not news.
--
but, again - let me state this clearly.
sanders will almost certainly lose the democratic nomination. and the media is pushing hard for him to drop.
but, he should not drop. just because he's probably going to lose the nomination doesn't mean his campaign is done. i've laid out the reasons he should run as an independent, and why he could very well win. there will be much wrangling on the way there, but it's mostly just an elaborate set of excuses to drag the process on until he can go solo.
could he have won new york tonight if the primary was open? well, they didn't even cast two million votes. there's twenty million people in new york. it's well within the realm of possibility. and, it's consequently not a very strong argument.
but, i still don't think it really says anything about clinton's relationship to blacks, in general. it says a lot about clinton's relationship to older, wealthy blacks. but, that was never in question. she does well with older, wealthy whites, too.
it's true she did well in the less wealthy areas, too. but, i want you to realize how absurd this reaction is: the sample size was too small to draw any meaningful conclusions from. that is absolutely ridiculous, but it's also absolutely true. if you hit the new york times results precinct by precinct, you'll have a hard time finding a precinct with more than 400 cast ballots. the harsh reality is that you can't draw any meaningful conclusions from such a biased sample. the fact that they're mostly life-long democrats is probably more important than anything else.
the remaining states aren't going to be as bad in terms of voter suppression, and should provide a better sample. i really wanted new york to give us better data, but the arcane rules that are in place make it even less useful than the previous collections.
anybody that is attempting to use the new york results to demonstrate something that was predicted about demographics, or use it to predict something in the future about demographics, is being dishonest. the only thing of any real value that the data from new york tells us is that dyed-in-the-wool life-long partisan democrats are strongly supportive of the clinton dynasty. which is not news.
--
but, again - let me state this clearly.
sanders will almost certainly lose the democratic nomination. and the media is pushing hard for him to drop.
but, he should not drop. just because he's probably going to lose the nomination doesn't mean his campaign is done. i've laid out the reasons he should run as an independent, and why he could very well win. there will be much wrangling on the way there, but it's mostly just an elaborate set of excuses to drag the process on until he can go solo.
could he have won new york tonight if the primary was open? well, they didn't even cast two million votes. there's twenty million people in new york. it's well within the realm of possibility. and, it's consequently not a very strong argument.
at
02:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
shit hillary said vol 35
"It’s a phoney referendum and it is going to be used by Assad to justify what he’s doing to other Syrian citizens."
at
00:22
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
j reacts to trump winning new york (and how to beat him in the general)
"yes, we will".
so, ted cruz wants to be obama? what? you are no doubt confused by this turn of events. has he received the memo from the heritage institute on the mandate?
yet, you shouldn't be. see, this is actually one of those situations where the banks just let slip what you're not supposed to know: that ted cruz is, in fact, the continuity candidate. the bankers switch parties every eight years, remember. ted cruz is indeed brought to us by the same bankers that brought us barack obama. hillary's not even their second choice- not even their tenth choice, really. but, they seem to have lost their minds over the last four years. i've pointed this out a few times: it's probably his wife's fault. you lose objectivity when you're trying to get your spouse elected. and, this entire cycle - hillary, trump, sanders - is all essentially a consequence of this monumental fuck-up. the banks picked a limp horse and stuck with it.
yes - you will lose, ted. third place, tonight. get used to this....
now, note this: it seems like kasich won manhatten. an island of teal in a sea of red. the obvious choice there is actually cruz - because he's the banker candidate. but, the whole plan is in tatters. note that, despite of this, trump still loses manhatten. and, that is telling.
so, how do you beat trump, now? listen - i may be non-committal in terms of support. don't expect me to hit the boards arguing for hillary. i think she's a war criminal, and makes a better republican than trump does. if sanders doesn't run, i'm going to endorse stein. but, this is a math problem, so i seek a solution. how do you beat this guy?
well, i think enough time has gone on to make his base clear, right. he's not swinging conservatives. at all. i will state for at least the third time that i think hillary will run to his right, and beat him on it. she will swing evangelicals and all manners of "moderate conservatives" that think he's some kind of raving liberal. rather, i think the danger is that clinton tries to present him as an extreme right-winger. her better tactic is to run against him the same way she's been running against sanders, and try and paint him as an unrealistic leftist. the early indications suggest she's not doing that, and it's going to come out in the end as an error.
again: he's not swaying conservatives. conservatives are actually up for grabs, here. and, hillary is a conservative. so, it makes more sense for her to go after them than to alienate them. they're supposed to be all about rational choices. hillary is their rational choice. they will grudgingly accept this.
rather, what he's swaying are these authoritarian types that want a "strong leader" to save them from evil. bush voters. he fucked up himself in attacking bush' legacy. that's his base. and, what they want is....let's say they want bismarck. or, maybe stephen harper? see, i've got some recent experience with this.
now, has what we've seen over the last year or so suggested that donald trump is actually a leader? i don't think it has. i think he's been a follower of the most blatant sort. he's bleeting the republican line on point after point. he changed his position on abortion to win votes (and nobody believes that he believes what he said, so don't bother with that). he changed his position on health care. he's changed position after position. that's not strong leadership, that's just following the herd.
the whole debate may seem facile and childish. and i don't want to fall into this narrative that voters are stupid. but, this particular type of voter is not so bright. and, this is how you get in their head: donald trump is not a leader.
and, he isn't. on party orders, he has taken foolish positions that he doesn't believe in. the reality is that he's doing what he's told. so, why should you believe he'll pull out of these trade deals? or anything else he says...
so, ted cruz wants to be obama? what? you are no doubt confused by this turn of events. has he received the memo from the heritage institute on the mandate?
yet, you shouldn't be. see, this is actually one of those situations where the banks just let slip what you're not supposed to know: that ted cruz is, in fact, the continuity candidate. the bankers switch parties every eight years, remember. ted cruz is indeed brought to us by the same bankers that brought us barack obama. hillary's not even their second choice- not even their tenth choice, really. but, they seem to have lost their minds over the last four years. i've pointed this out a few times: it's probably his wife's fault. you lose objectivity when you're trying to get your spouse elected. and, this entire cycle - hillary, trump, sanders - is all essentially a consequence of this monumental fuck-up. the banks picked a limp horse and stuck with it.
yes - you will lose, ted. third place, tonight. get used to this....
now, note this: it seems like kasich won manhatten. an island of teal in a sea of red. the obvious choice there is actually cruz - because he's the banker candidate. but, the whole plan is in tatters. note that, despite of this, trump still loses manhatten. and, that is telling.
so, how do you beat trump, now? listen - i may be non-committal in terms of support. don't expect me to hit the boards arguing for hillary. i think she's a war criminal, and makes a better republican than trump does. if sanders doesn't run, i'm going to endorse stein. but, this is a math problem, so i seek a solution. how do you beat this guy?
well, i think enough time has gone on to make his base clear, right. he's not swinging conservatives. at all. i will state for at least the third time that i think hillary will run to his right, and beat him on it. she will swing evangelicals and all manners of "moderate conservatives" that think he's some kind of raving liberal. rather, i think the danger is that clinton tries to present him as an extreme right-winger. her better tactic is to run against him the same way she's been running against sanders, and try and paint him as an unrealistic leftist. the early indications suggest she's not doing that, and it's going to come out in the end as an error.
again: he's not swaying conservatives. conservatives are actually up for grabs, here. and, hillary is a conservative. so, it makes more sense for her to go after them than to alienate them. they're supposed to be all about rational choices. hillary is their rational choice. they will grudgingly accept this.
rather, what he's swaying are these authoritarian types that want a "strong leader" to save them from evil. bush voters. he fucked up himself in attacking bush' legacy. that's his base. and, what they want is....let's say they want bismarck. or, maybe stephen harper? see, i've got some recent experience with this.
now, has what we've seen over the last year or so suggested that donald trump is actually a leader? i don't think it has. i think he's been a follower of the most blatant sort. he's bleeting the republican line on point after point. he changed his position on abortion to win votes (and nobody believes that he believes what he said, so don't bother with that). he changed his position on health care. he's changed position after position. that's not strong leadership, that's just following the herd.
the whole debate may seem facile and childish. and i don't want to fall into this narrative that voters are stupid. but, this particular type of voter is not so bright. and, this is how you get in their head: donald trump is not a leader.
and, he isn't. on party orders, he has taken foolish positions that he doesn't believe in. the reality is that he's doing what he's told. so, why should you believe he'll pull out of these trade deals? or anything else he says...
at
23:55
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)