i just want to make a basic request to everybody.
i've studied enough economics to understand that economic modelling is indiscernible from charlatanism. to begin with, the economy is too volatile to make any kind of prediction at all over any extended period of time. but, the forces that they use are broadly too poorly defined to really make any sense of, in a modelling context. supply and demand just simply doesn't work like gravitation, or magnetism. these forces are abstractions of thought, rather than physical constants - they don't actually exist in the real world.
so, you're going to see arguments about this carbon tax that are created by modelling, and essentially none of them are going to mean anything. the models that the government is going to present are essentially just going to be propaganda, and the models that the opposition uses to counter aren't going to be any better. but, up until recently, it was all we had - because a carbon tax was just an idea, and there wasn't any meaningful data to use.
at this point, we should no longer be talking about externalities and incentive systems, or sin taxes, as these broad abstractions. we now have some actual data to use. so, instead of citing some market-based theory about pigovian taxes reducing bad behaviour as this philosophical idea, we should be able to cite actual data about the ability of carbon taxation to reduce emissions. and, what does the data say?
well, this is one study, and it does appear to be a review, but maybe you have something else a bit newer. the point is that i want you to look at data. let's change our epistemology here - we don't have to look at this philosophically any more, we can be scientific about it.
these numbers aren't much outside of the margins, to be honest. it's hard to separate the numbers from the noise. and, i'm left remaining rather skeptical about the efficacy.
again: i'm not going to oppose this, as i stand to make some money from it, and i support the idea underlying it. but, if we're serious about this, i think we're going to need to step away from these market schemes and focus more on directly funding a transition. it doesn't have to be either/or. but, i think that even the most optimistic reading of the empirical data suggests that a carbon tax is not going to be enough to make a serious impact, and this can at best be viewed as "step one".
https://aceee.org/files/proceedings/2016/data/papers/9_49.pdf
Thursday, October 25, 2018
look at syria, for example.
assad is a secular leftist and holds the broad support of the secular urban population.
western imperialist ambitions in the region are supporting radical islamic fundamentalists, that want to set up a brutal theocracy. and, why can't the superpower win in a little country like syria? because these groups have no popular support at all. yet, the relativists will stand up for these groups on the grounds of cultural relativism out of orientalist ignorance; what they're really doing is just pushing western propaganda, for the purposes of generating support to carry through with strategic american geopolitical objectives. they're useful idiots.
there's some problems with speech rights in the country, sure. but, if it's a binary choice, a leftist should side with assad on every level - as an anti-imperialist, as a secularist and as a supporter of democracy and self-representation.
assad is a secular leftist and holds the broad support of the secular urban population.
western imperialist ambitions in the region are supporting radical islamic fundamentalists, that want to set up a brutal theocracy. and, why can't the superpower win in a little country like syria? because these groups have no popular support at all. yet, the relativists will stand up for these groups on the grounds of cultural relativism out of orientalist ignorance; what they're really doing is just pushing western propaganda, for the purposes of generating support to carry through with strategic american geopolitical objectives. they're useful idiots.
there's some problems with speech rights in the country, sure. but, if it's a binary choice, a leftist should side with assad on every level - as an anti-imperialist, as a secularist and as a supporter of democracy and self-representation.
at
16:38
the irony, of course, is that the british and americans have generally carried through their imperialist agenda in the middle east by installing brutal dictators, not by spreading western values systems. the counter-example is iran, but one wonders if that was actually a sign of respect for the deep legacy of iranian culture, almost an invitation for iran to enter into the european world. they never tried anything like that in any arab countries.
and, a lot of anti-imperialist writers will make the point explicitly. to an extent, this kind of moral relativism is actually a type of orientalism. while it is true that the koran forbids homosexuality, it is also true that the strict laws against homosexuality in the arab world are largely a consequence of imperialism, not just since world war one but back to napoleon's invasion of egypt, which did not seek to dismantle these islamic theocracies so much as it sought to use them to create stable puppet regimes. before it collapsed, the ottoman empire was rapidly secularizing; the introduction of british and french forces actually reversed that. what we call the islamic golden age was actually a period of iranian and babylonian renaissance that was ended by an enforcement of islamic theocracy that came in after the mongolian destruction event, and with that enforcement came a crack down on homosexuality, as a consequence of a need to reconstruct the population. historically, crackdowns on homosexuality are usually tied to a need for the elite to create more slaves, which is exactly what happened after the mongol invasion. rumi, for example, was openly bisexual. many anti-imperialist writers have argued that this culture of homophobia and toxic masculinity is not indigenous to the middle east, but actually comes from the militarism of the imperialist west.
it's just another example of how these people are ignorant of history, and just a reflection of the status quo, as enforced by mass media. this idea that the west wants to enforce it's value systems on the east is just a propaganda tool used by western militaries - this has never been true in any meaningful sense. imperialism rejects democracy using all of the same language that the islamic theocracies and military dictatorships will use, which is not a coincidence, as these regimes are the actual legacy of imperialism. and, likewise, it's not some coincidence that these so-called relativists are just out there performing argumentative lip service for the very militant groups that our own governments are supporting, in order to destabilize our geopolitical rivals in russia. they've got it completely backwards.
i have to support the rights of self-determination, not just ideologically but also pragmatically. you can't enforce a democracy on a people. but, i can choose which groups i want to stand in solidarity with, and they are the groups that stand up for enlightenment values in their aim to abolish the ancient orders - which are the groups often in most direct conflict with imperialist ambitions.
and, a lot of anti-imperialist writers will make the point explicitly. to an extent, this kind of moral relativism is actually a type of orientalism. while it is true that the koran forbids homosexuality, it is also true that the strict laws against homosexuality in the arab world are largely a consequence of imperialism, not just since world war one but back to napoleon's invasion of egypt, which did not seek to dismantle these islamic theocracies so much as it sought to use them to create stable puppet regimes. before it collapsed, the ottoman empire was rapidly secularizing; the introduction of british and french forces actually reversed that. what we call the islamic golden age was actually a period of iranian and babylonian renaissance that was ended by an enforcement of islamic theocracy that came in after the mongolian destruction event, and with that enforcement came a crack down on homosexuality, as a consequence of a need to reconstruct the population. historically, crackdowns on homosexuality are usually tied to a need for the elite to create more slaves, which is exactly what happened after the mongol invasion. rumi, for example, was openly bisexual. many anti-imperialist writers have argued that this culture of homophobia and toxic masculinity is not indigenous to the middle east, but actually comes from the militarism of the imperialist west.
it's just another example of how these people are ignorant of history, and just a reflection of the status quo, as enforced by mass media. this idea that the west wants to enforce it's value systems on the east is just a propaganda tool used by western militaries - this has never been true in any meaningful sense. imperialism rejects democracy using all of the same language that the islamic theocracies and military dictatorships will use, which is not a coincidence, as these regimes are the actual legacy of imperialism. and, likewise, it's not some coincidence that these so-called relativists are just out there performing argumentative lip service for the very militant groups that our own governments are supporting, in order to destabilize our geopolitical rivals in russia. they've got it completely backwards.
i have to support the rights of self-determination, not just ideologically but also pragmatically. you can't enforce a democracy on a people. but, i can choose which groups i want to stand in solidarity with, and they are the groups that stand up for enlightenment values in their aim to abolish the ancient orders - which are the groups often in most direct conflict with imperialist ambitions.
at
16:26
a culture that wants to continue to repress homosexuality because it says so in a "sacred book" is authoritarian and immoral and solidarity should be had with those that want to overturn the order and introduce a democratic regime. existing on the left means standing in solidarity with those that are being repressed by authoritarian systems, not shrugging off the existence of those systems as "relativism" or "diversity in thought".
see, here's the thing: the viewpoints held by the hosts here are not historically without precedent. but, this is not "moral relativism". this is simply conservatism. you'll notice that both of the questioners retreated to their bottles of water, producing these "i'm offended" types of body language. and, this is the point that bothers me: they think they're some kind of liberals, and that they've discarded the oppression of enlightenment thought, or something. but, in the process, they've merely retreated to basic conservative value systems.
and, i'm not willing to split hairs over this.
if you're going to stand up for the value systems in a country like iran, i'm going to call you a right-wing extremist and treat you like a mortal enemy - because that's what you are. i'm not going to pretend it doesn't matter, because that is normalizing the value systems that the left needs to overturn to enforce itself.
the reality is that "post-modernism" and "moral relativism" are just synonymous with neo-conservatism: they are a sneaky way to trick leftists into standing up for the status quo.
chomsky is correct, here. there are objective standards of progress, and cultures that reject those objective standards need to be destroyed, by force if necessary. that is a revolutionary, leftist perspective; to suggest otherwise is reactionary and conservative.
see, here's the thing: the viewpoints held by the hosts here are not historically without precedent. but, this is not "moral relativism". this is simply conservatism. you'll notice that both of the questioners retreated to their bottles of water, producing these "i'm offended" types of body language. and, this is the point that bothers me: they think they're some kind of liberals, and that they've discarded the oppression of enlightenment thought, or something. but, in the process, they've merely retreated to basic conservative value systems.
and, i'm not willing to split hairs over this.
if you're going to stand up for the value systems in a country like iran, i'm going to call you a right-wing extremist and treat you like a mortal enemy - because that's what you are. i'm not going to pretend it doesn't matter, because that is normalizing the value systems that the left needs to overturn to enforce itself.
the reality is that "post-modernism" and "moral relativism" are just synonymous with neo-conservatism: they are a sneaky way to trick leftists into standing up for the status quo.
chomsky is correct, here. there are objective standards of progress, and cultures that reject those objective standards need to be destroyed, by force if necessary. that is a revolutionary, leftist perspective; to suggest otherwise is reactionary and conservative.
at
14:52
i have not been following the midterm elections, and will not be posting predictions or analysis here.
at
13:37
notwithstanding some major shift in public perceptions, any time the narrative of an election season shifts to "security" or "terrorism", the republicans will get a bump in the polls.
as it is with immigration and public debt, the facts of the matter aren't important: decades of media framing has ensured that the democrats are seen by most americans as weak on national security. obama deported record numbers of millions of people, but he couldn't overturn the framing; he didn't overturn the framing on the military, either.
if the democrats want to prevent this from harming them in the midterms, they need to find a way to change the topic, and avoid playing into the narrative by appearing obsequious to republican talking points.
personally? i think it could hurt the democrats rather drastically - or, perhaps it's merely an excuse. remember: the united states has very restricted levels of suffrage.
as it is with immigration and public debt, the facts of the matter aren't important: decades of media framing has ensured that the democrats are seen by most americans as weak on national security. obama deported record numbers of millions of people, but he couldn't overturn the framing; he didn't overturn the framing on the military, either.
if the democrats want to prevent this from harming them in the midterms, they need to find a way to change the topic, and avoid playing into the narrative by appearing obsequious to republican talking points.
personally? i think it could hurt the democrats rather drastically - or, perhaps it's merely an excuse. remember: the united states has very restricted levels of suffrage.
at
13:22
so, it could be a very long time before i buy any legal pot.
i'm just not interested right now.
i'm just not interested right now.
at
04:46
i know you're disappointed.
but, i've been clear about the point for a long time: with the exception of yearly "head clears" around christmas, and sometimes mid-year binges around canada day, i don't drink or smoke at all unless i'm at a bar, and i only go to the bar to see concerts.
it's not about the drugs, it's about the music. live music is fun to experience on drugs. but, no music? then no drugs.
but, i'm really more excited right now about celebrating my actual right to be clear-headed than i am about celebrating a so-called right to be stoned.
i simply don't want to be inebriated right now. at all.
but, i've been clear about the point for a long time: with the exception of yearly "head clears" around christmas, and sometimes mid-year binges around canada day, i don't drink or smoke at all unless i'm at a bar, and i only go to the bar to see concerts.
it's not about the drugs, it's about the music. live music is fun to experience on drugs. but, no music? then no drugs.
but, i'm really more excited right now about celebrating my actual right to be clear-headed than i am about celebrating a so-called right to be stoned.
i simply don't want to be inebriated right now. at all.
at
04:45
oh, and that's five months straight edge now, if you're keeping track - although i've noticed a big difference in cognition since getting out of that apartment. longer days. clearer thoughts. getting away from the marijuana has been a definitely huge benefit, so far, on my mental health.
as i'm currently unable to get to detroit to see shows, i could very well remain straight edge for months. there's just simply not a lot of reasons for me to get stoned, here in windsor, as the music scene is broadly absolutely terrible.
i could maybe order a little for christmas, but i'm not really thinking about it right now.
as i'm currently unable to get to detroit to see shows, i could very well remain straight edge for months. there's just simply not a lot of reasons for me to get stoned, here in windsor, as the music scene is broadly absolutely terrible.
i could maybe order a little for christmas, but i'm not really thinking about it right now.
at
04:36
but, nobody at any level is suggesting any kind of sexual misconduct at all.
it's entirely and solely about housing.
i just wanted that point made clear.
it's entirely and solely about housing.
i just wanted that point made clear.
at
03:41
so, when i told the cop "i'm building a discrimination case.", he should have taken that as a block, and gone back to the woman and said "this person has the right to continue to apply for your properties. you might want to stop replying, for your benefit, as you are just demonstrating their point.".
see, but here's the actual key point.
maybe the cop didn't know that. or, maybe the cop thought the situation required more detailed intervention. i think the cop was acting out a bias, but he may have just legitimately been ignorant. as a cop is not a legal scholar, and their job is not to interpret the law but enforce it, what the cop should have done in that scenario is recognize that a conflict with a citizen over an interpretation of the law exists and go before a judge and seek a warrant.
he didn't do that - he acted without authority, broke the law in the process and committed a number of procedural errors that will eventually result in the charges being dropped, and a civil action against the department.
there's a reason that cops are supposed to ask a judge for a legal interpretation before acting, and this situation is a good demonstration of it.
see, but here's the actual key point.
maybe the cop didn't know that. or, maybe the cop thought the situation required more detailed intervention. i think the cop was acting out a bias, but he may have just legitimately been ignorant. as a cop is not a legal scholar, and their job is not to interpret the law but enforce it, what the cop should have done in that scenario is recognize that a conflict with a citizen over an interpretation of the law exists and go before a judge and seek a warrant.
he didn't do that - he acted without authority, broke the law in the process and committed a number of procedural errors that will eventually result in the charges being dropped, and a civil action against the department.
there's a reason that cops are supposed to ask a judge for a legal interpretation before acting, and this situation is a good demonstration of it.
at
03:39
if i was calling her every other day for more or less any other reason, she may have a moral argument, even if she doesn't have a legal one. it is in fact true that she asked me to stop applying. isn't that enough?
not in housing, and not in employment, and not in other scenarios that are governed by human rights legislation. so long as a property is available for rent, or a job opening is available, they have to take the applications, by law - because i have a right to be treated as an equal applicant.
now, that doesn't mean she had the obligation to rent to me. it's up to me to build a discrimination case. and, the less information she provided to me, the harder it would be for me to do that.
but, she can't treat a housing application like a request for personal contact, and then tell me i can't apply for the housing because she doesn't want to speak with me, personally. and, i do think it is clear that these ideas are confused in her mind, and also confused in the mind of the officer.
if she did not want to rent to me, she should have ignored me. but, by getting aggressive with me in demanding i stop replying, she's opened herself up to litigation - and cannot claim she's being harassed as a way out of it.
not in housing, and not in employment, and not in other scenarios that are governed by human rights legislation. so long as a property is available for rent, or a job opening is available, they have to take the applications, by law - because i have a right to be treated as an equal applicant.
now, that doesn't mean she had the obligation to rent to me. it's up to me to build a discrimination case. and, the less information she provided to me, the harder it would be for me to do that.
but, she can't treat a housing application like a request for personal contact, and then tell me i can't apply for the housing because she doesn't want to speak with me, personally. and, i do think it is clear that these ideas are confused in her mind, and also confused in the mind of the officer.
if she did not want to rent to me, she should have ignored me. but, by getting aggressive with me in demanding i stop replying, she's opened herself up to litigation - and cannot claim she's being harassed as a way out of it.
at
03:25
i just want to make a point clear, as people tend to jump to conclusions.
the accusations against me are not related to any question of sexuality in any way. i am not charged with sexual harassment, and i have not met this person formally or been in the same room as them, as far as i know. there is no suggestion by the police or by the complainant that i have made any sort of sexual or romantic advance towards this person. the issue has nothing to do with sex, nothing to do with gender and nothing to do with any kind of interpersonal relationship at all.
what i am accused of is being overly aggressive in my search for housing, and not reacting to a request to stop replying to an ad that was reposted on a daily basis. i want to be clear that i didn't reply to the same ad over and over, so much as i replied to each reposting once. so, i would reply once on every repost.
there is an error in law being made by both the complainant and the officer, in the belief that they have some kind of right to ask me to stop applying, as the communication was related to housing, and housing must always be open to all applicants. the crown will eventually realize this, or be told it by myself or the judge. the basis of the complaint is that the property owner was annoyed that i continued to apply, even after i'd been told that she would not rent to me, because i'm disabled. she thinks she should have a final say in that matter, no doubt because she thinks she has property rights. so, she thinks she has the authority and the right to tell me to stop applying. but, she's wrong. she's actually legally obligated to continue accepting applications from me, so long as she continues to advertise the housing. and, as long as the housing remained available, her continued refusal to communicate with me is not grounds for a harassment suit, but evidence of her active discrimination against me.
i explained this to the complainant, but she either didn't understand it or refused to understand it. i explained it to the cop, but he is a legit moron and wasn't interested in anything except ordering me around. i have not yet had the chance to explain it to the crown, but expect a more informed response when i do.
the charges are for "criminal harassment", which in canada very specifically means repeated threatening or intimidating behaviour. the crown will need to demonstrate that the woman had grounds to believe i was a threat to her safety, or a threat to the safety of her family. and, this is ridiculous - i was merely exercising my rights to apply to the application as an equal, and on an equal basis, rights she appears to not accept or understand.
it is not a sexual harassment charge or a sexual assault charge, and the communication was at no point sexual in nature. i was concerned solely with the question of housing, and with the related question of discrimination on her behalf. and, she was simply annoyed by the repeated applications, which is not something she has grounds to press charges on.
the accusations against me are not related to any question of sexuality in any way. i am not charged with sexual harassment, and i have not met this person formally or been in the same room as them, as far as i know. there is no suggestion by the police or by the complainant that i have made any sort of sexual or romantic advance towards this person. the issue has nothing to do with sex, nothing to do with gender and nothing to do with any kind of interpersonal relationship at all.
what i am accused of is being overly aggressive in my search for housing, and not reacting to a request to stop replying to an ad that was reposted on a daily basis. i want to be clear that i didn't reply to the same ad over and over, so much as i replied to each reposting once. so, i would reply once on every repost.
there is an error in law being made by both the complainant and the officer, in the belief that they have some kind of right to ask me to stop applying, as the communication was related to housing, and housing must always be open to all applicants. the crown will eventually realize this, or be told it by myself or the judge. the basis of the complaint is that the property owner was annoyed that i continued to apply, even after i'd been told that she would not rent to me, because i'm disabled. she thinks she should have a final say in that matter, no doubt because she thinks she has property rights. so, she thinks she has the authority and the right to tell me to stop applying. but, she's wrong. she's actually legally obligated to continue accepting applications from me, so long as she continues to advertise the housing. and, as long as the housing remained available, her continued refusal to communicate with me is not grounds for a harassment suit, but evidence of her active discrimination against me.
i explained this to the complainant, but she either didn't understand it or refused to understand it. i explained it to the cop, but he is a legit moron and wasn't interested in anything except ordering me around. i have not yet had the chance to explain it to the crown, but expect a more informed response when i do.
the charges are for "criminal harassment", which in canada very specifically means repeated threatening or intimidating behaviour. the crown will need to demonstrate that the woman had grounds to believe i was a threat to her safety, or a threat to the safety of her family. and, this is ridiculous - i was merely exercising my rights to apply to the application as an equal, and on an equal basis, rights she appears to not accept or understand.
it is not a sexual harassment charge or a sexual assault charge, and the communication was at no point sexual in nature. i was concerned solely with the question of housing, and with the related question of discrimination on her behalf. and, she was simply annoyed by the repeated applications, which is not something she has grounds to press charges on.
at
03:15
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)