their music:
review:
event listing:
https://www.facebook.com/events/907769916278336/
link:
Monday, April 15, 2019
i'm not even sure if the $154 that was applied is a minimum payment on the loan.
i suspect that it isn't.
so, they withheld a refund amount that is probably less than a month's worth of interest on the balance.
no previous government in my memory has ever been that petty. but, like i say - i suspect this is incompetence rather than malice.
i suspect that it isn't.
so, they withheld a refund amount that is probably less than a month's worth of interest on the balance.
no previous government in my memory has ever been that petty. but, like i say - i suspect this is incompetence rather than malice.
at
15:43
i don't drive, and my carbon footprint is extremely low. my biggest crime is importing fruit, but imports are exempt from the tax, which is part of the reason it's not likely to be effective.
if i start noticing the price of food go up, i might react differently, but i don't expect that to happen.
so, this isn't really going to cost me anything, because i didn't need to be hit over the head with a tax to be responsible - i already was, and i would be anyways.
so, i'm not going to react because i don't expect to get hit, anyways.
but, the way it's designed is going to disproportionately affect low income voters with outstanding debts. if you're a cab driver with an outstanding loan, for example, you're going to get nailed, and you're not going to get it back. it is consequently correct to label this a tax on poor people, even if it's as a consequence of a poor design rather than a malicious ploy.
normally, when the conservatives make arguments like this, it's based on a misunderstanding of the policy, because the liberals are smart enough to see it coming and make the proper adjustments ahead of time. not so, here - the expected naive & wrong attack is actually going to be correct.
it's one thing to take a risk like this on a policy that's probably not going to work. it's another to completely fuck it up....
so, how many people are going to get an unpleasant surprise in the mail? and how is that going to affect voting decisions?
if i start noticing the price of food go up, i might react differently, but i don't expect that to happen.
so, this isn't really going to cost me anything, because i didn't need to be hit over the head with a tax to be responsible - i already was, and i would be anyways.
so, i'm not going to react because i don't expect to get hit, anyways.
but, the way it's designed is going to disproportionately affect low income voters with outstanding debts. if you're a cab driver with an outstanding loan, for example, you're going to get nailed, and you're not going to get it back. it is consequently correct to label this a tax on poor people, even if it's as a consequence of a poor design rather than a malicious ploy.
normally, when the conservatives make arguments like this, it's based on a misunderstanding of the policy, because the liberals are smart enough to see it coming and make the proper adjustments ahead of time. not so, here - the expected naive & wrong attack is actually going to be correct.
it's one thing to take a risk like this on a policy that's probably not going to work. it's another to completely fuck it up....
so, how many people are going to get an unpleasant surprise in the mail? and how is that going to affect voting decisions?
at
15:36
i guess it's one way to forgive a loan, right?
it's amateur hour. really.
from an economics standpoint, we'd all be better off if i spent that money tipping a local bartender.
they should have offered the credit as a rebate.
it's amateur hour. really.
from an economics standpoint, we'd all be better off if i spent that money tipping a local bartender.
they should have offered the credit as a rebate.
at
15:19
yeah. they transferred my carbon tax credit to pay down my student loan balance.
student loan balance before tax return applied: 67889.96.
current student loan balance: 67735.96
current bank account balance: ~ $1800.00
well, the price of carbon goes up every year, right?
i'm not wasting my time with this...
student loan balance before tax return applied: 67889.96.
current student loan balance: 67735.96
current bank account balance: ~ $1800.00
well, the price of carbon goes up every year, right?
i'm not wasting my time with this...
at
15:16
some shit disturbing from nik, here.
that's a six point spread at the edges of the margin, with 15% undecided and a high number of uncommitted voters. based solely on this one poll, it is statistically possible that she might actually win.
what was supposed to be a sure thing now looks more like a province that doesn't know what it wants.
does she have enough support in calgary to hold him to a minority? i think that's the open question.
http://www.nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-1424-Globe-Nanos-Alberta-Election-Populated-Report-with-tabulations.pdf
that's a six point spread at the edges of the margin, with 15% undecided and a high number of uncommitted voters. based solely on this one poll, it is statistically possible that she might actually win.
what was supposed to be a sure thing now looks more like a province that doesn't know what it wants.
does she have enough support in calgary to hold him to a minority? i think that's the open question.
http://www.nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-1424-Globe-Nanos-Alberta-Election-Populated-Report-with-tabulations.pdf
at
14:56
and, i need to point out once again that all of my sites are listed on the sidebar, and sites that are not listed on the sidebar are not my sites.
i am aware that there is a person that lives in detroit that has been confused for me, to some problematic outcomes. i have met that person, but i am not her, and in truth have little in common with her. i do not want to be associated with her.
i am rather a canadian citizen that lives in windsor.
i do not have dual citizenship.
i do not live in detroit.
i am aware that there is a person that lives in detroit that has been confused for me, to some problematic outcomes. i have met that person, but i am not her, and in truth have little in common with her. i do not want to be associated with her.
i am rather a canadian citizen that lives in windsor.
i do not have dual citizenship.
i do not live in detroit.
at
12:23
it is a matter of historical fact that the term "progressive" is associated with some of the most horrific crimes of systemic racism, conservative reactionaryism and hierarchical oppression in american history, and this idea of romanticizing it as an era of positive change is something that needs to be attacked head-on. it's a total whitewashing of history.
this was a period in american history where human rights were discarded as meaningless, and religious fundamentalism nearly drove the country into totalitarianism; it is a period where the country dodged a bullet, as it teetered on the brink of fascism.
progressive should be a bad word, something that people on the left distance themselves from, and not some way to disassociate yourself from corporatism. as an actual leftist, i see progressivism as a movement that exists on the right, and the word as interchangeable with conservatism.
some history of the progressive movement:
1) in america, it was progressives that were advocates of eugenics - not liberals or socialists. today, california continues to regularly sterilize people, with no opposition from progressives. leftists thoroughly oppose eugenics as pseudo-science.
https://fee.org/articles/the-progressive-ideas-that-fueled-america-s-eugenics-movement/
2) it was progressives that were the force behind the puritanical christian temperance movement, which it took decades to defeat. these were basically the rad fems of their era. leftists were and still are in diametric opposition to everything about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman%27s_Christian_Temperance_Union
3) it was progressives that were behind the tyrannical roosevelt corollary, and the colonialism of the roosevelt presidency, in general. leftists oppose colonialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary
4) it was progressives that argued that anti-trust legislation is required to maintain competitive practices within the framework of free market capitalism. leftists refer to competition as "anarchy in production" and instead argue for planned economies, either centralized or decentralized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act_of_1914
progressives had a few good ideas, too. so did hitler. so did stalin.
but, progressivism needs to be defined by the policies that were legislated in the progressive era, and none of this is remotely left-wing, at all.
so, my claim is that progressives and conservatives are the same thing, and that leftists should reject the term progressive due to it's historical association with terrible legislative acts and backwards, repressive ideals. i can and will back my argument up with specific references, reasoned arguments and facts.
i guess you can react by calling me names, if you really want.
this was a period in american history where human rights were discarded as meaningless, and religious fundamentalism nearly drove the country into totalitarianism; it is a period where the country dodged a bullet, as it teetered on the brink of fascism.
progressive should be a bad word, something that people on the left distance themselves from, and not some way to disassociate yourself from corporatism. as an actual leftist, i see progressivism as a movement that exists on the right, and the word as interchangeable with conservatism.
some history of the progressive movement:
1) in america, it was progressives that were advocates of eugenics - not liberals or socialists. today, california continues to regularly sterilize people, with no opposition from progressives. leftists thoroughly oppose eugenics as pseudo-science.
https://fee.org/articles/the-progressive-ideas-that-fueled-america-s-eugenics-movement/
2) it was progressives that were the force behind the puritanical christian temperance movement, which it took decades to defeat. these were basically the rad fems of their era. leftists were and still are in diametric opposition to everything about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman%27s_Christian_Temperance_Union
3) it was progressives that were behind the tyrannical roosevelt corollary, and the colonialism of the roosevelt presidency, in general. leftists oppose colonialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary
4) it was progressives that argued that anti-trust legislation is required to maintain competitive practices within the framework of free market capitalism. leftists refer to competition as "anarchy in production" and instead argue for planned economies, either centralized or decentralized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act_of_1914
progressives had a few good ideas, too. so did hitler. so did stalin.
but, progressivism needs to be defined by the policies that were legislated in the progressive era, and none of this is remotely left-wing, at all.
so, my claim is that progressives and conservatives are the same thing, and that leftists should reject the term progressive due to it's historical association with terrible legislative acts and backwards, repressive ideals. i can and will back my argument up with specific references, reasoned arguments and facts.
i guess you can react by calling me names, if you really want.
at
12:20
i am now totally, completely done with july and ready to move on to august.
but, i have things to do and deal with this week, so don't expect me to get a serious start on it until mid-week.
but, i have things to do and deal with this week, so don't expect me to get a serious start on it until mid-week.
at
07:19
what states are really in play in the rust belt?
well, it's hard to understand how minnesota was ever in play to begin with. the democrats can certainly win minnesota.
the democrats are going to need some help from the new governor in wisconsin to reverse the mess that scott walker created in terms of voting rights, but wisconsin is certainly in play - if that happens. if there is not fast, decisive action on that front, wisconsin could be more of a challenge than you think.
iowa is winnable in theory, but it's a murky task. i think it's driven by a demographic conflict, where you have a lot of students and a lot of farmers. the traditional tactic is to go to iowa and talk about corn subsidies, but the democrats probably actually need to appeal to the youth vote if they want to win in iowa. that's probably actually why obama did well there in his first term, which would indicate that it is particularly winnable for sanders. it's actually probably about getting kids out to vote.
kansas is urbanizing, while missouri is collapsing. it's probably more of a question of local politics. i've been arguing for years that missouri should be seen as the bellweather state that it used to be - that a competitive democrat should be able to win in missouri, and easily. but, there's some recent evidence that my logic around missouri may be better applied to kansas, as the state's financial center shifts west, and the bulk of missouri ends up swallowed by arkansas. this discussion may end up better applied to the next cycle, but the evidence right now may suggest that the democrats' traditional attempts to win back missouri may be better applied to kansas.
so long as chicago is chicago, illinois will not be in play. but note that detroit is no longer detroit, and michigan is now in play. things can change, but don't expect it to happen in 2020.
then, you tun into indiana. while obama did win in indiana, it was some kind of weird fluke; the republicans have consistently held indiana since lincoln. it didn't even realign in the 60s; this is probably the most republican state in the country. if the democrats end up winning indiana, it will be as a symptom of a sweep and nothing more. it is really not in play and really never has been.
likewise, i don't actually think that ohio is a swing state. ohio is a red state. the democrats should not sink themselves trying to win in ohio. they have a better chance in virginia and a better chance in north carolina.
michigan is winnable but, like wisconsin, there needs to be some active effort put into undoing the suppression tactics put in place by rick snyder. if democrats don't address this, they could be in for another nasty surprise.
and, the same thing needs to be said of pennsylvania: the democrats should easily win here, but they need to undo the suppression tactics....
well, it's hard to understand how minnesota was ever in play to begin with. the democrats can certainly win minnesota.
the democrats are going to need some help from the new governor in wisconsin to reverse the mess that scott walker created in terms of voting rights, but wisconsin is certainly in play - if that happens. if there is not fast, decisive action on that front, wisconsin could be more of a challenge than you think.
iowa is winnable in theory, but it's a murky task. i think it's driven by a demographic conflict, where you have a lot of students and a lot of farmers. the traditional tactic is to go to iowa and talk about corn subsidies, but the democrats probably actually need to appeal to the youth vote if they want to win in iowa. that's probably actually why obama did well there in his first term, which would indicate that it is particularly winnable for sanders. it's actually probably about getting kids out to vote.
kansas is urbanizing, while missouri is collapsing. it's probably more of a question of local politics. i've been arguing for years that missouri should be seen as the bellweather state that it used to be - that a competitive democrat should be able to win in missouri, and easily. but, there's some recent evidence that my logic around missouri may be better applied to kansas, as the state's financial center shifts west, and the bulk of missouri ends up swallowed by arkansas. this discussion may end up better applied to the next cycle, but the evidence right now may suggest that the democrats' traditional attempts to win back missouri may be better applied to kansas.
so long as chicago is chicago, illinois will not be in play. but note that detroit is no longer detroit, and michigan is now in play. things can change, but don't expect it to happen in 2020.
then, you tun into indiana. while obama did win in indiana, it was some kind of weird fluke; the republicans have consistently held indiana since lincoln. it didn't even realign in the 60s; this is probably the most republican state in the country. if the democrats end up winning indiana, it will be as a symptom of a sweep and nothing more. it is really not in play and really never has been.
likewise, i don't actually think that ohio is a swing state. ohio is a red state. the democrats should not sink themselves trying to win in ohio. they have a better chance in virginia and a better chance in north carolina.
michigan is winnable but, like wisconsin, there needs to be some active effort put into undoing the suppression tactics put in place by rick snyder. if democrats don't address this, they could be in for another nasty surprise.
and, the same thing needs to be said of pennsylvania: the democrats should easily win here, but they need to undo the suppression tactics....
at
05:09
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)