i really wish that clinton had picked franken as her running mate. this was spectacular.
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
so, green infrastructure means building subways and light rail through manufacturing areas? it's maybe not what i was hoping for.
it's easy to make the argument that increasing infrastructure in high employment regions is a good investment. but, the term "supercluster" would have described the auto industry around detroit and southern ontario 50 years ago, and no amount of infrastructure in the world could have kept it there.
i'm usually in favour of infrastructure. i'm not going to argue against building. but, if this is their attempt to fight offshoring, it's pathetic.
in the long run, i would expect a train or two to nowhere.
it's easy to make the argument that increasing infrastructure in high employment regions is a good investment. but, the term "supercluster" would have described the auto industry around detroit and southern ontario 50 years ago, and no amount of infrastructure in the world could have kept it there.
i'm usually in favour of infrastructure. i'm not going to argue against building. but, if this is their attempt to fight offshoring, it's pathetic.
in the long run, i would expect a train or two to nowhere.
this is actually priceless, because you can tell it was written by some parasitic "venture capitalist" that knows how to talk the government into giving him money, but doesn't have the slightest fucking clue what to actually do with it.
that's what "entrepreneurs" are really good at, after all - swindling people. they can't actually do anything.
so, what this picture says is something like:
1. come up with some pothead scheme.
2. talk the government into giving me money.
3. ?????
4. profit!
i'm not exaggerating. that's what this says.
and, the government reacts by suggesting we need to train more workers, as though everything else in the chain of logic is perfectly sound. but, you would expect them to, because they're every bit as clueless and bourgeois as the entrepreneurs, right? they uphold each others' delusions. it's surreal.
maybe, we should stop giving money to "entrepreneurs" that have nothing but a barely concocted scheme that they haven't the slightest idea how to actualize without smart engineers, and just give money to the workers in the first place, instead.
fuck entrepreneurs. we need more co-ops.
that's what "entrepreneurs" are really good at, after all - swindling people. they can't actually do anything.
so, what this picture says is something like:
1. come up with some pothead scheme.
2. talk the government into giving me money.
3. ?????
4. profit!
i'm not exaggerating. that's what this says.
and, the government reacts by suggesting we need to train more workers, as though everything else in the chain of logic is perfectly sound. but, you would expect them to, because they're every bit as clueless and bourgeois as the entrepreneurs, right? they uphold each others' delusions. it's surreal.
maybe, we should stop giving money to "entrepreneurs" that have nothing but a barely concocted scheme that they haven't the slightest idea how to actualize without smart engineers, and just give money to the workers in the first place, instead.
fuck entrepreneurs. we need more co-ops.
but, i want to draw attention to this specifically.
nobody is talking about preventing "underrepresented groups" from competing and succeeding in "high wage" labour. in fact, our system is pretty focused on helping marginalized groups succeed. we have a different set of systemic biases, here.
but, the governing party sees it fit to specifically exclude "non-underrepresented groups"...which i guess means white people...from walking into the space opened up by pulling back on imported slave labour.
it is legitimately and specifically and explicitly insisting that low-wage work should be racialized.
in the budget...
i guess you're expecting me to be upset by the obvious exclusion of whites, but that's not actually what they're doing here. i mean, they are. but, it's not because they're secretly muslims or something. no. they're upholding a concept of white supremacism by stealth. they're assigning the low-wage labour as being below the white person. this is racializing low-wage labour, and placing it at the bottom of a hierarchy.
for all their attempts to appeal to a kind of plastic left through hollow appeals to diversity, they fuck up on this kind of thing every once in a while, and expose where their real biases are. so, when i periodically accuse them of being brutally racist by stealth, and pushing down the programs they do because they're racist rather than in spite of it, come back to this post to see what i mean.
and, i've argued in the past that this kind of thinking is actually widespread on the left, even (perhaps especially) amongst activists. what all of those anti-oppression workshops were really doing was inserting a racial hierarchy into your brain and normalizing it in ways you hadn't even previously thought of...
nobody is talking about preventing "underrepresented groups" from competing and succeeding in "high wage" labour. in fact, our system is pretty focused on helping marginalized groups succeed. we have a different set of systemic biases, here.
but, the governing party sees it fit to specifically exclude "non-underrepresented groups"...which i guess means white people...from walking into the space opened up by pulling back on imported slave labour.
it is legitimately and specifically and explicitly insisting that low-wage work should be racialized.
in the budget...
i guess you're expecting me to be upset by the obvious exclusion of whites, but that's not actually what they're doing here. i mean, they are. but, it's not because they're secretly muslims or something. no. they're upholding a concept of white supremacism by stealth. they're assigning the low-wage labour as being below the white person. this is racializing low-wage labour, and placing it at the bottom of a hierarchy.
for all their attempts to appeal to a kind of plastic left through hollow appeals to diversity, they fuck up on this kind of thing every once in a while, and expose where their real biases are. so, when i periodically accuse them of being brutally racist by stealth, and pushing down the programs they do because they're racist rather than in spite of it, come back to this post to see what i mean.
and, i've argued in the past that this kind of thinking is actually widespread on the left, even (perhaps especially) amongst activists. what all of those anti-oppression workshops were really doing was inserting a racial hierarchy into your brain and normalizing it in ways you hadn't even previously thought of...
and, this should be abolished altogether as well.
look at the way they word it. they want to make it easier for the mcdonalds to hire mexicans and blacks from down the street, rather than have to import them from out of the country. throughout, the premise of low wage works remains racialized.
or, the bit on "seasonal industries". this is our own backdoor to agricultural slavery. they don't even get a minimum wage.
where is the legislation on introducing minimum wages for "seasonal workers" to go along with the bit about bringing in more slaves?
*crickets*
this program was not meant to be a backdoor for slavery, it was supposed to be a way for high tech firms to bring in skilled workers that were unavailable. but, we've had two successive governments abuse it.
the program should be permanently abolished. the government has proven that it can't handle temporary restrictions of immigration laws without importing slaves.
look at the way they word it. they want to make it easier for the mcdonalds to hire mexicans and blacks from down the street, rather than have to import them from out of the country. throughout, the premise of low wage works remains racialized.
or, the bit on "seasonal industries". this is our own backdoor to agricultural slavery. they don't even get a minimum wage.
where is the legislation on introducing minimum wages for "seasonal workers" to go along with the bit about bringing in more slaves?
*crickets*
this program was not meant to be a backdoor for slavery, it was supposed to be a way for high tech firms to bring in skilled workers that were unavailable. but, we've had two successive governments abuse it.
the program should be permanently abolished. the government has proven that it can't handle temporary restrictions of immigration laws without importing slaves.
see, this is the kind of non-policy that every government has been pushing forever. they make it seem like the job market is healthy, and these unemployed workers are just too lazy and stupid to get a job. what they need is a better education!
meanwhile, they note elsewhere in the budget that young people coming out of school are facing unprecedented challenges.
we used to have the courage to call this what it is - supply-side economics - and reject it as ineffective.
but, the government is not allowed to create jobs anymore due to competition laws. so, what this is is actually a type of welfare. successive governments have refused to admit this because it puts the entire neo-liberal agenda into question. but, the way i see it is that they're just wasting resources. would it not be better to stop wasting money on retraining and instead use those monies to increase and lengthen the assistance?
the reality is that these people are not going to find new jobs. when is the government going to adjust to the new economy, admit the reality of things and find a way beyond it?
meanwhile, they note elsewhere in the budget that young people coming out of school are facing unprecedented challenges.
we used to have the courage to call this what it is - supply-side economics - and reject it as ineffective.
but, the government is not allowed to create jobs anymore due to competition laws. so, what this is is actually a type of welfare. successive governments have refused to admit this because it puts the entire neo-liberal agenda into question. but, the way i see it is that they're just wasting resources. would it not be better to stop wasting money on retraining and instead use those monies to increase and lengthen the assistance?
the reality is that these people are not going to find new jobs. when is the government going to adjust to the new economy, admit the reality of things and find a way beyond it?
i'd rather cut and paste, but the site hosting the document won't allow it. and i don't believe in intellectual property rights anyways, but i think the budget should be public domain, no?
well, i don't give a fuck what you think, anyways.
they actually admit that it's just politics. "we asked you what you wanted, and we developed a document full of politicized language and empty buzz words in order to affirm your biases with.".
then, they pretend this is "democracy".
i wasn't expecting something different. it's just kind of surreal.
well, i don't give a fuck what you think, anyways.
they actually admit that it's just politics. "we asked you what you wanted, and we developed a document full of politicized language and empty buzz words in order to affirm your biases with.".
then, they pretend this is "democracy".
i wasn't expecting something different. it's just kind of surreal.
in canada, if you consider yourself a "progressive", you'd probably prefer the conservatives - and if you consider yourself a "libertarian", you'd probably prefer the liberals. we just haven't had these broad spectrum shifts. we kept the actual meaning of the words...
...or, at least, we did up until a year and a half ago.
they've been creeping me out for a while, this isn't news to me....
...or, at least, we did up until a year and a half ago.
they've been creeping me out for a while, this isn't news to me....
i've been over this a few times, but i need to clarify a point: the legacy of the "progressive movement" in canada did not end up on the left.
for most the twentieth century, the two major parties were the liberals (on the soft-left) and the progressive conservatives (on the soft-right). this is because the progressive party merged with the conservative party in 1942.
maybe the confusion people will have about this is in not understanding old toryism. but, the conservatives in canada were trade protectionists up until the 1970s and broadly supportive of the concept of christian charity. they were also socially conservative, but so were many progressives. it wasn't some frankencreature - the merger fit, and it created some stable governments.
the point i'm making is that there isn't a history of a progressive liberal caucus supporting sin taxes and prohibition like there is in the united states. there's not a dormant history, there. it's just weird.
i'm not even complaining; i don't drink a lot, and the couple of cents won't matter. but that's just my point. it only makes sense as an unexpected ideological shift to attract a nontraditional demographic. and, combined with a list of other things, liberal voters should be getting a little worried about shit.
for most the twentieth century, the two major parties were the liberals (on the soft-left) and the progressive conservatives (on the soft-right). this is because the progressive party merged with the conservative party in 1942.
maybe the confusion people will have about this is in not understanding old toryism. but, the conservatives in canada were trade protectionists up until the 1970s and broadly supportive of the concept of christian charity. they were also socially conservative, but so were many progressives. it wasn't some frankencreature - the merger fit, and it created some stable governments.
the point i'm making is that there isn't a history of a progressive liberal caucus supporting sin taxes and prohibition like there is in the united states. there's not a dormant history, there. it's just weird.
i'm not even complaining; i don't drink a lot, and the couple of cents won't matter. but that's just my point. it only makes sense as an unexpected ideological shift to attract a nontraditional demographic. and, combined with a list of other things, liberal voters should be getting a little worried about shit.
it's a weird budget, from what i can tell.
one would think that the liberals should value the votes of young urban professionals. so, why are they doing away with a tax credit for people using public transit? why don't they throw away tax credits for rural farmers, instead?
worse, people that have been building a list of reasons that the liberals are hypocrites on climate change will correctly point to this as another point of hypocrisy.
nor is the government to be expected to save a significant amount of money by taking away the tax credit. it's a rather obvious ideological slap in the face for their own supporters.
but, i suppose you might hear a dim applause somewhere in calgary?
it's simply hard to make sense of the intent.
likewise, it's hard to see what the purpose of raising taxes on alcohol by a few cents a bottle is, other than to take the legislation to church with. it is neither raising any kind of income, nor is it acting as any kind of disincentive. it just seems like an ideological attempt to lure in right-wing voters with literal crumbs.
as an aside, i think that this is the last piece of evidence required to declare marijuana legalization permanently dead. they're purposefully targeting the religious right, with no discernible logic in fiscal or social policy.
the elimination of the canada savings bond is also obviously ideological. i'm old enough to remember my grandmother explaining to me why it was important to hold debt in the hands of private citizens, rather than let it accumulate in the hands of banks. i can't claim that i disagree with her, but i realize that nobody buys the things. still: why shut it down altogether? see, a part of the reason that the green infrastructure bank that existed in the platform was interesting to me was that it was about public rather than private financing. it seems that this part of the plan has been jettisoned, and that whatever infrastructure gets built is going to be done with a "private-public partnership", meaning it's going to function as a revenue stream to large institutions, many of them dominated by foreigners. shutting down the canada savings bonds is maybe symbolic at this point, but it is consistent with the government's move towards a neo-liberal model of infrastructure financing and indicative of this government's broader interests in working for it's high capital benefactors. we will regret this, in the long run. but, we'll regret not buying into the debt, too - this is the end of a process, not the start of one. regardless, it is another shift to the right.
they're also earmarking large amounts of money to give away to capitalists under various schemes, but one expects that, as it is the very purpose of a bourgeois parliament. but, i don't see anything in the budget that will lead to economic diversification, or open up new sectors.
likewise, this "child care" money is just corporate welfare. there's nothing in the budget about changing the way the system operates, there's just a lot of handouts to capital.
we'll have to see whether any of the money for social housing gets spent, or if it gets spent usefully. you'll excuse me for being cynical.
but, my takeaway is that this is a weird document, with confusing priorities. the very little that it actually does seems designed to piss off their own voters, and try and generate support from the religious right.
one would think that the liberals should value the votes of young urban professionals. so, why are they doing away with a tax credit for people using public transit? why don't they throw away tax credits for rural farmers, instead?
worse, people that have been building a list of reasons that the liberals are hypocrites on climate change will correctly point to this as another point of hypocrisy.
nor is the government to be expected to save a significant amount of money by taking away the tax credit. it's a rather obvious ideological slap in the face for their own supporters.
but, i suppose you might hear a dim applause somewhere in calgary?
it's simply hard to make sense of the intent.
likewise, it's hard to see what the purpose of raising taxes on alcohol by a few cents a bottle is, other than to take the legislation to church with. it is neither raising any kind of income, nor is it acting as any kind of disincentive. it just seems like an ideological attempt to lure in right-wing voters with literal crumbs.
as an aside, i think that this is the last piece of evidence required to declare marijuana legalization permanently dead. they're purposefully targeting the religious right, with no discernible logic in fiscal or social policy.
the elimination of the canada savings bond is also obviously ideological. i'm old enough to remember my grandmother explaining to me why it was important to hold debt in the hands of private citizens, rather than let it accumulate in the hands of banks. i can't claim that i disagree with her, but i realize that nobody buys the things. still: why shut it down altogether? see, a part of the reason that the green infrastructure bank that existed in the platform was interesting to me was that it was about public rather than private financing. it seems that this part of the plan has been jettisoned, and that whatever infrastructure gets built is going to be done with a "private-public partnership", meaning it's going to function as a revenue stream to large institutions, many of them dominated by foreigners. shutting down the canada savings bonds is maybe symbolic at this point, but it is consistent with the government's move towards a neo-liberal model of infrastructure financing and indicative of this government's broader interests in working for it's high capital benefactors. we will regret this, in the long run. but, we'll regret not buying into the debt, too - this is the end of a process, not the start of one. regardless, it is another shift to the right.
they're also earmarking large amounts of money to give away to capitalists under various schemes, but one expects that, as it is the very purpose of a bourgeois parliament. but, i don't see anything in the budget that will lead to economic diversification, or open up new sectors.
likewise, this "child care" money is just corporate welfare. there's nothing in the budget about changing the way the system operates, there's just a lot of handouts to capital.
we'll have to see whether any of the money for social housing gets spent, or if it gets spent usefully. you'll excuse me for being cynical.
but, my takeaway is that this is a weird document, with confusing priorities. the very little that it actually does seems designed to piss off their own voters, and try and generate support from the religious right.
when you see these kinds of situations arise, they're usually being manufactured.
you can call me a conspiracy theorist if you'd like. but, it's a little weird that i told you this was going to happen, isn't it? did anybody else suggest this was plausible?
they don't want to appeal obamacare.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/house-health-care-bill/
you can call me a conspiracy theorist if you'd like. but, it's a little weird that i told you this was going to happen, isn't it? did anybody else suggest this was plausible?
they don't want to appeal obamacare.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/house-health-care-bill/
i want to add a caveat that the bit about race being fluid is a little bit cavalier, and should have probably come with some qualifiers. race is not necessarily fixed. race is potentially fluid. etc.
this is otherwise an excellent study.
but, you'll note that it isn't groundbreaking. the study itself points out that it's results are consistent with genetic testing and also with the anecdotal evidence that has come down to us orally.
http://aida.wss.yale.edu/~nq3/NANCYS_Yale_Website/resources/papers/NixQian_20150101.pdf
this is otherwise an excellent study.
but, you'll note that it isn't groundbreaking. the study itself points out that it's results are consistent with genetic testing and also with the anecdotal evidence that has come down to us orally.
http://aida.wss.yale.edu/~nq3/NANCYS_Yale_Website/resources/papers/NixQian_20150101.pdf
i remember studying this issue at school and concluding it was actually deregulation by stealth, amd would probably lead to exactly the opposite outcome of the one that advocates desire.
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/thoughts/essays/standingtrees.html
that said, rivers in india are kind of a special case because of the centrality of them to the culture. i remain skeptical. but, it's perhaps the best possible test case, too; if it's going to work anywhere, it's most likely to work in a culture that views the river as sacred.
that said, look at how filthy the river is in the picture. it's the first thing that is obvious.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/03/21/india-court-grants-ganges-yamuna-rivers-same-rights-as-a-human.html
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/thoughts/essays/standingtrees.html
that said, rivers in india are kind of a special case because of the centrality of them to the culture. i remain skeptical. but, it's perhaps the best possible test case, too; if it's going to work anywhere, it's most likely to work in a culture that views the river as sacred.
that said, look at how filthy the river is in the picture. it's the first thing that is obvious.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/03/21/india-court-grants-ganges-yamuna-rivers-same-rights-as-a-human.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)