https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
there's an acceptable middle point. if you're going to show up with a pro camera and record the whole thing, that's called piracy. but, if you take a song or two on your phone, that's fair use.
there's a lot of recorded snippets of live music on my profile; for me, it actually doesn't have anything to do with them, it's just a part of the vlog. i've been questioned a few times and i'm just totally transparent: what i'm doing has nothing to do with recording them and everything to do with documenting me. they're not any more important or special than the seagull i filmed last night when i was smoking a joint in the park. so, i go to a lot of concerts and i try to take one song from each band i'm there to see. but, i'm the topic, not them.
i think that logic transfers over to really anybody that's taking a song or two for personal use, whatever it happens to be. but, as mentioned, there's a point where it's not reasonable. it's all about discretion around a concept of reasonable behaviour.
there's a lot of recorded snippets of live music on my profile; for me, it actually doesn't have anything to do with them, it's just a part of the vlog. i've been questioned a few times and i'm just totally transparent: what i'm doing has nothing to do with recording them and everything to do with documenting me. they're not any more important or special than the seagull i filmed last night when i was smoking a joint in the park. so, i go to a lot of concerts and i try to take one song from each band i'm there to see. but, i'm the topic, not them.
i think that logic transfers over to really anybody that's taking a song or two for personal use, whatever it happens to be. but, as mentioned, there's a point where it's not reasonable. it's all about discretion around a concept of reasonable behaviour.
Monday, May 30, 2016
j reacts to the intersection of voter suppression laws, race and exit polling
finally!
this is the actual story. i've been yelling about this for months.
i can't believe that it took fucking nbc to get it right.
clinton slays amongst older people of all demographics, while sanders dominates amongst young people. but, young blacks are simply not voting. this creates the illusion that sanders is doing poorly amongst blacks. but, if young blacks were participating at the same levels as young whites, the numbers would be far closer.
so, the real question is: why aren't young blacks voting? is it about not having the right kind of id? feeling disconnected? not having time? just a lack of awareness?
this is the actual story. i've been yelling about this for months.
i can't believe that it took fucking nbc to get it right.
clinton slays amongst older people of all demographics, while sanders dominates amongst young people. but, young blacks are simply not voting. this creates the illusion that sanders is doing poorly amongst blacks. but, if young blacks were participating at the same levels as young whites, the numbers would be far closer.
so, the real question is: why aren't young blacks voting? is it about not having the right kind of id? feeling disconnected? not having time? just a lack of awareness?
j reacts to the dispensary busts in toronto
this has been expected for a while. the reality is that it's still illegal. there's a lot of writing floating around that the people running these stores somehow didn't know this, or were "confused". that's actually conservative party propaganda, and is designed to point the finger at the government in order to create a scandal.
obviously, these store owners knew what they were doing and made a calculation that the risk was worth the reward. they got burned. that's what happens when you gamble.
but, what's the best option, right now? well, this is a clear truth: this is a waste of resources. police. legal. and, in fact, i'd argue that everybody that was arrested today will have an incredibly strong civil argument for compensation. not only is it the case that they are wasting public money, public policing resources and public legal resources in the present, it's also the case that the state is going to have to produce huge payouts for wasting the time, money and resources of private citizens and commercial interests. i'm very much in favour of full legalization, but we have to collectively understand that it's going to come with a tremendous cost of reparations going to to the victims of prohibition over several decades. and, our court system will interpret the situation that way. for the first ten years or so, all the tax revenue is going to go towards legal costs fighting for reparations.
so, this situation is hard to describe without using the word stupid. but, the cops have a job to do, too.
the answer is that the feds should decriminalize it immediately, and then go after the black market once the legal distribution system is properly in place.
https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/05/27/police-chief-talks-about-marijuana-raids.html
obviously, these store owners knew what they were doing and made a calculation that the risk was worth the reward. they got burned. that's what happens when you gamble.
but, what's the best option, right now? well, this is a clear truth: this is a waste of resources. police. legal. and, in fact, i'd argue that everybody that was arrested today will have an incredibly strong civil argument for compensation. not only is it the case that they are wasting public money, public policing resources and public legal resources in the present, it's also the case that the state is going to have to produce huge payouts for wasting the time, money and resources of private citizens and commercial interests. i'm very much in favour of full legalization, but we have to collectively understand that it's going to come with a tremendous cost of reparations going to to the victims of prohibition over several decades. and, our court system will interpret the situation that way. for the first ten years or so, all the tax revenue is going to go towards legal costs fighting for reparations.
so, this situation is hard to describe without using the word stupid. but, the cops have a job to do, too.
the answer is that the feds should decriminalize it immediately, and then go after the black market once the legal distribution system is properly in place.
https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/05/27/police-chief-talks-about-marijuana-raids.html
the narrative here is on the right path, but is still stuck in quite a bit of propaganda.
the reason they dropped the bombs was that they wanted absolute surrender. this panel is repeating a widely held misunderstanding: that the japanese were not willing to surrender. in fact, they had already been negotiating a surrender for quite some time. the biggest factor was that the americans had cut off their access to indonesia, which was their source of oil and rubber. the outcome of the war was crystal clear somewhere around d-day, and was in fact understood even earlier than that. the japanese could barely even fight without oil & rubber, let alone win. they had no chance. it was just a matter of time.
but, they didn't want an absolute surrender. the standard line is that they didn't want to hand over the emperor, but that's one of those historical glosses. like the idea that world war one was about an assassination in austria by serbian terrorists, rather than imperial competition over global resources. in actual fact, the japanese wanted to hold on to certain strategic islands, for resource reasons. these negotiations were preventing a surrender.
the actual truth is that the americans would not accept anything less than absolute surrender, including the occupation of all japanese lands. the japanese saw that as a bit onerous. so, they dropped the bomb to try and force the concession. it was a negotiation tactic. and, the fact is that it actually failed - the japanese did not surrender as a consequence of the atomic bomb. this is where the political/military debate comes in - the military knew it wouldn't work, but the politicians pushed for it anyways. that's become a common theme in american imperialism, and is perhaps reflective of somewhat of a flaw in the governing structure of the united states.
so, the bombs had little to do with the surrender. rather, what happened was that the russians saw what was going on and took it upon themselves to move in. this was just strategically intelligent. so long as the japanese and americans were haggling over terms, the japanese were an easy target for further expansion. further, the soviets had reasons to keep the americans out of japan, too. what set in was a race.
the japanese elite now saw themselves in a situation where they had to choose between being taken over by a communist regime and being absorbed by a capitalist empire. the capitalists may reduce them to a puppet-state, but the communists would execute them in public. so, they picked the americans over the soviets and accepted the absolute surrender.
it was the threat of stalin that forced the surrender, not the bombs.
but, that doesn't address the question of whether it was justified or not. i mean, just because it failed doesn't mean it was unjustified. i think this is a complex question without a good answer, but at the very least you need to get the motives right, first. see, you get a very different analysis if you think it was about ending the war early than you do if you understand that it was about forcing absolute surrender.
i think the better argument is that the atomic bombs actually weren't as large of an escalation as has been imagined. these were small bombs, in contemporary terms. the topic of iraq is brought up here. it was widely reported in 2003 that the "bunker busting" bombs - which were conventional - were actually more powerful than the h-bombs that were used in japan. and, the americans dropped depleted uranium in iraq, too.
i've argued both points, depending on context. my reaction has tended to be dependent on the precise argument i'm interfacing with. but, i don't think there's an actual answer.
the reason they dropped the bombs was that they wanted absolute surrender. this panel is repeating a widely held misunderstanding: that the japanese were not willing to surrender. in fact, they had already been negotiating a surrender for quite some time. the biggest factor was that the americans had cut off their access to indonesia, which was their source of oil and rubber. the outcome of the war was crystal clear somewhere around d-day, and was in fact understood even earlier than that. the japanese could barely even fight without oil & rubber, let alone win. they had no chance. it was just a matter of time.
but, they didn't want an absolute surrender. the standard line is that they didn't want to hand over the emperor, but that's one of those historical glosses. like the idea that world war one was about an assassination in austria by serbian terrorists, rather than imperial competition over global resources. in actual fact, the japanese wanted to hold on to certain strategic islands, for resource reasons. these negotiations were preventing a surrender.
the actual truth is that the americans would not accept anything less than absolute surrender, including the occupation of all japanese lands. the japanese saw that as a bit onerous. so, they dropped the bomb to try and force the concession. it was a negotiation tactic. and, the fact is that it actually failed - the japanese did not surrender as a consequence of the atomic bomb. this is where the political/military debate comes in - the military knew it wouldn't work, but the politicians pushed for it anyways. that's become a common theme in american imperialism, and is perhaps reflective of somewhat of a flaw in the governing structure of the united states.
so, the bombs had little to do with the surrender. rather, what happened was that the russians saw what was going on and took it upon themselves to move in. this was just strategically intelligent. so long as the japanese and americans were haggling over terms, the japanese were an easy target for further expansion. further, the soviets had reasons to keep the americans out of japan, too. what set in was a race.
the japanese elite now saw themselves in a situation where they had to choose between being taken over by a communist regime and being absorbed by a capitalist empire. the capitalists may reduce them to a puppet-state, but the communists would execute them in public. so, they picked the americans over the soviets and accepted the absolute surrender.
it was the threat of stalin that forced the surrender, not the bombs.
but, that doesn't address the question of whether it was justified or not. i mean, just because it failed doesn't mean it was unjustified. i think this is a complex question without a good answer, but at the very least you need to get the motives right, first. see, you get a very different analysis if you think it was about ending the war early than you do if you understand that it was about forcing absolute surrender.
i think the better argument is that the atomic bombs actually weren't as large of an escalation as has been imagined. these were small bombs, in contemporary terms. the topic of iraq is brought up here. it was widely reported in 2003 that the "bunker busting" bombs - which were conventional - were actually more powerful than the h-bombs that were used in japan. and, the americans dropped depleted uranium in iraq, too.
i've argued both points, depending on context. my reaction has tended to be dependent on the precise argument i'm interfacing with. but, i don't think there's an actual answer.
Sunday, May 29, 2016
28-05-2016: exploring in search of the source.....(kraftwerk bust + june show schedule lookahead)
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
it's spitting on a fish, in terms of what's worse. climate scientists talk about tipping points and feedback cycles. whether hillary gets us there later or trump gets us there sooner isn't a logical separation point. what you're really doing is buying into hillary's argument of incrementalism on a topic that is really purely binary. that argument can work on social issues, wherr a little better is really a little better. but, whether you freeze to death at -40 or freeze to death at -50 is irrelevant - you still freeze to death. so, you can't really say she's bad but a little better on this issue. it's just not how climate science works. if the permafrost starts going, it starts going - and you can't fix it with small regulations. you have to go all in, or not at all. if anything, it's more rational to take trump's position, if we're fucked and can't stop it, anyways - which is not an obscure position, either.
but, nationalization is not purely a left-wing idea. it's also an idea that the far right has historically drawn heavily upon. the united states doesn't have a history of traditional conservatism like the other british states or the germans do, so it might seem a little foreign. but, british conservatives like churchill were strong advocates of state-run industry. so was bismarck. today, that's about where putin stands on the spectrum. hitler didn't support nationalization, but he rejected free markets; the nazi system was defined by cartels with monopolies. and, this was kind of the same as the colonial system in britain, where you had these private charters (like the hudson's bay company, or the east india company) that were essentially run by the crown. here in ontario, we used to have a publicly run electricity company that was set up by our old-tory conservative party.
there's actually even support for publicly run utilities in classical liberal literature (adam smith, for example) as well, but it justifies itself in more proto-leftist language. the argument from the right is very old and very classist. well, look at saudi arabia. there's no private industry. it's all run by the state. communist? hardly. it's about concentration of wealth in the upper crust. state ownership is seen as a kind of firewall to keep the wealth in the hands of the aristocratic elite.
the more relevant question is probably related to whether trump has thought this through carefully or not. britain (and canada) have been democracies for a long time. germany wasn't. but even in britain (and canada) you have this system with the house of lords and these private charters that is just designed along this strenuous class lines. i'm not sure how one would propose this be emulated in the united states, or whether an elected senate (however weak it is...) may actually make that functionally impossible. but, most of what he says is functionally impossible, so that should be no surprise.
it's just not necessary to see this as a left-wing idea. and, if you want to look at ways that this could be done today, russia is probably your closest comparison. that might even be a broad statement: putin may be the best predictor of what trump would actually be like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hvxmMIbaAM
also - the canada thing is complicated. the numbers may have changed in the last few years, but we are usually actually thought of as a net importer, despite being able to potentially be independent. but, it's because the costs of production are so high that it's cheaper to import it. we tried to set up something called the "national energy program" in the 70s through a state run company (it wasn't a monopoly, just a crown corporation) that would have made us energy-independent through a complex system of subsidies, but the province of alberta flipped out. and, it was, in fact, a reaction to the opec embargo and the stagflation that resulted from it. it even worked. but, the consequence was that the bubble economy in alberta collapsed. housing prices fell, for example; it was, in truth, a correction on a bubble, but try explaining that to the guy that has his house fall by 80%. so, we could actually do this, and have tried, and may try again, but it's politically very difficult in the oil-producing regions.
but, nationalization is not purely a left-wing idea. it's also an idea that the far right has historically drawn heavily upon. the united states doesn't have a history of traditional conservatism like the other british states or the germans do, so it might seem a little foreign. but, british conservatives like churchill were strong advocates of state-run industry. so was bismarck. today, that's about where putin stands on the spectrum. hitler didn't support nationalization, but he rejected free markets; the nazi system was defined by cartels with monopolies. and, this was kind of the same as the colonial system in britain, where you had these private charters (like the hudson's bay company, or the east india company) that were essentially run by the crown. here in ontario, we used to have a publicly run electricity company that was set up by our old-tory conservative party.
there's actually even support for publicly run utilities in classical liberal literature (adam smith, for example) as well, but it justifies itself in more proto-leftist language. the argument from the right is very old and very classist. well, look at saudi arabia. there's no private industry. it's all run by the state. communist? hardly. it's about concentration of wealth in the upper crust. state ownership is seen as a kind of firewall to keep the wealth in the hands of the aristocratic elite.
the more relevant question is probably related to whether trump has thought this through carefully or not. britain (and canada) have been democracies for a long time. germany wasn't. but even in britain (and canada) you have this system with the house of lords and these private charters that is just designed along this strenuous class lines. i'm not sure how one would propose this be emulated in the united states, or whether an elected senate (however weak it is...) may actually make that functionally impossible. but, most of what he says is functionally impossible, so that should be no surprise.
it's just not necessary to see this as a left-wing idea. and, if you want to look at ways that this could be done today, russia is probably your closest comparison. that might even be a broad statement: putin may be the best predictor of what trump would actually be like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hvxmMIbaAM
also - the canada thing is complicated. the numbers may have changed in the last few years, but we are usually actually thought of as a net importer, despite being able to potentially be independent. but, it's because the costs of production are so high that it's cheaper to import it. we tried to set up something called the "national energy program" in the 70s through a state run company (it wasn't a monopoly, just a crown corporation) that would have made us energy-independent through a complex system of subsidies, but the province of alberta flipped out. and, it was, in fact, a reaction to the opec embargo and the stagflation that resulted from it. it even worked. but, the consequence was that the bubble economy in alberta collapsed. housing prices fell, for example; it was, in truth, a correction on a bubble, but try explaining that to the guy that has his house fall by 80%. so, we could actually do this, and have tried, and may try again, but it's politically very difficult in the oil-producing regions.
j reacts to trump's curious meteorological claims
see. how does one argue with this?
one could define the term drought and cite rainfall levels, thereby demonstrating the point. but, it's also missing the point - which is that he's peddling fantasies to people who have had their hopes shattered. it's the thing that religions do. it's predatory, really. so, that evidence is not the solution to a reasonable debate but the shattering of one's dreams. there's a process here. denial. anger. more denial. acceptance. but, not everybody gets through it.
you really can't argue with him.
if i were clinton, i would refuse to debate him at all. i'd offer a press release describing him as a pathological liar that is not worth debating, or even listening to. and, i'd have a think tank dedicated to debunking every speech, offhand remark and anecdote that he spews - which would be a full time job for many people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-water-california_us_574910e0e4b03ede4414f435
this isn't "let's have a reasonable debate".
this is more like "don't feed the troll. ignore him and he'll go away."
and, i'm not joking. i would campaign as thought he doesn't exist. i would bring think tank people with me to the news conferences and duck the questions, instead allowing the experts to debunk him with citations and references to web sites.
this can't be thought of as an election between two candidates. it doesn't matter who wins - the country loses when we take this seriously. rather, it needs to be thought of as a teachable moment. she needs to create a kind of teacher-student dynamic. she should talk down to him at every opportunity. this has to be a no-brainer, unless you avoid voting altogether (which i still suggest).
she has to treat him like a complete, utter, total fucking retard.
the bureau of debunking that fucking idiot, trump.
one could define the term drought and cite rainfall levels, thereby demonstrating the point. but, it's also missing the point - which is that he's peddling fantasies to people who have had their hopes shattered. it's the thing that religions do. it's predatory, really. so, that evidence is not the solution to a reasonable debate but the shattering of one's dreams. there's a process here. denial. anger. more denial. acceptance. but, not everybody gets through it.
you really can't argue with him.
if i were clinton, i would refuse to debate him at all. i'd offer a press release describing him as a pathological liar that is not worth debating, or even listening to. and, i'd have a think tank dedicated to debunking every speech, offhand remark and anecdote that he spews - which would be a full time job for many people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-water-california_us_574910e0e4b03ede4414f435
this isn't "let's have a reasonable debate".
this is more like "don't feed the troll. ignore him and he'll go away."
and, i'm not joking. i would campaign as thought he doesn't exist. i would bring think tank people with me to the news conferences and duck the questions, instead allowing the experts to debunk him with citations and references to web sites.
this can't be thought of as an election between two candidates. it doesn't matter who wins - the country loses when we take this seriously. rather, it needs to be thought of as a teachable moment. she needs to create a kind of teacher-student dynamic. she should talk down to him at every opportunity. this has to be a no-brainer, unless you avoid voting altogether (which i still suggest).
she has to treat him like a complete, utter, total fucking retard.
the bureau of debunking that fucking idiot, trump.
Saturday, May 28, 2016
some of my video comments over the next few days may seem confusing if you're following the Official Alternative Media Narrative, so i think i should be explicitly clear about this.
regarding the issues of financial regulation and the narratives around the bank bailouts, i may actually be closer to clinton than sanders. i wouldn't really agree with either, entirely.
see, i would take what is called an academic left perspective, which neither of the candidates are taking. clinton is taking more of an academic right position. what that means is that there are certain broad academic points that clinton has been making that i agree with (and are not really contested), but that i'm not ideologically aligned with her so i disagree with her on a lot of details. sanders is taking a populist position that is broadly (and correctly) seen as just flatly wrong by most academics. the people that are parroting him either don't know what they're talking about (cenk uygur) or are acting from questionable ideological positions (elizabeth warren).
i would prioritize careful, academic analysis (clinton/obama/krugman) over populist and misleading agitprop (sanders/pseudo-warren/wolff). pseudo-warren because i think she's misunderstood - she's a market fundamentalist, not a leftist. she's good at the agit-prop, but leftists will be sorely disappointed if she gets any kind of position of power. so, i haven't been shy about this: clinton is, indeed, broadly less wrong about the banks.
so, why am i supporting sanders? because i don't care about the bank bailouts. at all. i see the politicking for what it is: populism, agit-prop, maybe a little demagoguery. frankly, i'm pragmatic enough to see the value in it. what i actually care about is foreign policy, health care, social issues and more data-driven analyses of growing inequality.
and, this is not just why i'm supporting sanders over clinton. it's also why i couldn't possibly support clinton at all.
so, i hope that clarifies the point.
what the upcoming video comments are going to focus on is the question of whether some of this agitprop and politicking, as pragmatic as it may be, may have some unintended consequences - blowback - in it's use.
it's one thing to get people angry at the banks in order to get a tobin tax in. that's politics. it's good politics. it's another thing to wake up in eight years and realize we not only don't have a tobin tax, but now have also lost the lender of last resort because the masses got confused about what they were supposed to be angry about. that would be a tremendous fuck-up.
regarding the issues of financial regulation and the narratives around the bank bailouts, i may actually be closer to clinton than sanders. i wouldn't really agree with either, entirely.
see, i would take what is called an academic left perspective, which neither of the candidates are taking. clinton is taking more of an academic right position. what that means is that there are certain broad academic points that clinton has been making that i agree with (and are not really contested), but that i'm not ideologically aligned with her so i disagree with her on a lot of details. sanders is taking a populist position that is broadly (and correctly) seen as just flatly wrong by most academics. the people that are parroting him either don't know what they're talking about (cenk uygur) or are acting from questionable ideological positions (elizabeth warren).
i would prioritize careful, academic analysis (clinton/obama/krugman) over populist and misleading agitprop (sanders/pseudo-warren/wolff). pseudo-warren because i think she's misunderstood - she's a market fundamentalist, not a leftist. she's good at the agit-prop, but leftists will be sorely disappointed if she gets any kind of position of power. so, i haven't been shy about this: clinton is, indeed, broadly less wrong about the banks.
so, why am i supporting sanders? because i don't care about the bank bailouts. at all. i see the politicking for what it is: populism, agit-prop, maybe a little demagoguery. frankly, i'm pragmatic enough to see the value in it. what i actually care about is foreign policy, health care, social issues and more data-driven analyses of growing inequality.
and, this is not just why i'm supporting sanders over clinton. it's also why i couldn't possibly support clinton at all.
so, i hope that clarifies the point.
what the upcoming video comments are going to focus on is the question of whether some of this agitprop and politicking, as pragmatic as it may be, may have some unintended consequences - blowback - in it's use.
it's one thing to get people angry at the banks in order to get a tobin tax in. that's politics. it's good politics. it's another thing to wake up in eight years and realize we not only don't have a tobin tax, but now have also lost the lender of last resort because the masses got confused about what they were supposed to be angry about. that would be a tremendous fuck-up.
bob dole says trump should select gingrich for vp.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/28/dole_trump_should_select_newt_gingrich_for_vice_president.html
you thought i was going to tell a joke, didn't you?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/28/dole_trump_should_select_newt_gingrich_for_vice_president.html
you thought i was going to tell a joke, didn't you?
Friday, May 27, 2016
j reacts to the trump/sanders debate proposal (it's a bad idea for both of them)
so, before we can think about who benefits or whether this is a good idea, let's contemplate what it might be like. and, in doing so, we need to answer the question: how does bernie usually respond to nonsense?
1) by laughing. he's laughed off a lot of what hillary has said.
2) satire. the speech bit, for example.
3) by repeating the nonsense in an incredulous tone, then launching into talking points.
so, for example, let's say the topic of global warming comes up. the donald thinks it's a nefarious plot by the chinese to crash the us economy. what, exactly, could bernie say on a podium in a minute or so that is going to address this? he won't. rather, you're going to get...
"...you think it's a plot by the chinese. ok. but, i think an economy where the 1% control...."
so, what is a debate, in context? it's impossible, because trump is consistently incoherent. while the juxtaposition may help in defining just how ridiculous trump really is, and turn off conservatives that are warming to him, it's hard to see how it can present sanders as anything other than confused, perplexed and flummoxed. if this is your first exposure to sanders, there's a good chance he's going to come off as a stammering old man.
"you...you want...you want to give nuclear weapons to south korea !? i...i...in an economy where the 1% control...."
so, what's actually going to happen, then, is not a debate. what's going to happen is that sanders is going to get a prime time tv slot to stump over, while he shrugs incredulously at the incomprehensibility of trump's positions.
no major network will actually let this happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W2v23m8RA0
i pointed this out earlier in the campaign: trump's irrationality is actually an advantage, if his opponent is rational. the reason is that rationality requires predictability.
the best example of this is reagan. it's widely understood that reagan forced the russians to stand down [i don't mean the coup, i mean collapse, i'm talking purely about the military] by increasing military spending through the roof. he then gets credit for "winning the cold war". there is actually a kernel of truth in this, but it's less understood how the russians reacted.
what the russians realized was that reagan was behaving irrationally relative to all their theories and models. you had generals on both sides running these game theory simulations against each other. one of the most famous results of this was this idea of mutually assured destruction. but, it's broadly acknowledged that one of the major reasons that nuclear war didn't happen was that both sides assumed the other would always behave rationally. this both led to unchallenged escalations and withdrawal decisions.
so, when they became unable to understand reagan as a rational agent, they had to stand down - because they could no longer predict his behaviour by assuming he was rational.
nobody should suggest that the lesson is that it is a good idea to elect irrational people to confuse the country's adversaries. rather, we should be grateful that the russians did not become unpredictable and irrational, but rather remained rational even in de-escalation.
but, it's going to put bernie in the same quandary on question after question. he can't argue with absurdity - and especially not in a few seconds at a time. rather, he's going to have to stand down over and over again.
1) by laughing. he's laughed off a lot of what hillary has said.
2) satire. the speech bit, for example.
3) by repeating the nonsense in an incredulous tone, then launching into talking points.
so, for example, let's say the topic of global warming comes up. the donald thinks it's a nefarious plot by the chinese to crash the us economy. what, exactly, could bernie say on a podium in a minute or so that is going to address this? he won't. rather, you're going to get...
"...you think it's a plot by the chinese. ok. but, i think an economy where the 1% control...."
so, what is a debate, in context? it's impossible, because trump is consistently incoherent. while the juxtaposition may help in defining just how ridiculous trump really is, and turn off conservatives that are warming to him, it's hard to see how it can present sanders as anything other than confused, perplexed and flummoxed. if this is your first exposure to sanders, there's a good chance he's going to come off as a stammering old man.
"you...you want...you want to give nuclear weapons to south korea !? i...i...in an economy where the 1% control...."
so, what's actually going to happen, then, is not a debate. what's going to happen is that sanders is going to get a prime time tv slot to stump over, while he shrugs incredulously at the incomprehensibility of trump's positions.
no major network will actually let this happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W2v23m8RA0
i pointed this out earlier in the campaign: trump's irrationality is actually an advantage, if his opponent is rational. the reason is that rationality requires predictability.
the best example of this is reagan. it's widely understood that reagan forced the russians to stand down [i don't mean the coup, i mean collapse, i'm talking purely about the military] by increasing military spending through the roof. he then gets credit for "winning the cold war". there is actually a kernel of truth in this, but it's less understood how the russians reacted.
what the russians realized was that reagan was behaving irrationally relative to all their theories and models. you had generals on both sides running these game theory simulations against each other. one of the most famous results of this was this idea of mutually assured destruction. but, it's broadly acknowledged that one of the major reasons that nuclear war didn't happen was that both sides assumed the other would always behave rationally. this both led to unchallenged escalations and withdrawal decisions.
so, when they became unable to understand reagan as a rational agent, they had to stand down - because they could no longer predict his behaviour by assuming he was rational.
nobody should suggest that the lesson is that it is a good idea to elect irrational people to confuse the country's adversaries. rather, we should be grateful that the russians did not become unpredictable and irrational, but rather remained rational even in de-escalation.
but, it's going to put bernie in the same quandary on question after question. he can't argue with absurdity - and especially not in a few seconds at a time. rather, he's going to have to stand down over and over again.
j reacts to nobody understanding the taylor swift is an aryan goddess thing
ok, so a lot of people are pointing out that they got trolled. now, you can have debates about whether this is funny or not, but let's get what the actual point is here, first. nobody's doing that, and you kind of can't really have this discussion until you do.
what the site is doing is actually criticizing taylor swift for upholding broken stereotypes of antiquated femininity that seem better left in the third reich. so, are they feminazis? well, it's maybe closer to what they're articulating. see, here's the hard part: it's actually true. here are we are in 2016 and, like her or not, we're probably going to see a female president by this time next year. meanwhile, taylor's living in some kind of mad men reality, where women seek physical objectification as their ultimate purpose in life. there's a hole wide enough for criticism, there, to drive hillary's first deployment through. i kind of want to write this essay, but i really don't - i think you can put it together from here, once i've pointed this out. but, now that it is pointed out, let's keep it in mind as we carry on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEdAtX_ze68
what the site is doing is actually criticizing taylor swift for upholding broken stereotypes of antiquated femininity that seem better left in the third reich. so, are they feminazis? well, it's maybe closer to what they're articulating. see, here's the hard part: it's actually true. here are we are in 2016 and, like her or not, we're probably going to see a female president by this time next year. meanwhile, taylor's living in some kind of mad men reality, where women seek physical objectification as their ultimate purpose in life. there's a hole wide enough for criticism, there, to drive hillary's first deployment through. i kind of want to write this essay, but i really don't - i think you can put it together from here, once i've pointed this out. but, now that it is pointed out, let's keep it in mind as we carry on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEdAtX_ze68
Thursday, May 26, 2016
j reacts to tightening numbers in california
you could tell from clinton's campaign's language that this was coming. and, where's the trendline? she's nose-diving. fast.
she doesn't want debates. she doesn't want coverage. she doesn't even want people to know there's a primary. she just wants to get it over with with the least amount of damage done possible.
a split doesn't help him, of course. he has to really demolish her for the dynamic to change, and that's hard to contemplate so long as she doesn't stick her foot in her mouth.
if you see some polling with sanders pushing 60%, she'll have to react. and, if you see her react, you'll know the internals are looking incomprehensibly grim. but, for now, you should expect her to say almost nothing at all between now and the 14th, in the hopes that the news cycle drops the story and everybody forgets about it.
it's damage control from an established candidate.
she's always been hard to get excited about, and that's not going to change now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/clinton-sanders-california-poll.html?_r=0
"running out the clock"
that's what you want to go with. that's how you shalt describe what clinton is doing. go forth...
she doesn't want debates. she doesn't want coverage. she doesn't even want people to know there's a primary. she just wants to get it over with with the least amount of damage done possible.
a split doesn't help him, of course. he has to really demolish her for the dynamic to change, and that's hard to contemplate so long as she doesn't stick her foot in her mouth.
if you see some polling with sanders pushing 60%, she'll have to react. and, if you see her react, you'll know the internals are looking incomprehensibly grim. but, for now, you should expect her to say almost nothing at all between now and the 14th, in the hopes that the news cycle drops the story and everybody forgets about it.
it's damage control from an established candidate.
she's always been hard to get excited about, and that's not going to change now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/clinton-sanders-california-poll.html?_r=0
"running out the clock"
that's what you want to go with. that's how you shalt describe what clinton is doing. go forth...
j reacts to pop science misunderstandings of the observer effect
the observer effect. it's a pop science thing that drives me nuts. i run into this all the time, from people of all kinds of education levels. i've even met physics students that started studying physics because they heard this interpretation of things, and have refused to let it go as they've learned it's nonsense.
the bottom line is that it's something we want to believe, because it puts us at the center of our own universes. not only do we get to keep religion, but we get to be gods. it's compelling.
what all these people believe, educated or not, is the following pop science reading of the observer effect. suppose you look up into the sky at night. by observing the night sky, you create the shooting stars. fuck conservation laws. it's just magic.
i've learned that one rarely gets anywhere explaining this properly, but for the record let's do this. how does the observer effect relate to shooting stars? well, let's realize that it's not restricted to quantum effects. the observer effect is universal between masses, like gravity is. things do not have to be alive to observe each other, and that itself should give you a clue that nothing is actually happening at the level of projective thought. there is an observer effect between a rock and a tree. but, you might guess correctly that it would be smaller than any kind of statistical error you could conceive of. this is the actual observer effect you may have on a shooting star: the disturbance is entirely insignificant. that star shoots by whether you see it or not. the tree falls. and, while you do have an effect on the shooting star, that effect is purely abstract - you couldn't even really begin to try and quantify it.
that shooting star has probably been floating around the galaxy for billions of years. it doesn't matter whether you see it enter the earth's atmosphere or not. it will or it will not dependent entirely on the various gravitational forces at work.
but, there's a twist. depending on the size and age of the object, there may very well be an important observer effect on the shooting star, but from other gravitational objects. jupiter. saturn. the sun. maybe even some of that exotic pull we've got coming from outside the galaxy. and, the sum total of all of those planetary observer effects would comprise something called the n-body problem.
so, it would follow that if we were the size of planets then we could measure our effects on the stars. to scale, that's why we can have a noticeable effect at the quantum level.
so, no. physics doesn't say that you imagine your own reality. that was a bunch of fucking potheads in the 60s, not physics. maybe they watched star trek together or something. i dunno. i know it drives me bonkers...
the bottom line is that it's something we want to believe, because it puts us at the center of our own universes. not only do we get to keep religion, but we get to be gods. it's compelling.
what all these people believe, educated or not, is the following pop science reading of the observer effect. suppose you look up into the sky at night. by observing the night sky, you create the shooting stars. fuck conservation laws. it's just magic.
i've learned that one rarely gets anywhere explaining this properly, but for the record let's do this. how does the observer effect relate to shooting stars? well, let's realize that it's not restricted to quantum effects. the observer effect is universal between masses, like gravity is. things do not have to be alive to observe each other, and that itself should give you a clue that nothing is actually happening at the level of projective thought. there is an observer effect between a rock and a tree. but, you might guess correctly that it would be smaller than any kind of statistical error you could conceive of. this is the actual observer effect you may have on a shooting star: the disturbance is entirely insignificant. that star shoots by whether you see it or not. the tree falls. and, while you do have an effect on the shooting star, that effect is purely abstract - you couldn't even really begin to try and quantify it.
that shooting star has probably been floating around the galaxy for billions of years. it doesn't matter whether you see it enter the earth's atmosphere or not. it will or it will not dependent entirely on the various gravitational forces at work.
but, there's a twist. depending on the size and age of the object, there may very well be an important observer effect on the shooting star, but from other gravitational objects. jupiter. saturn. the sun. maybe even some of that exotic pull we've got coming from outside the galaxy. and, the sum total of all of those planetary observer effects would comprise something called the n-body problem.
so, it would follow that if we were the size of planets then we could measure our effects on the stars. to scale, that's why we can have a noticeable effect at the quantum level.
so, no. physics doesn't say that you imagine your own reality. that was a bunch of fucking potheads in the 60s, not physics. maybe they watched star trek together or something. i dunno. i know it drives me bonkers...
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
j reacts to "anarchist" kids ironically throwing around safe spaces like a neo-pmrc
"i sometimes feel unsafe at punk shows" - self-identified anarcha-feminist.
you know, it's not a crazy thing to say. is rock music dangerous? conservatives have been claiming that for decades. but, it's kind of the point.
the insinuation was not that she should avoid rock concerts, but that rock concerts should change so that she feels more safe at them. no irony. no self-awareness.
i just don't understand why these kids can't see themselves for what they are. i don't want to tell them what to think. i just want them to have a mass self-realization that they're all a bunch of conservatives and just get the fuck out of the left.
-
if you want to feel safe, i'd suggest avoiding rock concerts and, instead, stick closer to church-oriented social activities.
you know, it's not a crazy thing to say. is rock music dangerous? conservatives have been claiming that for decades. but, it's kind of the point.
the insinuation was not that she should avoid rock concerts, but that rock concerts should change so that she feels more safe at them. no irony. no self-awareness.
i just don't understand why these kids can't see themselves for what they are. i don't want to tell them what to think. i just want them to have a mass self-realization that they're all a bunch of conservatives and just get the fuck out of the left.
-
if you want to feel safe, i'd suggest avoiding rock concerts and, instead, stick closer to church-oriented social activities.
j reacts to hillary's vote suppression tactics ultimately being self-defeating
hey hill...
when you say trump is being used as a recruitment for isis, is that before or after your government sends them equipment to carry out it's geostrategic goal of destabilizing the area for saudi expansion?
nonsense piled on top of nonsense. i've pointed this out before: if you're going to keep track of this space over the upcoming election, prepare yourself for sardonic, disconnected rants about the surreal absurdity of the charade. i have no interest in either of these candidates, except to deconstruct and expose them.
the best thing you can do this election is refuse to vote. the candidates themselves won't care. hillary will high-five her advisers that her suppression tactics worked, and she won. but, there's a certain point where low turnout really does send a message.
let's get turnout under 25%. that should be your goal, as an activist. they might not care or react. but, at least they'll hear the message - and that's better than you can say about anything else, right now.
when you say trump is being used as a recruitment for isis, is that before or after your government sends them equipment to carry out it's geostrategic goal of destabilizing the area for saudi expansion?
nonsense piled on top of nonsense. i've pointed this out before: if you're going to keep track of this space over the upcoming election, prepare yourself for sardonic, disconnected rants about the surreal absurdity of the charade. i have no interest in either of these candidates, except to deconstruct and expose them.
the best thing you can do this election is refuse to vote. the candidates themselves won't care. hillary will high-five her advisers that her suppression tactics worked, and she won. but, there's a certain point where low turnout really does send a message.
let's get turnout under 25%. that should be your goal, as an activist. they might not care or react. but, at least they'll hear the message - and that's better than you can say about anything else, right now.
j reacts to the role reversal on voter turnout (democrats want suppression this cycle)
i just want to draw attention to another component of this election that is acting in a role reversal: turnout.
sanders has drawn attention to an apparent truth: when turnout is high, democrats win. this is because the democrats have long been the quasi-populist party, whereas the republicans have been seen as fronts for deep money. i mean, the smart kids know better, but that's the popular perception, anyways.
that is about to flip over entirely this election, and it's also just another example of how clinton and sanders are really moving in drastically opposite directions. sanders knows he needs big turnout to have any chance and has been basing his entire campaign around it. but, if the election is trump v clinton and there's high turnout? clinton is going to lose. she actually wants to take more of a traditionally republican tactic, and try and suppress turnout - as she has been doing in the primary.
so, presuming that sanders does fall in line like he's expected to, you're going to end up in the situation where the republicans are trying to run as the populist party and get turnout up and the democrats are pushing the cynical vote suppression tactics designed to make people think it's not worth their time to bother voting.
the democrats have never been particularly inspiring, sure. but i don't think it's ever been this bad.
sanders has drawn attention to an apparent truth: when turnout is high, democrats win. this is because the democrats have long been the quasi-populist party, whereas the republicans have been seen as fronts for deep money. i mean, the smart kids know better, but that's the popular perception, anyways.
that is about to flip over entirely this election, and it's also just another example of how clinton and sanders are really moving in drastically opposite directions. sanders knows he needs big turnout to have any chance and has been basing his entire campaign around it. but, if the election is trump v clinton and there's high turnout? clinton is going to lose. she actually wants to take more of a traditionally republican tactic, and try and suppress turnout - as she has been doing in the primary.
so, presuming that sanders does fall in line like he's expected to, you're going to end up in the situation where the republicans are trying to run as the populist party and get turnout up and the democrats are pushing the cynical vote suppression tactics designed to make people think it's not worth their time to bother voting.
the democrats have never been particularly inspiring, sure. but i don't think it's ever been this bad.
first alter-reality post
May 22, 1996
i guess this is my new blog. wow.
i should be asleep, but it's a saturday night and my parents don't really force me to go to sleep. well, how can they, really? they need to sleep, too. fatalism is actually pretty rational, in context - it's an unresolvable problem. and i'm a bit of a hard-headed little punk rascal.
i just find that i only need a few hours of rest, not something crazy like eight hours. who sleeps that long? wow. i'm ok with four hours, really. so, what should i do for the rest of the night, then? toss darts at the wall? count sheep? lying in bed when you're really not tired is just simply being unproductive. if i'm going to be awake anyways, i'd rather stay up and read something, or listen to some music. i guess it's a good time to do some blogging, too.
i don't have internet access in my room, though, so i need to sneak into the spare computer room when i want to use the internet at night. i do have a computer in my room, but it only has windows 3.1 on it. i need windows 95 to use internet explorer. so, i probably won't be able to do this blog every night.
i've been up all night playing civ2 and listening to this new soundgarden cassette on my walkman. i skipped the afternoon class on tuesday (computer class, and i already know it all, anyways, so it's just a waste of time) to go down to the hmv at st. laurent to pick it up. i get a free bus pass from school, so i can go wherever i want in the city whenever i want, which is actually very liberating. much easier than bicycling. there's a music world at billings, too, but it's always over priced and under stocked. the hmv at st. laurent is only a few minutes up the transitway and always has what i want.
it's a little different than superunknown, a bit poppier, but it's still pretty good. parts of it remind me a lot of the beatles, and i really like the beatles a lot. parts of it are sort of weird, and i like that, too. i always like to hear things that i haven't heard before. i think i'd like to teach myself how to play some of these songs, too, but i'm wondering if maybe they're in weird tunings. i know soundgarden likes weird tunings. my ibanez has a locking bridge so i try to avoid weird tunings. maybe, i can figure out how to play them in normal tunings, anyways. when songs are in weird tunings, it's sometimes helpful to find tabs on the internet, because then i can figure out how to play it with normal tuning. sometimes, that means transposing the song up a key or two but it's all relative so it doesn't matter.
i've been playing civ2 ever since i got home last night. dad says i'm totally addicted, but it's a video game, not a drug, so i think that's a weird thing to say. but, i do sometimes play it all night, until the sun comes up and the dogs come running in and i have to pretend i'm sleeping. i like to change the civilizations i play with so that i can learn the names of the cities in different parts of the world. tonight, i am catherine the great of russia. i always liked to learn about geography, ever since i was very small. i knew all the capital cities in the whole world, almost!
i found a tab for burden in my hand, and it is actually in a weird tuning. i should try and convert it to normal tuning when i wake up tomorrow.
i should sneak back into my room now. shhh.
really enjoying the new soundgarden record
i guess this is my new blog. wow.
i should be asleep, but it's a saturday night and my parents don't really force me to go to sleep. well, how can they, really? they need to sleep, too. fatalism is actually pretty rational, in context - it's an unresolvable problem. and i'm a bit of a hard-headed little punk rascal.
i just find that i only need a few hours of rest, not something crazy like eight hours. who sleeps that long? wow. i'm ok with four hours, really. so, what should i do for the rest of the night, then? toss darts at the wall? count sheep? lying in bed when you're really not tired is just simply being unproductive. if i'm going to be awake anyways, i'd rather stay up and read something, or listen to some music. i guess it's a good time to do some blogging, too.
i don't have internet access in my room, though, so i need to sneak into the spare computer room when i want to use the internet at night. i do have a computer in my room, but it only has windows 3.1 on it. i need windows 95 to use internet explorer. so, i probably won't be able to do this blog every night.
i've been up all night playing civ2 and listening to this new soundgarden cassette on my walkman. i skipped the afternoon class on tuesday (computer class, and i already know it all, anyways, so it's just a waste of time) to go down to the hmv at st. laurent to pick it up. i get a free bus pass from school, so i can go wherever i want in the city whenever i want, which is actually very liberating. much easier than bicycling. there's a music world at billings, too, but it's always over priced and under stocked. the hmv at st. laurent is only a few minutes up the transitway and always has what i want.
it's a little different than superunknown, a bit poppier, but it's still pretty good. parts of it remind me a lot of the beatles, and i really like the beatles a lot. parts of it are sort of weird, and i like that, too. i always like to hear things that i haven't heard before. i think i'd like to teach myself how to play some of these songs, too, but i'm wondering if maybe they're in weird tunings. i know soundgarden likes weird tunings. my ibanez has a locking bridge so i try to avoid weird tunings. maybe, i can figure out how to play them in normal tunings, anyways. when songs are in weird tunings, it's sometimes helpful to find tabs on the internet, because then i can figure out how to play it with normal tuning. sometimes, that means transposing the song up a key or two but it's all relative so it doesn't matter.
i've been playing civ2 ever since i got home last night. dad says i'm totally addicted, but it's a video game, not a drug, so i think that's a weird thing to say. but, i do sometimes play it all night, until the sun comes up and the dogs come running in and i have to pretend i'm sleeping. i like to change the civilizations i play with so that i can learn the names of the cities in different parts of the world. tonight, i am catherine the great of russia. i always liked to learn about geography, ever since i was very small. i knew all the capital cities in the whole world, almost!
i found a tab for burden in my hand, and it is actually in a weird tuning. i should try and convert it to normal tuning when i wake up tomorrow.
i should sneak back into my room now. shhh.
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
j reacts to sanders' choice for the dnc rules committee
i think we can at the very least expect an honest telling of events from dr. west. but, don't be surprised when he explains that there was never really anything up for debate - that the majority came in with a stack of binders full of neatly printed materials and was looking for nothing more in depth than an enthusiastic rubber stamp.
this is how they get you. they make you think the process is real. that's the lie that keeps this whole charade in motion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puRzyEoCdJI
this is how they get you. they make you think the process is real. that's the lie that keeps this whole charade in motion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puRzyEoCdJI
j reacts to clinton's debate refusal (strategically correct, if deflating)
no. it's the right choice. note the language from the clinton campaign: they want to compete in california. if they wanted to win in california, they would have said that. that's a slip that seems to have been missed and that implies their internals are negative.
if sanders wins a close race, it doesn't matter much. but if he wins in a landslide, there's a chance it might.
clinton's optimal strategy is to keep the situation low key in order to reduce turnout. turning down the debate is actually a voter suppression tactic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnO-EnkyNV4
if sanders wins a close race, it doesn't matter much. but if he wins in a landslide, there's a chance it might.
clinton's optimal strategy is to keep the situation low key in order to reduce turnout. turning down the debate is actually a voter suppression tactic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnO-EnkyNV4
and, i'm going to post a sobering link to some comments gore made in 2002.
"So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster." - al gore on the iraq war, 2002
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/02/gore-f20.html
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal
"So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster." - al gore on the iraq war, 2002
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/02/gore-f20.html
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal
sorry, just to be clear: sanctions are an act of war. they imply the intent for war. and, in context, they were preparation for an eventual invasion. the fact that gore actively and belligerently supported the sanctions, the no-fly zone and everything else indicates pretty clearly that he was on the side of invasion and would have either done it on his watch or set it up nicely for the next president to do it.
the fact that he was out of the senate at the time robs us of absolute proof. but, we know who was in the senate, and how she voted. gore's logic may have differed mildly from bush', but he would not have made a different decision than clinton did.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal
the fact that he was out of the senate at the time robs us of absolute proof. but, we know who was in the senate, and how she voted. gore's logic may have differed mildly from bush', but he would not have made a different decision than clinton did.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal
j reacts to the continuing specious scaremongering around third parties (gore == bush)
fuck the scare mongering. you should know better.
i'm not going to argue against the idea that nader won bush the election. it's mostly not true, but let's say it is.
reality check: it wouldn't have mattered. gore and bush were interchangeable. that's why nader was appealing.
reality check: trump and clinton are interchangeable. it doesn't matter who wins.
stop falling for the two-headed monster.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/02/gore-f20.html
i'm not going to argue against the idea that nader won bush the election. it's mostly not true, but let's say it is.
reality check: it wouldn't have mattered. gore and bush were interchangeable. that's why nader was appealing.
reality check: trump and clinton are interchangeable. it doesn't matter who wins.
stop falling for the two-headed monster.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/02/gore-f20.html
Tariq Shakoor
I think Jill Stein's invitation to Bernie supporters (I am one) is a significant one and has immense future possibilities for a viable third party in this country. I'm all for it---just not in this particular election cycle. Why? Because the one thing this otherwise excellent article did not touch on was the surrendering of the Supreme Court and at least one or two appointments in the next few years. If Trump wins this election, we already know what he will do---"appoint a judge like Scalia." Okay? You can't be more clear than that. Hillary for all her warts and issues will never make such a disastrous appointment. Why? She has a constituency that would literally drag her ass out of the White House if she did make that type of appointment. She may be a lot of things---but, stupid is not one of them. The Supreme Court appointments are not small factor to consider when you look at all the possible issues the left holds dear all of a sudden become DOA. So, I do not hold the same opinion that both Trump and Hillary would be equally bad for this country---that is only true in some areas---not all, and especially the social programs that we support. Roe v. Wade, LGBT rights, Obamacare/Single Payer Healthcare, Voting Rights, Social Security, Public Education, Consumer rights, wage equality for women, and so much more. It's easy to say she is a war hawk and should not serve----but, do you actually think Trump is going to be able to be the isolationist he wants to be without losing massive support from his base and the GOP establishment? No, if they want war--there will be a war, and he won't be able to stop them. So, let's look beyond the issue that they both will be on the same page about ultimately. I feel our support for all the other programs are more important and more realistic to bring us together.
Plato
Honduras death squads? Haiti, invasion and repression? Libya, wealthiest country in Africa bombed to the stone age and Hillary Clinton gloating that ISIS with U.S. support tortured and murdered the president? Funding, arming and importing terrorists to Syria? From destroying Yugoslavia to the extermination of the native population of Palestine, Hillary Clinton never saw a bloodbath she didn't love.
MPEG1982
You didn't actually address Tariq's point. Several Republicans appointed to the bench could be a serious disaster for this country, arguably more so than any war. Look at the impact of decisions like Citizen's United.
Clinton has done some horrid things, but at least she won't hand over the Supreme Court.
deathtokoalas
but, it simply doesn't make sense to vote for clinton if you're trying to keep the right off the bench.
if it's trump v. clinton, the issue is already decided: the right keeps the court for another generation.
this boat has sailed.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal
I think Jill Stein's invitation to Bernie supporters (I am one) is a significant one and has immense future possibilities for a viable third party in this country. I'm all for it---just not in this particular election cycle. Why? Because the one thing this otherwise excellent article did not touch on was the surrendering of the Supreme Court and at least one or two appointments in the next few years. If Trump wins this election, we already know what he will do---"appoint a judge like Scalia." Okay? You can't be more clear than that. Hillary for all her warts and issues will never make such a disastrous appointment. Why? She has a constituency that would literally drag her ass out of the White House if she did make that type of appointment. She may be a lot of things---but, stupid is not one of them. The Supreme Court appointments are not small factor to consider when you look at all the possible issues the left holds dear all of a sudden become DOA. So, I do not hold the same opinion that both Trump and Hillary would be equally bad for this country---that is only true in some areas---not all, and especially the social programs that we support. Roe v. Wade, LGBT rights, Obamacare/Single Payer Healthcare, Voting Rights, Social Security, Public Education, Consumer rights, wage equality for women, and so much more. It's easy to say she is a war hawk and should not serve----but, do you actually think Trump is going to be able to be the isolationist he wants to be without losing massive support from his base and the GOP establishment? No, if they want war--there will be a war, and he won't be able to stop them. So, let's look beyond the issue that they both will be on the same page about ultimately. I feel our support for all the other programs are more important and more realistic to bring us together.
Plato
Honduras death squads? Haiti, invasion and repression? Libya, wealthiest country in Africa bombed to the stone age and Hillary Clinton gloating that ISIS with U.S. support tortured and murdered the president? Funding, arming and importing terrorists to Syria? From destroying Yugoslavia to the extermination of the native population of Palestine, Hillary Clinton never saw a bloodbath she didn't love.
MPEG1982
You didn't actually address Tariq's point. Several Republicans appointed to the bench could be a serious disaster for this country, arguably more so than any war. Look at the impact of decisions like Citizen's United.
Clinton has done some horrid things, but at least she won't hand over the Supreme Court.
deathtokoalas
but, it simply doesn't make sense to vote for clinton if you're trying to keep the right off the bench.
if it's trump v. clinton, the issue is already decided: the right keeps the court for another generation.
this boat has sailed.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal
j reacts to clinton taking her open and transparent demagoguery up a level
i want to clarify what i said about this a while back, because it's floating around all over the place.
i said something like "the real issue with trump is that he'll bankrupt the country". now, if you put it into context, it's clear that what i was talking about was tax policy - that he'd slash taxes to almost nothing, thereby creating tremendous structural deficits.
that's not literal bankruptcy. it was just meant to suggest that you can expect that he'll carry on with the privatization of all the things, by continuing to reduce revenue sources down to nothing.
here, clinton is once again demonstrating the demagoguery that has defined her candidacy. a country cannot go bankrupt, and there is nothing of any value that can be gained in comparing running a country to running a business like a casino - except to confuse and mislead people.
these are conservative talking points designed to appeal to conservatives. and, get used to it. that's what this election is going to be like.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/24/clinton_trump_will_bankrupt_america_like_hes_bankrupted_his_companies_hes_a_bully_in_the_pulpit.html
i said something like "the real issue with trump is that he'll bankrupt the country". now, if you put it into context, it's clear that what i was talking about was tax policy - that he'd slash taxes to almost nothing, thereby creating tremendous structural deficits.
that's not literal bankruptcy. it was just meant to suggest that you can expect that he'll carry on with the privatization of all the things, by continuing to reduce revenue sources down to nothing.
here, clinton is once again demonstrating the demagoguery that has defined her candidacy. a country cannot go bankrupt, and there is nothing of any value that can be gained in comparing running a country to running a business like a casino - except to confuse and mislead people.
these are conservative talking points designed to appeal to conservatives. and, get used to it. that's what this election is going to be like.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/24/clinton_trump_will_bankrupt_america_like_hes_bankrupted_his_companies_hes_a_bully_in_the_pulpit.html
RRuin
Jill Stein has no more serious qualifications to be POTUS than Donald Trump. The Presidency is NOT an entry level position. Sure, disgruntled Bernie followers can vote for Stein and help elect Donald Trump. No, this isn't about a lesser of two evils either. This is about a bigot, Trump, running against Hillary Clinton who is one of the most experienced and qualified candidates to run for the Presidency. It's all swell to give these academic holier than thou lectures about our democracy. But this is the real world where a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. That is reality.If nothing else remember the future of the Supreme Court is up for grabs. Think long and hard before casting a protest vote.
Carls Pen
You're right, just look what happened in the 2000 election and see how well that worked out. If the people in this country would take the time to really understand our history they might stop making the same stupid mistakes over and over again.
loebner
let's explain for those to young
Ralph Nader ran as a liberal third party candidate vs Gore and Bush, thus ensuring Bush's victory.
Nader's followers kept saying "there's no difference between Gore and Bush."
Fools
deathtokoalas
i still don't think there would have been any difference between gore and bush except in public perception. so, when gore invaded iraq, he wouldn't have generated the same kind of protests.
loebner
No, no, no dtk. There is a world of difference between Gore and Bush. We *know* that Bush invaded Iraq. We don't *know* that Gore would have invaded. Why did Bush invade? Oil. You are aware, I presume, that the only ministry protected was oil? And that VP Cheney was CEO of Hallibuton. Gore would not have had the oil interests pushing for invasion.
And of course Bush is lauded for his concern for the environment. (sarcasm)
deathtokoalas
well, we know that gore supported the sanctions under the clinton regime, and no doubt thought that the price of hundreds of thousands of dead children was worth it. your argument that gore was less beholden to oil interests is simply not upheld by any evidence.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal?
Jill Stein has no more serious qualifications to be POTUS than Donald Trump. The Presidency is NOT an entry level position. Sure, disgruntled Bernie followers can vote for Stein and help elect Donald Trump. No, this isn't about a lesser of two evils either. This is about a bigot, Trump, running against Hillary Clinton who is one of the most experienced and qualified candidates to run for the Presidency. It's all swell to give these academic holier than thou lectures about our democracy. But this is the real world where a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. That is reality.If nothing else remember the future of the Supreme Court is up for grabs. Think long and hard before casting a protest vote.
Carls Pen
You're right, just look what happened in the 2000 election and see how well that worked out. If the people in this country would take the time to really understand our history they might stop making the same stupid mistakes over and over again.
loebner
let's explain for those to young
Ralph Nader ran as a liberal third party candidate vs Gore and Bush, thus ensuring Bush's victory.
Nader's followers kept saying "there's no difference between Gore and Bush."
Fools
deathtokoalas
i still don't think there would have been any difference between gore and bush except in public perception. so, when gore invaded iraq, he wouldn't have generated the same kind of protests.
loebner
No, no, no dtk. There is a world of difference between Gore and Bush. We *know* that Bush invaded Iraq. We don't *know* that Gore would have invaded. Why did Bush invade? Oil. You are aware, I presume, that the only ministry protected was oil? And that VP Cheney was CEO of Hallibuton. Gore would not have had the oil interests pushing for invasion.
And of course Bush is lauded for his concern for the environment. (sarcasm)
deathtokoalas
well, we know that gore supported the sanctions under the clinton regime, and no doubt thought that the price of hundreds of thousands of dead children was worth it. your argument that gore was less beholden to oil interests is simply not upheld by any evidence.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal?
T Fletcher
Jill Stein and the Greens have a fantastic shot at getting my vote depending on how things unfold.
And remember that the Movement is much more about transforming your everyday lives and your communities than it is about voting for president.
RRuin
The President nominates the justices on the Supreme Court. If you don't think that will impact your communities than you're fooling yourself. This is not an intellectual exercise. It has real consequences. All a vote for Jill Stein will do is increase the possibility of a President Trump and a right wing Supreme Court. Then let us see if you still think the vote for President has no impact.
deathtokoalas
i'm not convinced that clinton's picks will be less right-wing than trump's. i mean, we're talking about somebody that rejected gay marriage to the very last moment, wants a constitutional restriction on access to abortion, has supported trade deals with secret tribunals, supports mass deportation and has stood up for corporate hegemony at every possible opportunity. if you let clinton shape the supreme court, she will put it on a rightward path that will not be reversible for another generation.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal
Jill Stein and the Greens have a fantastic shot at getting my vote depending on how things unfold.
And remember that the Movement is much more about transforming your everyday lives and your communities than it is about voting for president.
RRuin
The President nominates the justices on the Supreme Court. If you don't think that will impact your communities than you're fooling yourself. This is not an intellectual exercise. It has real consequences. All a vote for Jill Stein will do is increase the possibility of a President Trump and a right wing Supreme Court. Then let us see if you still think the vote for President has no impact.
deathtokoalas
i'm not convinced that clinton's picks will be less right-wing than trump's. i mean, we're talking about somebody that rejected gay marriage to the very last moment, wants a constitutional restriction on access to abortion, has supported trade deals with secret tribunals, supports mass deportation and has stood up for corporate hegemony at every possible opportunity. if you let clinton shape the supreme court, she will put it on a rightward path that will not be reversible for another generation.
www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal
j reacts to the ramifications of not being conditioned properly by tv brainwashing
somebody asked me about which saturday morning cartoons i used to watch as a kid last night, and i really drew a bank.
"my parents never had cable."
and, that's true. they didn't. but it's not really the reason - i wouldn't have watched them if i had cable, anyways. see, i do think i can actually draw larger conclusions about my individuality through my disengagement with popular culture so i think this is worth a bit of a rant.
the truth is that i used to sleep in on saturday mornings. the reason is that my parents were divorced and friday night was the time i spent with my dad. he'd often keep me up until well past midnight, even when i was very young. so, i would almost always be asleep on saturday mornings until close to noon.
i guess most parents want to put their kids to bed early on friday nights, so they can get a rest from their kids. for me, it was the opposite: i wasn't allowed to go to sleep.
so, rather than watch early morning cartoons on saturday, i always watched late night movies on fridays. and, i actually remember being isolated from the other kids because of it. they'd be talking about these cartoons, and i'd have no idea what they were talking about, so i'd just end up on the outside. had they seen the new tom hanks film? the star wars trilogy? and, the answer was they hadn't - they weren't allowed to, they wouldn't want to, they weren't able to follow...
so, i found myself unable to relate to the other kids at a pretty young age.
a pattern developed as i grew older. had i seen the new sitcom? no; i was reading a book. had i seen the new action series? i still didn't have cable. had i played the new video game? i didn't have a gaming console, and i didn't really want one - i preferred my guitar.
i've argued in the past that you could probably convert me into a normal dipshit by sitting me down and making me watch every episode of friends for a month, clockwork orange style. the reason is that the reason i'm not a normal dipshit is that i didn't watch every episode of friends. or any episode of friends. i don't know which one i am; i'm not even entirely sure which is which.
what that means is that i never got all the subtle capitalist brainwashing that they cram into television, and i've consequently never really had to reverse it. so, all the left-wing music and political commentary came at me as a tabula rasa; i didn't form myself by reacting against the status quo so much as i formed myself by not knowing what the status quo even was.
there's a lesson for parents. if you keep your kids off tv, they may end up with a higher kind of pure intelligence. but, the functional outcome of this may just end up being a life time of alienation and an inherent inability to understand how to conform.
forced brainwashing aside, i think i'm too far gone. i'm half way to my grave. i'm not worth the energy. and i kind of like myself who i am, anyways. but, in hindsight, i realize the longterm social disadvantages of not being able to relate to the people around me when i was very little and am aware that i'd be very different today had i actually watched those saturday cartoons like the other kids.
"my parents never had cable."
and, that's true. they didn't. but it's not really the reason - i wouldn't have watched them if i had cable, anyways. see, i do think i can actually draw larger conclusions about my individuality through my disengagement with popular culture so i think this is worth a bit of a rant.
the truth is that i used to sleep in on saturday mornings. the reason is that my parents were divorced and friday night was the time i spent with my dad. he'd often keep me up until well past midnight, even when i was very young. so, i would almost always be asleep on saturday mornings until close to noon.
i guess most parents want to put their kids to bed early on friday nights, so they can get a rest from their kids. for me, it was the opposite: i wasn't allowed to go to sleep.
so, rather than watch early morning cartoons on saturday, i always watched late night movies on fridays. and, i actually remember being isolated from the other kids because of it. they'd be talking about these cartoons, and i'd have no idea what they were talking about, so i'd just end up on the outside. had they seen the new tom hanks film? the star wars trilogy? and, the answer was they hadn't - they weren't allowed to, they wouldn't want to, they weren't able to follow...
so, i found myself unable to relate to the other kids at a pretty young age.
a pattern developed as i grew older. had i seen the new sitcom? no; i was reading a book. had i seen the new action series? i still didn't have cable. had i played the new video game? i didn't have a gaming console, and i didn't really want one - i preferred my guitar.
i've argued in the past that you could probably convert me into a normal dipshit by sitting me down and making me watch every episode of friends for a month, clockwork orange style. the reason is that the reason i'm not a normal dipshit is that i didn't watch every episode of friends. or any episode of friends. i don't know which one i am; i'm not even entirely sure which is which.
what that means is that i never got all the subtle capitalist brainwashing that they cram into television, and i've consequently never really had to reverse it. so, all the left-wing music and political commentary came at me as a tabula rasa; i didn't form myself by reacting against the status quo so much as i formed myself by not knowing what the status quo even was.
there's a lesson for parents. if you keep your kids off tv, they may end up with a higher kind of pure intelligence. but, the functional outcome of this may just end up being a life time of alienation and an inherent inability to understand how to conform.
forced brainwashing aside, i think i'm too far gone. i'm half way to my grave. i'm not worth the energy. and i kind of like myself who i am, anyways. but, in hindsight, i realize the longterm social disadvantages of not being able to relate to the people around me when i was very little and am aware that i'd be very different today had i actually watched those saturday cartoons like the other kids.
Monday, May 23, 2016
j reacts to the possibility that trump is being blackmailed over his tax returns
some of the conservatives that won't get behind trump are pushing his tax return situation, which is potentially a more serious scandal than hillary's emails. anonymous?
but, listen: i actually think that some people somewhere may have something on him. i know that sounds conspiratorial. and i have absolutely no evidence; it's just a hunch. but the reality is that this is actually how politics works, right. it's not just about buying influence. i mean, what's to stop trump from lying his way in to power and just not doing anything he said? i mean, this process works both ways, right. all we've ever seen is the obama-style politician that says they're going to do great things, then doesn't. this is likely what trump will end up as, too (if you think his proposals are "great things"). but there's really not any reason why the process couldn't work in reverse. there's been persistent mumbling for decades that reagan tried to reverse himself, and got shot as a result. and, the motives behind jfk's death remain unclear.
so, yes, there's influence buying. it's necessary, but not sufficient. you've also got these shady motherfuckers that sneak around in the shadows and find ways to make sure that the candidates can't get out of their control by blackmailing them into compliance.
i suspect - i have no evidence - that trump's expected compliance with the status quo will have everything to do with what are in his taxes. oops.
so, how this plays out is interesting to me. you could have both candidates facing charges. and, that might be exactly what the bastards actually want.
but, listen: i actually think that some people somewhere may have something on him. i know that sounds conspiratorial. and i have absolutely no evidence; it's just a hunch. but the reality is that this is actually how politics works, right. it's not just about buying influence. i mean, what's to stop trump from lying his way in to power and just not doing anything he said? i mean, this process works both ways, right. all we've ever seen is the obama-style politician that says they're going to do great things, then doesn't. this is likely what trump will end up as, too (if you think his proposals are "great things"). but there's really not any reason why the process couldn't work in reverse. there's been persistent mumbling for decades that reagan tried to reverse himself, and got shot as a result. and, the motives behind jfk's death remain unclear.
so, yes, there's influence buying. it's necessary, but not sufficient. you've also got these shady motherfuckers that sneak around in the shadows and find ways to make sure that the candidates can't get out of their control by blackmailing them into compliance.
i suspect - i have no evidence - that trump's expected compliance with the status quo will have everything to do with what are in his taxes. oops.
so, how this plays out is interesting to me. you could have both candidates facing charges. and, that might be exactly what the bastards actually want.
22-05-2016: baby labour & blessed at phog in windsor (and primary rants)
show footage:
baby labour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzOmLQGDptI
blessed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTt0ZeuSAZw
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/05/22.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
baby labour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzOmLQGDptI
blessed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTt0ZeuSAZw
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/05/22.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
j reacts to trump's attempts to re-define himself as the establishment candidate
yeah. you got it at the end. it's exceedingly cynical, and while i don't dispute the claim that trump is making the same errors as the people he just beat (which is kind of daft), if you look at it from this vulgar marxist/gramscian perspective then it makes a lot of sense.
it all turns on the following question: does the media cover elections, or does the media decide elections? if you take the latter perspective, and you're donald trump right now, you have to realize that the number one problem you have in front of you is that you're not the establishment candidate. so, you don't have establishment money on your side. so you don't have establishment media on your side. so, you're basically fucked, because that's what decides elections. the way you see the outcome from this perspective is obvious: clinton, msnbc and cnn gang up on him to beat him into the ground, while fox continues to spurn out punchlines for late night tv (and trump no doubt doesn't help himself, either).
it seems to contradict the narrative: he won because he's the anti-establishment. but, that was the primary. and i don't think it's true, anyways: he didn't control the outside, he controlled the center. so, the proper way to adjust is actually to go after the center in the general - which means becoming the establishment. and, i would claim that he already committed to this tactic several weeks ago.
so, you can argue that it's going to mean he's throwing away the sanders vote. really. like that was ever serious. i've argued it's his only real tactic, but it's based on the idea that he just doesn't have any space to operate on hillary's right. it's too narrow a spectrum. of course, if he can somehow knock her off the pedestal and out of being the establishment candidate then he gains the spoils - he gets the media. so, he wins. how, exactly, he thinks he's going to manage this while carrying through with his other ideas is hard to parse, of course. but what it exposes is the tactical impossibility that he really faces.
....meaning that it might seem like he's throwing away his advantage on the surface, but what he's really doing is cutting his losses and going all in. risky, but high reward - and not dumb. he just doesn't have good options.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdeUL2a2ZPw
it all turns on the following question: does the media cover elections, or does the media decide elections? if you take the latter perspective, and you're donald trump right now, you have to realize that the number one problem you have in front of you is that you're not the establishment candidate. so, you don't have establishment money on your side. so you don't have establishment media on your side. so, you're basically fucked, because that's what decides elections. the way you see the outcome from this perspective is obvious: clinton, msnbc and cnn gang up on him to beat him into the ground, while fox continues to spurn out punchlines for late night tv (and trump no doubt doesn't help himself, either).
it seems to contradict the narrative: he won because he's the anti-establishment. but, that was the primary. and i don't think it's true, anyways: he didn't control the outside, he controlled the center. so, the proper way to adjust is actually to go after the center in the general - which means becoming the establishment. and, i would claim that he already committed to this tactic several weeks ago.
so, you can argue that it's going to mean he's throwing away the sanders vote. really. like that was ever serious. i've argued it's his only real tactic, but it's based on the idea that he just doesn't have any space to operate on hillary's right. it's too narrow a spectrum. of course, if he can somehow knock her off the pedestal and out of being the establishment candidate then he gains the spoils - he gets the media. so, he wins. how, exactly, he thinks he's going to manage this while carrying through with his other ideas is hard to parse, of course. but what it exposes is the tactical impossibility that he really faces.
....meaning that it might seem like he's throwing away his advantage on the surface, but what he's really doing is cutting his losses and going all in. risky, but high reward - and not dumb. he just doesn't have good options.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdeUL2a2ZPw
j reacts to trump's use of an undefined ternary or quaternary? logic system
"She talked about guns in classrooms. I don't want to have guns in classrooms. Although in some cases, teachers should have guns in classrooms, frankly. You look at some of our schools. Unbelievable what is going on. But I'm not advocating guns in classrooms. But remember, in some cases, trained teachers should be able to have guns in classrooms."
i don't know what logic system trump uses. what's the status of de morgan's laws? are we going to get a paper, here, or what?
maybe we can try and use an artificial intelligence on the d-wave system to decode it?
da fuck, really.
and, you doubted that funding for nasa would be useful. ye of little faith.
https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/tech/dash/physics/quail/
i don't know what logic system trump uses. what's the status of de morgan's laws? are we going to get a paper, here, or what?
maybe we can try and use an artificial intelligence on the d-wave system to decode it?
da fuck, really.
and, you doubted that funding for nasa would be useful. ye of little faith.
https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/tech/dash/physics/quail/
Sunday, May 22, 2016
j reacts to clinton's anointment (jeffersonian v. direct democracy)
he's again pretty much on point. if you strip away the spin, the way the process ought to work is like this: if somebody gets to the minimum threshold (2383) with pledged delegates then they've won the primary. if nobody gets there, then the primary process has actually resulted in a tie. the convention then needs to put together tie-breaking procedures, which is going to include appealing to the superdelegates.
it's not a semantic point. i don't think the idea of superdelegates is undemocratic; it's actually really very jeffersonian, in the sense of it being a check on the process. i mean, let's say that somebody crazy like donald trump is leading going into the convention. then, the superdelegates are there to prevent that from actually happening, riots or not. democracy really requires some checks in the form of things like bills of rights, constitutions, procedural rules and, in this case, superdelegates. that's fine.
but, what it means is that when you have a tie like this, those votes should be up for persuasion - which is exactly what sanders is arguing.
so, i mean, he's right. i think anybody that sits down and thinks it through can see that. so, why heap it on him when it's obvious that he's right?
in a sense, she's right, too: the polls in may are not really predictive, yet. although we're getting there, too. more to the point is that they're volatile. if they were running in a straight line, you'd start to think things are locking into place. but there's quite a bit of movement right now.
but, he's also right in pointing out that he has much, much stronger fundamentals with swing voters, who couldn't vote in some of the more important states. he is the stronger candidate. and, if this process was functioning properly (rather than as a coronation), the party would walk into the convention with the outcome being a tie, weigh the evidence and make the right choice - which, many are suggesting, is sanders.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-anointment-democratic-party#comment-74782613
it's not a semantic point. i don't think the idea of superdelegates is undemocratic; it's actually really very jeffersonian, in the sense of it being a check on the process. i mean, let's say that somebody crazy like donald trump is leading going into the convention. then, the superdelegates are there to prevent that from actually happening, riots or not. democracy really requires some checks in the form of things like bills of rights, constitutions, procedural rules and, in this case, superdelegates. that's fine.
but, what it means is that when you have a tie like this, those votes should be up for persuasion - which is exactly what sanders is arguing.
so, i mean, he's right. i think anybody that sits down and thinks it through can see that. so, why heap it on him when it's obvious that he's right?
in a sense, she's right, too: the polls in may are not really predictive, yet. although we're getting there, too. more to the point is that they're volatile. if they were running in a straight line, you'd start to think things are locking into place. but there's quite a bit of movement right now.
but, he's also right in pointing out that he has much, much stronger fundamentals with swing voters, who couldn't vote in some of the more important states. he is the stronger candidate. and, if this process was functioning properly (rather than as a coronation), the party would walk into the convention with the outcome being a tie, weigh the evidence and make the right choice - which, many are suggesting, is sanders.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-anointment-democratic-party#comment-74782613
lastly, there will be a youtube account, but it will only post
*samples* of songs rather than entire songs. i'm looking at one minute
samples of pretty much every song. i will want to use this profile as a
commenting perch, of course. i was going to re-use the dtk profile, but
i've decided not to. see, what i've learned is that posting full tracks
to youtube makes people think the music is free, and it simply can't be.
the point is to push people to bandcamp. fuck streaming. i'll post it
when i set it up tomorrow; i'm uploading right now and can't log out.
but, this profile won't start working until september, either.
for right now, it's just the blogspot site that will be working.
i'm hitting a math rock show tomorrow night, but i'll be home relatively early and should be able to start realigning the three facebook pages with the period one disc and getting back to finalizing the inri material for good.
for right now, it's just the blogspot site that will be working.
i'm hitting a math rock show tomorrow night, but i'll be home relatively early and should be able to start realigning the three facebook pages with the period one disc and getting back to finalizing the inri material for good.
this is going to be the new facebook page, because people don't exist outside of facebook, so you need it, even if you hate it. but, it's just going to list links to bandcamp as they come up. all the actual writing will be at the blogspot page. it's really just an obligation.
https://www.facebook.com/inri-1719120681676528
https://www.facebook.com/inri-1719120681676528
this is going to be the new bandcamp space, which will build itself up from 1996-1999, starting in september 2016. so, it's going to take the full four years to get through this material. but, inri is just period one. i will start a new bandcamp page for deny everything (period 2.1) in the year 2020.
http://jnrj.bandcamp.com/
http://jnrj.bandcamp.com/
it turns out that blogger is giving me everything that i want, for
now, in a fairly simple interface. all i wanted was a simple
journal-style page without heavy scripting and with an rss feed. but, i
was hoping i could find a site like this - livejournal or tumblr or
something - that gives me what i want because it allows me to post in
real time.
i do think that i'll eventually move this to an appspot site, but what that means is that i'll need to upload the whole site every time i make a post. the reality is that it's going to be a while before the site gets more complex, anyways, so this just makes more sense for the moment. i *did* try livejournal, but it looks like it wants to charge me, and i'm not paying. google is always good for free stuff, anyways. in time, i should be able to just copy and paste this page over. really.
so, this is the blog space for the alter-reality. facebook is just a shitty interface, so i'm trying to avoid it - and, actually, get the remaining data that's here off of it. that's going to mean wiping this page down to a cv-type skeleton. the blogspot page will be the most comprehensive thing to follow, the meta level page, where all the links to bandcamp and other comments will come up.
http://therealinri.blogspot.ca/
i do think that i'll eventually move this to an appspot site, but what that means is that i'll need to upload the whole site every time i make a post. the reality is that it's going to be a while before the site gets more complex, anyways, so this just makes more sense for the moment. i *did* try livejournal, but it looks like it wants to charge me, and i'm not paying. google is always good for free stuff, anyways. in time, i should be able to just copy and paste this page over. really.
so, this is the blog space for the alter-reality. facebook is just a shitty interface, so i'm trying to avoid it - and, actually, get the remaining data that's here off of it. that's going to mean wiping this page down to a cv-type skeleton. the blogspot page will be the most comprehensive thing to follow, the meta level page, where all the links to bandcamp and other comments will come up.
http://therealinri.blogspot.ca/
Saturday, May 21, 2016
j reacts to elbowgate
i've been fairly (fair, as in fair play) critical of trudeau - supportive when justified, dismissive when warranted. so, don't interpret this as a partisan liberal reaction. i identify as an anarchist and am really to the left of the entire spectrum. frankly, i'd more readily identify as a supporter of the ndp - although i'll admit i have been voting liberal regularly for the last four or five years.
what you see in this video is actually a big part of the reason why. this is the accurate analysis of the situation - and it's not isolated behaviour from the ndp, either.
here's the thing: these tricks don't work. since the ndp started with this shit, they've been nose-diving. i wouldn't expect the outcome of this to be any different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn9Up-tjmoM
it's really not unlike the setup around trump's manager being charged with assault, which clearly helped trump when the evidence got out - and anybody with any critical thinking skills could see that nothing actually happened.
to put it another way: trudeau's elbow on brousseau may have been accidental, but brousseau's sucker punch on trudeau was fully conscious and designed with intent.
canadians are actually pretty smart. we'll mostly figure that out.
--
i was thinking about the elbowgate thing as i was eating (and watching a richard wolff lecture) and i think there's another dynamic to this that is being missed and should really be drawn attention to. it's also a theme i went back to repeatedly during the last canadian election, so i have some personal continuity in the commenting. it's another example of the difference between old media and new media, and more evidence that the media, as a whole, has still not clued into the new reality of things.
i've been making the argument that they need to start handing out pink slips. nobody's going to starve to death, here. but, it's really getting beyond ridiculous, beyond surreal and to the point of almost being dangerous. i don't mean to pick on peter mansbridge, for example, but maybe it's time to go home when the son of the guy you started off covering gets elected?
the reality is that the way the media is covering this is like it happened twenty or thirty years ago, before we had this thing called the internet. and, let's be crystal clear: the internet is not a new thing. it's well past the point where the old folks can complain that the world is passing them by. it's to the point where if you're still operating under tv rules, you are simply out of touch and need to take stringent courses in new media or be set out to pasture. i'm sorry, but it's true. these panels you get with people like andrew coyne and chantal hebert are not just useless, but are approaching a point of dangerous anachronism - less because they are out of touch and more because so few people seem to realize it.
twenty years ago, the way people would have seen the encounter would have been framed by a handful of media sources. the corporate media would go to town with it, more out of a desire to boost ratings than anything else. the state run media and a handful of moderate sources would have set the record straight. but, you'd still be reliant on their filtering - their narrative. if they decided they didn't want to show you the video, you wouldn't see the video.
today, the way people are going to experience the exchange is something more like this:
1) they read a headline, or hear somebody talking about it or something.
2) before they even read an article about it, they will immediately go to youtube to find footage of it. in fact, they may even be hoping they get to see the prime minister pile drive some hapless mp, right. they're googling the action.
3) they will either be relieved or disappointed by the anti-climactic video evidence.
4) they're going to mumble that it's just more media bullshit, and put it in the list of reasons you shouldn't trust media.
but, that's not what you're getting from the mainstream media. it is what you're getting from independent media - which is basically the new msm for people under....it's 2016, so under 50, really. you're going to wake up one day around 2025 and realize that old media is really an idiosyncrasy of the baby boomer generation, and will disappear along with them - and their influence. but, the new media hasn't been able to interpret itself as legitimate, yet, so it's still in this phase where it's reacting.
it's not the only situation over the last few years where situations seem outright bizarre and the disconnect seems to be over the question of old and new media. one prominent example was the collapse of jeb bush; i think he just focused too much on old media, and not enough on new media. he had essentially no internet presence before the "please clap" video. and, didn't trump actually steal his domain name? outrageous.
it's the only way i can really make sense of both the msm analysis and the ndp's tactic: they have to be assuming they can control the narrative by controlling access to information. they have to be completely out of touch with reality, and ready to be put out to pasture. otherwise, everybody from the top down, from the left to right, would have to realize that 90% of the people that care at all are going to take the ten seconds it requires to google the event, and conclude they're being maliciously lied to.
what you see in this video is actually a big part of the reason why. this is the accurate analysis of the situation - and it's not isolated behaviour from the ndp, either.
here's the thing: these tricks don't work. since the ndp started with this shit, they've been nose-diving. i wouldn't expect the outcome of this to be any different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn9Up-tjmoM
it's really not unlike the setup around trump's manager being charged with assault, which clearly helped trump when the evidence got out - and anybody with any critical thinking skills could see that nothing actually happened.
to put it another way: trudeau's elbow on brousseau may have been accidental, but brousseau's sucker punch on trudeau was fully conscious and designed with intent.
canadians are actually pretty smart. we'll mostly figure that out.
--
i was thinking about the elbowgate thing as i was eating (and watching a richard wolff lecture) and i think there's another dynamic to this that is being missed and should really be drawn attention to. it's also a theme i went back to repeatedly during the last canadian election, so i have some personal continuity in the commenting. it's another example of the difference between old media and new media, and more evidence that the media, as a whole, has still not clued into the new reality of things.
i've been making the argument that they need to start handing out pink slips. nobody's going to starve to death, here. but, it's really getting beyond ridiculous, beyond surreal and to the point of almost being dangerous. i don't mean to pick on peter mansbridge, for example, but maybe it's time to go home when the son of the guy you started off covering gets elected?
the reality is that the way the media is covering this is like it happened twenty or thirty years ago, before we had this thing called the internet. and, let's be crystal clear: the internet is not a new thing. it's well past the point where the old folks can complain that the world is passing them by. it's to the point where if you're still operating under tv rules, you are simply out of touch and need to take stringent courses in new media or be set out to pasture. i'm sorry, but it's true. these panels you get with people like andrew coyne and chantal hebert are not just useless, but are approaching a point of dangerous anachronism - less because they are out of touch and more because so few people seem to realize it.
twenty years ago, the way people would have seen the encounter would have been framed by a handful of media sources. the corporate media would go to town with it, more out of a desire to boost ratings than anything else. the state run media and a handful of moderate sources would have set the record straight. but, you'd still be reliant on their filtering - their narrative. if they decided they didn't want to show you the video, you wouldn't see the video.
today, the way people are going to experience the exchange is something more like this:
1) they read a headline, or hear somebody talking about it or something.
2) before they even read an article about it, they will immediately go to youtube to find footage of it. in fact, they may even be hoping they get to see the prime minister pile drive some hapless mp, right. they're googling the action.
3) they will either be relieved or disappointed by the anti-climactic video evidence.
4) they're going to mumble that it's just more media bullshit, and put it in the list of reasons you shouldn't trust media.
but, that's not what you're getting from the mainstream media. it is what you're getting from independent media - which is basically the new msm for people under....it's 2016, so under 50, really. you're going to wake up one day around 2025 and realize that old media is really an idiosyncrasy of the baby boomer generation, and will disappear along with them - and their influence. but, the new media hasn't been able to interpret itself as legitimate, yet, so it's still in this phase where it's reacting.
it's not the only situation over the last few years where situations seem outright bizarre and the disconnect seems to be over the question of old and new media. one prominent example was the collapse of jeb bush; i think he just focused too much on old media, and not enough on new media. he had essentially no internet presence before the "please clap" video. and, didn't trump actually steal his domain name? outrageous.
it's the only way i can really make sense of both the msm analysis and the ndp's tactic: they have to be assuming they can control the narrative by controlling access to information. they have to be completely out of touch with reality, and ready to be put out to pasture. otherwise, everybody from the top down, from the left to right, would have to realize that 90% of the people that care at all are going to take the ten seconds it requires to google the event, and conclude they're being maliciously lied to.
20-05-2016: consolidating archives (and ranting...)
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Friday, May 20, 2016
j reacts to logic around whether trump should run to the right or to the left of clinton
trump will lose if he uses this tactic. the popular perception is in line with the objective facts: not only is clinton not "weak" on foreign policy, but she's a frightening hawk who will start multiple wars. the fear with clinton is not that she's too "weak", it's that she's far too strong. she's not the kind of person that you want in charge of delicate situations, because she has a tendency to just strong arm her way through everything - like a bull in a china shop. he's just making himself sound stupid.
trump will win if he runs as an anti-war candidate with strong libertarian leanings. in fact, i will go so far as stating the following: the republicans will not win another presidential election until they run a libertarian candidate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N7e9aRflO8
the reality is that trying to run to the right of clinton is a very narrow path. that's going to be her tactic, of course - to control not just the center of the road, but a good portion of the right of it. she's going to try to muscle him off on to the curb - and she's not just smarter than him....she's got bigger arms, too. if he lets her do this, she's going to body slam into the ditch. and, this is the popular reading of the election - she gets 65% of the vote and wins all the red states by presenting herself as the more reasonable and more moderate conservative, while he sputters out with gun nuts and kooky nationalists.
he's not strong enough to push back. she's got the establishment and the media on her side. it's a losing fight; she will crush him like a bug.
the only way for him to get out of this is to swing out and try and rally her left flank to mutiny. they're not going to need a lot of convincing, either. they're just going to need something halfways articulate and convincingly sane. but, that's kind of a tough sell - and getting tougher every day.
trump will win if he runs as an anti-war candidate with strong libertarian leanings. in fact, i will go so far as stating the following: the republicans will not win another presidential election until they run a libertarian candidate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N7e9aRflO8
the reality is that trying to run to the right of clinton is a very narrow path. that's going to be her tactic, of course - to control not just the center of the road, but a good portion of the right of it. she's going to try to muscle him off on to the curb - and she's not just smarter than him....she's got bigger arms, too. if he lets her do this, she's going to body slam into the ditch. and, this is the popular reading of the election - she gets 65% of the vote and wins all the red states by presenting herself as the more reasonable and more moderate conservative, while he sputters out with gun nuts and kooky nationalists.
he's not strong enough to push back. she's got the establishment and the media on her side. it's a losing fight; she will crush him like a bug.
the only way for him to get out of this is to swing out and try and rally her left flank to mutiny. they're not going to need a lot of convincing, either. they're just going to need something halfways articulate and convincingly sane. but, that's kind of a tough sell - and getting tougher every day.
19-05-2016: exploring southwest detroit in the day and the night (to see chelsea wolfe)
show footage:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/kOp6AxyO6g8?list=PLrHImg7oLm2aa6hPQlp4A8E8FjYuYnm2t
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/05/19.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://www.youtube.com/embed/kOp6AxyO6g8?list=PLrHImg7oLm2aa6hPQlp4A8E8FjYuYnm2t
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/05/19.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Thursday, May 19, 2016
i was dreaming this morning. and, in case you're curious....
the truth is that i'm actually very content with the life that i live right now. it would be nice if disability could be a bit more, but i'm actually not complaining - there's really no point you could set it at where it wouldn't be nice if it were a bit more. i'm truly well fed and consider myself to have a very high quality of life.
so, if i were to do it all over again, what would i do? well, i'd be moving towards getting to where i am today faster, not trying to get to somewhere else. that may have meant applying for disability at a younger age. or, perhaps i may have focused on investment.
if i had the advantage of foresight, i would have probably studied finance and then not spent the time afterwards working but trying to rip people off on the various markets, until i could approximate the lifestyle i have now. it might mean $3000/month off dividends rather than $1000/month off government assistance. but, that actually doesn't really scale into a substantial difference. less walking, more cabs. more pizza, maybe? buying software instead of pirating it?
i just get the impression sometimes that people think i expected more out of myself. but, what that really means is that they weren't actually listening to what i was saying. i was never about winning the game; i was always about trying to get out of the obligation of having to play it. that's my conception of freedom: walking away.
the truth is that i'm actually very content with the life that i live right now. it would be nice if disability could be a bit more, but i'm actually not complaining - there's really no point you could set it at where it wouldn't be nice if it were a bit more. i'm truly well fed and consider myself to have a very high quality of life.
so, if i were to do it all over again, what would i do? well, i'd be moving towards getting to where i am today faster, not trying to get to somewhere else. that may have meant applying for disability at a younger age. or, perhaps i may have focused on investment.
if i had the advantage of foresight, i would have probably studied finance and then not spent the time afterwards working but trying to rip people off on the various markets, until i could approximate the lifestyle i have now. it might mean $3000/month off dividends rather than $1000/month off government assistance. but, that actually doesn't really scale into a substantial difference. less walking, more cabs. more pizza, maybe? buying software instead of pirating it?
i just get the impression sometimes that people think i expected more out of myself. but, what that really means is that they weren't actually listening to what i was saying. i was never about winning the game; i was always about trying to get out of the obligation of having to play it. that's my conception of freedom: walking away.
typical alex jones - needs to pick on children to make his argument. are any of those kids even old enough to vote? i'd guess not. you should really be applauding them for having the initiative to participate at 15 or 16.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OC7z__uKbA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OC7z__uKbA
see, i'd actually like to see this twisted around. i think the people of libya might have something to say about clinton surrogates claiming that violence and intimidation are never acceptable under any circumstances. i guess there's different ways to read into this, but the broad truth is: bullshit.
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
so, prophesy > science, apparently. all those frauds just making stuff up after the fact. if they were true geniuses, like cenk, they'd be able to just predict what's going to happen beforehand.
ugh. idiots.
but, listen: it's the predictable consequence of hetero-patriarchal capitalist brainwashing. the ego. the self. it's not about learning and growing, it's about winning and cultivating the cult of the self.
when is the channel going to start covering nostradamus?
Susu Fierce
Sorrry, I didn't get 1/2 of what you wrote! Could you please clarify for me? Thanks. I'm not being disrespectful or sarcastic. I mean it.
jessica
i'm mostly talking to myself, anyways.
ugh. idiots.
but, listen: it's the predictable consequence of hetero-patriarchal capitalist brainwashing. the ego. the self. it's not about learning and growing, it's about winning and cultivating the cult of the self.
when is the channel going to start covering nostradamus?
Susu Fierce
Sorrry, I didn't get 1/2 of what you wrote! Could you please clarify for me? Thanks. I'm not being disrespectful or sarcastic. I mean it.
jessica
i'm mostly talking to myself, anyways.
j reacts to updated data on sanders' path (the democratic primary outcome is a tie!)
so, after epically failing in the closed northeastern primaries, sanders has unexpectedly rebounded and done a little better than i thought plausible in a few places: indiana, kentucky and west virginia. does that mean sanders has a chance after all?
well, we have some more data to play with. i'm going to do a little update.
june 5
a few weeks ago, i would have suggested that puerto rico should favour clinton because it's offshore. since then, we've seen that logic fail to pan out - and we've also learned that clinton doesn't really have any meaningful advantage with hispanics, except in closed primaries, which is more of a reflection on class than on language. puerto rico is an open primary and it doesn't have the wealthy, educated (and older...) hispanic voters that have backed clinton in places like florida. so, sanders really ought to be given a fighting chance, here. let's be a little more optimistic than we should be and say he can win 60%. sanders +12.
june 7
california
some people are making note of the fact that oregon wasn't a blowout, but the more important thing to pull out is that it's actually the first closed primary that sanders has won in the whole process. let's say that independents in california can hit 30% of the vote, and sanders can win 75% of them - not unreasonable numbers. then, assuming that democrats vote the same way they did in oregon, you'd get the following percentage of voters for sanders:
.55*.7 + .75*.3 = 61%. so, a big win is really perfectly reasonable.
now, let's be a little optimistic: let's say the state erupts and you get independents at 40% of the vote, and he wins 80% of them. well....
.55*.6 + .8*.4 = 65%. so, we see diminishing returns. but, let's take that 65% as a less than absurd possibility. sanders +143.
that's sanders +155.
new jersey
new jersey allows independents to vote, so the closest thing to it that we can base information on would have to be rhode island, where sanders got to 55%. but, new jersey has been hit hard by deindustrialization, too. so, let's be optimistic and go for 60%. sanders +26.
that's sanders +181.
montana & the dakotas
well, he did well in the surrounding states, so why not project 75%? sanders +29.
that's sanders +210.
new mexico & dc
these are both closed primaries, and the data is pretty clear about what happens to sanders in closed primaries, everywhere except the most progressive state in the country. i previously strongly suggested that sanders has to win dc as a statement on his ability to win liberal blacks, but the closed primary rules have demonstrated themselves far too restrictive to even contemplate it. if she loses a closed primary in dc, she should conclude her coalition has completely evaporated and immediately withdraw. clinton +20.
let's round it down to sanders +175. the current difference is around clinton +275. so, the end result is clinton +100. let's say it's under 100: 90, 80 - something like that.
so, does he have any chance of winning? not by the delegate count.
but, let's say that he actually pulls that off and keeps her to under 100 in pledged delegates. there's 4051 delegates. 100/4051 = 2.5%.
is that really a win for clinton? if she can't win independents, anywhere? if she gets hammered on the last day? if she has no momentum at all? where do you draw the line at a functional draw?
i think the democratic party has broadcast it's plans pretty clearly; his chance of getting the nomination are not slim, they're infinitesimal. but, he does still have the opportunity to make them look incredibly stupid in forcing them to cut off their collective noses to spite their collective faces.
and, cruz may end up being right about something after all: those responsible for trump's victory will be judged very harshly.
well, we have some more data to play with. i'm going to do a little update.
june 5
a few weeks ago, i would have suggested that puerto rico should favour clinton because it's offshore. since then, we've seen that logic fail to pan out - and we've also learned that clinton doesn't really have any meaningful advantage with hispanics, except in closed primaries, which is more of a reflection on class than on language. puerto rico is an open primary and it doesn't have the wealthy, educated (and older...) hispanic voters that have backed clinton in places like florida. so, sanders really ought to be given a fighting chance, here. let's be a little more optimistic than we should be and say he can win 60%. sanders +12.
june 7
california
some people are making note of the fact that oregon wasn't a blowout, but the more important thing to pull out is that it's actually the first closed primary that sanders has won in the whole process. let's say that independents in california can hit 30% of the vote, and sanders can win 75% of them - not unreasonable numbers. then, assuming that democrats vote the same way they did in oregon, you'd get the following percentage of voters for sanders:
.55*.7 + .75*.3 = 61%. so, a big win is really perfectly reasonable.
now, let's be a little optimistic: let's say the state erupts and you get independents at 40% of the vote, and he wins 80% of them. well....
.55*.6 + .8*.4 = 65%. so, we see diminishing returns. but, let's take that 65% as a less than absurd possibility. sanders +143.
that's sanders +155.
new jersey
new jersey allows independents to vote, so the closest thing to it that we can base information on would have to be rhode island, where sanders got to 55%. but, new jersey has been hit hard by deindustrialization, too. so, let's be optimistic and go for 60%. sanders +26.
that's sanders +181.
montana & the dakotas
well, he did well in the surrounding states, so why not project 75%? sanders +29.
that's sanders +210.
new mexico & dc
these are both closed primaries, and the data is pretty clear about what happens to sanders in closed primaries, everywhere except the most progressive state in the country. i previously strongly suggested that sanders has to win dc as a statement on his ability to win liberal blacks, but the closed primary rules have demonstrated themselves far too restrictive to even contemplate it. if she loses a closed primary in dc, she should conclude her coalition has completely evaporated and immediately withdraw. clinton +20.
let's round it down to sanders +175. the current difference is around clinton +275. so, the end result is clinton +100. let's say it's under 100: 90, 80 - something like that.
so, does he have any chance of winning? not by the delegate count.
but, let's say that he actually pulls that off and keeps her to under 100 in pledged delegates. there's 4051 delegates. 100/4051 = 2.5%.
is that really a win for clinton? if she can't win independents, anywhere? if she gets hammered on the last day? if she has no momentum at all? where do you draw the line at a functional draw?
i think the democratic party has broadcast it's plans pretty clearly; his chance of getting the nomination are not slim, they're infinitesimal. but, he does still have the opportunity to make them look incredibly stupid in forcing them to cut off their collective noses to spite their collective faces.
and, cruz may end up being right about something after all: those responsible for trump's victory will be judged very harshly.
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
j reacts to the kentucky primary
the votes are still coming in, but it seems likely that clinton will win kentucky on the strength of her urban dominance.
so, which is right: did her obvious demographic advantage with southern white christians get her the win, or does the unexpected closeness of the race suggest she's caving in key constituencies?
both.
forget about the east of the state. that's the jackass vote that's been brainwashed by talk radio into irrational clinton-hating. i mean, there's lots of reasons to not like clinton and everything, don't get me wrong here. but, none of those reasons suggest you support sanders if you're a rural, conservative kentuckian. that area will vote overwhelmingly for trump. it means nothing to sanders, his campaign or his chances as an independent - nor does it mean anything to clinton and whether she's holding her voters.
but, she should have won in the south by large numbers. she carried whites in tennessee by a substantial margin. and, she should have won in the suburbs around cinci, lexington and louisville; that's not coal country, it's basically ohio. also, note that kentucky is a closed primary, so she didn't get flooded with independents. she for real here got beat in one of her core demographics.
she did well enough in the cities that she can avoid going into crisis mode, but the results should nonetheless be very concerning to her campaign. all evidence suggests that if this vote was on super tuesday, she would have probably got close to 65%. what happens if you let them vote in july?
so, which is right: did her obvious demographic advantage with southern white christians get her the win, or does the unexpected closeness of the race suggest she's caving in key constituencies?
both.
forget about the east of the state. that's the jackass vote that's been brainwashed by talk radio into irrational clinton-hating. i mean, there's lots of reasons to not like clinton and everything, don't get me wrong here. but, none of those reasons suggest you support sanders if you're a rural, conservative kentuckian. that area will vote overwhelmingly for trump. it means nothing to sanders, his campaign or his chances as an independent - nor does it mean anything to clinton and whether she's holding her voters.
but, she should have won in the south by large numbers. she carried whites in tennessee by a substantial margin. and, she should have won in the suburbs around cinci, lexington and louisville; that's not coal country, it's basically ohio. also, note that kentucky is a closed primary, so she didn't get flooded with independents. she for real here got beat in one of her core demographics.
she did well enough in the cities that she can avoid going into crisis mode, but the results should nonetheless be very concerning to her campaign. all evidence suggests that if this vote was on super tuesday, she would have probably got close to 65%. what happens if you let them vote in july?
these studies often lack a discussion of any kind of mechanism - it's just straight correlations with no attempts at explanation. as such, you don't actually learn anything.
what are potatoes? they're highly concentrated sugar. so one should expect that high potato consumption with low exercise would certainly lead to excess weight and high blood pressure. one would also expect that high potato consumption with high activity levels would lead to increased muscle mass, as your body converts the excess sugar into muscle.
you should neither be shocked nor particularly enlightened by any this.
www.cbc.ca/news/health/potato-consumption-hypertension-1.3586370
what are potatoes? they're highly concentrated sugar. so one should expect that high potato consumption with low exercise would certainly lead to excess weight and high blood pressure. one would also expect that high potato consumption with high activity levels would lead to increased muscle mass, as your body converts the excess sugar into muscle.
you should neither be shocked nor particularly enlightened by any this.
www.cbc.ca/news/health/potato-consumption-hypertension-1.3586370
PshyeahV2.0
Didn't they already have equal rights?
jessica amber murray
it's actually a contentious point. the previous government made the argument that gender identity came under sexual orientation, but that was actually obviously wrong. however, i've long argued that it should be covered under 'analogous grounds' - the issue has apparently never been tested in court. now it's explicit, anyways.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-transgender-rights-1.3584482
Didn't they already have equal rights?
jessica amber murray
it's actually a contentious point. the previous government made the argument that gender identity came under sexual orientation, but that was actually obviously wrong. however, i've long argued that it should be covered under 'analogous grounds' - the issue has apparently never been tested in court. now it's explicit, anyways.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-transgender-rights-1.3584482
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)