but, let's take a step back on this.
we know that the koch brothers are not stupid people, at least. so, if we take them at face value - and let's keep in mind that these people are all about choices. as neil peart said, even if you haven't made a choice, you've still made a choice. my dad was a rush fan, and i made fun of him every day for it. - we're left to believe that they made the following choice:
instead of:
(a) incrementally repealing obamacare. i mean, maybe the ahca wasn't what they wanted but it was a step in the direction they wanted, right? they could come back for the kill, later.
they chose...
(b) vote against an incremental repeal, and instead do nothing.
maybe the thinking is that they're waiting for donald trump to create a fourth branch of government, so that they can dominate that in 2018.
considering that we know they're not stupid, we have to conclude their hearts weren't really into it - that they never intended to do this, and the whole thing was a ploy.
i saw this from a distance because i understand that the political system is all theatre. the system is designed to prevent any kind of real democracy by continually confusing and distracting people. and, they always get what they want.
they wanted obamacare, and they got it and now you're stuck with it.
as an aside, as a canadian, this was one of a small number of issues that actually affects me. if this is shutting down, it's going to remove a big part of my interest in american politics - or at least until the next cycle, when i throw my support behind a single-payer candidate.
Saturday, March 25, 2017
people don't like salespeople because they're perceived of as liars.
people want to put in a day's worth of honest work.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sales-jobs-for-young-canadians-1.4039537
people want to put in a day's worth of honest work.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sales-jobs-for-young-canadians-1.4039537
at
22:38
i'm actually a little bit shocked that the media is giving time to somebody that is arguing against laws that restrict driving under the influence of marijuana.
i present myself as an expert on all things, but of all of the things i'm an expert on, being stoned is one of the things i'm most qualified to talk about. when you're stoned, something that happens is that you experience a delay in reaction time. maybe you've seen this presented to you in movies - this kind of memetic joke of a burnout taking a few seconds to react (and then speaking slowly), or the ritual of waving to a space cadet to bring them back from staring at the wall. this is a realistic portrayal of the effects of marijuana.
the delay in reaction time that marijuana produces, combined with the fact that most people only require a puff to get stoned, should actually imply an almost zero-tolerance position. you should never drive when you're stoned.
marijuana is not a medicine, and i actually really hope that legalization negates all of the absurd talk that it is. i mean, people used to refer to alcohol as medicinal 100 years ago, too, as absurd as that seems, today. but, even a bottle of cough syrup tells you not to drive under the influence. this isn't singling them out.
marijuana advocates need to be aware of how absurd these arguments are to the general public (and how wrong they are, too) and distant themselves from them.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-marijuana-legislation-1.4039047
i present myself as an expert on all things, but of all of the things i'm an expert on, being stoned is one of the things i'm most qualified to talk about. when you're stoned, something that happens is that you experience a delay in reaction time. maybe you've seen this presented to you in movies - this kind of memetic joke of a burnout taking a few seconds to react (and then speaking slowly), or the ritual of waving to a space cadet to bring them back from staring at the wall. this is a realistic portrayal of the effects of marijuana.
the delay in reaction time that marijuana produces, combined with the fact that most people only require a puff to get stoned, should actually imply an almost zero-tolerance position. you should never drive when you're stoned.
marijuana is not a medicine, and i actually really hope that legalization negates all of the absurd talk that it is. i mean, people used to refer to alcohol as medicinal 100 years ago, too, as absurd as that seems, today. but, even a bottle of cough syrup tells you not to drive under the influence. this isn't singling them out.
marijuana advocates need to be aware of how absurd these arguments are to the general public (and how wrong they are, too) and distant themselves from them.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-marijuana-legislation-1.4039047
at
22:24
tomi lahren was obviously always a scripted actor.
no.
stop.
scripted.
i don't know what she thinks, or particularly care, either. i mean, maybe she was faking it in college and is truly a right-winger. maybe she's realizing her career is being restricted by holding certain opinions. i don't know; i don't care. but, i can tell you that she didn't write a word of what she said on her tv show - and anybody that is paying any attention at all can see that.
there's a reason she had difficulty answering questions in real-time and had to resort to yelling people down, and it's that her job was to just read shit off the teleprompter.
that said, she could even be secretly brilliant. who knows? i don't. and, i don't care...
but, i've posted about this previously. there was never any use in arguing with her, because she wasn't actually expressing her own views. if she was pissing you off, what you wanted to do was figure out who her script writer was and track (probably) him down and go after him.
but, again: i'm not brilliant. it was obvious. if you fell for it, you're an idiot.
no.
stop.
scripted.
i don't know what she thinks, or particularly care, either. i mean, maybe she was faking it in college and is truly a right-winger. maybe she's realizing her career is being restricted by holding certain opinions. i don't know; i don't care. but, i can tell you that she didn't write a word of what she said on her tv show - and anybody that is paying any attention at all can see that.
there's a reason she had difficulty answering questions in real-time and had to resort to yelling people down, and it's that her job was to just read shit off the teleprompter.
that said, she could even be secretly brilliant. who knows? i don't. and, i don't care...
but, i've posted about this previously. there was never any use in arguing with her, because she wasn't actually expressing her own views. if she was pissing you off, what you wanted to do was figure out who her script writer was and track (probably) him down and go after him.
but, again: i'm not brilliant. it was obvious. if you fell for it, you're an idiot.
at
21:27
i should also point out that i'm reacting matter-of-factly to the idea of being monitored because i've been aware of the reality of it for years.
i think i first became aware of being trailed around 1998 or so, as a result of the opinions i expressed in debates over usenet. there was a specific van that seemed to follow me all over the city of ottawa, for years. i was just a kid; i didn't think through the consequences of ranting on the internet.
i've lived most of my life with the understanding that i'm being followed. there are actually some upsides to it, if you think it through.
i think i first became aware of being trailed around 1998 or so, as a result of the opinions i expressed in debates over usenet. there was a specific van that seemed to follow me all over the city of ottawa, for years. i was just a kid; i didn't think through the consequences of ranting on the internet.
i've lived most of my life with the understanding that i'm being followed. there are actually some upsides to it, if you think it through.
at
20:46
i don't think the guy at the bar last night was random, and i was cognizant of it as the discussion was ongoing.
it's not exactly clear to me what it is that some shady political establishment thinks it would accomplish by convincing me that a god exists. i mean, i can guess that they may possibly be thinking that it might make me more industrious - that's the anarchist deconstruction of religion in the first place, that it's a tool used by capital to maximize productivity and keep good order. i'm not really interested in being a criminal, so trying to convince me, specifically, would have to be with the aim of making me more industrious.
i don't pretend that the preachers and politicians and other "enforcers" have any real faith in anything. it's only the ignorant at the bottom of the chain that actually believe any of this stuff; the enforcers are behaving pragmatically in the interests of their benefactors, as they always are. so, where the real debate lies is not in the validity of religion, but in the value of it. will religion actually make people more industrious? what the atheist argues is that it will not make people more industrious, or more moral or more pliable and may actually even make them less productive, less moral and more rigid. i think the only point we agree on is that religion is essential for generating jingoism and promoting war - you can't successfully declare and wage and win a war without using religion to generate support for it and that is a truth that has demonstrated itself repeatedly over the centuries.
i'm trying to imagine what i'd actually be like if i legitimately, honestly, seriously believed in a god and i have to think i'd probably actually be some kind of jesus freak missionary. if you took away my fear of death, i'd be a lot more willing to take risk and my threshold for pain would be a lot higher. so, i'd probably end up as a full-time political activist. what would change is probably that i'd convert my cynicism into a sense of self-righteousness and find myself more actively engaged in protest. i could very well end up in jail. and, i might end up on people's shirts.
free jessica
i'd rather just be free, thanks.
it's not exactly clear to me what it is that some shady political establishment thinks it would accomplish by convincing me that a god exists. i mean, i can guess that they may possibly be thinking that it might make me more industrious - that's the anarchist deconstruction of religion in the first place, that it's a tool used by capital to maximize productivity and keep good order. i'm not really interested in being a criminal, so trying to convince me, specifically, would have to be with the aim of making me more industrious.
i don't pretend that the preachers and politicians and other "enforcers" have any real faith in anything. it's only the ignorant at the bottom of the chain that actually believe any of this stuff; the enforcers are behaving pragmatically in the interests of their benefactors, as they always are. so, where the real debate lies is not in the validity of religion, but in the value of it. will religion actually make people more industrious? what the atheist argues is that it will not make people more industrious, or more moral or more pliable and may actually even make them less productive, less moral and more rigid. i think the only point we agree on is that religion is essential for generating jingoism and promoting war - you can't successfully declare and wage and win a war without using religion to generate support for it and that is a truth that has demonstrated itself repeatedly over the centuries.
i'm trying to imagine what i'd actually be like if i legitimately, honestly, seriously believed in a god and i have to think i'd probably actually be some kind of jesus freak missionary. if you took away my fear of death, i'd be a lot more willing to take risk and my threshold for pain would be a lot higher. so, i'd probably end up as a full-time political activist. what would change is probably that i'd convert my cynicism into a sense of self-righteousness and find myself more actively engaged in protest. i could very well end up in jail. and, i might end up on people's shirts.
free jessica
i'd rather just be free, thanks.
at
20:22
somebody was pushing pascal's wager down pretty hard in the smoking section last night.
(i'm not sure if he knew it was pascal's wager)
it's logically sound, with the caveat of quantifying it. if you think that the chances that a god exists are 50/50, it is rational to take pascal's wager and accept religion. certainly, you'd have to acknowledge that rejecting religion is taking on substantial risk.
but, if you think that the chances that a god exists are better quantified at <1%, as i do, then pascal's wager breaks down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
(i'm not sure if he knew it was pascal's wager)
it's logically sound, with the caveat of quantifying it. if you think that the chances that a god exists are 50/50, it is rational to take pascal's wager and accept religion. certainly, you'd have to acknowledge that rejecting religion is taking on substantial risk.
but, if you think that the chances that a god exists are better quantified at <1%, as i do, then pascal's wager breaks down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
at
18:12
the democratic party just stuck a knife in the back of the millions of activists that have spent years or decades campaigning for single-payer, and that make up a substantial core of their activist base.
that is what trump meant when he said the democrats now own obamacare.
that is what trump meant when he said the democrats now own obamacare.
at
16:19
trump's statement about the democrats owning obamacare is the correct analysis, on this: he's right. they own this. it's theirs.
personally, i would have hoped that at least a couple of democrats would have voted to tear obamacare down with the aim of campaigning on single payer. but, there wasn't the slightest bit of support for that position.
we are now left to conclude that the democrats do not support single payer. they support obamacare. this is the position of the democratic party, and there is no discernible opposition to it.
so, the republicans now get to stand back and watch the party tear itself up over it - because voters that reject obamacare, and insist on single payer, can no longer deceive themselves into thinking that this position is held by the democrats, or that voting for the democrats is going to lead to universal health care coverage as an outcome. you vote democrat, you get obamacare.
this is what i dreaded.
trump just tossed the potato into the democratic primaries. and, leftist democrats should now be making it a priority to target representatives that refused to stand up for single payer.
personally, i would have hoped that at least a couple of democrats would have voted to tear obamacare down with the aim of campaigning on single payer. but, there wasn't the slightest bit of support for that position.
we are now left to conclude that the democrats do not support single payer. they support obamacare. this is the position of the democratic party, and there is no discernible opposition to it.
so, the republicans now get to stand back and watch the party tear itself up over it - because voters that reject obamacare, and insist on single payer, can no longer deceive themselves into thinking that this position is held by the democrats, or that voting for the democrats is going to lead to universal health care coverage as an outcome. you vote democrat, you get obamacare.
this is what i dreaded.
trump just tossed the potato into the democratic primaries. and, leftist democrats should now be making it a priority to target representatives that refused to stand up for single payer.
at
16:15
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)