Friday, September 23, 2016

j reacts to push back on the requirement that supreme court judges be bilingual

i actually have no problem with the bilingual requirement, though. actually, i would insist upon it - and argue that those arguing otherwise are just being dense. it's a functional job requirement to be able to hear cases from quebec, which means you need to be able to understand the vernacular. you simply can't do this job if you don't speak french, and if you don't realize this then you just don't understand what the job is.

the bilingual requirement is not identity politics. it's not francocentric.

it's a basic job requirement.

and, it's long past due that this is formally enforced.

no, stop. it's actually really, really outrageous for an anglophone canadian to stand there and claim that a francophone canadian is not entitled to justice in their native language. how would you feel about going up against a court that only speaks french, and only understands civil law? you'd feel like you were living in a foreign country.

this is not a serious debate. and, it's kind of depressing that there are people that think that it is.

http://business.financialpost.com/legal-post/beverley-mclachlin-says-bilingualism-necessary-for-some-judges

j reacts to the polling situation going into the debates

i want to be clear as the week ends: my analysis of the polling is that donald trump has not actually made up any ground at all, but that various polling firms - no doubt in cahoots with the media -  have manipulated data to make the race appear closer than it actually is. this has been done via a decision to eliminate minorities and young people from the polling results under the argument that they're less likely to vote. this change happened across the board in september; it seems to be organized. the motive is to avoid the appearance of an uncompetitive race and the low ratings such a scenario would bring.

when polling results have been released this week that include the raw data, it can be seen that the actual story is stasis since late august. the numbers have not changed. the way they're being reported has.

while i continue to believe that clinton is very vulnerable to a terrorist attack, both on account of being a democrat and on account of being a woman, as well as in contrast to trump's messaging, the recent terrorist attacks did not gain the media traction that i feared they would and consequently do not seem to have had a polling effect. a future attack still might. i also continue to believe that clinton's best strategy is to run on economic and otherwise fiscal issues, including the strength of the stock market. i also believe that she needs to focus less on winning young voters (who will likely only be swayed by marijuana legalization) and more on winning older voters.

the broad takeaway is that clinton is currently safe in at least 270 electoral votes, which means the current state of the election is to determine the size and shape of her victory.

this poll did not provide raw data, suggesting they're hiding something.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article103597232.ece/BINARY/The%20full%20McClatchy-Marist%20poll
i never identified well as a capricorn. apparently, the math was all wrong and i was a sagittarius all along. i don't actually know what that means or if it fits better.

http://kdvr.com/2016/09/22/your-horoscope-may-have-just-changed-nasa-reveals-13th-zodiac-sign/

meh. the independent, emotionally detached philosopher part fits well. the extroverted, outdoorsy socialite part doesn't at all.
this will be instantly turned into a joke-meme and ridiculed for months after the election.

the candidates suck. they offer nothing to young people. you're wasting time and resources. go after older voters.


maybe the democrats should open the primaries up a little, if they don't want old people picking candidates that young people can't stand?

the bed is made.

you have to win boomers.
yeah. i'm getting 500-1000 views a day here. what's the deal with that, anyways?

who are these people?