i refuse to concede the point that i'm being offensive in any way. people just aren't thinking clearly.
nobody thinks we should let in every single refugee everywhere, no matter what, right? there has to be some criteria. if you reject this statement, you're just not thinking clearly. if i propose the criteria of religion, why is that so much more horrible than some other criteria?
there has to be some criteria for rejection, right?
and, listen: i don't want to live in a religious society. i'll reiterate what i've stated repeatedly: if you're a right-wing christian and you want to bring in more religious people, we're pretty diametrically opposed to begin with. i can dream about deporting christians, right? it's the hippies that don't understand what they're doing that piss me off.
see, and here's the thing, with myself, anyways: religion is really the only criteria i'd propose. i don't care what colour people are or what language they speak. i think we need to be careful about bringing in refugees with low education levels, but i'd actually propose that as a proxy for religion: the points system may be a little strict for refugees, but we should be making more of an effort than we are to determine utility. i don't care if they're queer or not, but i'll point out that queer refugees should have a high priority level in religious societies, which is at the crux of my point. it's really only religion - and, any religion - that i think ought to be a stopping point.
and, you're free to disagree with me.
but, this isn't and shouldn't be seen as some taboo. a religion is not a phenotype. it's a choice that reflects a character. and, i don't have a problem telling people that make this choice that i'm deeply uncomfortable with their character, and strongly apprehensive about welcoming them into my community.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
in the end, he decided to fight a terminal cancer that essentially nobody beats. he had a giant tumor in his head: no fucking chance to beat it at all.
the doctors made it clear as day.
so, the realist that i am, i suggested that he spend his remaining months doing the things he always wanted. he always wanted to go on a deep sea fishing trip up north, for example.
i was excommunicated, for the reason that i accepted the diagnosis. he was going to beat it, and didn't need the negativity.
three lobotomies and countless painful chemo & radiation treatments later, he died clinically retarded, after being bed-ridden for months.
he did not accept his fate until the last moments, and it's not clear if he understood it or not.
there's a lesson, there.
the doctors made it clear as day.
so, the realist that i am, i suggested that he spend his remaining months doing the things he always wanted. he always wanted to go on a deep sea fishing trip up north, for example.
i was excommunicated, for the reason that i accepted the diagnosis. he was going to beat it, and didn't need the negativity.
three lobotomies and countless painful chemo & radiation treatments later, he died clinically retarded, after being bed-ridden for months.
he did not accept his fate until the last moments, and it's not clear if he understood it or not.
there's a lesson, there.
i don't want to say that i didn't learn anything from him, because i did.
see, he was a very stupid man. and, very stupid men make large numbers of mistakes over the course of their lives.
he worked hard his whole life and gained nothing from it - there is a valuable lesson to be learned, there. namely, don't waste your life working.
he did much of it for his children, who didn't want what he gave them. another valuable lesson: don't have kids.
he married thrice, and was miserable in all three of the relationships. lesson: don't get married.
kids don't learn in a vacuum. in the long run, i was actually probably better off.
see, he was a very stupid man. and, very stupid men make large numbers of mistakes over the course of their lives.
he worked hard his whole life and gained nothing from it - there is a valuable lesson to be learned, there. namely, don't waste your life working.
he did much of it for his children, who didn't want what he gave them. another valuable lesson: don't have kids.
he married thrice, and was miserable in all three of the relationships. lesson: don't get married.
kids don't learn in a vacuum. in the long run, i was actually probably better off.
it may not be clear, so let me be explicit: i actually don't even have a driver's license.
i don't mean to say that it was suspended or whatever. what i mean to say is that i never learned how to drive.
there was a complex of factors underlying this. a part of it was that my dad was really insistent on it, and i was at the age where i was pushing back against parental control. my dad was neither an educated person nor an intelligent one. he didn't understand why i was spending so much time doing homework, instead of trying to get a driver's license and go after girls. so, a big part of it was a fuck you to his macho attitude and the broader society that he spoke for and represented.
i'll have you know that i never learned how to ice skate, either - which in canada is unusual. it's even more unusual, considering that my father was drafted into the ontario hockey league, which is one of the top junior leagues in the country.
but, a bigger part of it was that i was a strong climate activist as a teenager and felt a strong moral imperative to avoid fossil fuels as much as possible. i never bothered to learn how to drive because i never had any intent of driving.
today, i'm 36 years old, and i've never driven a car, despite ample opportunity to do so.
i've told myself in the past that i'd revisit this if there were ever serious opportunities for electric vehicles, but i've actually changed my mind since then. the environmental impact of the automobile industry is not merely limited to carbon emissions. i think that it would be very hard to find me a vehicle that i would feel comfortable enough using for me to finally learn how to operate it.
i don't mean to say that it was suspended or whatever. what i mean to say is that i never learned how to drive.
there was a complex of factors underlying this. a part of it was that my dad was really insistent on it, and i was at the age where i was pushing back against parental control. my dad was neither an educated person nor an intelligent one. he didn't understand why i was spending so much time doing homework, instead of trying to get a driver's license and go after girls. so, a big part of it was a fuck you to his macho attitude and the broader society that he spoke for and represented.
i'll have you know that i never learned how to ice skate, either - which in canada is unusual. it's even more unusual, considering that my father was drafted into the ontario hockey league, which is one of the top junior leagues in the country.
but, a bigger part of it was that i was a strong climate activist as a teenager and felt a strong moral imperative to avoid fossil fuels as much as possible. i never bothered to learn how to drive because i never had any intent of driving.
today, i'm 36 years old, and i've never driven a car, despite ample opportunity to do so.
i've told myself in the past that i'd revisit this if there were ever serious opportunities for electric vehicles, but i've actually changed my mind since then. the environmental impact of the automobile industry is not merely limited to carbon emissions. i think that it would be very hard to find me a vehicle that i would feel comfortable enough using for me to finally learn how to operate it.
the most important part of reciprocal altruism is not the altruism part, but the reciprocal part. what that means is that you should only be altruistic with those that are willing and able to reciprocate. being altruistic with those that will not or cannot reciprocate is the definition of stupidity - it is just a net loss of resources that will in the end harm the individual's ability to reproduce.
mexico has demonstrated time and again that it will not reciprocate. it will not allow it's workers to organize. it will not address it's issues of corruption. it takes, but it does not give back.
attempts at altruism should consequently be withdrawn, as there is no reciprocity in it. rather, outreaches towards co-operation should be exceedingly shrewd, with the attempt to coerce a shift towards a more altruistic mindset from the mexicans.
this is, after all, the root of the problem - the mexicans will not reform their institutions so that they are comparable to the ones in the united states and canada. this was the point of bringing the mexicans in - it was to create a pool of cheap labour to evade laws in canada and the united states. so, it's not like the mexicans are solely at fault, here - mexico is what it is because of american capital. but, if we are to behave in our self-interest, what that means is pushing back against this and tying our co-operation to mexican reform.
mexico has demonstrated time and again that it will not reciprocate. it will not allow it's workers to organize. it will not address it's issues of corruption. it takes, but it does not give back.
attempts at altruism should consequently be withdrawn, as there is no reciprocity in it. rather, outreaches towards co-operation should be exceedingly shrewd, with the attempt to coerce a shift towards a more altruistic mindset from the mexicans.
this is, after all, the root of the problem - the mexicans will not reform their institutions so that they are comparable to the ones in the united states and canada. this was the point of bringing the mexicans in - it was to create a pool of cheap labour to evade laws in canada and the united states. so, it's not like the mexicans are solely at fault, here - mexico is what it is because of american capital. but, if we are to behave in our self-interest, what that means is pushing back against this and tying our co-operation to mexican reform.
Mexican government sources tell CBC News one condition is non-negotiable
for Pena Nieto — when Mexico sits down with the United States, Canada
must be at the table.
yeah. no shit.
we should reject this ridiculous demand by the mexicans, which is meant to treat our negotiating team like the fools they've up to now behaved as, and instead insist on removing mexico from the discussions and reverting to a bilateral agreement.
yeah. no shit.
we should reject this ridiculous demand by the mexicans, which is meant to treat our negotiating team like the fools they've up to now behaved as, and instead insist on removing mexico from the discussions and reverting to a bilateral agreement.
canada and mexico not only do not have the same interests, in context, but have interests that are diametrically opposed to each other. our relationships with the united states are the exact opposites of themselves: we export and they import. so, this is not a situation of convergence.
the representative from mexico should not take it upon himself to speak for the interests of other nations, and should be publicly rebuked for doing so.
canada needs to ensure that it remains an independent voice here and is looking out for it's idiosyncrasies, first and foremost. we need to co-operate with mexico because it is in our self-interest to do so, not because it make us feel warm and fuzzy - and we need to assert that self-interest at every opportunity.
nafta was supposed to be a deal between canada and the united states. the mexicans were added at the last minute, at the request of the united states. canada should have never agreed to this in the first place, and should keep it's distance at the current time.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mexico-nafta-strategy-1.4090182
the representative from mexico should not take it upon himself to speak for the interests of other nations, and should be publicly rebuked for doing so.
canada needs to ensure that it remains an independent voice here and is looking out for it's idiosyncrasies, first and foremost. we need to co-operate with mexico because it is in our self-interest to do so, not because it make us feel warm and fuzzy - and we need to assert that self-interest at every opportunity.
nafta was supposed to be a deal between canada and the united states. the mexicans were added at the last minute, at the request of the united states. canada should have never agreed to this in the first place, and should keep it's distance at the current time.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mexico-nafta-strategy-1.4090182
i'll always be a punk at heart.
and, i can relate to what they called "indie rock" in the 80s and most of the 90s. but, the indie rock culture switched over in the late 90s to something i never developed a remote interest in. i mean, it had to. everybody that was any good got bought up by the labels. "indie rock" was supposed to sound like sonic youth, but everybody that sounded like sonic youth had major record deals. so, if indie rock was to remain indie, it had no choice but to change. and, i'm not sitting around holding grudges.
it's just that what it morphed into is fucking boring - by design. i'm a serious musician, i always was. i'm not interested in music as a fashion statement, or the reduction of sound to a talking point. but, that's what "indie rock" turned into, because it had no other outlet for itself as an independent form.
of course, the independent rock sound has changed a lot in the last 20 years. what i'm describing went through it's phase of (limited) relevance and dissipated like everything else. but, the term "indie rock" was let go as a co-opted term and remains this broken idea that i don't want to go anywhere near.
i'm sorry. they're universally shitty musicians: terrible players, terrible songwriters, terrible lyricists. they sell shirts and shoes to shallow idiots, they don't create music as an artform or generate protest or really do anything useful at all. and, the people that listen to it are what you would expect: manufactured consumers for the corporate chain.
everything about the term "indie rock" has deserved nothing more than contempt for decades.
and, i'm not telling you anything i wouldn't have told you at any point over the last twenty years, if you had bothered to ask.
and, i can relate to what they called "indie rock" in the 80s and most of the 90s. but, the indie rock culture switched over in the late 90s to something i never developed a remote interest in. i mean, it had to. everybody that was any good got bought up by the labels. "indie rock" was supposed to sound like sonic youth, but everybody that sounded like sonic youth had major record deals. so, if indie rock was to remain indie, it had no choice but to change. and, i'm not sitting around holding grudges.
it's just that what it morphed into is fucking boring - by design. i'm a serious musician, i always was. i'm not interested in music as a fashion statement, or the reduction of sound to a talking point. but, that's what "indie rock" turned into, because it had no other outlet for itself as an independent form.
of course, the independent rock sound has changed a lot in the last 20 years. what i'm describing went through it's phase of (limited) relevance and dissipated like everything else. but, the term "indie rock" was let go as a co-opted term and remains this broken idea that i don't want to go anywhere near.
i'm sorry. they're universally shitty musicians: terrible players, terrible songwriters, terrible lyricists. they sell shirts and shoes to shallow idiots, they don't create music as an artform or generate protest or really do anything useful at all. and, the people that listen to it are what you would expect: manufactured consumers for the corporate chain.
everything about the term "indie rock" has deserved nothing more than contempt for decades.
and, i'm not telling you anything i wouldn't have told you at any point over the last twenty years, if you had bothered to ask.
again: i've never claimed to be a fan of "indie rock", and have rather been incredibly critical of it.
ok - i spent the first half of the 90s listening to various offshoots of punk.
but, i spent the second half of the 90s listening almost entirely to techno. and, through the 00s, i never developed the slightest interest in anything labeled "indie rock" at all. i spent the 00s listening to various combinations of classical music, progressive rock, techno, psychedelic music and jazz.
i can continue to disappoint you, if you insist. it's better to get the fucking point: i never was, i never wanted to be, i'm never going to be.
ok - i spent the first half of the 90s listening to various offshoots of punk.
but, i spent the second half of the 90s listening almost entirely to techno. and, through the 00s, i never developed the slightest interest in anything labeled "indie rock" at all. i spent the 00s listening to various combinations of classical music, progressive rock, techno, psychedelic music and jazz.
i can continue to disappoint you, if you insist. it's better to get the fucking point: i never was, i never wanted to be, i'm never going to be.
Saturday, April 29, 2017
i probably would have gone to see the damned tonight if the weather wasn't so terrible, or if i had april cash leftover. but, i'm not a big enough fan to fit it into the existing schedule, and i expect there to be other things happening this month that i'll prioritize over it.
they're 60. you know? how do you be the damned when you're 60? i don't mean to be ageist for the sake of ageism, but there's reasonable cut-offs to what they do, and there's a good argument that it ended quite a while ago.
i'm only familiar with their earliest material, which i suspect they'll only skim over, anyways. but, this band is in some ways actually ground zero for my musical tastes, in terms of influences. some people will look back towards the clash, or the sex pistols, but the band that was most influential on the bands that influenced me was this one.
i think i can say that i wish i was there, back in the day. but, tonight isn't going to be what i'd want it to be.
i hope people have fun, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1G1y7_r8bE
they're 60. you know? how do you be the damned when you're 60? i don't mean to be ageist for the sake of ageism, but there's reasonable cut-offs to what they do, and there's a good argument that it ended quite a while ago.
i'm only familiar with their earliest material, which i suspect they'll only skim over, anyways. but, this band is in some ways actually ground zero for my musical tastes, in terms of influences. some people will look back towards the clash, or the sex pistols, but the band that was most influential on the bands that influenced me was this one.
i think i can say that i wish i was there, back in the day. but, tonight isn't going to be what i'd want it to be.
i hope people have fun, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1G1y7_r8bE
it's hard to say who this guy speaks for - he was a representative of the current opposition party, but in a faction that seems to be more closely aligned with the current ruling party. i mean that: it's hard to say. the old pc wing seems to actually have enormous clout with justin trudeau.
if he speaks for himself, so be it. but if he speaks for more than himself, it is a positive sign that the government realizes what donald trump is as an entity.
i think that we have to accept that there was a deep miscalculation. but that just means that we have to adjust.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/a-reality-check-on-nafta-for-donald-trump/article34849854/
if he speaks for himself, so be it. but if he speaks for more than himself, it is a positive sign that the government realizes what donald trump is as an entity.
i think that we have to accept that there was a deep miscalculation. but that just means that we have to adjust.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/a-reality-check-on-nafta-for-donald-trump/article34849854/
it's really just a standard definition of empire, right?
it's easy to say that trump sounds crazy, but there's just as much of an argument that it's a return to sanity. the post-war order was always meant to be designed for the benefits of american exports. so, europe was designed as a dumping ground for american goods. canada was basically a state, anyways, so it made sense to integrate it.
there was this discussion going around after the election about which historical american personality trump most resembled. there was a claim of jefferson, which was met with ridicule. i suggested he was more like the king of england.
and, this is a system that is more like something the british would have come up with, because they were an empire, and they told people they were an empire, and they had a sense of reverence for their (usually) empress.
it's just that the united states has historically gone to great lengths to deny that it is an empire, due to it's historical attraction to democracy - something the current administration has no real interest in.
for all of the valid criticisms of the united states, they created a world order (it is not from nothing, but still largely theirs) that is unlike anything the world has ever seen. it failed because they destroyed it, which is what created the situation of empire we're in today. but, it worked for a little while, at least.
it sounds crazy because we're holding to these ideals that may end up as a blip in history. the blame is not the point. the normal organization of powerful states is into empires.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/04/28/leaked-draft-order-shows-trump-blamed-nafta-for-massive-wealth-transfer-lost-jobs-illegal-immigration.html
it's easy to say that trump sounds crazy, but there's just as much of an argument that it's a return to sanity. the post-war order was always meant to be designed for the benefits of american exports. so, europe was designed as a dumping ground for american goods. canada was basically a state, anyways, so it made sense to integrate it.
there was this discussion going around after the election about which historical american personality trump most resembled. there was a claim of jefferson, which was met with ridicule. i suggested he was more like the king of england.
and, this is a system that is more like something the british would have come up with, because they were an empire, and they told people they were an empire, and they had a sense of reverence for their (usually) empress.
it's just that the united states has historically gone to great lengths to deny that it is an empire, due to it's historical attraction to democracy - something the current administration has no real interest in.
for all of the valid criticisms of the united states, they created a world order (it is not from nothing, but still largely theirs) that is unlike anything the world has ever seen. it failed because they destroyed it, which is what created the situation of empire we're in today. but, it worked for a little while, at least.
it sounds crazy because we're holding to these ideals that may end up as a blip in history. the blame is not the point. the normal organization of powerful states is into empires.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/04/28/leaked-draft-order-shows-trump-blamed-nafta-for-massive-wealth-transfer-lost-jobs-illegal-immigration.html
Friday, April 28, 2017
fwiw, it's well understood that a lower dollar creates jobs in ontario. and, it just happened again.
if a confederacy is fundamentally a decision to use the same currency, it's hard to have a stable country when the east and west are in this zero-sum game, where one has to lose for the other to benefit.
we're told that a strong oil industry is good for the country. but, ontarians that are not yet convinced need to wake up to the reality of it: our economy moves opposite to the price of oil. it always has. and, there's no reason to think it will change any time soon.
if a confederacy is fundamentally a decision to use the same currency, it's hard to have a stable country when the east and west are in this zero-sum game, where one has to lose for the other to benefit.
we're told that a strong oil industry is good for the country. but, ontarians that are not yet convinced need to wake up to the reality of it: our economy moves opposite to the price of oil. it always has. and, there's no reason to think it will change any time soon.
it may very well have been a last minute addition, with the intent to leave expansion to an election issue.
at the provincial level in ontario, we have more of a traditional left-right axis. and, because ontario is what it is, you can expect that most people in the traditional center swing (which includes a lot of low income workers) will support universal pharmacare - if the liberals present it, rather than the ndp. so, the liberals just need to match the ndp to dominate them.
i live on disability, and even if i was merely on welfare i'd still have better drug coverage than a large percentage of wage workers. report after report has called this out for years as irrational and drawn all kinds of conclusions, including presenting it as a disincentive to employment. but, nobody wants to take away drug coverage from people on assistance.
it's a good start, anyways.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3410017/ontario-budget-2017-families-get-free-prescriptions-drugs-for-children-more-aid-for-students/
at the provincial level in ontario, we have more of a traditional left-right axis. and, because ontario is what it is, you can expect that most people in the traditional center swing (which includes a lot of low income workers) will support universal pharmacare - if the liberals present it, rather than the ndp. so, the liberals just need to match the ndp to dominate them.
i live on disability, and even if i was merely on welfare i'd still have better drug coverage than a large percentage of wage workers. report after report has called this out for years as irrational and drawn all kinds of conclusions, including presenting it as a disincentive to employment. but, nobody wants to take away drug coverage from people on assistance.
it's a good start, anyways.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3410017/ontario-budget-2017-families-get-free-prescriptions-drugs-for-children-more-aid-for-students/
this is the reality of "liberalizing markets" in agriculture.
the farmers need to clue-in: the governments of the world work for the agri-business companies of the world. their systems are not safe in government hands. they should organize outside of government.
it makes all kinds of sense - you just need to realize that government today is operated by lobbyists.
https://www.pressprogress.ca/one_chart_shows_why_the_liberal_uturn_on_the_canadian_wheat_board_makes_no_sense
the farmers need to clue-in: the governments of the world work for the agri-business companies of the world. their systems are not safe in government hands. they should organize outside of government.
it makes all kinds of sense - you just need to realize that government today is operated by lobbyists.
https://www.pressprogress.ca/one_chart_shows_why_the_liberal_uturn_on_the_canadian_wheat_board_makes_no_sense
this is an infringement on free speech.
....and this principal should be reprimanded and fired.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-education-13-reasons-why-netflix-1.4089238
....and this principal should be reprimanded and fired.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-education-13-reasons-why-netflix-1.4089238
if trudeau wants a way out of this supply management fiasco - and don't fool yourself, he is not ideologically aligned with those that would uphold it - he may want to think about privatizing it, rather than abolishing it. and, he may find more support for this on the left than he thinks.
if you think the liberals are going to stand up for supply management, let's remember what happened with the wheat board:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/ndp-leader-challenges-liberals-wheat-board-qp-1.3451181
but, don't misunderstand me when i talk about privatizing it. what the conservatives did with the wheat board - sell it to the fucking saudis - is just about the worst thing that could be done to dairy. what i'm talking about is spinning it off from government into an independent body.
see, i'd rather get the government out of it, too. but, the key point that people are missing is that the supply management system is not intrinsically tied to government. if the farmers want to maintain the system, they can always organize the system on their own. this would create a cartel, but it is a situation where a cartel makes sense and a cartel should be supported. i mean, if the farmers choose a cartel, how can the state prevent it from forming?
an independently run cartel would probably be more efficient, and those efficiencies would no doubt be passed on to the consumer.
i don't want to pretend that i have the background required to organize this. i just want to get the idea across that farmers don't need the government to manage the supply for them. if they believe in the system, they can take control of it and manage the supply on their own. and, that is where my ideological leanings actually lie.
if you think the liberals are going to stand up for supply management, let's remember what happened with the wheat board:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/ndp-leader-challenges-liberals-wheat-board-qp-1.3451181
but, don't misunderstand me when i talk about privatizing it. what the conservatives did with the wheat board - sell it to the fucking saudis - is just about the worst thing that could be done to dairy. what i'm talking about is spinning it off from government into an independent body.
see, i'd rather get the government out of it, too. but, the key point that people are missing is that the supply management system is not intrinsically tied to government. if the farmers want to maintain the system, they can always organize the system on their own. this would create a cartel, but it is a situation where a cartel makes sense and a cartel should be supported. i mean, if the farmers choose a cartel, how can the state prevent it from forming?
an independently run cartel would probably be more efficient, and those efficiencies would no doubt be passed on to the consumer.
i don't want to pretend that i have the background required to organize this. i just want to get the idea across that farmers don't need the government to manage the supply for them. if they believe in the system, they can take control of it and manage the supply on their own. and, that is where my ideological leanings actually lie.
my understanding is that this operation has an extremely high success rate. the government of alberta has a lot of skeletons in it's closet regarding it's motives around public health, and it should revist this policy.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3410342/calgary-family-to-pay-600k-for-little-girls-liver-transplant-after-canadas-health-system-says-no/
http://globalnews.ca/news/3410342/calgary-family-to-pay-600k-for-little-girls-liver-transplant-after-canadas-health-system-says-no/
Thursday, April 27, 2017
something else to note on the doctor's visit, today...
my blood pressure was taken, as is normal for a physical. 118/79 is a little high for me, but pretty healthy. pulse: 62. a little weak on first glance, maybe. but, it is consistent with the amount of walking that i do (and my low cholesterol). that is, i appear to have the cardio-vascular health of a professional athlete. and, the truth is that i probably walk enough to more or less mimic the exercise routine of one. that was another two and a half hours of walking, today.
also, bmi: 19.9.
...so, it's just more evidence that i am ridiculously healthy. i'm uber-mensch. really.
but, i noticed when she was taking my blood pressure using the cuffs that it felt a little tight. i've noticed this before and asked them to be very gentle when they're doing it, because it tends to flat out hurt. i'm uber-mensch, but i'm also kind of delicate.
a flower?
anyways.
as per usual, it kind of hurt. it even left a bruise, which is now entirely healed, because uber-mensch. so, i made a mental note to make sure i'm more firm on the need to be gentle, next time.
when i got into the doctor's office, i looked down at my hand and noticed the inside of my thumb was swollen and throbbing and blue, as though cutting off the flow of blood had created some kind of backlog, which pooled the blood, making it physically looked like a giant, swollen bruise.
i asked him if he thought it was from the blood pressure cuffs being too tight (which seems to be the obvious cause), and he said it kind of made sense but he'd never seen it before, and it's kind of unbelievable that i could be that delicate, given that i'm so healthy.
maybe it's raynaud's disease, he said, which looks something like this:
he also suggested lupus, and proposed some bloodwork.
...but, i didn't see the need to come up with any other cause than the blood pressure cuffs and stuck with this story, however unlikely it may have been. it was mostly back to normal when i left, and is totally fine, now.
for, me this was actually one of those situations where you dread something happening for years and are kind of torn between being sure it will eventually happen and certain it never will....and then when it finally happens in front of you, you're kind of half excited and half mortified, and not really sure what to do.
at least i was in the doctor's office, right?
i need to be very strict about ensuring they are extra gentle, next time.
my blood pressure was taken, as is normal for a physical. 118/79 is a little high for me, but pretty healthy. pulse: 62. a little weak on first glance, maybe. but, it is consistent with the amount of walking that i do (and my low cholesterol). that is, i appear to have the cardio-vascular health of a professional athlete. and, the truth is that i probably walk enough to more or less mimic the exercise routine of one. that was another two and a half hours of walking, today.
also, bmi: 19.9.
...so, it's just more evidence that i am ridiculously healthy. i'm uber-mensch. really.
but, i noticed when she was taking my blood pressure using the cuffs that it felt a little tight. i've noticed this before and asked them to be very gentle when they're doing it, because it tends to flat out hurt. i'm uber-mensch, but i'm also kind of delicate.
a flower?
anyways.
as per usual, it kind of hurt. it even left a bruise, which is now entirely healed, because uber-mensch. so, i made a mental note to make sure i'm more firm on the need to be gentle, next time.
when i got into the doctor's office, i looked down at my hand and noticed the inside of my thumb was swollen and throbbing and blue, as though cutting off the flow of blood had created some kind of backlog, which pooled the blood, making it physically looked like a giant, swollen bruise.
i asked him if he thought it was from the blood pressure cuffs being too tight (which seems to be the obvious cause), and he said it kind of made sense but he'd never seen it before, and it's kind of unbelievable that i could be that delicate, given that i'm so healthy.
maybe it's raynaud's disease, he said, which looks something like this:
he also suggested lupus, and proposed some bloodwork.
...but, i didn't see the need to come up with any other cause than the blood pressure cuffs and stuck with this story, however unlikely it may have been. it was mostly back to normal when i left, and is totally fine, now.
for, me this was actually one of those situations where you dread something happening for years and are kind of torn between being sure it will eventually happen and certain it never will....and then when it finally happens in front of you, you're kind of half excited and half mortified, and not really sure what to do.
at least i was in the doctor's office, right?
i need to be very strict about ensuring they are extra gentle, next time.
i've been over this a few times previously, but i'll say it again: it's not that i arbitrarily think i'm more intelligent than you because i'm good at swiping picnic baskets or something.
the reality is that i consistently do absurdly well on intelligence tests. like, they had to tell me i was smart. it's not something i figured out through observation - it was tested, and the results were repeatedly demonstrable.
and, in fact, it's a curse. you don't get places in life by constantly existing on the outside, looking in. worse, you have difficulty understanding people.
consider my last government job process- and this was the last one i did, before i gave up on it. they had me write the gct2 and i end up in at least the 95th percentile on it - i say that because it's the best data i could find, but i did way, way better than the 95th percentile. it was probably more like 99th, but i can't show that. the gct2 is a basic iq test.
but, i walked into the interview, and two things happened. the first is that i scared them, because they'd never seen a score like that. one of the interviewers was convinced it was a typo - to the point where he didn't even take me seriously. how does a person respond to a situation where their interviewer thinks their iq scores are so high that they must be a typo, and then refuses to take them seriously? the second thing that happened is that i generated a sense of skepticism: "i don't think she's that smart".
well, i'm not convinced i'm that smart, either. but those fucking test scores seem to suggest i actually am. sorry.
they had me write a "situational awareness test" - and i failed it. this is workplace behaviour. i've failed it repeatedly. and, i'm fully convinced that there is a very strong connection between the fact that i get mensa-level iq test scores and can't pass a behavioural test. these are the same phenomena!
i'm actually pretty humble about it. you don't see me waving this around at people. i want to talk about issues as they are, not wave my iq scores in your face and demand you listen to me.
but, the reality is what it is. and, trust me: i have a higher iq than you do.
the reality is that i consistently do absurdly well on intelligence tests. like, they had to tell me i was smart. it's not something i figured out through observation - it was tested, and the results were repeatedly demonstrable.
and, in fact, it's a curse. you don't get places in life by constantly existing on the outside, looking in. worse, you have difficulty understanding people.
consider my last government job process- and this was the last one i did, before i gave up on it. they had me write the gct2 and i end up in at least the 95th percentile on it - i say that because it's the best data i could find, but i did way, way better than the 95th percentile. it was probably more like 99th, but i can't show that. the gct2 is a basic iq test.
but, i walked into the interview, and two things happened. the first is that i scared them, because they'd never seen a score like that. one of the interviewers was convinced it was a typo - to the point where he didn't even take me seriously. how does a person respond to a situation where their interviewer thinks their iq scores are so high that they must be a typo, and then refuses to take them seriously? the second thing that happened is that i generated a sense of skepticism: "i don't think she's that smart".
well, i'm not convinced i'm that smart, either. but those fucking test scores seem to suggest i actually am. sorry.
they had me write a "situational awareness test" - and i failed it. this is workplace behaviour. i've failed it repeatedly. and, i'm fully convinced that there is a very strong connection between the fact that i get mensa-level iq test scores and can't pass a behavioural test. these are the same phenomena!
i'm actually pretty humble about it. you don't see me waving this around at people. i want to talk about issues as they are, not wave my iq scores in your face and demand you listen to me.
but, the reality is what it is. and, trust me: i have a higher iq than you do.
their database is fucked...
i dunno. maybe the gp knows somebody in windsor.
google isn't helping.
but, the database is throwing back stuff from the uk, from oregon....and somebody in oregon is offering therapy over the phone.
that's it: that's what i need. i have google voice. it's free. one of them has to accept this...
i dunno. maybe the gp knows somebody in windsor.
google isn't helping.
but, the database is throwing back stuff from the uk, from oregon....and somebody in oregon is offering therapy over the phone.
that's it: that's what i need. i have google voice. it's free. one of them has to accept this...
there's two qualified people in detroit, as well.
...so, i wonder if i could get them to fund consultations in detroit. well, i have access to detroit - i don't have access to toronto. the only way i can get to toronto and back is to hitch, and i'd probably have to spend the night. i'm getting too old for that...
it would probably even be cheaper for me to pay the doctor out of pocket in detroit than take the bus to toronto. how many times do i need to see a doctor to get them to sign off on this?
will the ministry even accept an american doctor?
hrmmn.
i think i should ask the ministry about whether the rec is appropriate or not, first. if i can find an email for them...
...so, i wonder if i could get them to fund consultations in detroit. well, i have access to detroit - i don't have access to toronto. the only way i can get to toronto and back is to hitch, and i'd probably have to spend the night. i'm getting too old for that...
it would probably even be cheaper for me to pay the doctor out of pocket in detroit than take the bus to toronto. how many times do i need to see a doctor to get them to sign off on this?
will the ministry even accept an american doctor?
hrmmn.
i think i should ask the ministry about whether the rec is appropriate or not, first. if i can find an email for them...
i saw the urologist for the follow-up today, and he admitted that he would be unwilling to do the surgery. his reasons were not well-founded; i think i was right about religion as the cause for refusal. but, i don't think that he is the only surgeon in the city.
so, i went and printed off the forms to take to my gp tomorrow. if i can get the forms filled out and the funding approved, i can worry about a surgeon afterwards.
the procedure is covered, and i just need to get two doctors to sign off. but, there's a twist: one of them needs to be trained in accordance with the "world professional association for transgender health" standards of care. that can't be that hard, though, right? this was supposed to liberalize access...
in fact, this is a lengthy training course. two years. it's not free, either. according to the wpath site, there are a total of two doctors in ontario that have these requirements, both in toronto.
so, before they liberalized access, i had to go to a special clinic in toronto. after they liberalized access, i have to go to specialized doctors in toronto. some liberalization.
i've sent out some emails explaining that this is fundamentally harm reduction to reduce the strain on my liver. i don't know what the reaction is going to be.
yet, it seems like i still have no access, here.
i don't see any reason why a doctor needs to have this training to recommend surgery. in the end, it's my liver that suffers - and the system that eventually pays to treat the cirrhosis, because it wouldn't give me the freedom to control my own transition.
so, i went and printed off the forms to take to my gp tomorrow. if i can get the forms filled out and the funding approved, i can worry about a surgeon afterwards.
the procedure is covered, and i just need to get two doctors to sign off. but, there's a twist: one of them needs to be trained in accordance with the "world professional association for transgender health" standards of care. that can't be that hard, though, right? this was supposed to liberalize access...
in fact, this is a lengthy training course. two years. it's not free, either. according to the wpath site, there are a total of two doctors in ontario that have these requirements, both in toronto.
so, before they liberalized access, i had to go to a special clinic in toronto. after they liberalized access, i have to go to specialized doctors in toronto. some liberalization.
i've sent out some emails explaining that this is fundamentally harm reduction to reduce the strain on my liver. i don't know what the reaction is going to be.
yet, it seems like i still have no access, here.
i don't see any reason why a doctor needs to have this training to recommend surgery. in the end, it's my liver that suffers - and the system that eventually pays to treat the cirrhosis, because it wouldn't give me the freedom to control my own transition.
the united states is a unique case, because it's a hegemon with no close competitors.
i mean, you're going to have a hard time getting a fiscal conservative streak out of me anyways, because it's not there. but, i'm going to rather propose a question: should the united states abolish taxes altogether?
"but who would pay for roads and schools and..."
they'd just print it. and, in fact, if you remove the arbitrary limits enforced by the budget process, they could build far more roads and far better schools.
it's just the reality on the ground: there's no really good reason that the united states government has to tax it's citizens, or pretend that it's restricted in spending by what it can raise in tax revenues. the whole premise is just bullshit. they can do whatever they want.
that's not true in a country like canada.
but, if i was living in the united states, i wouldn't be getting upset about the debt, i'd be arguing that there's no reason to pretend the situation is zero sum.
i mean, you're going to have a hard time getting a fiscal conservative streak out of me anyways, because it's not there. but, i'm going to rather propose a question: should the united states abolish taxes altogether?
"but who would pay for roads and schools and..."
they'd just print it. and, in fact, if you remove the arbitrary limits enforced by the budget process, they could build far more roads and far better schools.
it's just the reality on the ground: there's no really good reason that the united states government has to tax it's citizens, or pretend that it's restricted in spending by what it can raise in tax revenues. the whole premise is just bullshit. they can do whatever they want.
that's not true in a country like canada.
but, if i was living in the united states, i wouldn't be getting upset about the debt, i'd be arguing that there's no reason to pretend the situation is zero sum.
listen: i'm no fan of nafta. i'd like to see the isds thrown out, specifically. and, canada has huge natural resources, some of which should not be for sale at all. we'd be better off falling back to the fta and rebuilding.
we'd be better off. they wouldn't.
so, it was the tactic that pissed me off. they were offering us a benefit in the form of a threat. great - let's take advantage of it.
...except that the whole fucking world knew he was bluffing.
so, i'll ruefully respect the president's decision to not pull out of nafta for right now.
(*snickers*)
we'd be better off. they wouldn't.
so, it was the tactic that pissed me off. they were offering us a benefit in the form of a threat. great - let's take advantage of it.
...except that the whole fucking world knew he was bluffing.
so, i'll ruefully respect the president's decision to not pull out of nafta for right now.
(*snickers*)
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
nobody in the white house cares about facts, guys.
if you want a fact based debate, you'll have to take it to a higher arbiter - and you should. but, you don't sway people like trump with facts. unfortunately, you just irritate them.
trump creates his own reality, where what is true is determined by what is useful to him and how loudly it's yelled.
it would be nice if there was some effluvient force permeating some ether that can work out fact from fiction and uphold the most honourable position, then reward whomever holds it with earthly riches. but, there isn't.
there is only a man in an office in a system that does not care what the facts are.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/04/26/trump-trudeau-readout-call_n_16261762.html
if you want a fact based debate, you'll have to take it to a higher arbiter - and you should. but, you don't sway people like trump with facts. unfortunately, you just irritate them.
trump creates his own reality, where what is true is determined by what is useful to him and how loudly it's yelled.
it would be nice if there was some effluvient force permeating some ether that can work out fact from fiction and uphold the most honourable position, then reward whomever holds it with earthly riches. but, there isn't.
there is only a man in an office in a system that does not care what the facts are.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/04/26/trump-trudeau-readout-call_n_16261762.html
i can't find this on youtube.
but, canadian trade negotiators should sit down for an hour and watch it. it's math, but you don't need any background at all to get it...
...because it's dawkins. richard dawkins uses evolutionary game theory to extrapolate upon kropotkin and argue for co-operation over competition - but it's the caveats that you have to account for that are important and that special attention should be drawn to.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/nice-guys-finish-first/
but, canadian trade negotiators should sit down for an hour and watch it. it's math, but you don't need any background at all to get it...
...because it's dawkins. richard dawkins uses evolutionary game theory to extrapolate upon kropotkin and argue for co-operation over competition - but it's the caveats that you have to account for that are important and that special attention should be drawn to.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/nice-guys-finish-first/
you have to understand the trumpian logic. it's not irrational - it's just the logic of barbarism, and we have to adjust to it.
1) mexico pushed back.
2) canada sought co-operation.
3) therefore, canada is an easier target than mexico is.
4) so, trump should ignore mexico and attack canada.
QED.
you just have to be a barbarian to actually think like that.
...and, yes, it was predictable. that's why i pleaded with them to stand up, early. but, nobody ever listens. story of my fucking life.
the mexicans did this right. we did this wrong. and, if we push back, trump will go invade the falklands, or something.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/25/1625069/-Mexico-May-Call-Trump-s-Bluff-On-NAFTA-Renegotiation
1) mexico pushed back.
2) canada sought co-operation.
3) therefore, canada is an easier target than mexico is.
4) so, trump should ignore mexico and attack canada.
QED.
you just have to be a barbarian to actually think like that.
...and, yes, it was predictable. that's why i pleaded with them to stand up, early. but, nobody ever listens. story of my fucking life.
the mexicans did this right. we did this wrong. and, if we push back, trump will go invade the falklands, or something.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/25/1625069/-Mexico-May-Call-Trump-s-Bluff-On-NAFTA-Renegotiation
“Why would I call China a currency manipulator when they are working
with us on the North Korean problem? We will see what happens!” - donald trump
the question of whether his accusation is true or not does not seem to matter much, apparently. the value of an accusation lies in it's ability to extract a rent from the accused.
could the president be denied standing in court?
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/donald-trump-canada-tariffs
the question of whether his accusation is true or not does not seem to matter much, apparently. the value of an accusation lies in it's ability to extract a rent from the accused.
could the president be denied standing in court?
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/donald-trump-canada-tariffs
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
donald trump is a bully. and, like all bullies, he seeks out easy targets. canada is the easiest target he can find.
it's not more complicated than that.
i understand that the trudeau government's instincts are to play buddy-buddy, point to the fact that we're allies under norad and nato and hope there's a rational human being in there somewhere. this is what all canadians really want. but, for at least the next four years, this is the wrong approach.
when a bully targets you because you're easy meat, you have no choice but to stand up for yourself.
they should call his bluff and make a fool out of him, and do it as internationally as possible. humiliate him on the world stage. teach him a lesson.
that's how you deal with bullies.
it's not more complicated than that.
i understand that the trudeau government's instincts are to play buddy-buddy, point to the fact that we're allies under norad and nato and hope there's a rational human being in there somewhere. this is what all canadians really want. but, for at least the next four years, this is the wrong approach.
when a bully targets you because you're easy meat, you have no choice but to stand up for yourself.
they should call his bluff and make a fool out of him, and do it as internationally as possible. humiliate him on the world stage. teach him a lesson.
that's how you deal with bullies.
i've been clear about my views on this.
1) trump is going to face domestic opposition to renegotiation. the congress will not give him what he wants.
2) therefore, he's bluffing.
3) i never liked nafta much, anyways. plus, we have the fta to fall back on.
4) let's call him on his bluff by offering to pull out of nafta. we don't have a congress that can block us. we can do this in 90 days. we can give him what he wants, if he wants it. but, of course, it's going to cost him.
5) oh, wait. he likes nafta after all?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-canada-trade-options-analysis-idUSKBN17R2TL
1) trump is going to face domestic opposition to renegotiation. the congress will not give him what he wants.
2) therefore, he's bluffing.
3) i never liked nafta much, anyways. plus, we have the fta to fall back on.
4) let's call him on his bluff by offering to pull out of nafta. we don't have a congress that can block us. we can do this in 90 days. we can give him what he wants, if he wants it. but, of course, it's going to cost him.
5) oh, wait. he likes nafta after all?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-canada-trade-options-analysis-idUSKBN17R2TL
i guess the parties have been reading the polls.
this is a good idea. it's not expensive; it actually saves money.
the provincial liberals want it done nationally, but this is one of the things that trudeau has walked away from. but, listen: if this election ends up as a fight between the ndp and the liberals over who can be more populist, we all win in the long run.
....just so long as we don't split the vote, which is going to have to be the factor that actually motivates me in lining up behind one or the other, in the end. wynne has a huge hole to climb out of, and if she doesn't make some progress soon, we're all going to have to cut the line to keep the tories out - and i'm not going to pretend this isn't so.
(my riding is not in play)
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/04/24/ndp-liberal-battle-for-hearts-and-votes-of-progressives-cohn.html
this is a good idea. it's not expensive; it actually saves money.
the provincial liberals want it done nationally, but this is one of the things that trudeau has walked away from. but, listen: if this election ends up as a fight between the ndp and the liberals over who can be more populist, we all win in the long run.
....just so long as we don't split the vote, which is going to have to be the factor that actually motivates me in lining up behind one or the other, in the end. wynne has a huge hole to climb out of, and if she doesn't make some progress soon, we're all going to have to cut the line to keep the tories out - and i'm not going to pretend this isn't so.
(my riding is not in play)
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/04/24/ndp-liberal-battle-for-hearts-and-votes-of-progressives-cohn.html
they were talking about this before.
apparently, studies done in the past suggest that the ubi doesn't provide a disincentive towards working. i'd guess this is probably due to social coercion.
i would personally not be subject to such coercion. but, i'm unemployable, anyways - and i think that's the more key point. it's going to be a hard sell to certain groups, but if you want to do this experiment, you have to separate out the noise. i mean, call me a loser if you want. or call me an artist with an unmarketable product. that's not so important, in context; what's more important is that nobody is going to hire me any time soon, anyways, so the ubi isn't keeping me out of the work force.
the point is that you have to scratch people like me off the list. let's hope they actually do it, so i'm not skewing the results. for me, the whole thing really reduces to not needing to go through the hassle of getting my odsp renewed again - and also to a bit of a boost in income. how much?
to ease the pain on the calvinists, which are the real opposition here (even when they don't realize they're calvinists...), i want to draw attention to the numbers they're floating around. i'm on the ontario disability support, which is $1128/month - and i fully acknowledge that this feels like it's generous in the part of the province i live in (although, the caveat is that i moved across the province to allow for it). i have plenty of spending money, as those that follow me can see clearly. that works out to $13,536/year. this is before tax credits, but i'm going to assume that they will remain (because nobody has suggested otherwise). i wouldn't push back on swapping the trillium out for a ubi, though.
the article puts the number of $16,989 down, which is $1415.75/month. so, i would get a boost in benefits of $287.75/month - substantial, to say the least. that's a 26% boost, and i'm not even paying union dues. if i was moving from welfare to the ubi it would be more like a 215% boost in income. and, if i renewed my disability, i may be potentially eligible for another $500/month, making the total increase close to 70%.
but, calvinists should calm down.
at $16,989/year, that would be equivalent to about $8.17/hour, if the person worked 40 hours a week. the minimum wage is about $11.50, and living wage advocates in toronto are pushing for something closer to $20. so, there remain plenty of incentives to work, depending on where you live. in toronto or ottawa, this would merely make the desperately poor a little less desperate. here in windsor, it may be harder to make that argument, but the economy is terrible, anyways. if i stay on disability and this goes through, i could conceivably buy property here with $23,000/year. that's less than i made at microsoft, but pretty close to what i made working tech support for hp - in ottawa, in 2006. it's almost minimum wage, now.
so, the numbers seem to be crunched for toronto and that may be some insular thinking. this is unsustainable if you don't adjust for living costs, locally. if you try and find some middle point, i'll get twice what i need and somebody in a wheelchair in toronto will get half what she needs. it's a big province, with big disparities. and, this is arguably at the root of the cause in the first place - they aren't doing this, and it's what they need to do.
but, it's good to see some work moving in this direction.
https://news.ontario.ca/mcss/en/2017/04/ontarios-basic-income-pilot.html
apparently, studies done in the past suggest that the ubi doesn't provide a disincentive towards working. i'd guess this is probably due to social coercion.
i would personally not be subject to such coercion. but, i'm unemployable, anyways - and i think that's the more key point. it's going to be a hard sell to certain groups, but if you want to do this experiment, you have to separate out the noise. i mean, call me a loser if you want. or call me an artist with an unmarketable product. that's not so important, in context; what's more important is that nobody is going to hire me any time soon, anyways, so the ubi isn't keeping me out of the work force.
the point is that you have to scratch people like me off the list. let's hope they actually do it, so i'm not skewing the results. for me, the whole thing really reduces to not needing to go through the hassle of getting my odsp renewed again - and also to a bit of a boost in income. how much?
to ease the pain on the calvinists, which are the real opposition here (even when they don't realize they're calvinists...), i want to draw attention to the numbers they're floating around. i'm on the ontario disability support, which is $1128/month - and i fully acknowledge that this feels like it's generous in the part of the province i live in (although, the caveat is that i moved across the province to allow for it). i have plenty of spending money, as those that follow me can see clearly. that works out to $13,536/year. this is before tax credits, but i'm going to assume that they will remain (because nobody has suggested otherwise). i wouldn't push back on swapping the trillium out for a ubi, though.
the article puts the number of $16,989 down, which is $1415.75/month. so, i would get a boost in benefits of $287.75/month - substantial, to say the least. that's a 26% boost, and i'm not even paying union dues. if i was moving from welfare to the ubi it would be more like a 215% boost in income. and, if i renewed my disability, i may be potentially eligible for another $500/month, making the total increase close to 70%.
but, calvinists should calm down.
at $16,989/year, that would be equivalent to about $8.17/hour, if the person worked 40 hours a week. the minimum wage is about $11.50, and living wage advocates in toronto are pushing for something closer to $20. so, there remain plenty of incentives to work, depending on where you live. in toronto or ottawa, this would merely make the desperately poor a little less desperate. here in windsor, it may be harder to make that argument, but the economy is terrible, anyways. if i stay on disability and this goes through, i could conceivably buy property here with $23,000/year. that's less than i made at microsoft, but pretty close to what i made working tech support for hp - in ottawa, in 2006. it's almost minimum wage, now.
so, the numbers seem to be crunched for toronto and that may be some insular thinking. this is unsustainable if you don't adjust for living costs, locally. if you try and find some middle point, i'll get twice what i need and somebody in a wheelchair in toronto will get half what she needs. it's a big province, with big disparities. and, this is arguably at the root of the cause in the first place - they aren't doing this, and it's what they need to do.
but, it's good to see some work moving in this direction.
https://news.ontario.ca/mcss/en/2017/04/ontarios-basic-income-pilot.html
"Canada is supposed to be fair for everybody." - justin trudeau
no, don't misunderstand - i'm not being snide. it's almost precocious, in a way - in a sort of childlike naivete. but, i'm not pushing back - this is what you want to hear from a dauphin growing into his role. you want to almost be proud of him, or something.
he's right. canada is supposed to be fair for everybody. and, we should applaud the prime minister for upholding the social contract and passing legislation that makes it a little bit more fair, when he can.
no, don't misunderstand - i'm not being snide. it's almost precocious, in a way - in a sort of childlike naivete. but, i'm not pushing back - this is what you want to hear from a dauphin growing into his role. you want to almost be proud of him, or something.
he's right. canada is supposed to be fair for everybody. and, we should applaud the prime minister for upholding the social contract and passing legislation that makes it a little bit more fair, when he can.
Monday, April 24, 2017
i talk a lot shit, don't i? do i know what i'm talking about?
i'm putting this aside for my own records.
...but i have an honours degree in mathematics, with a surplus of credits at the fourth/fifth year that would be enough for a masters degree, if i were to pay for it. this is why i focused on a second degree in computer science rather than a master's degree in math - i already had one, i just never bought it. it didn't get me anywhere, and wasn't going to get me anywhere i wanted.
i stopped the computer science degree a credit short for the simple reason that i didn't want to do it anymore. i did not formally switch into law, but i completed about two years worth of law credits before i abandoned this as well. i could get a minor in either subject if i wanted it.
i spent a year in physics, as well, and you can see that i had an interest in it.
i have no meaningful formal education in history, anthropology, music or political science. this is dabbling and outside reading.
so, when i start talking about thermodynamics or statistics or whatever else, i'm not just repeating things i learned at wiki. i went to school for an absurd amount of time, and took a very technical workload. it's actually the "softer" subjects that i'm not trained in.
i promote skepticism. but, you can usually take me seriously when i get technical, and i will always caveat when i'm being unconventional.
all courses taken at carleton university in ottawa, canada.
mathematics/statistics
*MATH 1002 - Calculus and Introductory Analysis I (full credit)
*MATH 1102 - Algebra I (full credit)
MATH 1805 - Discrete Structures
*MATH 2000 - Calculus and Introductory Analysis II (full credit)
*MATH 2100 - Algebra II (full credit)
*MATH 2454 - Ordinary Differential Equations
*STAT 2655 - Introduction to Probability with Applications
*STAT 2559 - Basics of Statistical Modeling
*MATH 3001 - Real Analysis
*MATH 3002 - Calculus of Differential Forms and Geometry
*MATH 3008 - Ordinary Differential Equations
*MATH 3057 - Functions of a Complex Variable
*MATH 3106 - Introduction to Group Theory
*MATH 3158 - Rings and Fields
*MATH 3256 - Plane Projective Geometry
*STAT 3505 - Linear Regression and Design of Experiments
MATH 3705 - Mathematical Methods I
MATH 3801 - Linear Programming
MATH 3804 - Design and Analysis of Algorithms I
MATH 3806 - Numerical Analysis
*MATH 3855 - Discrete Structures and Applications
*MATH 4002 - Fourier Analysis
*MATH 4207 - Foundations of Geometry
*MATH 4700 - Partial Differential Equations
*MATH 4802 - Introduction to Mathematical Logic
*MATH 4803 - Computable Functions
*MATH 4805 - Theory of Automata
*MATH 4806 - Numerical Linear Algebra
*MATH 4807 - Game Theory
*MATH 4808 - Graph Theory and Algorithms
*MATH 4809 - Mathematical Cryptography
*MATH 4822 - Wavelets and Digital Signal Processing
*MATH 4905 - Honours Project
*MATH 4907 - Galois Theory
* - enrollment limited to honours students.
total math credits: 19 credits, or 38 courses.
result: official b. math. unofficial m. math.
computer science
*COMP 1402 - Introduction to Systems Programming
*COMP 1405 - Introduction to Object-Oriented Programming
*COMP 1406 - Design and Implementation of Computer Applications
COMP 1805 - Discrete Structures
COMP 2003 - Computer Organization
*COMP 2402 - Abstract Data Types and Algorithms
*COMP 2404 - Programming in C++
COMP 2805 - Introduction to Theory of Computation
COMP 3000 - Operating Systems
COMP 3005 - Database Management Systems
COMP 3007 - Programming Paradigms
COMP 3804 - Design and Analysis of Algorithms I
*COMP 3805 - Discrete Structures and Applications
COMP 3806 - Numerical Analysis
*COMP 4803 - Computable Functions
*COMP 4805 - Theory of Automata
*COMP 4806 - Numerical Linear Algebra
* - enrollment limited to honours students.
total computer science credits: 8.5 credits, or 17 courses.
result: incomplete degree (completed 8 of 9 required credits, and 19 of 20 overall).
law
LAWS 1000 - Introduction to Legal Studies (full credit)
LAWS 2201 - Persons and Property (Private Law I)
LAWS 2202 - Obligations (Tort law) (Private Law II)
LAWS 2301 - Criminal Justice System (Criminal Law I)
LAWS 2302 - Criminal Law (Criminal Law II)
LAWS 2501 - Law, State & Constitution (Public Law I)
LAWS 2502 - Law, State & Citizen (Public Law II)
LAWS 3500 - Constitutional Law
LAWS 3504 - Law and Aboriginal Peoples
total credits: 5 credits, or 10 courses.
result: undeclared minor.
physics
PHYS 1001 - Foundations of Physics I
PHYS 1002 - Foundations of Physics II
PHYS 2604 - Modern Physics
PHYS 3807 - Mathematical Physics I
PHYS 3808 - Mathematical Physics II
PHYS 4203 - Physical Applications of Fourier Analysis
total credits: 3 credits, or 6 courses.
result: this is a credit short of a minor.
breadth
BIOL 1003 - Introductory Biology I
BIOL 1004 - Introductory Biology II
PSYC 1001 - Introduction to Psychology I
PSYC 1002 - Introduction to Psychology II
ENGL 2107 - Science Fiction
ENGL 2906 - Culture and Society
MUSI 3603 - Computer Music Techniques
MUSI 3604 - Computer Music Projects
CLCV 1002 - Survey of Greek Civilization
HIST 3902 - The Late Roman Empire (Byzantine History, 395-1453)
ECON 1000 - Introduction to Economics (full credit)
ECON 4004 - Operations Research I
total credits: 6.5 credits, or 13 courses.
result: this is breadth outside of the four areas i focused on, remember: 1 credit bio, 1 credit psych, 1 credit english, 1 credit music, 1 credit history and 1.5 credits in economics (ECON 4004 was also listed as MATH 3801).
OAC courses
SPHOA - Physics
MCAOA - Calculus
ENGOA - English
DCCOA - Computer Science
MFNOA - Finite Mathematics
MAGOA - Algebra & Geometry
SBIOA - Biology
SCHOA - Chemistry
total credits: 8 credits, or 8 courses.
result: these are pre-university courses that were previously offered at the ontario high school level. i believe i was in the last year for OAC.
i'm putting this aside for my own records.
...but i have an honours degree in mathematics, with a surplus of credits at the fourth/fifth year that would be enough for a masters degree, if i were to pay for it. this is why i focused on a second degree in computer science rather than a master's degree in math - i already had one, i just never bought it. it didn't get me anywhere, and wasn't going to get me anywhere i wanted.
i stopped the computer science degree a credit short for the simple reason that i didn't want to do it anymore. i did not formally switch into law, but i completed about two years worth of law credits before i abandoned this as well. i could get a minor in either subject if i wanted it.
i spent a year in physics, as well, and you can see that i had an interest in it.
i have no meaningful formal education in history, anthropology, music or political science. this is dabbling and outside reading.
so, when i start talking about thermodynamics or statistics or whatever else, i'm not just repeating things i learned at wiki. i went to school for an absurd amount of time, and took a very technical workload. it's actually the "softer" subjects that i'm not trained in.
i promote skepticism. but, you can usually take me seriously when i get technical, and i will always caveat when i'm being unconventional.
all courses taken at carleton university in ottawa, canada.
mathematics/statistics
*MATH 1002 - Calculus and Introductory Analysis I (full credit)
*MATH 1102 - Algebra I (full credit)
MATH 1805 - Discrete Structures
*MATH 2000 - Calculus and Introductory Analysis II (full credit)
*MATH 2100 - Algebra II (full credit)
*MATH 2454 - Ordinary Differential Equations
*STAT 2655 - Introduction to Probability with Applications
*STAT 2559 - Basics of Statistical Modeling
*MATH 3001 - Real Analysis
*MATH 3002 - Calculus of Differential Forms and Geometry
*MATH 3008 - Ordinary Differential Equations
*MATH 3057 - Functions of a Complex Variable
*MATH 3106 - Introduction to Group Theory
*MATH 3158 - Rings and Fields
*MATH 3256 - Plane Projective Geometry
*STAT 3505 - Linear Regression and Design of Experiments
MATH 3705 - Mathematical Methods I
MATH 3801 - Linear Programming
MATH 3804 - Design and Analysis of Algorithms I
MATH 3806 - Numerical Analysis
*MATH 3855 - Discrete Structures and Applications
*MATH 4002 - Fourier Analysis
*MATH 4207 - Foundations of Geometry
*MATH 4700 - Partial Differential Equations
*MATH 4802 - Introduction to Mathematical Logic
*MATH 4803 - Computable Functions
*MATH 4805 - Theory of Automata
*MATH 4806 - Numerical Linear Algebra
*MATH 4807 - Game Theory
*MATH 4808 - Graph Theory and Algorithms
*MATH 4809 - Mathematical Cryptography
*MATH 4822 - Wavelets and Digital Signal Processing
*MATH 4905 - Honours Project
*MATH 4907 - Galois Theory
* - enrollment limited to honours students.
total math credits: 19 credits, or 38 courses.
result: official b. math. unofficial m. math.
computer science
*COMP 1402 - Introduction to Systems Programming
*COMP 1405 - Introduction to Object-Oriented Programming
*COMP 1406 - Design and Implementation of Computer Applications
COMP 1805 - Discrete Structures
COMP 2003 - Computer Organization
*COMP 2402 - Abstract Data Types and Algorithms
*COMP 2404 - Programming in C++
COMP 2805 - Introduction to Theory of Computation
COMP 3000 - Operating Systems
COMP 3005 - Database Management Systems
COMP 3007 - Programming Paradigms
COMP 3804 - Design and Analysis of Algorithms I
*COMP 3805 - Discrete Structures and Applications
COMP 3806 - Numerical Analysis
*COMP 4803 - Computable Functions
*COMP 4805 - Theory of Automata
*COMP 4806 - Numerical Linear Algebra
* - enrollment limited to honours students.
total computer science credits: 8.5 credits, or 17 courses.
result: incomplete degree (completed 8 of 9 required credits, and 19 of 20 overall).
law
LAWS 1000 - Introduction to Legal Studies (full credit)
LAWS 2201 - Persons and Property (Private Law I)
LAWS 2202 - Obligations (Tort law) (Private Law II)
LAWS 2301 - Criminal Justice System (Criminal Law I)
LAWS 2302 - Criminal Law (Criminal Law II)
LAWS 2501 - Law, State & Constitution (Public Law I)
LAWS 2502 - Law, State & Citizen (Public Law II)
LAWS 3500 - Constitutional Law
LAWS 3504 - Law and Aboriginal Peoples
total credits: 5 credits, or 10 courses.
result: undeclared minor.
physics
PHYS 1001 - Foundations of Physics I
PHYS 1002 - Foundations of Physics II
PHYS 2604 - Modern Physics
PHYS 3807 - Mathematical Physics I
PHYS 3808 - Mathematical Physics II
PHYS 4203 - Physical Applications of Fourier Analysis
total credits: 3 credits, or 6 courses.
result: this is a credit short of a minor.
breadth
BIOL 1003 - Introductory Biology I
BIOL 1004 - Introductory Biology II
PSYC 1001 - Introduction to Psychology I
PSYC 1002 - Introduction to Psychology II
ENGL 2107 - Science Fiction
ENGL 2906 - Culture and Society
MUSI 3603 - Computer Music Techniques
MUSI 3604 - Computer Music Projects
CLCV 1002 - Survey of Greek Civilization
HIST 3902 - The Late Roman Empire (Byzantine History, 395-1453)
ECON 1000 - Introduction to Economics (full credit)
ECON 4004 - Operations Research I
total credits: 6.5 credits, or 13 courses.
result: this is breadth outside of the four areas i focused on, remember: 1 credit bio, 1 credit psych, 1 credit english, 1 credit music, 1 credit history and 1.5 credits in economics (ECON 4004 was also listed as MATH 3801).
OAC courses
SPHOA - Physics
MCAOA - Calculus
ENGOA - English
DCCOA - Computer Science
MFNOA - Finite Mathematics
MAGOA - Algebra & Geometry
SBIOA - Biology
SCHOA - Chemistry
total credits: 8 credits, or 8 courses.
result: these are pre-university courses that were previously offered at the ontario high school level. i believe i was in the last year for OAC.
what i want to say about this is that it's as clear as day that canadians want an ndp government.
it's really depressing what happened last time around with mulcair. but, the electorate remains in the same place that it was in 2015. all the ndp needs to give trudeau a run is somebody willing to stand up and commit.
and, we won't make our votes contingent on immigration, either. it's clear what we want. but we won't vote against our broader interests to get it.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadians-oppose-policies-that-would-align-canada-with-those-of-donald-trump-poll
it's really depressing what happened last time around with mulcair. but, the electorate remains in the same place that it was in 2015. all the ndp needs to give trudeau a run is somebody willing to stand up and commit.
and, we won't make our votes contingent on immigration, either. it's clear what we want. but we won't vote against our broader interests to get it.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadians-oppose-policies-that-would-align-canada-with-those-of-donald-trump-poll
once again: it is in no way clear what trump is trying to accomplish in north korea.
he surely doesn't think he can bully them into giving up their nuclear weapons. why does he think they have nuclear weapons in the first place?
is he trying to look tough in front of the chinese?
there isn't a clear objective, here.
...and so i'm once again left to conclude that this is a made-for-tv movie.
get some popcorn, i guess.
and, we'll have to hope that the north koreans behave rationally in the face of american absurdity.
who is the rogue state, here?
he surely doesn't think he can bully them into giving up their nuclear weapons. why does he think they have nuclear weapons in the first place?
is he trying to look tough in front of the chinese?
there isn't a clear objective, here.
...and so i'm once again left to conclude that this is a made-for-tv movie.
get some popcorn, i guess.
and, we'll have to hope that the north koreans behave rationally in the face of american absurdity.
who is the rogue state, here?
i mean, maybe i should remind you that i was an anti-globalization protestor in the late 90s. remember the battle of seattle? this is where i was politicized.
i've been fighting free trade and globalization for twenty years. it's at the very core of my politics.
and, you think the neo-liberals are any less racist? different types of racism, maybe. not less racist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElUA25rgyeg
i've been fighting free trade and globalization for twenty years. it's at the very core of my politics.
and, you think the neo-liberals are any less racist? different types of racism, maybe. not less racist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElUA25rgyeg
Historically, populist movements have thrived in regions of economic
distress or among demographic groups that are enduring hardship. This
appears to be the case among France’s youth, especially in the deindustrialized northeast. According to a recent Ifop poll, 39 per cent of 18-to-24-year-olds support the FN. Mr. Macron’s centrists attract only 21 per cent of the youth vote, and Mr. Fillon’s conservatives pull in just 9 per cent. Ensuring that young people come out in force is crucial for Ms. Le Pen’s electoral success.
the differences are just exaggerated, here.
- clinton may have worked for bankers, but there was some reason to think she'd push back a little. macron is a banker. full stop. pick your cliche; let's go with foxes and hen houses, although hands in the cookie jar works, too. that makes macron far worse.
- you couldn't take a word trump said seriously. le pen is clearly not the fool that trump is, and she comes from a lineage with a history of standing up for people. her threats are believable.
again: it's lesser evil. they're both terrible. but..
i said during the last election in the states that i agreed with clinton more than i agreed with trump about 53% of the time. that means i agreed with trump over clinton about 47% of the time. so, it was hardly a ringing endorsement, right?
what i'm saying here is that the situation is flipped - because macron is that much worse than clinton, and le pen is that much better than trump, the situation flips over: i end up agreeing with le pen over macron 53% of the time.
not a ringing endorsement. lesser evilism. and with the caveat of understood russian ventriloquists snaking around in the background.
it's more of a brutal rejection of macron. and, what i'm getting at is that my logic might end up replicated fairly widely.
- clinton may have worked for bankers, but there was some reason to think she'd push back a little. macron is a banker. full stop. pick your cliche; let's go with foxes and hen houses, although hands in the cookie jar works, too. that makes macron far worse.
- you couldn't take a word trump said seriously. le pen is clearly not the fool that trump is, and she comes from a lineage with a history of standing up for people. her threats are believable.
again: it's lesser evil. they're both terrible. but..
i said during the last election in the states that i agreed with clinton more than i agreed with trump about 53% of the time. that means i agreed with trump over clinton about 47% of the time. so, it was hardly a ringing endorsement, right?
what i'm saying here is that the situation is flipped - because macron is that much worse than clinton, and le pen is that much better than trump, the situation flips over: i end up agreeing with le pen over macron 53% of the time.
not a ringing endorsement. lesser evilism. and with the caveat of understood russian ventriloquists snaking around in the background.
it's more of a brutal rejection of macron. and, what i'm getting at is that my logic might end up replicated fairly widely.
again: i would have rather seen a real leftist candidate win.
but, le pen has the credibility factor that trump never did. i said over and over again that if i could actually believe trump, i'd endorse him. i never did. but, i believe le pen.
....and, at the end of the day, if i have to choose between a quasi-racist working class candidate and a crypto-racist investor class candidate....well, that isn't actually a choice.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/marine-le-pen-macron-fillion-french-elections-who-will-win-a7600206.html
but, le pen has the credibility factor that trump never did. i said over and over again that if i could actually believe trump, i'd endorse him. i never did. but, i believe le pen.
....and, at the end of the day, if i have to choose between a quasi-racist working class candidate and a crypto-racist investor class candidate....well, that isn't actually a choice.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/marine-le-pen-macron-fillion-french-elections-who-will-win-a7600206.html
if le pen wants to win this, or at least make the vote rigging obvious enough that it cannot be reasonably denied, she needs to make the election a referendum on neo-liberalism and german austerity. that means that she needs to aggressively frame the issue on those terms.
if she frames macron as an out of touch, elitist banker working solely in the interests of the parasitic investor class, she has a chance - because it is true, and because she can credibly claim to protect the welfare state and general interests of the french working class.
if she makes the election about "security" or "terrorism", she will lose. she should avoid this.
and, no jews.
no jews.
she should embrace the very narrative that the establishment wants to use against her, and turn it around on them.
i want to be clear that there isn't a good choice here. but, le pen will probably do less long term damage to the french economy than macron will. this is a lesser evil calculation. if you look into it a little more closely, perhaps you may be surprised to realize you agree with me.
if she frames macron as an out of touch, elitist banker working solely in the interests of the parasitic investor class, she has a chance - because it is true, and because she can credibly claim to protect the welfare state and general interests of the french working class.
if she makes the election about "security" or "terrorism", she will lose. she should avoid this.
and, no jews.
no jews.
she should embrace the very narrative that the establishment wants to use against her, and turn it around on them.
i want to be clear that there isn't a good choice here. but, le pen will probably do less long term damage to the french economy than macron will. this is a lesser evil calculation. if you look into it a little more closely, perhaps you may be surprised to realize you agree with me.
when le pen talks about saving french civilization, she may have a point - because macron is going to sell off the country to the highest bidder, while pushing down crushing austerity from the banks. all of her rhetoric makes far more sense when directed at her immediate opponent, because all of a sudden it's actually true.
how much would disney pay for the eiffel tower, anyways? it's ok - it'll trickle down.
macron is a far greater threat to french civilization than islamic terrorism ever will be.
so, this is more dangerous than you think. i probably wouldn't vote at all, because...i mean, you can vote for the banks or the kremlin. fuck that. the banks are in some way better than the kremlin, right? good luck writing that essay.
the reality is that if the average french voter is to be expected to vote on self-interest, it's not at all clear that macron is the preferable option.
how much would disney pay for the eiffel tower, anyways? it's ok - it'll trickle down.
macron is a far greater threat to french civilization than islamic terrorism ever will be.
so, this is more dangerous than you think. i probably wouldn't vote at all, because...i mean, you can vote for the banks or the kremlin. fuck that. the banks are in some way better than the kremlin, right? good luck writing that essay.
the reality is that if the average french voter is to be expected to vote on self-interest, it's not at all clear that macron is the preferable option.
but, jfk was a misogynistic, racist, mentally unstable, right-wing war criminal. he reflects american "liberalism" fairly well - in the sense that american "liberalism" is what they call conservatism everywhere else in the world. but, i expect far better from the french than to look up to an american psychopath from midway into the last century.
the worst part about the jfk assassination is that it prevented him from being tried at the hague.
the left split the vote. melenchon's numbers came up a little at the end, but not enough. it's hard to understand why you'd vote for hamon when you know he's trailing melenchon by over 10%, and you have a legitimate chance at winning an election. but, it's hardly the first time this has happened, either. it's just irrational behaviour.
if the french elite want to make this about the establishment versus the people, which probably isn't even accurate because on aggregate le pen probably doesn't represent the people any more than macron does, they should not be surprised when people react poorly to the messaging. but, that's exactly what you're going to see - every kind of banker is going to line up behind this guy and expect that voters follow their lead.
le pen is a puppet of the kremlin. she can't win. but, the french have clearly lost.
the worst part about the jfk assassination is that it prevented him from being tried at the hague.
the left split the vote. melenchon's numbers came up a little at the end, but not enough. it's hard to understand why you'd vote for hamon when you know he's trailing melenchon by over 10%, and you have a legitimate chance at winning an election. but, it's hardly the first time this has happened, either. it's just irrational behaviour.
if the french elite want to make this about the establishment versus the people, which probably isn't even accurate because on aggregate le pen probably doesn't represent the people any more than macron does, they should not be surprised when people react poorly to the messaging. but, that's exactly what you're going to see - every kind of banker is going to line up behind this guy and expect that voters follow their lead.
le pen is a puppet of the kremlin. she can't win. but, the french have clearly lost.
Sunday, April 23, 2017
i still haven't seen any actual results. listen: this is a really hard math problem. it's not your average two candidate race. two-three percentage points is a reasonable margin of error for this kind of problem.
you really should not have a lot of faith in the algorithm.
i mean, it could be right, anyways, but you should wait before you move on.
....but, i'm starting to see the angle they're using.
they take a guy and give him every status quo position that there is, but assign him a new party name. and, voila: the status quo is a historic change.
most people are not dumb enough to fall for this and will in the end just not vote. i don't expect that they'll allow le pen to win. so, they're left with lingering resentment and the same basically unstable situation.
five years of macron pushing the same policies that created le pen will just make it that much harder to keep her out of power, the next time.
you really should not have a lot of faith in the algorithm.
i mean, it could be right, anyways, but you should wait before you move on.
....but, i'm starting to see the angle they're using.
they take a guy and give him every status quo position that there is, but assign him a new party name. and, voila: the status quo is a historic change.
most people are not dumb enough to fall for this and will in the end just not vote. i don't expect that they'll allow le pen to win. so, they're left with lingering resentment and the same basically unstable situation.
five years of macron pushing the same policies that created le pen will just make it that much harder to keep her out of power, the next time.
whether this is true or not, it is the reason that the americans won't/can't provide the rebels with air support.
in a doomsday scenario, the americans would no doubt win. but, they'd have to eat a dozen f-*s and swallow a huge amount of pride in the process.
the rebels were supposed to take out the sam sites from the ground, first, to allow for massive strikes - but they couldn't do it.
as an aside: the day that israel can no longer assert air superiority over the broader levant is the day that the balance of power in the region shifts. this was always the fear, here: that syria is going to emerge from this much more powerful and much more assertive than they were at the start.
they should have let assad step down peacefully when he wanted to, years ago. and, the architects of this failed war in syria should be sent to the hague.
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201703171051691543-israeli-plane-downed-over-syria-analysis/
in a doomsday scenario, the americans would no doubt win. but, they'd have to eat a dozen f-*s and swallow a huge amount of pride in the process.
the rebels were supposed to take out the sam sites from the ground, first, to allow for massive strikes - but they couldn't do it.
as an aside: the day that israel can no longer assert air superiority over the broader levant is the day that the balance of power in the region shifts. this was always the fear, here: that syria is going to emerge from this much more powerful and much more assertive than they were at the start.
they should have let assad step down peacefully when he wanted to, years ago. and, the architects of this failed war in syria should be sent to the hague.
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201703171051691543-israeli-plane-downed-over-syria-analysis/
considering that belarus is....
why does belarus exist, anyways? it was basically some despot taking advantage of the collapse of the soviet union, to turn a russian province into a country. it's not a baltic state, even though it was a part of lithuania. you could argue it should be in lithuania, or it should be in poland, or it should be in russia - or even that it should be in ukraine. you could argue it should be split up. but, it's not actually really a thing.
belarus should really not exist.
as it is, it's this kind of client state of the russians. people call putin a dictator, and it's kind of an insult to real dictators; lukashenko is a legit dictator. the guy dresses like fucking hitler. he's like the kim of europe.
...says the guy with the moustache that wears military costumes to work.
anyways.
the russians could solve all their problems if they just annexed belarus. and, i mean, who is going to really push back against this? it's basically a formality.
the reason this would work out so well for them is because of the little enclave of land they have there between lithuania and poland, called the kaliningrad enclave. to clarify the point:
the distance from belarus to kaliningrad can't be more than 50 km. and, they could probably even just buy a corridor of land along the border between lithuania and poland.
there's no reason for all these gymnastics. but, i guess russians like gymnastics, right...
http://www.russia-direct.org/sites/default/files/field/image/Russia-Europe-gas.jpg
why does belarus exist, anyways? it was basically some despot taking advantage of the collapse of the soviet union, to turn a russian province into a country. it's not a baltic state, even though it was a part of lithuania. you could argue it should be in lithuania, or it should be in poland, or it should be in russia - or even that it should be in ukraine. you could argue it should be split up. but, it's not actually really a thing.
belarus should really not exist.
as it is, it's this kind of client state of the russians. people call putin a dictator, and it's kind of an insult to real dictators; lukashenko is a legit dictator. the guy dresses like fucking hitler. he's like the kim of europe.
...says the guy with the moustache that wears military costumes to work.
anyways.
the russians could solve all their problems if they just annexed belarus. and, i mean, who is going to really push back against this? it's basically a formality.
the reason this would work out so well for them is because of the little enclave of land they have there between lithuania and poland, called the kaliningrad enclave. to clarify the point:
the distance from belarus to kaliningrad can't be more than 50 km. and, they could probably even just buy a corridor of land along the border between lithuania and poland.
there's no reason for all these gymnastics. but, i guess russians like gymnastics, right...
http://www.russia-direct.org/sites/default/files/field/image/Russia-Europe-gas.jpg
so, the free market fundamentalists claim that supply management leads to higher prices, whereas the farmers that support it claim it leads to lower prices. which is it?
neither. sometimes, it inflates the price; sometimes, it leads to lower prices than the market would imply. what it actually produces is stability.
now, let me tell you - as a poor person on a fixed income, that stability is what i actually want. i know what the price of eggs is, so i can budget for it; i never have to worry that a price spike is going to screw me over for the month. that stability is worth far more to me than the opportunity to get a good deal in march - if it means i'll get fucked in may, as i no doubt will.
it's funny who it is that seems to be concerned about the poor on this issue, isn't it? they're not your usual anti-poverty activists. in fact, they're usually apologists for big businesses - like factory farms.
regardless, it's not like dairy prices are the only factor creating poverty - or even a measurable factor, really. i promise you that i'm not losing $300/year over dairy, but i am getting $375/yr back on gst, and pretty much the only taxable items i buy are doritos and dr. pepper. it's crazy to take it out of context, like that.
so, it is true that supply management shifts the subsidies from government to consumer, but it's not like the government doesn't further compensate on top of it. further, is it not more fair to make the people that consume the product subsidize the industry they're supporting? and, we need to subsidize in order to compete.
it's a broader social issue to keep the farmers at work - and, we're winning because we did the math.
the reality is that america needs to stop blaming other people for constantly failing at math.
neither. sometimes, it inflates the price; sometimes, it leads to lower prices than the market would imply. what it actually produces is stability.
now, let me tell you - as a poor person on a fixed income, that stability is what i actually want. i know what the price of eggs is, so i can budget for it; i never have to worry that a price spike is going to screw me over for the month. that stability is worth far more to me than the opportunity to get a good deal in march - if it means i'll get fucked in may, as i no doubt will.
it's funny who it is that seems to be concerned about the poor on this issue, isn't it? they're not your usual anti-poverty activists. in fact, they're usually apologists for big businesses - like factory farms.
regardless, it's not like dairy prices are the only factor creating poverty - or even a measurable factor, really. i promise you that i'm not losing $300/year over dairy, but i am getting $375/yr back on gst, and pretty much the only taxable items i buy are doritos and dr. pepper. it's crazy to take it out of context, like that.
so, it is true that supply management shifts the subsidies from government to consumer, but it's not like the government doesn't further compensate on top of it. further, is it not more fair to make the people that consume the product subsidize the industry they're supporting? and, we need to subsidize in order to compete.
it's a broader social issue to keep the farmers at work - and, we're winning because we did the math.
the reality is that america needs to stop blaming other people for constantly failing at math.
i have not been watching french media and do not have any insight into what it is broadcasting. but, this macron character strikes me as an obvious pinata. i think you should expect a surprise.
i don't think it's going to be le pen, who is going to just get destroyed in the second round, anyways. i'm skeptical about the links between trump and putin, but i am not at all skeptical about russia's support for right-wing nationalists in europe. le pen is legitimately a russian pawn. but, she's more comparable to a rand paul in the united states (in several ways, actually). remember: my analysis is that trump was the choice of the american deep state, and that it was being broadcast over media in the weeks leading up to the election. while i have not been watching french media, i think it is safe to rule out the idea that le pen is the choice of the french military, in whatever limited capacity it is that they operate outside of nato.
i do not think isis is responsible for these attacks. i think the russians are responsible for these attacks. even if this tactic were to work, i would expect the french to rig the election against her. i know - i just walked into a forest of hypotheticals, here. the point is that i don't think she's the deep state candidate, like trump was, and that creates a very different scenario.
but, like i say - maybe somebody that's been watching tv in france has a different perspective.
in a situation like this, you would expect the republican party candidate to walk into the vacuum, which is what fillon initially did. it's time to switch parties, right? but, apparently, he's been hit by a lot of scandal, and that ceded some space to macron. an easy way out of this is for the pollsters to exaggerate the effects of the scandals, but you also need to look at the sources of those scandals to work this out and i just haven't done that research. without doing this research, but not entirely a priori, fillon actually strikes me as the most likely victor.
melenchon appears to be my preferred candidate, but i haven't looked too closely into this, either. there's an angle on this - it's a potential way to avoid a legitimate russian puppet from winning, without sparking a civil war in reaction to vote suppression - but these kinds of candidates are usually public enemy #1. if melenchon is allowed to get to the second round, you should be extra careful in deciphering his past and future statements, and you may find out you were misled. again: i have not been consuming french media. but, he's either a persona non grata to the ruling class, or he's a fraud - and you'll find out by how well he is allowed to perform.
there's way too many permutations, here, to come up with a reasonable prediction on how this works. but, i'd guess that the actual front runner, here, is fillon.
i don't think it's going to be le pen, who is going to just get destroyed in the second round, anyways. i'm skeptical about the links between trump and putin, but i am not at all skeptical about russia's support for right-wing nationalists in europe. le pen is legitimately a russian pawn. but, she's more comparable to a rand paul in the united states (in several ways, actually). remember: my analysis is that trump was the choice of the american deep state, and that it was being broadcast over media in the weeks leading up to the election. while i have not been watching french media, i think it is safe to rule out the idea that le pen is the choice of the french military, in whatever limited capacity it is that they operate outside of nato.
i do not think isis is responsible for these attacks. i think the russians are responsible for these attacks. even if this tactic were to work, i would expect the french to rig the election against her. i know - i just walked into a forest of hypotheticals, here. the point is that i don't think she's the deep state candidate, like trump was, and that creates a very different scenario.
but, like i say - maybe somebody that's been watching tv in france has a different perspective.
in a situation like this, you would expect the republican party candidate to walk into the vacuum, which is what fillon initially did. it's time to switch parties, right? but, apparently, he's been hit by a lot of scandal, and that ceded some space to macron. an easy way out of this is for the pollsters to exaggerate the effects of the scandals, but you also need to look at the sources of those scandals to work this out and i just haven't done that research. without doing this research, but not entirely a priori, fillon actually strikes me as the most likely victor.
melenchon appears to be my preferred candidate, but i haven't looked too closely into this, either. there's an angle on this - it's a potential way to avoid a legitimate russian puppet from winning, without sparking a civil war in reaction to vote suppression - but these kinds of candidates are usually public enemy #1. if melenchon is allowed to get to the second round, you should be extra careful in deciphering his past and future statements, and you may find out you were misled. again: i have not been consuming french media. but, he's either a persona non grata to the ruling class, or he's a fraud - and you'll find out by how well he is allowed to perform.
there's way too many permutations, here, to come up with a reasonable prediction on how this works. but, i'd guess that the actual front runner, here, is fillon.
support for supply management is neither nationalist nor insular. what it is is a competing model. and, it doesn't even need to generalize - you can support supply management in one industry and free trade in another, if the conditions suggest one is better than the other. it is the tendency to ignore rational considerations in favour of a uniform solution that generates the term free market fundamentalist.
the free market fundamentalist wants to propose market solutions for industries where markets are easily demonstrated to produce mass failure - such as health care and dairy farming. these industries require some kind of benevolent management in order to function effectively.
we know this because we've done these experiments.
the ideal solution would not just be for states like wisconsin and new york to adopt supply management, but also for these supply management systems to work together with supply management systems in canada, and in mexico.
what is absolutely foolish is to refuse to manage your supply effectively, then blame other people for your mismanagement. but, what else are we to expect from donald trump?
the free market fundamentalist wants to propose market solutions for industries where markets are easily demonstrated to produce mass failure - such as health care and dairy farming. these industries require some kind of benevolent management in order to function effectively.
we know this because we've done these experiments.
the ideal solution would not just be for states like wisconsin and new york to adopt supply management, but also for these supply management systems to work together with supply management systems in canada, and in mexico.
what is absolutely foolish is to refuse to manage your supply effectively, then blame other people for your mismanagement. but, what else are we to expect from donald trump?
Saturday, April 22, 2017
i'm not going to pretend like this is likely to be the beginning of a wider crack down on religion, but it would be a good place to start, if it was.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-jehovahs-witnesses-ban-extremists-religion-christian-sect-vladimir-putin-supreme-court-a7693671.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-jehovahs-witnesses-ban-extremists-religion-christian-sect-vladimir-putin-supreme-court-a7693671.html
Friday, April 21, 2017
i'm not sure that the vacancy tax is going to work in it's intended purpose so much as it's going to attempt to balance out the loss in the tax base that comes from people not physically being in the province to pay taxes. see, if the property wasn't vacant, there would be a taxpayer in it, right? so, the vacancy reduces the tax base. or, it does in the world of corporate logic, which governments seem more and more integrated into. by taxing the unit, you're minimizing the loss in tax revenue that the vacancy creates. i'm actually willing to support it for what it is, without expecting it to minimize speculation (it will, rather, probably drive inflation, in the long run. i mean, you might see it level off for a few weeks or something, but expect prices to rebound dramatically, as the taxes get eaten as inflation). but, this is not in my class interests, anyways; again - it seems like a reasonable tax measure, just don't expect it to do what they're claiming it will.
they maybe should have been honest about it to prevent a backlash.
i've stated here before that i'm in support of rent controls, which is the part of the legislation that actually affects me. they have a majority, right now. let's hope it gets worked out before the next election.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/toronto/ontario-housing-16-big-changes-explained-in-charts/article34757648/
they maybe should have been honest about it to prevent a backlash.
i've stated here before that i'm in support of rent controls, which is the part of the legislation that actually affects me. they have a majority, right now. let's hope it gets worked out before the next election.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/toronto/ontario-housing-16-big-changes-explained-in-charts/article34757648/
actually, i think that the government is realizing that popular support for climate activism is at a low point and taking advantage of it. there was never any kind of real commitment to the issue by this government - everything they've done is a facade, and at times it's been a deeply orwellian one. it only took the slightest hint of negative polling around environmentalism for them to drop the issue altogether.
the reality is that this government is not remotely different than the previous one: it is aggressively promoting an extraction agenda with almost no interest in slowing down emissions. emissions will continue to increase under this government. you don't need to blame it on corruption; it's baked into the bipartisan consensus, on an ideological level.
the ndp aren't any better, either.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/04/21/ottawas-methane-gas-delay-a-real-blow-to-canadas-climate-targets.html
the reality is that this government is not remotely different than the previous one: it is aggressively promoting an extraction agenda with almost no interest in slowing down emissions. emissions will continue to increase under this government. you don't need to blame it on corruption; it's baked into the bipartisan consensus, on an ideological level.
the ndp aren't any better, either.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/04/21/ottawas-methane-gas-delay-a-real-blow-to-canadas-climate-targets.html
farmers in canada do not exist for the purpose of buying american goods, dumped or otherwise, and should not for a moment even consider trump's claims that the united states has any right whatsoever to set prices for goods in foreign countries.
trump has a lot of fucking nerve even bringing it up, actually, and should immediately apologize for overstepping his bounds.
trump has a lot of fucking nerve even bringing it up, actually, and should immediately apologize for overstepping his bounds.
i'd rather see farmers take a greater control in managing their own supply, but i think it's a good idea to manage it. what supply management ultimately protects from is the kind of massive factory farming that is destroying dairy farmers in the midwest. these corporate farms just buy up all the land and send the farmers into the cities to sell their labour.
you'll note the areas of north vietnam and myanmar, as well.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7f/87/46/7f874616b564a8d062e07a7548866517.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7f/87/46/7f874616b564a8d062e07a7548866517.jpg
you have to go back further in history than americans are accustomed to
admitting is relevant, but the timeline is longer in east asia, and the
north of korea has indeed been a part of china, although the south never
has. trump may or may not have fully understood, but the chinese were
no doubt presenting the perspective that they should have control over
all areas that have historically been in the chinese orbit; this is a
perspective they have presented repeatedly, over many years. and, the
north of korea is legitimately in this orbit. it is for this reason that korean unification is not inevitable.
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
international law. i'm a canadian. i have a historical and continued interest in international law. we're the ones that tend to speak up about it.
i accept the reality of the situation, which is that the united states decided quite some time ago that it did not want to be constrained by international law. to me, the problem this presents is how it is that we are to convince them to be constrained by international law, which is admittedly a difficult path to walk, as we are also legitimately the close allies of the united states.
it's kind of like you've got this friend with terrible heart problems, and he just won't stop eating double bacon cheeseburgers three times a day. you kind of feel the urge to say something, but you need to do it in a way that promotes beneficence without sacrificing tact.
this was a low-key issue for me in the last election in canada. while the conservatives didn't stray far from international law principles under their rule in the second half of the 20th century, it was the liberal party that had the legacy of upholding international law in conflicts from the sinai to iraq. it's kind of a consistently liberal ideological principle, as well, in that it upholds states to a rule of law, thereby restricting their actions - perhaps under the threat of sanctions. but, this requires a world where forces are balanced in such a way that the threat of sanctions is real, even if it's unstated.
i think that it's clear, in hindsight, that the united states never really saw the united nations as anything more than a forum to debate the russians in. maybe there were some lofty ambitions for a rule of law floating around in the chattering classes, but the actual levers of american (and british) power don't seem to have ever taken the idea seriously.
the reform movement in canada sought less to discard the rule of law and more to establish a firmer alliance with the united states, for the purposes of further opening oil markets. it was thought that greater integration would have greater persuasive power, but what we learned was that greater integration meant greater imperial control over our resources, which are being put aside for later use.
there is no question that the liberal party's position on international law required some reanalyzing after the failure of the international system to prevent the war in iraq. during the election, i posed the issue as a question: will the liberal party continue to attempt to argue for the international system, given that it appears to be broken? if it accepts that it is broken, what other ideas does it have to attempt to uphold the rule of law? or, will the liberal party carry on the ruling conservative party's policy and accept and adjust to the absence of international law?
in fact, trudeau answered the question in a debate, and it provided a predictive answer: he answered that he thought there were situations where nato could use force outside of the united nations. this is our dauphin, folks, our aristocratic defender of liberalism, through the noblesse oblige of his lineage.
well, we had an answer. i heard it. i didn't like it much. but, it seemed like there was consensus amongst the options presented, so it kind of disappeared as a non-issue.
i remain convinced that a rule of law amongst nations is beneficial to everybody on the planet, but it requires a balance of power where hegemony is not being asserted. hegemony may even exist silently within the rule of law, which is the unrealistic ideal of empires - never truly met. as soon as hegemony asserts itself, though, the rule of law becomes impossible until the hegemony is broken, and an equilibrium reasserts itself. it is the never met responsibility of a good hegemon to allow the equilibrium to reset without force - although the americans have come closest in human history, through rebuilding in germany and japan. in the end, america failed like every other hegemon, and that equilibrium will need to be reasserted with force.
the canadian will need to wait. but, it is with the expectations of a hidden zeal to reform existing institutions for efficacy, whenever the opportunity again arises.
international law has been dead for years.
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/4/19/15345686/syria-un-strike-illegal-un-humanitarian-law
i accept the reality of the situation, which is that the united states decided quite some time ago that it did not want to be constrained by international law. to me, the problem this presents is how it is that we are to convince them to be constrained by international law, which is admittedly a difficult path to walk, as we are also legitimately the close allies of the united states.
it's kind of like you've got this friend with terrible heart problems, and he just won't stop eating double bacon cheeseburgers three times a day. you kind of feel the urge to say something, but you need to do it in a way that promotes beneficence without sacrificing tact.
this was a low-key issue for me in the last election in canada. while the conservatives didn't stray far from international law principles under their rule in the second half of the 20th century, it was the liberal party that had the legacy of upholding international law in conflicts from the sinai to iraq. it's kind of a consistently liberal ideological principle, as well, in that it upholds states to a rule of law, thereby restricting their actions - perhaps under the threat of sanctions. but, this requires a world where forces are balanced in such a way that the threat of sanctions is real, even if it's unstated.
i think that it's clear, in hindsight, that the united states never really saw the united nations as anything more than a forum to debate the russians in. maybe there were some lofty ambitions for a rule of law floating around in the chattering classes, but the actual levers of american (and british) power don't seem to have ever taken the idea seriously.
the reform movement in canada sought less to discard the rule of law and more to establish a firmer alliance with the united states, for the purposes of further opening oil markets. it was thought that greater integration would have greater persuasive power, but what we learned was that greater integration meant greater imperial control over our resources, which are being put aside for later use.
there is no question that the liberal party's position on international law required some reanalyzing after the failure of the international system to prevent the war in iraq. during the election, i posed the issue as a question: will the liberal party continue to attempt to argue for the international system, given that it appears to be broken? if it accepts that it is broken, what other ideas does it have to attempt to uphold the rule of law? or, will the liberal party carry on the ruling conservative party's policy and accept and adjust to the absence of international law?
in fact, trudeau answered the question in a debate, and it provided a predictive answer: he answered that he thought there were situations where nato could use force outside of the united nations. this is our dauphin, folks, our aristocratic defender of liberalism, through the noblesse oblige of his lineage.
well, we had an answer. i heard it. i didn't like it much. but, it seemed like there was consensus amongst the options presented, so it kind of disappeared as a non-issue.
i remain convinced that a rule of law amongst nations is beneficial to everybody on the planet, but it requires a balance of power where hegemony is not being asserted. hegemony may even exist silently within the rule of law, which is the unrealistic ideal of empires - never truly met. as soon as hegemony asserts itself, though, the rule of law becomes impossible until the hegemony is broken, and an equilibrium reasserts itself. it is the never met responsibility of a good hegemon to allow the equilibrium to reset without force - although the americans have come closest in human history, through rebuilding in germany and japan. in the end, america failed like every other hegemon, and that equilibrium will need to be reasserted with force.
the canadian will need to wait. but, it is with the expectations of a hidden zeal to reform existing institutions for efficacy, whenever the opportunity again arises.
international law has been dead for years.
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/4/19/15345686/syria-un-strike-illegal-un-humanitarian-law
the united states is on some kind of deep state contingency plan run by the pentagon, or something. no, listen - it's an important question to understand in grappling with what's happening. is the commander in chief in civilian control of the pentagon, or does the pentagon use the civilian commander in chief as a puppet? it's supposed to work a specific way for a good reason, but laws on paper are no match for the brute force of reality, even if that reality remains obscured to not raise suspicion. but, we've seen a pattern in american hegemony over the last several decades that seems to imply the existence of a plan for global domination, a plan that any sitting president seems to have little shape over. a president at some point may reassert civilian control, but that president will not be donald trump.
it wasn't going to be hillary clinton, either. it seems that trump is kind of morphing into clinton in a lot of ways, right? but, it's just because clinton had already read the plan, and was broadcasting what it was. trump was saying all kinds of things in weird contexts, with false understandings and just broadly not having any clue, because - the fucking guy wouldn't get briefed. if he'd have listened, right?
see, maybe he thought they'd just give him civilian control. like - here's the keys to the white house door, and the master control network over the entire secret service. it's some kind of hex key or something, to lock into the sixth dimension, in which they may be puppeteered. all those career analysts in massive government services would just go home. here you go, boss. right.
so, of course, the reality is that he walks into a largely scripted situation. he's shuffled along, told where to sign, given this and that thing to read. it's the same script they would have given her, right?
i just want to get across that there wasn't a real choice in front of anybody last november in terms of deciding which foreign policy decisions the incoming white house was going to make.
it wasn't going to be hillary clinton, either. it seems that trump is kind of morphing into clinton in a lot of ways, right? but, it's just because clinton had already read the plan, and was broadcasting what it was. trump was saying all kinds of things in weird contexts, with false understandings and just broadly not having any clue, because - the fucking guy wouldn't get briefed. if he'd have listened, right?
see, maybe he thought they'd just give him civilian control. like - here's the keys to the white house door, and the master control network over the entire secret service. it's some kind of hex key or something, to lock into the sixth dimension, in which they may be puppeteered. all those career analysts in massive government services would just go home. here you go, boss. right.
so, of course, the reality is that he walks into a largely scripted situation. he's shuffled along, told where to sign, given this and that thing to read. it's the same script they would have given her, right?
i just want to get across that there wasn't a real choice in front of anybody last november in terms of deciding which foreign policy decisions the incoming white house was going to make.
"Our strategy cannot presume to separate the fight against [ISIS] from
the Syrian people's fight against the Assad regime. They are
inextricably connected." - john mccain
he doesn't mean what you think, though.
listen: mccain is talking in code, and rand paul is pretending to be naive in taking him seriously.
"It is true that the fight against ISIS and the civil war in Syria are connected, but not in the way neocons infer. Overthrowing Assad may actually lead to an Islamist regime that finds common ground with ISIS, not America."
this is completely incoherent, and mccain knows it and paul knows it.
it's easy to agree with rand paul on the surface, and on the broad face of it he's right - the united states should cut it's losses in syria, and evade the kind of firefight it seems intent on provoking. it's true that the strategy of winning the war on the ground isn't working, but that strategy was chosen for good reason, nonetheless: the strategy of overwhelming force has no outcome but disaster.
but, he's spouting russian propaganda - right down to the feigned naivete at the purpose of isis.
...which mccain is not being naive about, at all.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/opinions/less-military-intervention-opinion-paul/
he doesn't mean what you think, though.
listen: mccain is talking in code, and rand paul is pretending to be naive in taking him seriously.
"It is true that the fight against ISIS and the civil war in Syria are connected, but not in the way neocons infer. Overthrowing Assad may actually lead to an Islamist regime that finds common ground with ISIS, not America."
this is completely incoherent, and mccain knows it and paul knows it.
it's easy to agree with rand paul on the surface, and on the broad face of it he's right - the united states should cut it's losses in syria, and evade the kind of firefight it seems intent on provoking. it's true that the strategy of winning the war on the ground isn't working, but that strategy was chosen for good reason, nonetheless: the strategy of overwhelming force has no outcome but disaster.
but, he's spouting russian propaganda - right down to the feigned naivete at the purpose of isis.
...which mccain is not being naive about, at all.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/opinions/less-military-intervention-opinion-paul/
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
see, this is stupid: these are the good kinds of immigrants - the smart ones. you want to keep those.
i mean, we'll take them up here. but i'm not sure we have the same level of opportunity. that's just realism - we have a tenth of the population, and a shitty climate.
well, trump is going to help us get the climate better, too, though. hey, he said he liked canada.
i've been vocal in my view that the entire society - from canada to mexico - requires serious immigration reform. but, trump is doing this the most racist way he can: he's protecting good jobs for white people, and then cutting holes in the fence so low wage industries can avoid paying minimum wage.
and, it's not just racist, it's recessionary, because you're increasing accumulation and discouraging spending.
worse, i don't even think this is what the voters in wisconsin even wanted. i mean, you don't need an engineering degree to work in a cheese factory. although...
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/trump-targets-visas-program-for-highly-skilled-workers-1.3373563
i mean, we'll take them up here. but i'm not sure we have the same level of opportunity. that's just realism - we have a tenth of the population, and a shitty climate.
well, trump is going to help us get the climate better, too, though. hey, he said he liked canada.
i've been vocal in my view that the entire society - from canada to mexico - requires serious immigration reform. but, trump is doing this the most racist way he can: he's protecting good jobs for white people, and then cutting holes in the fence so low wage industries can avoid paying minimum wage.
and, it's not just racist, it's recessionary, because you're increasing accumulation and discouraging spending.
worse, i don't even think this is what the voters in wisconsin even wanted. i mean, you don't need an engineering degree to work in a cheese factory. although...
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/trump-targets-visas-program-for-highly-skilled-workers-1.3373563
weird article at the bbc, as i'm surfing while waiting for something to render.
i need to do some running around today, but the renders are up to mar 23rd, now. i need to prioritize having the material for court ready, so i'm going to push through to the first week of april.
i actually have a theory that the hebrews were initially an iranian tribe before migrating to the mediterranean. it's pretty unorthodox, but it's not without support over the basis of comparative religions.
the reality is that the hebrew god is starkly indo-european in nature, and kind of weird in a semitic context. it kind of seems more like some iranians showed up there in canaan and integrated with the fundamentally egyptian culture.
the standard history reminds people of the exile in babylon, and it's not like that doesn't make sense. but, if you can derive judaism more directly from zoroastrianism, you can break through a lot of contradictions.
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20170406-this-obscure-religion-shaped-the-west
i need to do some running around today, but the renders are up to mar 23rd, now. i need to prioritize having the material for court ready, so i'm going to push through to the first week of april.
i actually have a theory that the hebrews were initially an iranian tribe before migrating to the mediterranean. it's pretty unorthodox, but it's not without support over the basis of comparative religions.
the reality is that the hebrew god is starkly indo-european in nature, and kind of weird in a semitic context. it kind of seems more like some iranians showed up there in canaan and integrated with the fundamentally egyptian culture.
the standard history reminds people of the exile in babylon, and it's not like that doesn't make sense. but, if you can derive judaism more directly from zoroastrianism, you can break through a lot of contradictions.
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20170406-this-obscure-religion-shaped-the-west
no.
stop.
you, yourself no doubt saw this coming, or at least parroted somebody else that did. look through your own social media posts. did you ever post anything criticizing trump for his reality tv bravado, or carefully explaining to trump that the presidency is not a reality tv show?
well, you were wrong - the presidency is very much a reality tv show.
or, at least, it is now.
stop.
you, yourself no doubt saw this coming, or at least parroted somebody else that did. look through your own social media posts. did you ever post anything criticizing trump for his reality tv bravado, or carefully explaining to trump that the presidency is not a reality tv show?
well, you were wrong - the presidency is very much a reality tv show.
or, at least, it is now.
there is no discernible logic in shooting down a missile test, other than the logic of generating material for broadcast on fox at prime time - and that is almost certainly the actual logic being used.
and, you're not supposed to be frightened, either. you're supposed to pump your fists and cheer it on - because the calculation is that you're a retard.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/18/us-military-shoot-down-north-korea-missile-tests
and, you're not supposed to be frightened, either. you're supposed to pump your fists and cheer it on - because the calculation is that you're a retard.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/18/us-military-shoot-down-north-korea-missile-tests
i'm admittedly having a hard time even empathizing with people that take the propaganda seriously anymore, at this point, but i realize the importance of writing articles of this sort.
kind of.
abstractly...
if you need it, here it is:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-suicide-attack-refugee-buses-trump-only-cares-sunni-children-a7687066.html
kind of.
abstractly...
if you need it, here it is:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-suicide-attack-refugee-buses-trump-only-cares-sunni-children-a7687066.html
the basis of this article is that it's ok to illegally bomb syria, so long as they don't kill civilians.
kind of a bait and switch, huh?
i don't concede the point: the united states should not be bombing syria at all, until it is invited to help in clearing the country of terrorists.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/04/18/syria-us-mosque-attack-likely-unlawful
kind of a bait and switch, huh?
i don't concede the point: the united states should not be bombing syria at all, until it is invited to help in clearing the country of terrorists.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/04/18/syria-us-mosque-attack-likely-unlawful
Monday, April 17, 2017
i don't view the messianic religions much differently than a greek scholar would have between constantine and justinian. and, that's not a throwaway statement.
unfortunately, the christians had a habit of burning books that had opinions they didn't like in it, so we've lost a lot of the best critiques. one of the most powerful neo-platonist critiques of christianity came from a well-regarded scholar named porphyry and was called against the christians. we know this was an influential text because it was widely quoted, but we don't have an extant version of it.
remember: at the end of the nightmare, western europe had to translate from arab into latin because we didn't just lose the greek and sometimes latin originals, but we didn't even know how to read greek :\. that's a remarkable thing, isn't it? the greatest empire in the world lost the ability to read it's own language, and most of the texts written in it.
is there any wonder that porphyry wrote the book he did?
the modern equivalents are in hitchens and dawkins, who i've read less of than you might guess. hitchens more so.
i read a lot of isaac asimov when i was very young. that's the real source, here.
unfortunately, the christians had a habit of burning books that had opinions they didn't like in it, so we've lost a lot of the best critiques. one of the most powerful neo-platonist critiques of christianity came from a well-regarded scholar named porphyry and was called against the christians. we know this was an influential text because it was widely quoted, but we don't have an extant version of it.
remember: at the end of the nightmare, western europe had to translate from arab into latin because we didn't just lose the greek and sometimes latin originals, but we didn't even know how to read greek :\. that's a remarkable thing, isn't it? the greatest empire in the world lost the ability to read it's own language, and most of the texts written in it.
is there any wonder that porphyry wrote the book he did?
the modern equivalents are in hitchens and dawkins, who i've read less of than you might guess. hitchens more so.
i read a lot of isaac asimov when i was very young. that's the real source, here.
unless you want to talk about communal land ownership, i have absolutely no interest in indigenous culture at all, and would be just as happy to see it extinct. my interests are solely in a secular & empirical society with strong support for individual rights.
nor is this viewpoint uncommon amongst north americans of mixed ancestry.
nor is this viewpoint uncommon amongst north americans of mixed ancestry.
so, they've got punks showing up waving anarchist flags that think they're fighting against nazis.
these supposed nazis are apparently mostly veterans, no doubt largely on ssris due to ptsd, that are organizing to "defend free speech" against some communist conspiracy that doesn't exist. and, they don't understand the concept of free speech, either.
there's probably some broad abstraction of truth, here, in the vaguest terms possible. and, in that sense i'll pick the communists over the nazis.
but, these people are equally delusional. and, the more astute observation is that this schizophrenic reality in the era of fake news has really permeated the totality of society.
when people can organize into large opposing camps and actually come to physical blows, and nobody on either side has any concept of reality, that portends some scary ramifications in our ability to react to serious threats - and also in our ability to reject false flag attacks.
the proper analyst here is not noam chomsky, it's john cleese.
these supposed nazis are apparently mostly veterans, no doubt largely on ssris due to ptsd, that are organizing to "defend free speech" against some communist conspiracy that doesn't exist. and, they don't understand the concept of free speech, either.
there's probably some broad abstraction of truth, here, in the vaguest terms possible. and, in that sense i'll pick the communists over the nazis.
but, these people are equally delusional. and, the more astute observation is that this schizophrenic reality in the era of fake news has really permeated the totality of society.
when people can organize into large opposing camps and actually come to physical blows, and nobody on either side has any concept of reality, that portends some scary ramifications in our ability to react to serious threats - and also in our ability to reject false flag attacks.
the proper analyst here is not noam chomsky, it's john cleese.
yeah, well, there's going to have to be a lot of litigation to ensure that anybody that was fined or jailed in the past receives the proper compensation, in terms of mass reparations.
i'm not joking. this is going to cost billions. and, the longer they put it off, the more it's going to cost.
had they legalized it in the 70s, they wouldn't be paying out at all.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/marijuana-legal-liberals-charges-possession-1.4070427
i'm not joking. this is going to cost billions. and, the longer they put it off, the more it's going to cost.
had they legalized it in the 70s, they wouldn't be paying out at all.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/marijuana-legal-liberals-charges-possession-1.4070427
Sunday, April 16, 2017
to be clear: i don't have any particular aversion to rebirth celebrations. i'm maybe a little beyond it. but, if it makes you happy, whatever.
i'd just request that you take the time to actually understand what you're doing - and that means researching the history of this over comparative mythologies in order to understand the syncretic basis of it.
you shouldn't look at this as debunking something. rather, you should look at it as better understanding it. if you're getting all of your information from a specific tradition, whatever it is, you're blocking yourself off to the other perspectives.
the rebirth festival is easy enough to understand. it is close to the spring solstice, and meant to represent the end of darkness and beginning of light. i may argue that the astronomy of it is not a reduction but a complication, as it is fascinating on it's own basis. but, if you're so inclined, a better understanding of these themes is likely to deepen your experience, rather than negate it.
i will fully admit that i have an ulterior motive: encouraging people to seek naturalistic explanations of things will likely separate them from the more dangerous components of religious observance. but, i'm not being disingenuous. if you like these holidays, why not learn more about where they came from?
i'd just request that you take the time to actually understand what you're doing - and that means researching the history of this over comparative mythologies in order to understand the syncretic basis of it.
you shouldn't look at this as debunking something. rather, you should look at it as better understanding it. if you're getting all of your information from a specific tradition, whatever it is, you're blocking yourself off to the other perspectives.
the rebirth festival is easy enough to understand. it is close to the spring solstice, and meant to represent the end of darkness and beginning of light. i may argue that the astronomy of it is not a reduction but a complication, as it is fascinating on it's own basis. but, if you're so inclined, a better understanding of these themes is likely to deepen your experience, rather than negate it.
i will fully admit that i have an ulterior motive: encouraging people to seek naturalistic explanations of things will likely separate them from the more dangerous components of religious observance. but, i'm not being disingenuous. if you like these holidays, why not learn more about where they came from?
there is nobody in the world that is more disappointed in north korea's failure to present itself as a feasible threat than donald trump.
he won't even release a statement. maybe he's waiting, in the hopes that the next one will be quick and will justify a response.
i mean, he had to drop his giant bomb in afghanistan. he probably didn't even get any bad guys. what a rip-off, this job is, right?
...and that was after he wasn't allowed to do what he wanted in syria.
they make it seem like you get to be the commander-in-chief, but there's all these egghead generals giving you advice, instead, and telling you you can't do certain things. it's not what they make it out to be at all.
maybe you'll get to play this game next easter, don.
he won't even release a statement. maybe he's waiting, in the hopes that the next one will be quick and will justify a response.
i mean, he had to drop his giant bomb in afghanistan. he probably didn't even get any bad guys. what a rip-off, this job is, right?
...and that was after he wasn't allowed to do what he wanted in syria.
they make it seem like you get to be the commander-in-chief, but there's all these egghead generals giving you advice, instead, and telling you you can't do certain things. it's not what they make it out to be at all.
maybe you'll get to play this game next easter, don.
everything bad that you've ever heard about sugar assumes you're overweight (and, statistically speaking, you probably are) and does not apply to you if you're not.
yes, we've reached this level of absurdity: it's the healthy people that need to do extra research, because the media assumes that you're fat.
(and, you probably are fat, too.)
yes, we've reached this level of absurdity: it's the healthy people that need to do extra research, because the media assumes that you're fat.
(and, you probably are fat, too.)
it's almost like the only people on the continent that actually believed the 80s drug war propaganda grew up into politicians, and are now behaving as automatons, or something.
no, really. that's what happened to the kid in the front of the class that actually believed this shit: she's writing policy for your pseudo-left politicians, because she at some point got confused into thinking that being a liberal is the same thing as being a christian. oops.
whatever. just pass the bills already, and we'll figure out ways to liberalize the laws from there.
no, really. that's what happened to the kid in the front of the class that actually believed this shit: she's writing policy for your pseudo-left politicians, because she at some point got confused into thinking that being a liberal is the same thing as being a christian. oops.
whatever. just pass the bills already, and we'll figure out ways to liberalize the laws from there.
if you're trying to make marijuana less cool, it's just...
marijuana has always been the drugs that losers and outcasts use in order to escape from the conformity of the mainstream. if you don't realize that, here's your wake-up call: you're not one of the cool kids. the cool kids do uppers. they always did.
you can go back as far in time as you want, the constant is that potheads are always losers, and generally by choice. that leaves you with a gradient between people that are losers because they're legit idiots and people that are losers because they're too smart to fit into society.
these tactics to make the drug less hip, if they were successful, might work in reducing cocaine use, or ecstasy use - or alcohol use, being that alcohol is the ultimate "cool kid" drug. but, pot was always the loser drug. and, trying to socially engineer an exaggeration of the point is just increasing it's appeal to it's natural user base of people that don't want to fit in.
marijuana has always been the drugs that losers and outcasts use in order to escape from the conformity of the mainstream. if you don't realize that, here's your wake-up call: you're not one of the cool kids. the cool kids do uppers. they always did.
you can go back as far in time as you want, the constant is that potheads are always losers, and generally by choice. that leaves you with a gradient between people that are losers because they're legit idiots and people that are losers because they're too smart to fit into society.
these tactics to make the drug less hip, if they were successful, might work in reducing cocaine use, or ecstasy use - or alcohol use, being that alcohol is the ultimate "cool kid" drug. but, pot was always the loser drug. and, trying to socially engineer an exaggeration of the point is just increasing it's appeal to it's natural user base of people that don't want to fit in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)