aug 9, 2014
i must have seen something somewhere recently about the centennial of wwI that bothered me in terms of the way it was framed, because the dream i had this morning was just off the wall, starting some time in about 1917 and ending in the mid 70s. i'm not going to go over it because it's a little blurry but it was some kind of episode of quantum leap. or sliders for the younger folk. or dr. who for the elderly, i suppose.
what i remember, though, is how insistent i was on a proper narration of events and how frustrated i was about people continuing to fall for propaganda that is now a hundred years old. it's made me wonder if this isn't a good time to review some basic historical misunderstandings of the last century.
i think historians will eventually think of one war rather than two.
1) the soviet experiment was not one in worker self-management, but something constructed by the vulgar marxism of the banking elite (new york, london) to determine if marx' ideas could really be used to reduce workers to compliant slaves and increase production and profit, as he claimed. if you're a member of the banking elite, you don't want to write off marxism without trying it out. it's pretty seductive, really. what you want to do is put them in competition with each other and see which is better at being oppressive. it turns out capitalism was the more oppressive system, and faking democracy is better at producing compliant people than faking socialism, so the bankers chose it and dismantled the soviet state. socialists, communists and anarchists of all types were mass executed in the process.
2) as is the tendency in russia, a nationalist appeared from nowhere and took over the state. it didn't null the experiment, but it did provide a problem for a few decades.
3) therefore, hitler, who was created to remove stalin - and nearly did.
4) hitler also backfired, but not as badly as stalin.
5) wwII was primarily a war between russia and germany. the american tactic through the war (sometimes misinterpreted as"isolationism") was non-interference, in the hope that the germans (who they supported) would remove stalin from power. however, once it was clear that stalin had the upper hand, it was determined that they must become involved to prevent soviet global dominance.
6) that is to say that the goal of the invasion of normandy was not to liberate france from germany (who had already lost the war on the eastern front and was merely waiting to be occupied by the soviets) but to occupy germany in order to prevent a soviet invasion of france, italy, the uk and spain.
7) likewise, the purpose of bombing japan with atomic weapons was not to end the war faster but to ensure that it would be occupied by american soldiers rather than russian ones. the russians were fast approaching. truman wanted leverage to get a direct peace treaty, and got it.
you have to meet the conspiracy theorists halfway. they're good at constructing evidence that demonstrates that whatever thing was a plot, and are often in the end proven right. what the theorists don't realize most of the time, though, is that they're uncovering a plan that ultimately *failed* and that the conclusion to draw from the evidence they put together is almost always one of mass incompetence, rather than diabolical genius.
everything up there is pretty standard history at this point, but the propaganda continues to define the narrative.
Thursday, January 19, 2017
fwiw, i actually didn't vote for the liberals in 2011. i voted for the ndp that year.
2000 - liberal
2004 - ndp
2006 - ndp
2008 - liberal
2011 - ndp
2015 - liberal
i should also point out that i was not expecting a liberal majority and would have preferred to have them deal with the ndp on the budget. i would hope that the liberals are returned to a minority situation in 2019 that forces them to rely on ndp support.
2000 - liberal
2004 - ndp
2006 - ndp
2008 - liberal
2011 - ndp
2015 - liberal
i should also point out that i was not expecting a liberal majority and would have preferred to have them deal with the ndp on the budget. i would hope that the liberals are returned to a minority situation in 2019 that forces them to rely on ndp support.
canada doesn't have serious problems with voter suppression, or an electoral college, so trudeau would beat o'leary pretty soundly. remember: if the united states used the same electoral system as canada, and all other things remained equal, the results of the 2016 election would have likely given hillary clinton a solid majority government. the worst case scenario would have been a very weak minority for trump that would have likely fallen before the first budget.
so, these comparisons are foolish.
the actual truth is that it's probably actually exactly what the liberals want to see in terms of an opponent. trudeau would be able to smear him as an american.
so, these comparisons are foolish.
the actual truth is that it's probably actually exactly what the liberals want to see in terms of an opponent. trudeau would be able to smear him as an american.
it seems like the issue that is being coalesced around in canada right now is electoral reform, and it's really a no-win situation for the government. i just want to put a few things down here as a kind of brief memo, in order to explain the situation properly - because you're not likely to get a level-headed analysis from much of anywhere.
we need to begin by acknowledging that this was one of a couple of populist positions that drove trudeau's win, marijuana legalization being the other dominant factor. but, marijuana legalization is truly populist: it has support by upwards of three-quarters of the population, and across partisan lines and age divides. it really cuts the conservatives down to the most insular part of their base. i remember the media backlash when trudeau first announced this, and i couldn't understand. had they not seen the polls?
but, electoral reform is only populist on the left. liberals are split fairly cleanly, and conservatives do not support reform at all. so, yes: it was no doubt an important driver in getting left-leaning voters to choose the liberals over the ndp. in some ridings, it may have even been decisive. so, you can make an argument that it's why they won, and where their strongest mandate is. but, if you zoom out, you're only going to get around 40% support for the idea in general - and much less for any specific iteration of it.
worse is that the entire thing is built on a misunderstanding. unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately depending on your perspective, these voters that swung from the ndp to the liberals and decided the election did not actually do their homework before casting their votes. while there was initially some ambiguity on the topic, it should be very clear (in hindsight) that they were in fact voting for proportional representation. however, trudeau has himself repeatedly rejected proportional representation in favour of the ranked ballot system. there was never any ambiguity projected, here. these mostly urban, left-leaning voters heard "electoral reform" and converted it into "proportional representation" without actually bothering to look into what he was actually saying. it's just another example of the left creating fantasy realities instead of looking at the evidence.
here is the reality: trudeau will bring in proportional representation the day after obama ends the war on terrorism. he never promised you this. you just made it up in your head.
but, the facts aren't going to pierce through the veil, here. these people are going to continue to agitate for a system that, in truth, almost nobody wants.
see, that 10% or so that wants pr is key in swinging elections. but, the potential for growth is extremely low. this has been put to a vote in the most progressive provinces in the country, and failed. the reason it keeps failing is because it's really not the system that canadians want. while reform is a key demand amongst the strong minority that wants it (that 40% or so), almost nobody wants to drop the idea of representation. nobody wants a system where it is not clear what population a member represents. even pr advocates have had to settle for awkward mmp schemes that nobody thinks can actually work - which is why they keep getting defeated.
my advice to electoral reform advocates is to drop the demand for pr. the liberals never advocated it; you misunderstood what they said, and need to accept that. and, if it's that important to you, you should have stuck with the ndp. but, maybe you might also want to listen to the arguments against pr. on closer analysis, perhaps you might find that a ranked ballot system may be in your advantage, after all.
but, you need to understand what the choices are between now and oct, 2019. you can choose between ranked ballots and first past the post. and, if you want something differently in the long run, your task is not to convince parliament to accept your scheme but to convince voters that your ideas are not flawed - which is a hefty task, because they are.
we need to begin by acknowledging that this was one of a couple of populist positions that drove trudeau's win, marijuana legalization being the other dominant factor. but, marijuana legalization is truly populist: it has support by upwards of three-quarters of the population, and across partisan lines and age divides. it really cuts the conservatives down to the most insular part of their base. i remember the media backlash when trudeau first announced this, and i couldn't understand. had they not seen the polls?
but, electoral reform is only populist on the left. liberals are split fairly cleanly, and conservatives do not support reform at all. so, yes: it was no doubt an important driver in getting left-leaning voters to choose the liberals over the ndp. in some ridings, it may have even been decisive. so, you can make an argument that it's why they won, and where their strongest mandate is. but, if you zoom out, you're only going to get around 40% support for the idea in general - and much less for any specific iteration of it.
worse is that the entire thing is built on a misunderstanding. unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately depending on your perspective, these voters that swung from the ndp to the liberals and decided the election did not actually do their homework before casting their votes. while there was initially some ambiguity on the topic, it should be very clear (in hindsight) that they were in fact voting for proportional representation. however, trudeau has himself repeatedly rejected proportional representation in favour of the ranked ballot system. there was never any ambiguity projected, here. these mostly urban, left-leaning voters heard "electoral reform" and converted it into "proportional representation" without actually bothering to look into what he was actually saying. it's just another example of the left creating fantasy realities instead of looking at the evidence.
here is the reality: trudeau will bring in proportional representation the day after obama ends the war on terrorism. he never promised you this. you just made it up in your head.
but, the facts aren't going to pierce through the veil, here. these people are going to continue to agitate for a system that, in truth, almost nobody wants.
see, that 10% or so that wants pr is key in swinging elections. but, the potential for growth is extremely low. this has been put to a vote in the most progressive provinces in the country, and failed. the reason it keeps failing is because it's really not the system that canadians want. while reform is a key demand amongst the strong minority that wants it (that 40% or so), almost nobody wants to drop the idea of representation. nobody wants a system where it is not clear what population a member represents. even pr advocates have had to settle for awkward mmp schemes that nobody thinks can actually work - which is why they keep getting defeated.
my advice to electoral reform advocates is to drop the demand for pr. the liberals never advocated it; you misunderstood what they said, and need to accept that. and, if it's that important to you, you should have stuck with the ndp. but, maybe you might also want to listen to the arguments against pr. on closer analysis, perhaps you might find that a ranked ballot system may be in your advantage, after all.
but, you need to understand what the choices are between now and oct, 2019. you can choose between ranked ballots and first past the post. and, if you want something differently in the long run, your task is not to convince parliament to accept your scheme but to convince voters that your ideas are not flawed - which is a hefty task, because they are.
this is possibly the greatest simpsons episode ever.
http://putlockers.ch/watch-the-simpsons-tvshow-season-7-episode-23-online-free-putlocker.html
http://putlockers.ch/watch-the-simpsons-tvshow-season-7-episode-23-online-free-putlocker.html
i don't do subscriber trading.
i understand why it makes sense for some people to do this, but all i'm doing over youtube is marketing my music. i'm not aspiring to be a "youtube personality". i'm a composer that is documenting myself on youtube. it's not even secondary, it's tertiary. which is why i found myself so annoyed by the amount of time it was stealing from me....
increasing the subscriber count with people that aren't actually interested in the music just makes it harder for me to understand whether i'm getting through to anybody or not. this problem of disinterested subscribers is a big part of the reason that i took the deathtokoalas site down.
again: i get why people do it. it's the game they're playing. this is their purpose, their end goal, their total point. but, i'd actually publicly request that you don't subscribe unless you're legitimately interested in the music i'm documenting.
i understand why it makes sense for some people to do this, but all i'm doing over youtube is marketing my music. i'm not aspiring to be a "youtube personality". i'm a composer that is documenting myself on youtube. it's not even secondary, it's tertiary. which is why i found myself so annoyed by the amount of time it was stealing from me....
increasing the subscriber count with people that aren't actually interested in the music just makes it harder for me to understand whether i'm getting through to anybody or not. this problem of disinterested subscribers is a big part of the reason that i took the deathtokoalas site down.
again: i get why people do it. it's the game they're playing. this is their purpose, their end goal, their total point. but, i'd actually publicly request that you don't subscribe unless you're legitimately interested in the music i'm documenting.
also, in the long run i'll need to keep an eye on my cholesterol. but, it's currently actually pretty outstanding.
i've been over this: my diet seems terrible, until you realize that i don't eat very much and i walk a lot.....
these numbers are real. and attainable. note: both of my parents have/had high cholesterol. my dad actually had several life-threatening cardiovascular episodes before brain cancer got him, and his father died of heart disease. if this were a purely genetic concern, i'd be in a lot of trouble. and yet look at these numbers....
chol: 3.69 mmol/L = 66.42 mg/dl. this is actually lower than the normal range (3.8-5.2). i also have low blood pressure....
tg: 0.88 mmol/L = 15.84 mg/dl. lower end of normal range (0.6-1.7).
hdl: 1.37 mmol/L = 24.66 mg/dl. this is pretty much in the middle of the normal range (1.00-1.80). higher hdl is preferable (apparently, above 1.6). but, i have to keep in mind that i'm low, overall. the way you measure a situation like this is to look at a ratio, and while it's not on the print-out, google confirms my logic. my ratio is 2.69; under 3.5 suggests i'm at low risk for heart disease.
ldl: 1.92 mmol/L = 34.56 mg/dl. this is also lower than normal (2.0-2.6), but again you have to keep in mind that the total is low. the important ratio here is ldl/hdl, which is 1.4. that again suggests very low risk - around half of the average risk, it turns out.
non-hdl chol: 2.32 mmol/L = 41.76 mg/dl. this measure is just a difference between total cholesterol and good cholesterol; it's the amount of cholesterol that is not good cholesterol. apparently, i want to keep the difference between non-hdl and ldl less than 30 mg/dl. well, i'm at 7.2.
i have to keep an eye on this because i should be at high risk. but, my lifestyle is very different than either of my parents, and the effects of that are showing pretty clearly.
i've been over this: my diet seems terrible, until you realize that i don't eat very much and i walk a lot.....
these numbers are real. and attainable. note: both of my parents have/had high cholesterol. my dad actually had several life-threatening cardiovascular episodes before brain cancer got him, and his father died of heart disease. if this were a purely genetic concern, i'd be in a lot of trouble. and yet look at these numbers....
chol: 3.69 mmol/L = 66.42 mg/dl. this is actually lower than the normal range (3.8-5.2). i also have low blood pressure....
tg: 0.88 mmol/L = 15.84 mg/dl. lower end of normal range (0.6-1.7).
hdl: 1.37 mmol/L = 24.66 mg/dl. this is pretty much in the middle of the normal range (1.00-1.80). higher hdl is preferable (apparently, above 1.6). but, i have to keep in mind that i'm low, overall. the way you measure a situation like this is to look at a ratio, and while it's not on the print-out, google confirms my logic. my ratio is 2.69; under 3.5 suggests i'm at low risk for heart disease.
ldl: 1.92 mmol/L = 34.56 mg/dl. this is also lower than normal (2.0-2.6), but again you have to keep in mind that the total is low. the important ratio here is ldl/hdl, which is 1.4. that again suggests very low risk - around half of the average risk, it turns out.
non-hdl chol: 2.32 mmol/L = 41.76 mg/dl. this measure is just a difference between total cholesterol and good cholesterol; it's the amount of cholesterol that is not good cholesterol. apparently, i want to keep the difference between non-hdl and ldl less than 30 mg/dl. well, i'm at 7.2.
i have to keep an eye on this because i should be at high risk. but, my lifestyle is very different than either of my parents, and the effects of that are showing pretty clearly.
ok. umm...
i was vaccinated.
the doctor is...he's got a lot of work to do....this is why i asked for the print-out...
the blood test results indicate i'm positive for anti-hbs. that means i'm immune. given that i also have immunity to hep A, i must have gotten twinrix at some point.
the test that the lab requested is to determine if i may have defeated it naturally and become a "chronic carrier". note that a "chronic carrier" is not the same thing as a "chronic infection". whether i misunderstood or he misspoke is less important than getting it right...but i think he read the information too briskly and misspoke, leading me to a false understanding...
when i said today that i should wait until march because there's a temporal component and i wouldn't learn anything from an immediate test, he nodded and said something about a graph and appeared to be struggling to remember something he hadn't thought about since college. google is so remarkably useful. he was no doubt thinking about this:
if i had picked up hep b in the blackout, i wouldn't have tested positive for anti-hbs a mere 11 weeks after infection, which is what happened. i must have already had immunity. what he told me had led me to believe that they had picked up lgM anti-HBc which, at 11 weeks, would indicate exposure. that is not the case. this was a miscommunication.
if i wasn't in shock, i would have asked for it in writing in the first place.
doctors are not magicians. it's always a good idea to ask questions, get things in writing and do independent research. i'm not upset because i consider this to be my responsibility, and not his.
but this is cleared up. whatever sickness i had this month, it wasn't hep b. i'm already immune to hep b. and i think it's clear that i'm immune to hep b because i was in fact vaccinated.
i still don't know what happened that night, though.
i was vaccinated.
the doctor is...he's got a lot of work to do....this is why i asked for the print-out...
the blood test results indicate i'm positive for anti-hbs. that means i'm immune. given that i also have immunity to hep A, i must have gotten twinrix at some point.
the test that the lab requested is to determine if i may have defeated it naturally and become a "chronic carrier". note that a "chronic carrier" is not the same thing as a "chronic infection". whether i misunderstood or he misspoke is less important than getting it right...but i think he read the information too briskly and misspoke, leading me to a false understanding...
when i said today that i should wait until march because there's a temporal component and i wouldn't learn anything from an immediate test, he nodded and said something about a graph and appeared to be struggling to remember something he hadn't thought about since college. google is so remarkably useful. he was no doubt thinking about this:
if i had picked up hep b in the blackout, i wouldn't have tested positive for anti-hbs a mere 11 weeks after infection, which is what happened. i must have already had immunity. what he told me had led me to believe that they had picked up lgM anti-HBc which, at 11 weeks, would indicate exposure. that is not the case. this was a miscommunication.
if i wasn't in shock, i would have asked for it in writing in the first place.
doctors are not magicians. it's always a good idea to ask questions, get things in writing and do independent research. i'm not upset because i consider this to be my responsibility, and not his.
but this is cleared up. whatever sickness i had this month, it wasn't hep b. i'm already immune to hep b. and i think it's clear that i'm immune to hep b because i was in fact vaccinated.
i still don't know what happened that night, though.
"I put in that category, explicit or functional obstacles to people being able to vote, to exercise their franchise."
so, where have you been for the last eight years, barry?
it's kind of typical obama. he points out that he'll speak out against voter suppression when he leaves office - after he sits and watches the legalization of voter suppression be decisive in swinging an election.
thanks, barack. and i hope the world appreciates the real value of your change in rhetoric.
so, where have you been for the last eight years, barry?
it's kind of typical obama. he points out that he'll speak out against voter suppression when he leaves office - after he sits and watches the legalization of voter suppression be decisive in swinging an election.
thanks, barack. and i hope the world appreciates the real value of your change in rhetoric.
i woke up sopping wet because i was outside in a torrential downpour.
my reconstruction of the last moments of the blackout suggests it's
probably why i got in the guy's car. but it means that any relevant
evidence got washed off.
there was nothing on my clothes. and, i was bruised, but there was no residue.
i should have inquired around about the existence of an anal rape kit rather than assumed one doesn't exist. i was in a daze and didn't want to deal with it.
there was nothing on my clothes. and, i was bruised, but there was no residue.
i should have inquired around about the existence of an anal rape kit rather than assumed one doesn't exist. i was in a daze and didn't want to deal with it.
"There is no chronic (long- term) infection with hepatitis A. People do not become carriers of the hepatitis A virus."
"Avoid having sex while you're infectious – hepatitis A is most infectious from around two weeks before the symptoms start until about a week after they first develop."
ok. so...if i got hep A in the blackout, the person i got it from would have had to have been exposed recently. and, further, it would have had to have been in an anal-oral transmission. even in the worst blackout scenario, i would have no doubt gagged.
i wish he would have told me that or printed the results out, because the transmission possibilities around hep A really rules out the possibility of a consensual encounter. i was either raped or i was vaccinated. which is more likely?
on the one hand, i think it's pretty low probability to suggest i happen to have been raped by somebody who was in an active transmission stage of hepatitis A in detroit in 2016. this is a third world disease that has a short window for transmission. and, i guess that detroit is in bad shape. but, poverty does not introduce disease, right? the disease has to come from somewhere. this is so unlikely as to rule it out.
unfortunately, however, the low probability of the scenario doesn't rule out all of the other evidence leaning towards a sexual encounter and a disease transmission: waking up with a sore anus and bruises, and then getting sick not once but twice over a long period of lethargy that included a bout of possible jaundice.
of course, it's not impossible that i could have had sex that night and already been vaccinated.
there's nothing i can do except wait. but, i think that the possibility that i got hep A is really so remote that the presence of antibodies is re-opening the potentiality of a vaccination in my mind; i had all but ruled that out once i got sick. and, if i got a hep A vaccination, i would have almost certainly gotten it with a hep B vaccination.
i can't handle being unable to deduce this. that's what upsets me. but, it's just more demonstration of the superiority of empirical epistemology. like i needed one....
"Avoid having sex while you're infectious – hepatitis A is most infectious from around two weeks before the symptoms start until about a week after they first develop."
ok. so...if i got hep A in the blackout, the person i got it from would have had to have been exposed recently. and, further, it would have had to have been in an anal-oral transmission. even in the worst blackout scenario, i would have no doubt gagged.
i wish he would have told me that or printed the results out, because the transmission possibilities around hep A really rules out the possibility of a consensual encounter. i was either raped or i was vaccinated. which is more likely?
on the one hand, i think it's pretty low probability to suggest i happen to have been raped by somebody who was in an active transmission stage of hepatitis A in detroit in 2016. this is a third world disease that has a short window for transmission. and, i guess that detroit is in bad shape. but, poverty does not introduce disease, right? the disease has to come from somewhere. this is so unlikely as to rule it out.
unfortunately, however, the low probability of the scenario doesn't rule out all of the other evidence leaning towards a sexual encounter and a disease transmission: waking up with a sore anus and bruises, and then getting sick not once but twice over a long period of lethargy that included a bout of possible jaundice.
of course, it's not impossible that i could have had sex that night and already been vaccinated.
there's nothing i can do except wait. but, i think that the possibility that i got hep A is really so remote that the presence of antibodies is re-opening the potentiality of a vaccination in my mind; i had all but ruled that out once i got sick. and, if i got a hep A vaccination, i would have almost certainly gotten it with a hep B vaccination.
i can't handle being unable to deduce this. that's what upsets me. but, it's just more demonstration of the superiority of empirical epistemology. like i needed one....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)