if beethoven had a blog, what would it be like?
i don't know.
i know there's a lot of historians that would find it interesting, though.
this is, first and foremost, for the historians of the future.
and, that is all.
Tuesday, September 8, 2020
is the fact that i've never made i dime from blogging or vlogging, and something like $500 total from selling music over the last 25 years, shocking to you?
i seem to be confusing some powerful people that just don't understand what i am or what i'm doing....maybe the narrative is fragmented.....
let's rewind. i'll tell you the short story, right here.
i started posting comments on youtube in early 2014, initially when my computer was in a state of disrepair. the story is partially up here, now - click 2014 on the side. first, i lost a hard drive, and then i lost a bios. so, i had to wait for a bus pirate to arrive in the mail before i could get back to recording (in april, 2014), and found myself with a lot of time to blow.
i started uploading music to this site, first, in dec 2013:
https://www.youtube.com/user/deathtokoalas
from that account, i found myself commenting on a lot of music.
years before that, starting around 2010, i also had a facebook page set up that was essentially a link dump for political analysis that came out of my facebook feed, which was full of sites like the real news. i also found myself commenting on general youtube videos from that account, as they came to me in my facebook feed. this itself was continuation of prominent commenting on the cbc site over roughly 2006-2010, and posting in various places under different pseudonyms years before that.
it wasn't long before i realized that i was directing traffic to my music site by commenting on youtube videos, so i recognized an opportunity to market my music and jumped at it. i started purposefully trolling high traffic sites to draw attention to myself, and try to direct random viewers to my own site instead of the site they were at. while i come from a left-wing activist background, the ultimate purpose of this was always really solely to sell my own music; i was a musician long before i was ever an activist.
once i started realizing i was directing hundreds or sometimes even thousands of people to my youtube site a day, i had to ask myself a question: did i want to put ads on my music? i grappled with this pretty thoroughly, as i would consider that a form of prostitution, which i'm morally opposed to. i'm not like these young people that are willing to sell whatever they can to get by; i'm a gen xer, i have values, and i didn't want to whore myself out to some fucking youtube ad revenue. the premise revolted me, truly. on top of that, i realized that i'd be unlikely to make any kind of significant revenue that way. putting an ad on my youtube videos (which were all music at this point, like exists at bandcamp, and like still exists at the deathtokoalas site) would just give somebody an opportunity to steal the attention of potential listeners; it struck me as counterproductive to go through so much effort to get people's attention, only to let some advertiser co-opt me. the video was an ad for my own product, available at bandcamp; i didn't want to put an ad for something else in the way and risk sending people off to watch some vacuous movie or something.
so, over 2014 and 2015, i made thousands of youtube posts on hundreds of videos about everything, and developed somewhat of a following amongst youtube addicts, who would sometimes go to my music site but really cared mostly about my comments.
after the 2015 canadian election, i started a vlog and kept at it until mid 2017:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCinQSeEtF0vSN1XVhQGfwKA/
i decided that i would feel ok about monetizing the vlog, but not the music, and i did. i still hoped to direct people to my music through commenting, but i allowed for ads in that space as a kind of compromise to myself.
because, you only get that chance once, and, if you blow it you're potentially throwing away a life of true freedom. i've always said i'd give the music away for free if i wasn't so desperately fucking poor.
i guess it was in late 2016 or early 2017 - not long after the last election - that i started noticing i'd been shadow-banned on youtube. they went after me on google+ first, delaying a few posts (i don't think anything was deleted permanently, but some things sort of disappeared for a bit before reappearing). so, i launched a project to get everything i could off of youtube as fast as i could, and migrated here instead.
the technical reason i stopped publishing the vlog was that i got into a fight with my landlord that eventually led to me getting evicted. i didn't want to put vlogs up while in a legal dispute, as i was going to present some of them as evidence.
but, i eventually mostly dropped it because i wasn't directing anything to the bandcamp site; it wasn't working as the portal that i hoped it would.
rather, i just drew a lot of attention to myself by people that seem to think i'm some kind of spy, which sounds like the plot to a fucking jim carrey movie.
i think i sort of get that these commenting systems are basically run by psychologists in the employ of the state that use it to measure the effectiveness of propaganda. i'm absolutely beyond their reach, and they don't know what to do, or how to react, so they just target me and try to shut me down.
*shrug*
why am i doing this now?
i'm generating documentation for my life, essentially. if i can ever get back on top of this, this vlog will be a front-end that documents my life as a composer. the political views are a part of that, and my analysis and deconstruction exists in the context of my works as an artist, but it's all just a front-end, a way into the discography.
you can believe me or not, or use it as an excuse to continue to try to repress me.
but, this is what i am, why i exist and what i'm doing.
....in between choking on drugs being smoked by the undercover police officers upstairs.
i seem to be confusing some powerful people that just don't understand what i am or what i'm doing....maybe the narrative is fragmented.....
let's rewind. i'll tell you the short story, right here.
i started posting comments on youtube in early 2014, initially when my computer was in a state of disrepair. the story is partially up here, now - click 2014 on the side. first, i lost a hard drive, and then i lost a bios. so, i had to wait for a bus pirate to arrive in the mail before i could get back to recording (in april, 2014), and found myself with a lot of time to blow.
i started uploading music to this site, first, in dec 2013:
https://www.youtube.com/user/deathtokoalas
from that account, i found myself commenting on a lot of music.
years before that, starting around 2010, i also had a facebook page set up that was essentially a link dump for political analysis that came out of my facebook feed, which was full of sites like the real news. i also found myself commenting on general youtube videos from that account, as they came to me in my facebook feed. this itself was continuation of prominent commenting on the cbc site over roughly 2006-2010, and posting in various places under different pseudonyms years before that.
it wasn't long before i realized that i was directing traffic to my music site by commenting on youtube videos, so i recognized an opportunity to market my music and jumped at it. i started purposefully trolling high traffic sites to draw attention to myself, and try to direct random viewers to my own site instead of the site they were at. while i come from a left-wing activist background, the ultimate purpose of this was always really solely to sell my own music; i was a musician long before i was ever an activist.
once i started realizing i was directing hundreds or sometimes even thousands of people to my youtube site a day, i had to ask myself a question: did i want to put ads on my music? i grappled with this pretty thoroughly, as i would consider that a form of prostitution, which i'm morally opposed to. i'm not like these young people that are willing to sell whatever they can to get by; i'm a gen xer, i have values, and i didn't want to whore myself out to some fucking youtube ad revenue. the premise revolted me, truly. on top of that, i realized that i'd be unlikely to make any kind of significant revenue that way. putting an ad on my youtube videos (which were all music at this point, like exists at bandcamp, and like still exists at the deathtokoalas site) would just give somebody an opportunity to steal the attention of potential listeners; it struck me as counterproductive to go through so much effort to get people's attention, only to let some advertiser co-opt me. the video was an ad for my own product, available at bandcamp; i didn't want to put an ad for something else in the way and risk sending people off to watch some vacuous movie or something.
so, over 2014 and 2015, i made thousands of youtube posts on hundreds of videos about everything, and developed somewhat of a following amongst youtube addicts, who would sometimes go to my music site but really cared mostly about my comments.
after the 2015 canadian election, i started a vlog and kept at it until mid 2017:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCinQSeEtF0vSN1XVhQGfwKA/
i decided that i would feel ok about monetizing the vlog, but not the music, and i did. i still hoped to direct people to my music through commenting, but i allowed for ads in that space as a kind of compromise to myself.
because, you only get that chance once, and, if you blow it you're potentially throwing away a life of true freedom. i've always said i'd give the music away for free if i wasn't so desperately fucking poor.
i guess it was in late 2016 or early 2017 - not long after the last election - that i started noticing i'd been shadow-banned on youtube. they went after me on google+ first, delaying a few posts (i don't think anything was deleted permanently, but some things sort of disappeared for a bit before reappearing). so, i launched a project to get everything i could off of youtube as fast as i could, and migrated here instead.
the technical reason i stopped publishing the vlog was that i got into a fight with my landlord that eventually led to me getting evicted. i didn't want to put vlogs up while in a legal dispute, as i was going to present some of them as evidence.
but, i eventually mostly dropped it because i wasn't directing anything to the bandcamp site; it wasn't working as the portal that i hoped it would.
rather, i just drew a lot of attention to myself by people that seem to think i'm some kind of spy, which sounds like the plot to a fucking jim carrey movie.
i think i sort of get that these commenting systems are basically run by psychologists in the employ of the state that use it to measure the effectiveness of propaganda. i'm absolutely beyond their reach, and they don't know what to do, or how to react, so they just target me and try to shut me down.
*shrug*
why am i doing this now?
i'm generating documentation for my life, essentially. if i can ever get back on top of this, this vlog will be a front-end that documents my life as a composer. the political views are a part of that, and my analysis and deconstruction exists in the context of my works as an artist, but it's all just a front-end, a way into the discography.
you can believe me or not, or use it as an excuse to continue to try to repress me.
but, this is what i am, why i exist and what i'm doing.
....in between choking on drugs being smoked by the undercover police officers upstairs.
...and, the smell of anal rape is now wafting downstairs, again. it's not quite skunk, really; it smells more like that old man is getting fucked up on drugs, and raping his daughter. you know that smell of cheap lube and deep shit, the kind you need to pull out of your ass with some kind of device? it's about as rank a smell as exists in the world, but it's what i'm stuck with until he passes out in his own filth.
so, the shower is running.
again.
for who knows how long.
and, i may have to do laundry again, as well. we'll see.
so, the shower is running.
again.
for who knows how long.
and, i may have to do laundry again, as well. we'll see.
i just got a strange email from my youtube vlog, which i haven't even uploaded a video to in years.
========
Hi jessica,
This email is to notify you that you’ll need to accept YPP terms again once your channel is eligible for the program. The YPP application process, your channel watchtime, and subscriber count are not impacted.
At some point, you signed contract terms with YouTube regarding the YouTube Partner Program (YPP). Previously, we allowed creators to pre-sign YPP terms before reaching the minimum eligibility thresholds. We have since re-designed this process. Our records show that your channel hasn’t yet met the existing thresholds for program eligibility. In 30 days, if your channel is still not eligible for YPP, we will invalidate your contract.
Not to worry, though. When you do reach the thresholds needed for YPP, it’s just a few easy clicks to apply using our standard process. (Note you can always check your progress on the monetization tab in YouTube Studio.)
What this means for your channel
In short, nothing is changing for your channel. The only change is that you will need to accept YPP terms again when you become eligible. The way you use or experience YouTube stays the same. You still have access to all your creator features that enable you to grow your audience, build your community, and manage your videos. You can:
Upload, edit, or delete your videos
Read, respond to, or moderate your comments
Analyze your channel performance in YouTube Analytics
Get best practices and strategic advice from Creator Academy
Connect to other Creators in the YouTube Help Forum
Thank you for being part of the YouTube Community! We look forward to your application in the future.
Sincerely,
The YouTube Team
==========
i've purposefully left my subscriber count unknown, but it's not anywhere close to 1000 subscribers, on either account. the former deathtokoalas and current koala central command account hit a max of about 500 before slowly falling due to disuse; the vlog account hit a max that was considerably less then 100. i think it was 93, iirc. i'd have to log into the other account to check and don't want to.
my google plus page had thousands and thousands of hits, and some of my comments had thousand of likes before they were removed by some shady governing structure that i only vaguely understand, but my subscriber count was never very high, and i never had anything at the music site with more than a few hundred hits.
excluding the cover video, and some concert footage that i've left unmonetized for ethical reasons, the most popular video on the vlog site has 159 views. while the vlog has been monetized for years, the other site has never been and never will be (i don't want ads on my music. gross.), and the reality is that i've never made a single cashable cent from youtube royalties. i think the total uncashed amount was about $3.50, at it's max.
the reason that i've left these numbers unpublished is the same reason that i don't allow "likes" to appear on the page - i don't think that how many subscribers i have, or the watch count, or the number of likes should be presented as a way to validate or invalidate the content. that is, i want people to react to the content without being coerced by popularity metrics. i really don't like social media or how it tries to shape popular opinion with herd mentality.
i will eventually update that vlog. i mean, i'm still vlogging, i'm just years behind on the updates. it could be sitting there for five or ten years before i get around to it.
but, i don't expect that i'll ever get that many subscribers, and i don't expect i'll ever remonetize. so, what youtube is essentially telling me is that it wants to give me server space for free. which is fine, but what's in it for them, then? are they going to start closing down unpopular or unmonetizable sites? there's a bit of a speech issue there, if they do - if they decide that you're only allowed a platform if you can generate an audience.
i have all of the files in a safe space and intend to put them up for sale at bandcamp in the form of isos and dvds, eventually. maybe they'll end up at vimeo or somewhere else, in the long run. it would be very frustrating to have to update all of the links, though.
the purpose of the vlog was to act as a marketing portal to the bandcamp site, not to make money on it's own. i didn't want ads on my music, but i wondered if i might be missing out on the possibility of a viral video; it never happened, and it was probably never very likely that it ever would. but, what i was hoping was that i could string an audience along with a vlog for long enough to sell them a couple of mp3s, and it didn't work out in the end, so i abandoned it.
given that it didn't work out as hoped, i probably should have removed the ads from the site quite some time ago, and am, at this point, sort of glad that youtube has done it for me. it sort of removes the issue for me - i don't have to wonder about whether i should compromise myself by allowing myself to be monetized, because i can't be monetized anyways. that's a weight lifted off of my shoulders, in the end.
if you'd like to support me, please either go to the bandcamp site and buy some tunes or send me something directly at death.to.koalas@gmail.com. small scale artists like myself cannot make money from advertising, even if we want to - and, generally, we don't want to.
========
Hi jessica,
This email is to notify you that you’ll need to accept YPP terms again once your channel is eligible for the program. The YPP application process, your channel watchtime, and subscriber count are not impacted.
At some point, you signed contract terms with YouTube regarding the YouTube Partner Program (YPP). Previously, we allowed creators to pre-sign YPP terms before reaching the minimum eligibility thresholds. We have since re-designed this process. Our records show that your channel hasn’t yet met the existing thresholds for program eligibility. In 30 days, if your channel is still not eligible for YPP, we will invalidate your contract.
Not to worry, though. When you do reach the thresholds needed for YPP, it’s just a few easy clicks to apply using our standard process. (Note you can always check your progress on the monetization tab in YouTube Studio.)
What this means for your channel
In short, nothing is changing for your channel. The only change is that you will need to accept YPP terms again when you become eligible. The way you use or experience YouTube stays the same. You still have access to all your creator features that enable you to grow your audience, build your community, and manage your videos. You can:
Upload, edit, or delete your videos
Read, respond to, or moderate your comments
Analyze your channel performance in YouTube Analytics
Get best practices and strategic advice from Creator Academy
Connect to other Creators in the YouTube Help Forum
Thank you for being part of the YouTube Community! We look forward to your application in the future.
Sincerely,
The YouTube Team
==========
i've purposefully left my subscriber count unknown, but it's not anywhere close to 1000 subscribers, on either account. the former deathtokoalas and current koala central command account hit a max of about 500 before slowly falling due to disuse; the vlog account hit a max that was considerably less then 100. i think it was 93, iirc. i'd have to log into the other account to check and don't want to.
my google plus page had thousands and thousands of hits, and some of my comments had thousand of likes before they were removed by some shady governing structure that i only vaguely understand, but my subscriber count was never very high, and i never had anything at the music site with more than a few hundred hits.
excluding the cover video, and some concert footage that i've left unmonetized for ethical reasons, the most popular video on the vlog site has 159 views. while the vlog has been monetized for years, the other site has never been and never will be (i don't want ads on my music. gross.), and the reality is that i've never made a single cashable cent from youtube royalties. i think the total uncashed amount was about $3.50, at it's max.
the reason that i've left these numbers unpublished is the same reason that i don't allow "likes" to appear on the page - i don't think that how many subscribers i have, or the watch count, or the number of likes should be presented as a way to validate or invalidate the content. that is, i want people to react to the content without being coerced by popularity metrics. i really don't like social media or how it tries to shape popular opinion with herd mentality.
i will eventually update that vlog. i mean, i'm still vlogging, i'm just years behind on the updates. it could be sitting there for five or ten years before i get around to it.
but, i don't expect that i'll ever get that many subscribers, and i don't expect i'll ever remonetize. so, what youtube is essentially telling me is that it wants to give me server space for free. which is fine, but what's in it for them, then? are they going to start closing down unpopular or unmonetizable sites? there's a bit of a speech issue there, if they do - if they decide that you're only allowed a platform if you can generate an audience.
i have all of the files in a safe space and intend to put them up for sale at bandcamp in the form of isos and dvds, eventually. maybe they'll end up at vimeo or somewhere else, in the long run. it would be very frustrating to have to update all of the links, though.
the purpose of the vlog was to act as a marketing portal to the bandcamp site, not to make money on it's own. i didn't want ads on my music, but i wondered if i might be missing out on the possibility of a viral video; it never happened, and it was probably never very likely that it ever would. but, what i was hoping was that i could string an audience along with a vlog for long enough to sell them a couple of mp3s, and it didn't work out in the end, so i abandoned it.
given that it didn't work out as hoped, i probably should have removed the ads from the site quite some time ago, and am, at this point, sort of glad that youtube has done it for me. it sort of removes the issue for me - i don't have to wonder about whether i should compromise myself by allowing myself to be monetized, because i can't be monetized anyways. that's a weight lifted off of my shoulders, in the end.
if you'd like to support me, please either go to the bandcamp site and buy some tunes or send me something directly at death.to.koalas@gmail.com. small scale artists like myself cannot make money from advertising, even if we want to - and, generally, we don't want to.
so, i've been sitting here for a few hours, trying to figure out if i'm awake or not.
the smokey/dry air smell is better. but, if the smoker has retreated, it's going to take a day or two to clear out, minimum.
i'm hoping i get some turnover with the cooler air overnight, but it relies on the outside air being breathable, too.
for now, i think i'm alert enough to get back to what i was doing.
the smokey/dry air smell is better. but, if the smoker has retreated, it's going to take a day or two to clear out, minimum.
i'm hoping i get some turnover with the cooler air overnight, but it relies on the outside air being breathable, too.
for now, i think i'm alert enough to get back to what i was doing.
that's a hellluva stark reversal, alright. wow.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/09/08/reversal-trump-ban-oil-drilling-off-coasts-florida-georgia-south-carolina/
the politico article suggests his hands are tied and it's just a pr stunt:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/08/trump-oil-drilling-florida-410042
i'll take it, either way.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/09/08/reversal-trump-ban-oil-drilling-off-coasts-florida-georgia-south-carolina/
the politico article suggests his hands are tied and it's just a pr stunt:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/08/trump-oil-drilling-florida-410042
i'll take it, either way.
but, we're at a kind of a crossroads with this, and the poll i just posted indicates some reason to be concerned, in a different way.
given that masks are not helping to reduce the spread of the virus, how is the state going to react? are they going to ease or enforce restrictions?
getting our heads around this may help us all better understand what is actually in the process of happening.
given that masks are not helping to reduce the spread of the virus, how is the state going to react? are they going to ease or enforce restrictions?
getting our heads around this may help us all better understand what is actually in the process of happening.
Of Canada’s major cities, Ottawa had the highest percentage of seroprevalence at 1.29 per cent, followed by Toronto with 1.07 per cent and Vancouver with 0.60 per cent.
again: these numbers continue to be very weird, and broadly inconsistent with themselves.
ottawa had one of the lowest case counts in the country at the time.
i don't know what the right analysis is, but i'm leaning towards biases in the sampling. if this method of testing blood donors is being chosen because it's supposed to be a random sample, that doesn't seem to really be the case.
https://www.cp24.com/news/more-than-1-per-cent-of-torontonians-have-covid-19-antibodies-canadian-blood-services-study-1.5096825
again: these numbers continue to be very weird, and broadly inconsistent with themselves.
ottawa had one of the lowest case counts in the country at the time.
i don't know what the right analysis is, but i'm leaning towards biases in the sampling. if this method of testing blood donors is being chosen because it's supposed to be a random sample, that doesn't seem to really be the case.
https://www.cp24.com/news/more-than-1-per-cent-of-torontonians-have-covid-19-antibodies-canadian-blood-services-study-1.5096825
no, stop for a second.
when you ask somebody like fauci about the efficacy of certain drugs, of which there is good evidence of the efficacy of, he'll tell you there are no randomized, controlled studies, despite the fact that that kind of study is completely inappropriate, in context.
but, when you ask him about the efficacy of a mask, of which most evidence i've seen suggests is useless, he jumps all over it, without bothering to cite controlled studies, despite them being the appropriate standard to use, in context.
and, then, when we see real world data unfold in front of us, we just insist on doubling down on a policy that obviously isn't working.
it's just about perfectly dysfunctional.
"but, what about your grandparents?"
i'm a maskless rebel; i don't have grandparents, i descended, fully formed, from the sky.
if i was interacting with vulnerable people, i'd take precautions. but, i'm not.
so, you old folks can keep your distance - i'd rather you did under normal circumstances, anyways.
i'm a maskless rebel; i don't have grandparents, i descended, fully formed, from the sky.
if i was interacting with vulnerable people, i'd take precautions. but, i'm not.
so, you old folks can keep your distance - i'd rather you did under normal circumstances, anyways.
i'm personally more concerned about what the evidence says than what about people's opinions are, in determining whether i should wear a mask or not.
i'll repeat myself, to make my position clear...
1) i don't doubt that proper mask use by trained professionals may marginally reduce the spread of the virus, but the data doesn't seem to uphold the idea that cloth masks worn by random people (that grab at them, put them in their pockets, reuse them without washing them, etc) are helping reduce the spread in any way at all. in fact, as they act like magnets for dirt and dust, they could potentially be making the issue worse.
2) i do not want to protect myself from contracting this virus, at this time. as i am young and relatively healthy, i would rather catch the virus and defeat it than try to hide from it. i understand the risk (which is very low.) and am assuming it, under the assumption that my body will be better positioned to fight a potentially more dangerous mutant strain at a more advanced age if it has seen it when i am young.
i hope i've clarified that a little.
i'll repeat myself, to make my position clear...
1) i don't doubt that proper mask use by trained professionals may marginally reduce the spread of the virus, but the data doesn't seem to uphold the idea that cloth masks worn by random people (that grab at them, put them in their pockets, reuse them without washing them, etc) are helping reduce the spread in any way at all. in fact, as they act like magnets for dirt and dust, they could potentially be making the issue worse.
2) i do not want to protect myself from contracting this virus, at this time. as i am young and relatively healthy, i would rather catch the virus and defeat it than try to hide from it. i understand the risk (which is very low.) and am assuming it, under the assumption that my body will be better positioned to fight a potentially more dangerous mutant strain at a more advanced age if it has seen it when i am young.
i hope i've clarified that a little.
so, when we see rising mask use correlated with increasing case numbers, what does that tell you about how effective they are at reducing spread?
but, you want my polling analysis.
the answer is that you can't poll questions like this, because they come attached with coercion. it's equivalent to doing political polling in a country like iran; you can call people, and you can ask them questions, but they're just going to tell you what you want to hear.
of course i support the ayatollah. but, umm, how did you get my number? and do you know where i live?
it's against the law to not wear a mask in public in most places in canada right now. one would expect polling around the issue to reflect that reality, as people are going to be naturally fearful of admitting they're breaking the law, or siding with an illegal position. because we don't know what's next...
there's also a response bias; i'm one of the few people that has the audacity to be vocal about this, and i know i'm representing more people than is apparent, but if somebody managed to reach me on my cell phone (that i don't have) and started asking me questions about whether i'm wearing a mask or not, i wouldn't just instantly hang up, but would instantly change cell phone providers. that's a scary scenario.
so,
1) the people most likely to answer these kinds of polls are the people that support the policy.
2) those people are going to tell you exactly what you want to hear.
what i see walking around is general compliance, and a lot of kvetching about it. and, i'm increasingly being interpreted as a bad-ass, in a kind of rock star sort of way for not wearing one. that is, i don't feel i'm getting any push back - i feel people are maybe even kind of attracted by it. i'm a sexy, maskless rebel that plays by my own rules, and they wish they were too.
or, that's the impression.
i didn't call them up on their phones and ask them about it.
so, are these numbers right or wrong? it's not that easy. what i'm going to say is that you can't do this kind of polling accurately, and you shouldn't be surprised when the polling just reflects the status quo.
conversely, if you did this kind of polling right now and got a strong level of pushback, it would indicate a lot of anger at the state. that's not what we're seeing; people are going along to get along, whatever their feelings are about it, and ultimately repeating back what they're told.
we'll see how long that lasts for.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/support-face-mask-policy-high-canadians-poll
but, you want my polling analysis.
the answer is that you can't poll questions like this, because they come attached with coercion. it's equivalent to doing political polling in a country like iran; you can call people, and you can ask them questions, but they're just going to tell you what you want to hear.
of course i support the ayatollah. but, umm, how did you get my number? and do you know where i live?
it's against the law to not wear a mask in public in most places in canada right now. one would expect polling around the issue to reflect that reality, as people are going to be naturally fearful of admitting they're breaking the law, or siding with an illegal position. because we don't know what's next...
there's also a response bias; i'm one of the few people that has the audacity to be vocal about this, and i know i'm representing more people than is apparent, but if somebody managed to reach me on my cell phone (that i don't have) and started asking me questions about whether i'm wearing a mask or not, i wouldn't just instantly hang up, but would instantly change cell phone providers. that's a scary scenario.
so,
1) the people most likely to answer these kinds of polls are the people that support the policy.
2) those people are going to tell you exactly what you want to hear.
what i see walking around is general compliance, and a lot of kvetching about it. and, i'm increasingly being interpreted as a bad-ass, in a kind of rock star sort of way for not wearing one. that is, i don't feel i'm getting any push back - i feel people are maybe even kind of attracted by it. i'm a sexy, maskless rebel that plays by my own rules, and they wish they were too.
or, that's the impression.
i didn't call them up on their phones and ask them about it.
so, are these numbers right or wrong? it's not that easy. what i'm going to say is that you can't do this kind of polling accurately, and you shouldn't be surprised when the polling just reflects the status quo.
conversely, if you did this kind of polling right now and got a strong level of pushback, it would indicate a lot of anger at the state. that's not what we're seeing; people are going along to get along, whatever their feelings are about it, and ultimately repeating back what they're told.
we'll see how long that lasts for.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/support-face-mask-policy-high-canadians-poll
if the democrats really want to win in a landslide, what they should do is run justin trudeau.
(who, afaik, was born in ottawa. so, impossible. yet, look up the polling numbers - he blows everybody else away.)
the country wants a young, dynamic liberal, and the party establishment just refuses to give it one.
(who, afaik, was born in ottawa. so, impossible. yet, look up the polling numbers - he blows everybody else away.)
the country wants a young, dynamic liberal, and the party establishment just refuses to give it one.
what about the edibles?
well, they're still sitting there, proving i can let them sit. but, i also don't know exactly what they're going to do me.
i'm still a few days short of a full month, and i wanted to give it a little longer (i had penciled in oct 1), but they're in a tupperware container and i sort of need to eat them before they start to disintegrate.
i need to be clear-headed and alert, first. i don't want to take them when i'm agitated, or drowsy. so, we'll see how i feel. but it may be sooner than later.
well, they're still sitting there, proving i can let them sit. but, i also don't know exactly what they're going to do me.
i'm still a few days short of a full month, and i wanted to give it a little longer (i had penciled in oct 1), but they're in a tupperware container and i sort of need to eat them before they start to disintegrate.
i need to be clear-headed and alert, first. i don't want to take them when i'm agitated, or drowsy. so, we'll see how i feel. but it may be sooner than later.
am i just making up this second-hand smoke thing?
i could concede, on some level, that i might be imagining it if it was only the smell. maybe it's pollution from outside, or even burning coffee. i do drink a lot of coffee...
but, if it was any of those things, running the shower wouldn't create yellow condensation on white walls, which is what is happening.
so, it's not just that i can smell the smoke; it's that i can see the nicotine leaching out of the walls when i steam them, and that really eliminates any ambiguity as to what is happening.
i have never smoked inside of the unit, and the closest i've come to smoking near the unit is about 100 feet down the street.
i bummed a few smokes when i was out last monday, so i can't claim cold turkey since i re-quit. but, i've had something like five smokes in the last month, all very far away from the building.
i could concede, on some level, that i might be imagining it if it was only the smell. maybe it's pollution from outside, or even burning coffee. i do drink a lot of coffee...
but, if it was any of those things, running the shower wouldn't create yellow condensation on white walls, which is what is happening.
so, it's not just that i can smell the smoke; it's that i can see the nicotine leaching out of the walls when i steam them, and that really eliminates any ambiguity as to what is happening.
i have never smoked inside of the unit, and the closest i've come to smoking near the unit is about 100 feet down the street.
i bummed a few smokes when i was out last monday, so i can't claim cold turkey since i re-quit. but, i've had something like five smokes in the last month, all very far away from the building.
if the democrats are going to swing anywhere in the south this cycle, it's going to be arizona, and it's going to be because it's becoming california-east and not because its being overrun by latinos.
what he has to hope is that that are enough white moderates in the state to flip it. it's a long shot.
i don't think he has a serious chance anywhere else in the sun belt.
what he has to hope is that that are enough white moderates in the state to flip it. it's a long shot.
i don't think he has a serious chance anywhere else in the sun belt.
john kerry claims that biden would never lavish praise on a brutal dictator.
hrmmn, i seem to recall this:
"Jill and I were saddened to learn of the passing of King Abdullah. We extend our sympathies to his family in their moment of loss," the statement added. "King Abdullah's death is a great loss for his country. It is hard to distinguish him from Saudi Arabia itself. Over many decades, he played an outsized role in building his country."
"I always appreciated [King Abdullah's] frankness, his sense of history, his pride in his efforts to move his country forward, and his steadfast belief in the U.S.-Saudi relationship," it added.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/saudi-arabia-succession/vice-president-joe-biden-visit-saudi-arabia-after-king-abdullahs-n291921
that sure sounds like lavishing praise on a dictator, to me.
or, how about this time, when he denied that mubarak was a dictator:
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/140923-biden-mubarak-not-a-dictator-protests-not-like-eastern-europe
i'm sure i could find plenty of examples if i looked for them.
so, what johnny boy really meant to say is that biden wouldn't engage in silly things like entente with our enemies - he knows who the bad guys are, and is going to go out there with his fists swinging, ready to get 'em.
hrmmn, i seem to recall this:
"Jill and I were saddened to learn of the passing of King Abdullah. We extend our sympathies to his family in their moment of loss," the statement added. "King Abdullah's death is a great loss for his country. It is hard to distinguish him from Saudi Arabia itself. Over many decades, he played an outsized role in building his country."
"I always appreciated [King Abdullah's] frankness, his sense of history, his pride in his efforts to move his country forward, and his steadfast belief in the U.S.-Saudi relationship," it added.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/saudi-arabia-succession/vice-president-joe-biden-visit-saudi-arabia-after-king-abdullahs-n291921
that sure sounds like lavishing praise on a dictator, to me.
or, how about this time, when he denied that mubarak was a dictator:
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/140923-biden-mubarak-not-a-dictator-protests-not-like-eastern-europe
i'm sure i could find plenty of examples if i looked for them.
so, what johnny boy really meant to say is that biden wouldn't engage in silly things like entente with our enemies - he knows who the bad guys are, and is going to go out there with his fists swinging, ready to get 'em.
so, what directions are key swing demographics likely to move in this election?
i'm going to create a collection of partial orderings. if obama > clinton, that means obama did better with that demographic than clinton. an equal means they should be about the same.
blacks, north & south:
obama > clinton > biden. so, expect biden to continue, and perhaps even accelerate, the bleed of blacks out of the party. they probably won't vote republican, they'll probably stay home, thereby skewing the numbers to make it look like they shifted right.
latinos, north & south:
obama > clinton > biden. likewise, biden should accelerate the movement of latinos out of the party that started with clinton (with obama, really; why does everybody ignore the deporter-in-chief thing?). some of them might swing republican, on social issues. sadly.
northern white liberals:
(obama = biden) > clinton. biden appears to be likely to regain much of the ground with northern white liberals that clinton lost. this doesn't appear to be rational, but it's happening, nonetheless. and, he needs to be careful he doesn't fuck it up.
southern white conservatives:
(obama = biden) < clinton. biden appears likely to lose the increase in support amongst southern white voters that clinton generated and that made states like texas a little closer than they had been in some time. biden wouldn't be expected to outperform clinton in this region, given her history there. clinton should have won missouri.
white moderates, north & south:
(obama = biden) > clinton. biden, however, appears likely to regain obama's stronger support amongst white moderates.
why is my analysis so drastically different?
because i'm looking at the actual data, not projecting my feelings about race on to it, as appears to be common in "progressive" circles that want the democrats to be the "black party", and overthrow republican white supremacy, or some silly thing such as that. as facile as that narrative is on it's face, the numbers just don't exist to support it...
clinton probably would have been more likely to win in the south than in the north, and i may be the person that suggested that, but it would have been on the back of white conservatives, who would have repelled young liberals. that makes that strategy very hard for the democrats - if you're trying to win the south by running on the right, like clinton & biden have been, you have to throw away the young voters that were supposed to be the reason you're targeting the region in the first place. and, then you're outrepublicaning the republicans, which is exactly what's happening.
if they were to run a liberal in the south, they'd have to rely entirely on young people, who vote in lower numbers - a strategy we saw bernie fail at (but that may work better in like 20 years, if the often more market-oriented asians don't walk in and blow the whole thing up). but, if they just ran a damned liberal, they'd sweep the north, and wouldn't need to worry about winning in the south.
i hope i'm clarifying this a little.
but, my main point is this: please, people....call a statistician. don't wing it. polls are tricky.
i'm going to create a collection of partial orderings. if obama > clinton, that means obama did better with that demographic than clinton. an equal means they should be about the same.
blacks, north & south:
obama > clinton > biden. so, expect biden to continue, and perhaps even accelerate, the bleed of blacks out of the party. they probably won't vote republican, they'll probably stay home, thereby skewing the numbers to make it look like they shifted right.
latinos, north & south:
obama > clinton > biden. likewise, biden should accelerate the movement of latinos out of the party that started with clinton (with obama, really; why does everybody ignore the deporter-in-chief thing?). some of them might swing republican, on social issues. sadly.
northern white liberals:
(obama = biden) > clinton. biden appears to be likely to regain much of the ground with northern white liberals that clinton lost. this doesn't appear to be rational, but it's happening, nonetheless. and, he needs to be careful he doesn't fuck it up.
southern white conservatives:
(obama = biden) < clinton. biden appears likely to lose the increase in support amongst southern white voters that clinton generated and that made states like texas a little closer than they had been in some time. biden wouldn't be expected to outperform clinton in this region, given her history there. clinton should have won missouri.
white moderates, north & south:
(obama = biden) > clinton. biden, however, appears likely to regain obama's stronger support amongst white moderates.
why is my analysis so drastically different?
because i'm looking at the actual data, not projecting my feelings about race on to it, as appears to be common in "progressive" circles that want the democrats to be the "black party", and overthrow republican white supremacy, or some silly thing such as that. as facile as that narrative is on it's face, the numbers just don't exist to support it...
clinton probably would have been more likely to win in the south than in the north, and i may be the person that suggested that, but it would have been on the back of white conservatives, who would have repelled young liberals. that makes that strategy very hard for the democrats - if you're trying to win the south by running on the right, like clinton & biden have been, you have to throw away the young voters that were supposed to be the reason you're targeting the region in the first place. and, then you're outrepublicaning the republicans, which is exactly what's happening.
if they were to run a liberal in the south, they'd have to rely entirely on young people, who vote in lower numbers - a strategy we saw bernie fail at (but that may work better in like 20 years, if the often more market-oriented asians don't walk in and blow the whole thing up). but, if they just ran a damned liberal, they'd sweep the north, and wouldn't need to worry about winning in the south.
i hope i'm clarifying this a little.
but, my main point is this: please, people....call a statistician. don't wing it. polls are tricky.
listen, i'm not "attacking assange" and that kind of stupid narrative is what's wrong with the world.
you could run a search on the side:
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/search?q=assange&max-results=20&by-date=true
i'd like to see him pardoned, and i don't think he's a spy or something.
i think he got played as a fool, and he ran right into it, like a dog chasing a ball into traffic.
you could run a search on the side:
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/search?q=assange&max-results=20&by-date=true
i'd like to see him pardoned, and i don't think he's a spy or something.
i think he got played as a fool, and he ran right into it, like a dog chasing a ball into traffic.
ottawa was overdue.
again: relax.
it's going to spread. deal with it. protect yourself, and be aware of the elderly around you.
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-reports-375-covid-19-cases-over-two-day-period-1.5096042
again: relax.
it's going to spread. deal with it. protect yourself, and be aware of the elderly around you.
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-reports-375-covid-19-cases-over-two-day-period-1.5096042
so, again: i just got out of an hour and a half long shower, which is how long it took for the frog in my throat to lift and consequently boost the humidity in here (with the window open), and i feel great.
last night, it took about an hour for that to reverse, and the smoky, dry air to reassert itself.
we'll see what happens this afternoon.
last night, it took about an hour for that to reverse, and the smoky, dry air to reassert itself.
we'll see what happens this afternoon.
again: i don't have an opinion on this and don't consider it a ballot issue, although i realize there are lots of people that do.
i wish that less canadians wanted to buy guns, and would support social programs to reduce demand. voluntary buy-backs are generally a good idea to try to get excess weapons off of the streets.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/michelle-rempel-garner-justin-trudeau-ottawa-assault-guns-1.5714339
i wish that less canadians wanted to buy guns, and would support social programs to reduce demand. voluntary buy-backs are generally a good idea to try to get excess weapons off of the streets.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/michelle-rempel-garner-justin-trudeau-ottawa-assault-guns-1.5714339
so, canadians are all of a sudden concerned about the deficit - if you ask them facile questions about it.
am i concerned about the deficit, too? sort of. i'd probably say somewhat. but, what i'm concerned about is the imf coming in and forcing restructuring, and the way to address my concerns is to increase taxes.
they didn't ask that question.
and, is my concern enough to affect my vote? no.
polling can give you the answers you pay for, if you design the questions appropriately.
careful you don't fall into a trap on that.
am i concerned about the deficit, too? sort of. i'd probably say somewhat. but, what i'm concerned about is the imf coming in and forcing restructuring, and the way to address my concerns is to increase taxes.
they didn't ask that question.
and, is my concern enough to affect my vote? no.
polling can give you the answers you pay for, if you design the questions appropriately.
careful you don't fall into a trap on that.
it's not surprising at all. the poli sci major analysts just didn't understand how to read the polls.
clinton was less popular with both blacks & latinos than obama, and biden is even less popular than clinton. that is true across the south. so, why did clinton's numbers go up in the south? because she did better with white southerners than obama did. there's some logic in that, as she was first lady of arkansas for 8 years, and then first lady of the country for 8 more. also, she was white. i actually thought she underperformed amongst southern whites....
so, it is true that the demographics are moving in a direction that should benefit the democrats, but it is also true that the democrats have been running candidates that are not appealing to those demographics. so, what's actually setting in is not a democratic supermajority in the south but rather widespread apathy at the paucity of the options. what's the point of voting democrat if you just get a republican?
but, very old white people, who live in larger percentages in the rust belt, love joe biden, presumably because he looks like them and seems to think like them, too - just like donald trump seemed to four years ago.
it wasn't young blacks or latinos in the sun belt that won biden the primary, it was old white people in the rust belt. and, they seem to be sticking with their guy. if they do, he should easily swing these states back. i'm worried, though, that he'll do everything he can to undo that, in a misguided strategy pushed by a bad analysis.
so, as it was in 2016, this election is likely going to be decided by white retirees, not by young people. they seem to prefer biden to trump, and if that holds, biden will win.
how do we get out of this? the answer is to address voter apathy in the younger generation, which requires running candidates that are on the left of the party. yes: the party is going to run up against a brick wall in the black church, but it has to find some way around or over it. luckily, these churches may be dying of old age in high numbers, and less of a factor in the near future. that should make it easier to elect a more liberal candidate in the south, on the backs of younger people.
but, it would seem to be that, as long as the party runs conservatives in their 70s, young liberals in the sun belt are going to express apprehension about supporting them. and, i don't know why that's surprising.
the party should be trying to build a coalition of white liberals as it's base, and using minority groups to supplement that base, not trying to build a base of minorities and hoping white liberals sign up for it. it's just numbers....there's just way more white liberals....
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/08/politics/2020-election-biden-trump-states/index.html
clinton was less popular with both blacks & latinos than obama, and biden is even less popular than clinton. that is true across the south. so, why did clinton's numbers go up in the south? because she did better with white southerners than obama did. there's some logic in that, as she was first lady of arkansas for 8 years, and then first lady of the country for 8 more. also, she was white. i actually thought she underperformed amongst southern whites....
so, it is true that the demographics are moving in a direction that should benefit the democrats, but it is also true that the democrats have been running candidates that are not appealing to those demographics. so, what's actually setting in is not a democratic supermajority in the south but rather widespread apathy at the paucity of the options. what's the point of voting democrat if you just get a republican?
but, very old white people, who live in larger percentages in the rust belt, love joe biden, presumably because he looks like them and seems to think like them, too - just like donald trump seemed to four years ago.
it wasn't young blacks or latinos in the sun belt that won biden the primary, it was old white people in the rust belt. and, they seem to be sticking with their guy. if they do, he should easily swing these states back. i'm worried, though, that he'll do everything he can to undo that, in a misguided strategy pushed by a bad analysis.
so, as it was in 2016, this election is likely going to be decided by white retirees, not by young people. they seem to prefer biden to trump, and if that holds, biden will win.
how do we get out of this? the answer is to address voter apathy in the younger generation, which requires running candidates that are on the left of the party. yes: the party is going to run up against a brick wall in the black church, but it has to find some way around or over it. luckily, these churches may be dying of old age in high numbers, and less of a factor in the near future. that should make it easier to elect a more liberal candidate in the south, on the backs of younger people.
but, it would seem to be that, as long as the party runs conservatives in their 70s, young liberals in the sun belt are going to express apprehension about supporting them. and, i don't know why that's surprising.
the party should be trying to build a coalition of white liberals as it's base, and using minority groups to supplement that base, not trying to build a base of minorities and hoping white liberals sign up for it. it's just numbers....there's just way more white liberals....
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/08/politics/2020-election-biden-trump-states/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)