google+
Dear j,
We've determined that your posts may be in violation of our User Content and Conduct Policy.
Content that transmits viruses or contains malware or other malicious code is not permitted.
Continued violation of our policies can lead to the loss of your ability to use some or all features of Google+.
Yours sincerely,
The Google+ team
Thursday, June 16, 2016
j reacts to the house reacting correctly to a meddlesome senate
this is the right choice - our elected parliament makes our laws, not our unelected senate. had they accepted the change, it would have set off a major crisis of democratic legitimacy.
the senate has threatened to push back. my view is that, if they do, the government will need to modify it's senate reform policies.
the last time this happened was abortion, and the senate did the right thing then in blocking an obviously unconstitutional law, but the situation is not comparable - this law is not clearly unconstitutional. i think it is, but not clearly so. the court needs to make that choice, not the senate; the senate is just interfering, overstepping, meddling.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/06/16/liberals-reject-senate-proposal-to-cut-near-death-proviso-in-assisted-dying-bill.html
if the senate has serious concerns about the constitutionality of the legislation, it should request a review from the supreme court rather than take it upon itself to become self-appointed constitutional scholars.
the senate has threatened to push back. my view is that, if they do, the government will need to modify it's senate reform policies.
the last time this happened was abortion, and the senate did the right thing then in blocking an obviously unconstitutional law, but the situation is not comparable - this law is not clearly unconstitutional. i think it is, but not clearly so. the court needs to make that choice, not the senate; the senate is just interfering, overstepping, meddling.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/06/16/liberals-reject-senate-proposal-to-cut-near-death-proviso-in-assisted-dying-bill.html
if the senate has serious concerns about the constitutionality of the legislation, it should request a review from the supreme court rather than take it upon itself to become self-appointed constitutional scholars.
at
23:37
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the idea of cancelling tax credits to incentivize the disabled to work
it seems like they're going to cancel my tax credits this year, which means i'm not going to have as much spending money. it is not a rational incentive for anything at all, and it will not make any difference in my loan repayment.
my loan is upwards of $60,000 and it's growing, yearly, due to interest. i have not made a payment on the loan since 2008. i will be on disability for the rest of my life; the chances of a single payment on the loan, let alone full repayment of it, are 0%.
i need to reiterate: there is a zero percent chance that i will ever make a payment on the loan. ever.
i have been transparent with the system about this. the system agrees that i am permanently disabled, but disagrees that i am severely permanently disabled.
i made the choice a few months ago that continuing to fill out forms, only to have them rejected and then be asked to fill them out again, was simply not worth my time. i hate doctors. i've had enough of convincing the doctors to fill out the forms, then having the forms rejected and then having another department ask me to send the same forms.
the math here is not debatable; the system is just being incompetent. i receive $13320/year from disability payments, and pay $7920 of that out for rent - leaving me with $5400/year to pay for all other expenses, including food. that's $450/month. i have no further source of income.
the minimum payments on my student loan are $1400/month, most of which is interest. the trillium benefit, which they are going to hold, is around $60/month.
there is obviously no logic in reducing my income by $60/month to pay off a student loan, when the same student loan is charging me $1000/month in interest and i have been transparent that i am medically unable to work.
but, i just don't have the energy to fight the system any further. they can keep their $60/month - to what aim, nobody knows. even the people on the phone agree that this makes no sense.
the thing that would make sense would be for the government to look at the situation and realize that because i am disabled i can never pay back the loan, and because i am poor i should receive the subsidy. and, in fact, they have done that. but, the situation is supposedly not severe enough.
it's not even a question of severity, in my view. it's just a sadistic policy. that $60/month is useless in paying down my loan. it's about 5% of the monthly interest. it's not even close! but, it means quite a bit to me.
how much to me? well, $60/month is a show or two a month. about a show and a half, really, which means three every two months. that's how it's going to hit me.
i need to reiterate that it's just stupid, calvinist bullshit. it makes no sense as a loan recovery tactic. it only makes sense as a way to punish me for being disabled.
i'm convinced that a big part of the problem is that they have a private company on the collections, and they don't get paid unless they recover something. so, this kafkaesque mess is just a consequence of the decision to privatize collections, which atomizes the decision making process. nobody is looking at the situation from a distance. everybody is making isolated decisions, without talking to each other about it.
so, it may be true that it doesn't make sense to recover $60/month on a $1400/month minimum payment, with over $1000/month of it being interest. that's an obvious default situation - every month that goes by is costing taxpayers money, and withholding my tax refund doesn't help the situation (it just makes it worse, really). but, the company doesn't care. it just wants the $720.
again: that $720 is useless to anybody involved here except me. the only measurable outcome of this policy is that i will have less spending money.
should the situation continue as it is, my loan is just going to spiral out of control. but, i've done my due diligence: i've filled out the forms, i've got the doctor's notes. they decided to reject the documents. what else am i going to do but sit back and watch it grow? you can lead a horse to water...
it's mismanagement on their behalf. i accept no responsibility for the consequences.
in a few years it will be $100,000. it will probably reach $500,000. i'm curious if it can get to $1,000,000.
but, i'm a disabled person for life. i'm a ward of the state. it's just a meaningless number to me. whether i have a $50,000 debt i can never pay back or a $50,000,000 debt i can never pay back is a logically equivalent non-issue.
what's more important to me is the $60/month.
in the long run, the money will no doubt find it's way to me. they can't actually take your money. they can only hold it. eventually, they're going to have to figure out that that's not getting them anywhere and i'll get a cheque for the difference. in the mean time, it means less shows, which means less show vlogs.
a check for $3000 or something could be a new pc, at about the time that the one i've got is getting useless.
i mean, nothing is going to be different five years from now - nothing except the size of the number i'll never be able to pay back.
my loan is upwards of $60,000 and it's growing, yearly, due to interest. i have not made a payment on the loan since 2008. i will be on disability for the rest of my life; the chances of a single payment on the loan, let alone full repayment of it, are 0%.
i need to reiterate: there is a zero percent chance that i will ever make a payment on the loan. ever.
i have been transparent with the system about this. the system agrees that i am permanently disabled, but disagrees that i am severely permanently disabled.
i made the choice a few months ago that continuing to fill out forms, only to have them rejected and then be asked to fill them out again, was simply not worth my time. i hate doctors. i've had enough of convincing the doctors to fill out the forms, then having the forms rejected and then having another department ask me to send the same forms.
the math here is not debatable; the system is just being incompetent. i receive $13320/year from disability payments, and pay $7920 of that out for rent - leaving me with $5400/year to pay for all other expenses, including food. that's $450/month. i have no further source of income.
the minimum payments on my student loan are $1400/month, most of which is interest. the trillium benefit, which they are going to hold, is around $60/month.
there is obviously no logic in reducing my income by $60/month to pay off a student loan, when the same student loan is charging me $1000/month in interest and i have been transparent that i am medically unable to work.
but, i just don't have the energy to fight the system any further. they can keep their $60/month - to what aim, nobody knows. even the people on the phone agree that this makes no sense.
the thing that would make sense would be for the government to look at the situation and realize that because i am disabled i can never pay back the loan, and because i am poor i should receive the subsidy. and, in fact, they have done that. but, the situation is supposedly not severe enough.
it's not even a question of severity, in my view. it's just a sadistic policy. that $60/month is useless in paying down my loan. it's about 5% of the monthly interest. it's not even close! but, it means quite a bit to me.
how much to me? well, $60/month is a show or two a month. about a show and a half, really, which means three every two months. that's how it's going to hit me.
i need to reiterate that it's just stupid, calvinist bullshit. it makes no sense as a loan recovery tactic. it only makes sense as a way to punish me for being disabled.
i'm convinced that a big part of the problem is that they have a private company on the collections, and they don't get paid unless they recover something. so, this kafkaesque mess is just a consequence of the decision to privatize collections, which atomizes the decision making process. nobody is looking at the situation from a distance. everybody is making isolated decisions, without talking to each other about it.
so, it may be true that it doesn't make sense to recover $60/month on a $1400/month minimum payment, with over $1000/month of it being interest. that's an obvious default situation - every month that goes by is costing taxpayers money, and withholding my tax refund doesn't help the situation (it just makes it worse, really). but, the company doesn't care. it just wants the $720.
again: that $720 is useless to anybody involved here except me. the only measurable outcome of this policy is that i will have less spending money.
should the situation continue as it is, my loan is just going to spiral out of control. but, i've done my due diligence: i've filled out the forms, i've got the doctor's notes. they decided to reject the documents. what else am i going to do but sit back and watch it grow? you can lead a horse to water...
it's mismanagement on their behalf. i accept no responsibility for the consequences.
in a few years it will be $100,000. it will probably reach $500,000. i'm curious if it can get to $1,000,000.
but, i'm a disabled person for life. i'm a ward of the state. it's just a meaningless number to me. whether i have a $50,000 debt i can never pay back or a $50,000,000 debt i can never pay back is a logically equivalent non-issue.
what's more important to me is the $60/month.
in the long run, the money will no doubt find it's way to me. they can't actually take your money. they can only hold it. eventually, they're going to have to figure out that that's not getting them anywhere and i'll get a cheque for the difference. in the mean time, it means less shows, which means less show vlogs.
a check for $3000 or something could be a new pc, at about the time that the one i've got is getting useless.
i mean, nothing is going to be different five years from now - nothing except the size of the number i'll never be able to pay back.
at
22:23
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to sanders' live stream
actually, that's pretty much exactly what he needed to do.
now, y'all need to get to it.
this is a correct analysis.
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/16/11959808/bernie-sanders-speech-dropping-out
now, y'all need to get to it.
this is a correct analysis.
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/16/11959808/bernie-sanders-speech-dropping-out
at
18:32
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
and, i don't really disagree that democrats need to unite, either.
i'm just definitely not, and never was, a supporter of the democrats.
i'm just definitely not, and never was, a supporter of the democrats.
at
18:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to simplistic, binary narratives around gun control
ugh.
i'll make it really simple for you.
yes, i support gun control laws.
no, i don't think that gun control laws will prevent mass shooting sprees.
so, why do i support gun control laws? because i think it's a useful tool for law enforcement. you might want to look around at countries that have gun control laws and see what they're actually used for. it's not to stop crazy people from shooting up public places.
and, what do i think will stop mass shooting sprees? lots and lots of public tax money on social services for integrative purposes.
otherwise? if you want to live in the jungle, you need to get used to fending off the tigers.
that is: if you don't want a government, then you really should buy a gun. you're probably going to need it.
the problem is thinking you can not have a government and not need to protect yourself. you can pick one or the other. you can't have both.
fuck nietzsche. fuck foucault. read hobbes. or, watch game of thrones. this is the world that the reagan revolution has left you with. everybody is out to get everybody else.
eat or be eaten.
or start a revolution...
laws to restrict the supply of guns?
it's a band-aid. a band-aid on a giant, gaping flesh wound.
i'll make it really simple for you.
yes, i support gun control laws.
no, i don't think that gun control laws will prevent mass shooting sprees.
so, why do i support gun control laws? because i think it's a useful tool for law enforcement. you might want to look around at countries that have gun control laws and see what they're actually used for. it's not to stop crazy people from shooting up public places.
and, what do i think will stop mass shooting sprees? lots and lots of public tax money on social services for integrative purposes.
otherwise? if you want to live in the jungle, you need to get used to fending off the tigers.
that is: if you don't want a government, then you really should buy a gun. you're probably going to need it.
the problem is thinking you can not have a government and not need to protect yourself. you can pick one or the other. you can't have both.
fuck nietzsche. fuck foucault. read hobbes. or, watch game of thrones. this is the world that the reagan revolution has left you with. everybody is out to get everybody else.
eat or be eaten.
or start a revolution...
laws to restrict the supply of guns?
it's a band-aid. a band-aid on a giant, gaping flesh wound.
at
17:12
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the sjws (i think they're best described as burkean conservatives)
i should clarify my view on the "sjws". i've written this essay many times and in many places...
basically, they aren't actually marxists in any meaningful way. the philosopher they actually follow is foucault (sort of.), who may have claimed some affinity with marx but was actually largely seen by most of the left as a dangerous reactionary. i would put myself more in the tradition of chomsky, who famously did not get along well with foucault. most of the criticisms you see of the sjws are foreshadowed in the foucault-chomsky debate, which was itself a small manifestation of a set of bigger epistemological problems about things like the value of empiricism and the value of theory.
the way we get foucault's ideas nowadays are not direct but through a synthesis with the historical progressive movement in the united states, which was always largely a socially conservative movement. this was the movement that brought us prohibition, for example. it spent much of it's time railing against the godlessness of liberalism. while it made some positive contributions, those contributions came in the form of christian goodwill rather than in the form of any kind of legitimate left-wing ideas. it had no meaningful concept of class.
but, that was the value of synthesizing it with foucault. unfortunately, however, when you take foucault's theory of power and you combine it with christian progressivism, what you get is something very similar to burkean conservatism - that is, toryism. you have to remember that foucault was writing from france, where the narrative was still very much rooted in the french revolution and debates between rousseau and burke. what foucault basically did was that he converted burke's idea of proper class hierarchy into a system of control to fight against; foucault was somewhat of a vulgar burkean. but, when the christian progressivists (who were already burkeans at heart) picked that up, they missed the vulgarity of it and largely just picked it up at face value.
so, this idea that sjws are leftists or marxists is completely wrong. what they are is puritans, conservatives, tories, burkeans. my criticisms of them and what they want follow from the left. they are a combination of the criticisms of chomsky against foucault (or against zizek), the criticisms of bakunin against marx and sometimes (unfortunately) are even the criticisms of rousseau (or paine) against burke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzrHwDOlTt8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_c3cNG5ttk
basically, they aren't actually marxists in any meaningful way. the philosopher they actually follow is foucault (sort of.), who may have claimed some affinity with marx but was actually largely seen by most of the left as a dangerous reactionary. i would put myself more in the tradition of chomsky, who famously did not get along well with foucault. most of the criticisms you see of the sjws are foreshadowed in the foucault-chomsky debate, which was itself a small manifestation of a set of bigger epistemological problems about things like the value of empiricism and the value of theory.
the way we get foucault's ideas nowadays are not direct but through a synthesis with the historical progressive movement in the united states, which was always largely a socially conservative movement. this was the movement that brought us prohibition, for example. it spent much of it's time railing against the godlessness of liberalism. while it made some positive contributions, those contributions came in the form of christian goodwill rather than in the form of any kind of legitimate left-wing ideas. it had no meaningful concept of class.
but, that was the value of synthesizing it with foucault. unfortunately, however, when you take foucault's theory of power and you combine it with christian progressivism, what you get is something very similar to burkean conservatism - that is, toryism. you have to remember that foucault was writing from france, where the narrative was still very much rooted in the french revolution and debates between rousseau and burke. what foucault basically did was that he converted burke's idea of proper class hierarchy into a system of control to fight against; foucault was somewhat of a vulgar burkean. but, when the christian progressivists (who were already burkeans at heart) picked that up, they missed the vulgarity of it and largely just picked it up at face value.
so, this idea that sjws are leftists or marxists is completely wrong. what they are is puritans, conservatives, tories, burkeans. my criticisms of them and what they want follow from the left. they are a combination of the criticisms of chomsky against foucault (or against zizek), the criticisms of bakunin against marx and sometimes (unfortunately) are even the criticisms of rousseau (or paine) against burke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzrHwDOlTt8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_c3cNG5ttk
at
03:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)