https://dubditchpicnic.bandcamp.com/album/circles-and-lines
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/05/14.html
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz5UVuUKIAg
my music:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com
Saturday, May 14, 2016
14-05-2016: basic nature - gone (windsor)
their music:
https://dubditchpicnic.bandcamp.com/album/circles-and-lines
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/05/14.html
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz5UVuUKIAg
my music:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com
https://dubditchpicnic.bandcamp.com/album/circles-and-lines
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/05/14.html
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz5UVuUKIAg
my music:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com
not going to do anything about it? or, maybe, leaked accidentally-on-purpose. the controlled leak is a pretty common thing.
i actually don't expect hillary to follow through with this, as she seems to be much more beholden to israeli interests, but there's been some move in this administration to try and do an asset swap around the saudis and the iranians. it's less that the asset swap has yielded any meaningful results and more that the saudis seem to be in the process of spinning themselves off into an ipo (and putin seems to be putting down quite a bit of cash). the american-saudi relationship was always very uneasy. the americans have never fully trusted the saudis, and really shouldn't have. the saudis have shown little hesitation in turning the knife. but, they need the oil, right. today, they're exporting oil and keeping the price down...
if hillary wins, she's going to make it an immediate priority to try and patch things up. however, it's not really clear how feasible it is. if the saudis want out, they want out. and, old man kissinger may end up withdrawing his endorsement.
this may consequently be a bit of an attempt to set the ball rolling in ways that she can't stop, and try and force her to focus more on shifting towards stronger ties with iran.
i actually don't expect hillary to follow through with this, as she seems to be much more beholden to israeli interests, but there's been some move in this administration to try and do an asset swap around the saudis and the iranians. it's less that the asset swap has yielded any meaningful results and more that the saudis seem to be in the process of spinning themselves off into an ipo (and putin seems to be putting down quite a bit of cash). the american-saudi relationship was always very uneasy. the americans have never fully trusted the saudis, and really shouldn't have. the saudis have shown little hesitation in turning the knife. but, they need the oil, right. today, they're exporting oil and keeping the price down...
if hillary wins, she's going to make it an immediate priority to try and patch things up. however, it's not really clear how feasible it is. if the saudis want out, they want out. and, old man kissinger may end up withdrawing his endorsement.
this may consequently be a bit of an attempt to set the ball rolling in ways that she can't stop, and try and force her to focus more on shifting towards stronger ties with iran.
Friday, May 13, 2016
j reacts to speculation on what jesus may have actually looked like
"If sheep, aud swiue, and lions strong, and all the bovine crew, Could paint with cunning hands, and do what clever mortals do, Depend upon it, every pig with snout so broad and blunt, Would make a Jove that like himself would thunder with a grunt; And every lion's god would roar, aud every bull's would bellow, And every sheep's would baa, and every beast his worshipped fellow Would find in some immortal form, aud naught exist divine But had the gait of lion, sheep, or ox, or grunting swine." - xenophanes fragment, from a long time ago in what is now turkey.
additionally.
"Ethiopians say that their gods are snub–nosed and black
Thracians that they are pale and red-haired"
see, i just came across an article criticizing white europeans for the representations of jesus as white. but, everybody does this. the book claims god created us in it's image. but, even the greek philosophers knew that in truth we constantly create our gods in our own image.
the truth is that there have been as many jesuses as there have been cultures that worship him, and they've all reflected, in some way, the indigenous cultures that the localized syncretic concepts of christianity have been constructed around. you get jesus as warrior-king, jesus as sage, jesus as fire-breathing zealot - it's a kind of blank slate to scrawl over.
if you actually trace the different representations of jesus through time, you get a variety of different representations. jesus seems to get a little whiter from the medieval period into the renaissance, as he becomes less italian looking. the byzantine jesus looks pretty greek. and, before that? well, he looks pretty jewish - that is, kind of tanned, but ultimately pretty caucasian.
i'm just pushing back against the idea that jesus would have looked like an arab, because it's pretty ahistorical. the arab migration into the region didn't happen for a few more hundred years. rather, at the time of jesus, migration into the levant would have been mostly moving from the north and the east: iranians, greeks and italians. and, so, it's not particularly strange that 4th or 5th century depictions of jesus make him look more iranian than arab.
i know. modern historians want continuity. but, this doesn't work with the full scale of evidence, it's just an ideological attempt to reject racism. see, i don't think we need to make shit up to reject racism - i think the evidence in front of us is strong enough.
the three different types of jews that exist today are all of various mixed ancestry: the ashkenazi have absorbed a lot of turkic and slavic, and the sephardi and mizrahi have both absorbed a lot of arab. if you work out the genetics, the closest thing we have to an ancestral population of jews is actually the kurds. this is a complicated and contested thing to try and sort through and understand but just about everybody agrees that it's actually true.
the conclusion is that jesus probably didn't look like an arab or a palestinian jew but actually probably looked something like this guy.
additionally.
"Ethiopians say that their gods are snub–nosed and black
Thracians that they are pale and red-haired"
see, i just came across an article criticizing white europeans for the representations of jesus as white. but, everybody does this. the book claims god created us in it's image. but, even the greek philosophers knew that in truth we constantly create our gods in our own image.
the truth is that there have been as many jesuses as there have been cultures that worship him, and they've all reflected, in some way, the indigenous cultures that the localized syncretic concepts of christianity have been constructed around. you get jesus as warrior-king, jesus as sage, jesus as fire-breathing zealot - it's a kind of blank slate to scrawl over.
if you actually trace the different representations of jesus through time, you get a variety of different representations. jesus seems to get a little whiter from the medieval period into the renaissance, as he becomes less italian looking. the byzantine jesus looks pretty greek. and, before that? well, he looks pretty jewish - that is, kind of tanned, but ultimately pretty caucasian.
i'm just pushing back against the idea that jesus would have looked like an arab, because it's pretty ahistorical. the arab migration into the region didn't happen for a few more hundred years. rather, at the time of jesus, migration into the levant would have been mostly moving from the north and the east: iranians, greeks and italians. and, so, it's not particularly strange that 4th or 5th century depictions of jesus make him look more iranian than arab.
i know. modern historians want continuity. but, this doesn't work with the full scale of evidence, it's just an ideological attempt to reject racism. see, i don't think we need to make shit up to reject racism - i think the evidence in front of us is strong enough.
the three different types of jews that exist today are all of various mixed ancestry: the ashkenazi have absorbed a lot of turkic and slavic, and the sephardi and mizrahi have both absorbed a lot of arab. if you work out the genetics, the closest thing we have to an ancestral population of jews is actually the kurds. this is a complicated and contested thing to try and sort through and understand but just about everybody agrees that it's actually true.
the conclusion is that jesus probably didn't look like an arab or a palestinian jew but actually probably looked something like this guy.
j reacts to whether nate silver is biased, or just defending his model
i've never talked to nate silver, and so i'll acknowledge i don't know his personality well. but, it's probably less about bias and more about ego. yet, this itself is rooted in a warped concept of what an election is - and i've seen this a whole bunch of times with a whole bunch of other people and have been pushing back about it for quite a while.
the error is common and widespread across academic disciplines; it's called generalizing the specific. here's how this works. nate comes up with a pretty good model for the 2008 election - and it was a pretty good model. then, he assumes that this model is universally applicable, perhaps with just minor tweaks. so, he should be able to apply it to every other election. this is how you do science, after all, right?
but, understanding elections is not like building physical laws. the basis of science is repeatably demonstrable experiments. if you drop an apple on monday, it falls. if you drop it on tuesday, it falls. if you drop it next friday, it falls. it's always the same. that's physics. well, that's newtonian physics, anyways. but, what if you were to change the gravitational constant sometime in the middle of the week? well, you can't - not when you're doing physics, anyways. they're constants.
when you're analyzing elections, the constants are going to fluctuate dramatically year over year or even month over month. you could wake up to a single event that will throw everything out of balance. or, demographics could shift midway through the cycle. that is where nate's error really is: he's assuming that his 2008 model is a universal truth, rather than a good analysis of a specific election.
because he's made this bad assumption, he then needs to defend it. see, you're misinterpreting this as some kind of bias. it's really just his ego trying to uphold the universality of his model, based on the flawed assumption that you can have a universal theory of elections in the first place.
trump's win is largely a function of his opponents' errors and the weakness of the field. i don't think anybody really saw it coming from a distance, but when you saw the way things unfolded, it became obvious what was happening. there simply wasn't an electable candidate in the field. i don't know if you blame bush for being lacklustre or if you blame the banks for taking too long to figure it out. i don't know if you blame rubio for being transparently false or if you blame cruz for splitting the vote. but, he won by controlling the centre of the republican spectrum in the vacuum of a moderate candidate. i still think that kasich would have cleaned his clock, one-on-one, from an early point - if he had comparable media coverage. but, it just upheld what we know about open competition: it's not the best candidate that wins, but the one that is the most violent. if he had to fight against a strong, centrist candidate over a smaller field then he would have probably lost every state. so, i don't think he was wrong; i actually said something very similar, and i do stand by it. i just think trump's opponents were particularly incompetent, in ways that were hard to predict from a distance.
what he should have done with the democratic primary was build a new model with new information. reality is that there's lots of blacks that voted for obama because he was black, and it was reasonable to build a model around it. but, nobody is voting for clinton because obama is black. people may be voting for clinton because she's methodist, because she's female, because she's a hawk, because she's more conservative, because she'll tax them less - or, because they're old. that's the biggest takeaway, right. clinton wins when the voters are older, and loses when they're younger. had he crunched those numbers and built a new model, with new data, it would have probably been pretty good.
but, universalizing the specific means you don't do that. it means you assume the apple falls the same way every time. and, it means you have to defend your work against scrutiny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP7fxNdAs5E
the error is common and widespread across academic disciplines; it's called generalizing the specific. here's how this works. nate comes up with a pretty good model for the 2008 election - and it was a pretty good model. then, he assumes that this model is universally applicable, perhaps with just minor tweaks. so, he should be able to apply it to every other election. this is how you do science, after all, right?
but, understanding elections is not like building physical laws. the basis of science is repeatably demonstrable experiments. if you drop an apple on monday, it falls. if you drop it on tuesday, it falls. if you drop it next friday, it falls. it's always the same. that's physics. well, that's newtonian physics, anyways. but, what if you were to change the gravitational constant sometime in the middle of the week? well, you can't - not when you're doing physics, anyways. they're constants.
when you're analyzing elections, the constants are going to fluctuate dramatically year over year or even month over month. you could wake up to a single event that will throw everything out of balance. or, demographics could shift midway through the cycle. that is where nate's error really is: he's assuming that his 2008 model is a universal truth, rather than a good analysis of a specific election.
because he's made this bad assumption, he then needs to defend it. see, you're misinterpreting this as some kind of bias. it's really just his ego trying to uphold the universality of his model, based on the flawed assumption that you can have a universal theory of elections in the first place.
trump's win is largely a function of his opponents' errors and the weakness of the field. i don't think anybody really saw it coming from a distance, but when you saw the way things unfolded, it became obvious what was happening. there simply wasn't an electable candidate in the field. i don't know if you blame bush for being lacklustre or if you blame the banks for taking too long to figure it out. i don't know if you blame rubio for being transparently false or if you blame cruz for splitting the vote. but, he won by controlling the centre of the republican spectrum in the vacuum of a moderate candidate. i still think that kasich would have cleaned his clock, one-on-one, from an early point - if he had comparable media coverage. but, it just upheld what we know about open competition: it's not the best candidate that wins, but the one that is the most violent. if he had to fight against a strong, centrist candidate over a smaller field then he would have probably lost every state. so, i don't think he was wrong; i actually said something very similar, and i do stand by it. i just think trump's opponents were particularly incompetent, in ways that were hard to predict from a distance.
what he should have done with the democratic primary was build a new model with new information. reality is that there's lots of blacks that voted for obama because he was black, and it was reasonable to build a model around it. but, nobody is voting for clinton because obama is black. people may be voting for clinton because she's methodist, because she's female, because she's a hawk, because she's more conservative, because she'll tax them less - or, because they're old. that's the biggest takeaway, right. clinton wins when the voters are older, and loses when they're younger. had he crunched those numbers and built a new model, with new data, it would have probably been pretty good.
but, universalizing the specific means you don't do that. it means you assume the apple falls the same way every time. and, it means you have to defend your work against scrutiny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP7fxNdAs5E
you have to expect the conservatives to yell and scream and have a temper tantrum over this, because the process will rightly have the end result of removing their ability to win majorities with a minority of support (and, you can't compare the liberal's 40% to the conservatives' 40% due to the way the spectrum aligns - it's just yet another dishonest argument from tom mulcair). but, that's too bad - the liberals have a majority, here, and should use it to plow through the av as quick as possible, so that voters have time to understand it.
the worst thing that can happen is for this to drag on until a month before the election, as the backlash could push them out. they want to push it through quickly so that people have time to calm down and realize it's a net benefit to the stability of the country.
and, that's going to mean ignoring the temper tantrums, until the opposition tires itself out and goes to sleep.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-electoral-reform-1.3579651
the worst thing that can happen is for this to drag on until a month before the election, as the backlash could push them out. they want to push it through quickly so that people have time to calm down and realize it's a net benefit to the stability of the country.
and, that's going to mean ignoring the temper tantrums, until the opposition tires itself out and goes to sleep.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-electoral-reform-1.3579651
who is going to do a better job fulfilling the unstated role - an by all accounts capable woman who just happens to be the prime minister's wife, or people that have some training and legitimate interest in the topic? who will be more accountable?
it's kind of a broader issue. what is more efficient: private charity (which is what she's being expected to do...) that is accountable to nobody or public servants that are accountable in the traditional manners? i vote for public sector services over private sector charity.
...which means that she should have an office, it should be accountable to the house and it should be handed over to the next wife or husband
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sophie-gregoire-trudeau-overwhelmed-1.3580164
it's kind of a broader issue. what is more efficient: private charity (which is what she's being expected to do...) that is accountable to nobody or public servants that are accountable in the traditional manners? i vote for public sector services over private sector charity.
...which means that she should have an office, it should be accountable to the house and it should be handed over to the next wife or husband
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sophie-gregoire-trudeau-overwhelmed-1.3580164
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
10-05-2016: boreal sons, west virginia & an unexpected early crash
concert footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfGU586YyVY
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/05/10.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfGU586YyVY
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/05/10.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
this media narrative is going to fall flat. the vast majority of sanders supporters don't see any material difference between clinton and trump, anyways - and may even lean a little closer to trump on foreign policy and trade. the really interesting question is whether jill stein can get these supporters, not if clinton can. but, the warped truth is that she'll probably win anyways, because republican support for trump is even lower.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-sanders-sound-bite-trump-1.3576362
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-sanders-sound-bite-trump-1.3576362
Mollybloom
As if -- Canadian comments on U.S. politics matter a damn to anyone south-of-us. Nevertheless, this collective purgative does have momentary solace as we stop crapping in our own backyard.
But for gawd's sake Bernie, remember Ralph and ponder whether you guys would have got anywhere near Iraq with Gore.
jessica amber murray
i am absolutely certain that gore would have bombed iraq. in fact, he'd probably have also avoided the protests.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-sanders-sound-bite-trump-1.3576362
As if -- Canadian comments on U.S. politics matter a damn to anyone south-of-us. Nevertheless, this collective purgative does have momentary solace as we stop crapping in our own backyard.
But for gawd's sake Bernie, remember Ralph and ponder whether you guys would have got anywhere near Iraq with Gore.
jessica amber murray
i am absolutely certain that gore would have bombed iraq. in fact, he'd probably have also avoided the protests.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-sanders-sound-bite-trump-1.3576362
shit hillary said vol 56
"I wouldn’t raise it [the capital gains investment tax] above 20% if I raised it at all."
j reacts to whether kentucky is similar to west virginia...or not.
so, how similar is kentucky to west virginia?
well, in fact, a substantial amount of the population of kentucky is a part of a border city. cincinatti and lousville together make up 35% of the population. i think that the following map is a pretty strong argument that clinton ought to be favoured in these cities - and that if she loses those cities, we can talk about shifts in voting intentions.
that would really be a smoking gun, i think. i mean, half of louisville already voted - for clinton. and, half of cincinatti did, too. we actually have the privilege of a nearly apples-to-apples comparison, there. if she wins the ohio side of cinci in march, and loses the kentucky side in may? that strongly suggests that her support is, in fact, caving. but, indiana was last week. how can you expect different results?
lexington houses another 20% of the population and it is truly barely outside the city limits of both lousville and cincinatti, so why would anybody expect significantly different results? so, you're now around 50% of the population in these three geographically proximate cities.
i still haven't seen any polling in kentucky. but, i think this graphic of indiana glued to ohio makes it clear as day that if she doesn't carry this tri-city area then she's definitely bleeding support. even some mixed results are going to point in that direction.
there may be remnant excuses in the rest of the state, although note that i've also attached a combination of tennessee and virginia, and think it pretty clearly implies she should win the southern parts of kentucky as well. i mean, what changes on the border, there? there's not even a river or anything. it's about as arbitrary as the sykes-picot line. how's she going to sweep tennessee like that and then lose kentucky? that wouldn't be as much of a smoking gun, but it would be a pretty strong argument that she's losing support in her base.
it may be that some of the counties in the very east of the state are lost in the same kind of non-reality that exists in west virginia, but i think i've convinced myself that we can make some real conclusions from kentucky - regardless of what clinton has said or how important it is.
losing louisville - at least - is going to suggest the campaign should go into crisis mode.
it's also going to suggest that sanders' argument is strengthening, not weakening.
but, again - i don't see any good reason at all to think the map of kentucky won't look like the map of tennessee.
well, in fact, a substantial amount of the population of kentucky is a part of a border city. cincinatti and lousville together make up 35% of the population. i think that the following map is a pretty strong argument that clinton ought to be favoured in these cities - and that if she loses those cities, we can talk about shifts in voting intentions.
that would really be a smoking gun, i think. i mean, half of louisville already voted - for clinton. and, half of cincinatti did, too. we actually have the privilege of a nearly apples-to-apples comparison, there. if she wins the ohio side of cinci in march, and loses the kentucky side in may? that strongly suggests that her support is, in fact, caving. but, indiana was last week. how can you expect different results?
lexington houses another 20% of the population and it is truly barely outside the city limits of both lousville and cincinatti, so why would anybody expect significantly different results? so, you're now around 50% of the population in these three geographically proximate cities.
i still haven't seen any polling in kentucky. but, i think this graphic of indiana glued to ohio makes it clear as day that if she doesn't carry this tri-city area then she's definitely bleeding support. even some mixed results are going to point in that direction.
there may be remnant excuses in the rest of the state, although note that i've also attached a combination of tennessee and virginia, and think it pretty clearly implies she should win the southern parts of kentucky as well. i mean, what changes on the border, there? there's not even a river or anything. it's about as arbitrary as the sykes-picot line. how's she going to sweep tennessee like that and then lose kentucky? that wouldn't be as much of a smoking gun, but it would be a pretty strong argument that she's losing support in her base.
it may be that some of the counties in the very east of the state are lost in the same kind of non-reality that exists in west virginia, but i think i've convinced myself that we can make some real conclusions from kentucky - regardless of what clinton has said or how important it is.
losing louisville - at least - is going to suggest the campaign should go into crisis mode.
it's also going to suggest that sanders' argument is strengthening, not weakening.
but, again - i don't see any good reason at all to think the map of kentucky won't look like the map of tennessee.
j reacts to west virginia (it's opposites-land)
so, can we conclude that sanders would win in the south if there was a rematch tomorrow?
the exit polls are throwing a few wrenches into it.
1) the democrats have higher turnout than the republicans. that's hard to make sense of in west virginia, which is an open primary. so, voter registration is entirely irrelevant, because you can vote for either party (or both parties) regardless of how you're registered. would west virginia be in play in the general? well, hardly.
now, it is true that trump told people to stay home. so, you can at least understand the decrease in republican turnout that way. but, then, you can't argue that sanders is winning crossover trump votes - he must be winning voters that are not at all interested in the republicans.
2) yet, the exit polls are also suggesting that the voters self-identify as right-of-centre. that is inconsistent with the low republican turnout. it's just a contradiction, flat out.
3) sanders is apparently doing well with coal miners, which is another contradiction - as his climate policies are far tougher than hers are. i mean, i saw this narrative, but i rejected it as propaganda. the reality is that sanders will actually eliminate coal jobs (although he'll compensate them for it); who would actually believe that clinton is going to do anything other than flop on that, for the right price? i mean, i know what she said. but, who would possibly believe her? i suppose you could argue that it's just not thought through well. but, then, why is turnout for trump so low? if you're voting in favour of coal jobs, you'd have to be remarkably clueless to vote solely for sanders. even if you laughably believe what hillary said, you'd think you'd vote for trump as well as for sanders.
i do think that this is quite ominous for clinton, as the demographics in west virginia should overwhelmingly favour her. but, i can't rule out the possibility that what you're seeing is an ignorant reaction to a bald-faced lie, rather than a general shift in voting intentions amongst southern conservatives.
but, the evidence is mounting that there has been a big shift in southern support. let's see how she does in kentucky, first.
---
yeah.
see, this is what sanders said:
“While I strongly believe we need to combat climate change to make our planet habitable for our children and our grandchildren, let me be clear: We cannot abandon communities that have been dependent on coal and other fossil fuels,” he said, according to prepared remarks of his speech. “In my view, we have got to invest $41 billion rebuilding coal mining communities and making sure that Americans in McDowell County and all over this country receive the job training they need for the clean energy jobs of the future.”
when somebody puts aside $40 billion dollars for retraining in coal communities, you can be pretty sure they're going to shut down the industry more or less for good. so, this idea that they were voting for sanders as a reaction to clinton's coal comments is something that you ought to discard. it doesn't actually make any sense.
so, i mean, it's not like i didn't realize that the comments were likely to upset people. it's just that i couldn't imagine anybody voting for sanders as a response. the rational thing to do is vote for trump.
but, voters don't have perfect information. in fact, in places like west virginia, they tend to have very low information. i think it's entirely reasonable to suggest that they didn't do their research, and just foolishly kneejerked. that is, they heard something on the news (or talk radio) that they didn't like and they voted against that.
but, here's another strange statistic: apparently upwards of 40% of voters in the democratic primary are planning to vote for trump.
remember: this is also a state where you get significant numbers of write-ins.
i think the broader take-away from west virginia is that it's gone down the rabbit hole. what you really see in the numbers is a level of cynicism that exists only in the realm of the surreal. and, so, trying to predict results, or analyze results, is sort of pointless - you're assuming an inherent rationality that isn't actually there.
i think it's clear that my analysis was accurate: voters in the democratic primary were overwhelmingly conservative and broadly fit the same demographic patterns that voted heavily for clinton in surrounding states. they just refused to behave rationally.
i've pointed out a few times that i'm not an american; while i certainly know more about american geography than most americans know about canadian geography, i do have limits in my understanding. so, this is the question that i need a real answer to: just how similar is kentucky to west virginia? are we going to get these same kind of surreal results, that defy any kind of real logic? or is it going to align more with states like tennessee?
it's a big question, because it really defines whether sanders is still competitive. is he winning due to cynicism or enthusiasm? and, can it be projected to states that voted weeks or months ago or not?
the exit polls are throwing a few wrenches into it.
1) the democrats have higher turnout than the republicans. that's hard to make sense of in west virginia, which is an open primary. so, voter registration is entirely irrelevant, because you can vote for either party (or both parties) regardless of how you're registered. would west virginia be in play in the general? well, hardly.
now, it is true that trump told people to stay home. so, you can at least understand the decrease in republican turnout that way. but, then, you can't argue that sanders is winning crossover trump votes - he must be winning voters that are not at all interested in the republicans.
2) yet, the exit polls are also suggesting that the voters self-identify as right-of-centre. that is inconsistent with the low republican turnout. it's just a contradiction, flat out.
3) sanders is apparently doing well with coal miners, which is another contradiction - as his climate policies are far tougher than hers are. i mean, i saw this narrative, but i rejected it as propaganda. the reality is that sanders will actually eliminate coal jobs (although he'll compensate them for it); who would actually believe that clinton is going to do anything other than flop on that, for the right price? i mean, i know what she said. but, who would possibly believe her? i suppose you could argue that it's just not thought through well. but, then, why is turnout for trump so low? if you're voting in favour of coal jobs, you'd have to be remarkably clueless to vote solely for sanders. even if you laughably believe what hillary said, you'd think you'd vote for trump as well as for sanders.
i do think that this is quite ominous for clinton, as the demographics in west virginia should overwhelmingly favour her. but, i can't rule out the possibility that what you're seeing is an ignorant reaction to a bald-faced lie, rather than a general shift in voting intentions amongst southern conservatives.
but, the evidence is mounting that there has been a big shift in southern support. let's see how she does in kentucky, first.
---
yeah.
see, this is what sanders said:
“While I strongly believe we need to combat climate change to make our planet habitable for our children and our grandchildren, let me be clear: We cannot abandon communities that have been dependent on coal and other fossil fuels,” he said, according to prepared remarks of his speech. “In my view, we have got to invest $41 billion rebuilding coal mining communities and making sure that Americans in McDowell County and all over this country receive the job training they need for the clean energy jobs of the future.”
when somebody puts aside $40 billion dollars for retraining in coal communities, you can be pretty sure they're going to shut down the industry more or less for good. so, this idea that they were voting for sanders as a reaction to clinton's coal comments is something that you ought to discard. it doesn't actually make any sense.
so, i mean, it's not like i didn't realize that the comments were likely to upset people. it's just that i couldn't imagine anybody voting for sanders as a response. the rational thing to do is vote for trump.
but, voters don't have perfect information. in fact, in places like west virginia, they tend to have very low information. i think it's entirely reasonable to suggest that they didn't do their research, and just foolishly kneejerked. that is, they heard something on the news (or talk radio) that they didn't like and they voted against that.
but, here's another strange statistic: apparently upwards of 40% of voters in the democratic primary are planning to vote for trump.
remember: this is also a state where you get significant numbers of write-ins.
i think the broader take-away from west virginia is that it's gone down the rabbit hole. what you really see in the numbers is a level of cynicism that exists only in the realm of the surreal. and, so, trying to predict results, or analyze results, is sort of pointless - you're assuming an inherent rationality that isn't actually there.
i think it's clear that my analysis was accurate: voters in the democratic primary were overwhelmingly conservative and broadly fit the same demographic patterns that voted heavily for clinton in surrounding states. they just refused to behave rationally.
i've pointed out a few times that i'm not an american; while i certainly know more about american geography than most americans know about canadian geography, i do have limits in my understanding. so, this is the question that i need a real answer to: just how similar is kentucky to west virginia? are we going to get these same kind of surreal results, that defy any kind of real logic? or is it going to align more with states like tennessee?
it's a big question, because it really defines whether sanders is still competitive. is he winning due to cynicism or enthusiasm? and, can it be projected to states that voted weeks or months ago or not?
i actually don't have much bad to say about this. it's facile, and kind of stupid, but you can say the same thing about any other political slogan, right? and, the reality is that shit doesn't happen unless it comes from the bottom up. i mean, you don't expect people to go out and start chanting mill or something, do you? that's not a gendered comment, it's a human comment. if there's something j-lo is good at, it's getting people to pay attention to her. so, this is really an absolutely respectable attempt to get some people pushing for something that is really long overdue.
i'm just not sure she's backing the right candidate.
hey, listen: it's not like i don't think hillary's on your side, intellectually. i just don't think you're going to get what you're hoping for.
i'm just not sure she's backing the right candidate.
hey, listen: it's not like i don't think hillary's on your side, intellectually. i just don't think you're going to get what you're hoping for.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
i agree with council, and would add that this is an abuse of power. he has no mandate to tax people and send it out of the city as a political gimmick. that $300,000 could and should certainly go to helping the disadvantaged in sarnia.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/sarnia-mayor-s-proposal-to-send-25k-to-fort-mcmurray-falls-flat-1.3575075
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/sarnia-mayor-s-proposal-to-send-25k-to-fort-mcmurray-falls-flat-1.3575075
j reacts to misplaced confidence in hillary clinton's reasoning skills
but, i mean, remember....
hillary is always wrong about everything.
if you think you've got the best idea, and you're right, she'll probably do something else. and, if she picks x over y, it's probably the wrong choice.
what i'm getting at - and this is important - is that if you want to understand what she's going to do, you need to throw any kind of concept of optimization under the bus. she's never going to do the thing that makes the most sense or is most likely to succeed - we have decades of public records that indicates she never does, so why do you think she will now, all of a sudden? no. rather, you need to try and get into her head, which means making a number of substitutions. one example....
instead of thinking about what is best for the country, or the planet, or whatever other collective concept of things, you need to always analyze decisions in terms of what is best for hillary's career. the importance of self-interest is truly paramount. i think this is where she loses a lot of leftists in not understanding her. like, consider iraq, for example. it was obviously the wrong choice in just about every context - except the context of her own career advancement. which, it turns out, she was wrong about. but, to understand why she made the choice, you need to look at questions of self-promotion - and not at what the iaea said, or what the united nations voted for.
so, i mean, it's not like i'm denying some logic in picking warren. it could even be the right choice. but, if it is, you can be sure she won't make it.
rather, you should expect that the choice that she does make will backfire in some way.
hillary is always wrong about everything.
if you think you've got the best idea, and you're right, she'll probably do something else. and, if she picks x over y, it's probably the wrong choice.
what i'm getting at - and this is important - is that if you want to understand what she's going to do, you need to throw any kind of concept of optimization under the bus. she's never going to do the thing that makes the most sense or is most likely to succeed - we have decades of public records that indicates she never does, so why do you think she will now, all of a sudden? no. rather, you need to try and get into her head, which means making a number of substitutions. one example....
instead of thinking about what is best for the country, or the planet, or whatever other collective concept of things, you need to always analyze decisions in terms of what is best for hillary's career. the importance of self-interest is truly paramount. i think this is where she loses a lot of leftists in not understanding her. like, consider iraq, for example. it was obviously the wrong choice in just about every context - except the context of her own career advancement. which, it turns out, she was wrong about. but, to understand why she made the choice, you need to look at questions of self-promotion - and not at what the iaea said, or what the united nations voted for.
so, i mean, it's not like i'm denying some logic in picking warren. it could even be the right choice. but, if it is, you can be sure she won't make it.
rather, you should expect that the choice that she does make will backfire in some way.
j reacts to donald trump perpetuating the republican talking points on government debt
so, you're making the standard right-wing error of confusing personal debt with government debt. do you see what's happening, here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f00njIl9iAM
ok. i read the article, and it points out that the united states cannot actually default, unless it does so on purpose - which is a correction of the error that the right-wing demagogues were pushing through as political theatre in the fiscal cliff non-issue.
but, it doesn't change the fact that this is something that trump can't actually do. his claim that he can default on sovereign debt is about as ridiculous as promising a peace dividend of unicorns.
the correct conclusion from yglesias is that what it exposes is total ignorance. you, on the other hand, are just parroting the same, stupid right-wing scare-mongering you hear from the right on a fairly regular basis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f00njIl9iAM
ok. i read the article, and it points out that the united states cannot actually default, unless it does so on purpose - which is a correction of the error that the right-wing demagogues were pushing through as political theatre in the fiscal cliff non-issue.
but, it doesn't change the fact that this is something that trump can't actually do. his claim that he can default on sovereign debt is about as ridiculous as promising a peace dividend of unicorns.
the correct conclusion from yglesias is that what it exposes is total ignorance. you, on the other hand, are just parroting the same, stupid right-wing scare-mongering you hear from the right on a fairly regular basis.
j reacts to elizabeth warren sounding like a moderate republican
see, here's the actual truth: it was exceedingly confusing as to why anybody ever really interpreted warren as a leftist in the first place. she doesn't even seem to be a keynesian, she's more of a literal classical liberal. at least bernie is mostly pushing a new deal type of framework. warren is all teddy roosevelt. and, there's simply nothing leftist about this - it's really just a type of moderate conservatism.
that said, even if she's pushing for it, i don't think that hillary will pick her, but not for the reasons being bandied about. i think hillary is likely to view warren as a liability - she's too easy a target by the demagogues on the right, who will cast her as some kind of communist - while she's quoting adam smith. and, frankly, if you interpret the world through the kind of warped filters that hillary and her handlers interpret the world through? it's a correct perception. i mean, if you thought the smear on obama as a commie was rough....
hillary might be the only mainstream sort-of-liberal democrat that they can't do that to, because everybody knows she's an opportunist. this is beyond cynical. but it's the way these people think. you can't frame her...
i know it's going to be extremely deflating when she picks some right-leaning democrat, or possibly even a "left-leaning" republican. but, you're getting her logic all backwards, and twisting around what's likely to actually happen.
her ideal is not elizabeth warren, but condoleeza rice. and i think she'd actually jump through some hoops to get it accomplished, if she can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itAcRvNy7bw
i didn't know this, but it sure makes a lot of sense.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/27/3431303/warren-left-gop/
that said, even if she's pushing for it, i don't think that hillary will pick her, but not for the reasons being bandied about. i think hillary is likely to view warren as a liability - she's too easy a target by the demagogues on the right, who will cast her as some kind of communist - while she's quoting adam smith. and, frankly, if you interpret the world through the kind of warped filters that hillary and her handlers interpret the world through? it's a correct perception. i mean, if you thought the smear on obama as a commie was rough....
hillary might be the only mainstream sort-of-liberal democrat that they can't do that to, because everybody knows she's an opportunist. this is beyond cynical. but it's the way these people think. you can't frame her...
i know it's going to be extremely deflating when she picks some right-leaning democrat, or possibly even a "left-leaning" republican. but, you're getting her logic all backwards, and twisting around what's likely to actually happen.
her ideal is not elizabeth warren, but condoleeza rice. and i think she'd actually jump through some hoops to get it accomplished, if she can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itAcRvNy7bw
i didn't know this, but it sure makes a lot of sense.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04/27/3431303/warren-left-gop/
shit hillary said vol 55
I've looked at the legislation that Senator Sanders has proposed. And basically, he does eliminate the Affordable Care Act, eliminates private insurance, eliminates Medicare, eliminates Medicaid, Tricare, children's health insurance program. Puts it all together in a big program which he then hands over to the states to administer.
And I have to tell you, I would not want, if I lived in Iowa, Terry Branstad administering my healthcare. I-- I think-- I think as Democrats, we ought to proudly support the Affordable Care Act, improve it, and make it the model that we know it can be--
BERNIE SANDERS: We don't-- we don't eliminate Medicare. We expand Medicare to all people. And we will not, under this proposal, have a situation that we have right now with the Affordable Care Act. We've got states like South Carolina and many other Republican states that because of their right-wing political ideology are denying millions of people the expansion of Medicaid that we passed in the Affordable Care Act. Ultimately, we have got to say as a nation, Secretary Clinton, is healthcare a right of all people or is it not? I--
And I have to tell you, I would not want, if I lived in Iowa, Terry Branstad administering my healthcare. I-- I think-- I think as Democrats, we ought to proudly support the Affordable Care Act, improve it, and make it the model that we know it can be--
BERNIE SANDERS: We don't-- we don't eliminate Medicare. We expand Medicare to all people. And we will not, under this proposal, have a situation that we have right now with the Affordable Care Act. We've got states like South Carolina and many other Republican states that because of their right-wing political ideology are denying millions of people the expansion of Medicaid that we passed in the Affordable Care Act. Ultimately, we have got to say as a nation, Secretary Clinton, is healthcare a right of all people or is it not? I--
Monday, May 9, 2016
shit hillary said vol 54
COOPER: Secretary Clinton, do you regret your vote on the Patriot Act?
CLINTON: No, I don’t. I think that it was necessary to make sure that we were able after 9/11 to put in place the security that we needed.
CLINTON: No, I don’t. I think that it was necessary to make sure that we were able after 9/11 to put in place the security that we needed.
j reacts to another example of why no humans should ever have guns, ever
smug bullshit aside, there is a serious point here, and it's that all of the logic in the world doesn't prevent the temporary loss of reasoning associated with most rage killings.
he says he doesn't remember what happened. he probably really doesn't.
you can put child locks on it, put it in a safe, hide it where nobody else knows where it is - it doesn't matter. the issue is not the need to take precautions. it's rooted in the reality that human beings are dumb apes that are driven by hormones, not rational entities driven by logic.
it's true that he could have grabbed a butcher knife, but it isn't particularly relevant. the reality is that the only way to really address gun violence is to ban them altogether.
it's really unfortunate that you have that constitutional amendment, down there. we don't have anything of the sort in our constitution. and, we're really better off for it.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/08/us/man-allegedly-kills-brother-over-cheeseburger/?iid=ob_lockedrail_topeditorial
he says he doesn't remember what happened. he probably really doesn't.
you can put child locks on it, put it in a safe, hide it where nobody else knows where it is - it doesn't matter. the issue is not the need to take precautions. it's rooted in the reality that human beings are dumb apes that are driven by hormones, not rational entities driven by logic.
it's true that he could have grabbed a butcher knife, but it isn't particularly relevant. the reality is that the only way to really address gun violence is to ban them altogether.
it's really unfortunate that you have that constitutional amendment, down there. we don't have anything of the sort in our constitution. and, we're really better off for it.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/08/us/man-allegedly-kills-brother-over-cheeseburger/?iid=ob_lockedrail_topeditorial
j reacts to free university vs "debt-free" university (eight years of high school?)
i'm broadly a fan of the internet - at least as a replacement for tv. certainly, internet >>> tv. but, it would be a lot better if we didn't have a for profit print media that acts as a disincentive.
this actually got published:
"In West Virginia, Bernie is ahead in both of the state’s most recent primary polls. Last week, Public Policy Polling released its findings from a survey of 549 likely Democratic voters. In that poll, Sanders came out ahead of Clinton by eight percentage points, snagging 45 percent compared to her 37 percent. Even with the 3.9 percent margin of error, Bernie will still easily triumph over Hillary if these numbers prove to be accurate."
really. you know what i think the reporter here actually thinks? the thought process, here?
"well, if he's winning by eight and there's a four point margin of error, he's four points better than the margin, so he wins easily."
this is actually exactly why bernie is right. in today's world, you really need statistical literacy to get by - and the level of literacy we actually have is absolutely deplorable. but, you can't cram it all into four years.
i'd even take it to another step - and i've proposed this previously, going back many years. i actually think we should have eight years of actual high school.
this actually got published:
"In West Virginia, Bernie is ahead in both of the state’s most recent primary polls. Last week, Public Policy Polling released its findings from a survey of 549 likely Democratic voters. In that poll, Sanders came out ahead of Clinton by eight percentage points, snagging 45 percent compared to her 37 percent. Even with the 3.9 percent margin of error, Bernie will still easily triumph over Hillary if these numbers prove to be accurate."
really. you know what i think the reporter here actually thinks? the thought process, here?
"well, if he's winning by eight and there's a four point margin of error, he's four points better than the margin, so he wins easily."
this is actually exactly why bernie is right. in today's world, you really need statistical literacy to get by - and the level of literacy we actually have is absolutely deplorable. but, you can't cram it all into four years.
i'd even take it to another step - and i've proposed this previously, going back many years. i actually think we should have eight years of actual high school.
Sunday, May 8, 2016
shit hillary said vol 53
"For a lot of people, again, who take their vote seriously and who really see this as a crossroads kind of election, I am asking people to come join this campaign. And I've had a lot of outreach on Republicans in the last days who say that they are interested in talking about that."
07-05-2016: whateverfest
concert footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9LyMr3_RSE
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/05/07.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9LyMr3_RSE
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/05/07.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
i find stiglitz such a treat to listen to, for the precise reason that he's such a master logician. his arguments are just lucid. i'm constantly finding myself practically finishing his sentences - and not because i have any deeper insight, beyond being decently read on the topic, and simply because he's got that much flow.
what he's really doing in this presentation is masterfully explaining why classical economic theory is useless unless it is applied to an agrarian economy, which is a boat that sailed nearly two hundred years ago over most of the planet.
what he's really doing in this presentation is masterfully explaining why classical economic theory is useless unless it is applied to an agrarian economy, which is a boat that sailed nearly two hundred years ago over most of the planet.
Saturday, May 7, 2016
Friday, May 6, 2016
j reacts to west virginia polling, and what a surprise sanders win *actually* implies
there's some polls coming up in west virginia, and they're kind of splitting the difference - the racist models are suggesting he should win in a landslide (because there are few blacks), where as i actually think a better projection ought to be clinton by about 10-15. the polls i've seen are in the margin of error, suggesting a split, but they're also small samples and wonky sources...
forget how many blacks are in west virginia. it's a boneheaded way to go about this. instead, let's look at how she did amongst whites in the neighbouring states - all of which were open primaries.
virginia: 57% of whites voted for clinton
ohio: 53% of whites voted for clinton
tennessee: 57% of whites voted for clinton
kentucky: hasn't voted.
so, given that west virginia is mostly white, why exactly would you expect sanders to win?
?
but, i'm data driven. so, i'm going to suggest a way out, and it's this - shit happens. people change.
again: i think some skepticism is in order with the polling. we don't have anything really solid right now. but, if sanders does win west virginia, what i would suggest is that voting intentions in the south have shifted since march.
this is likely a fruitless request: if you were to do some rigorous polling in tennessee or virginia, today, what would the results be? because if sanders wins west virginia (after winning indiana), and is then at least competitive in kentucky, it's hard to see how the results from the early primaries can be current.
again: if you want to take the information you have and apply it to west virginia, you should get a big clinton win. if sanders wins, it strongly suggests that southerners, or at least white ones, are actually abandoning clinton.
let's not get carried away, though. i actually still expect clinton to win in west virginia. and kentucky.
forget how many blacks are in west virginia. it's a boneheaded way to go about this. instead, let's look at how she did amongst whites in the neighbouring states - all of which were open primaries.
virginia: 57% of whites voted for clinton
ohio: 53% of whites voted for clinton
tennessee: 57% of whites voted for clinton
kentucky: hasn't voted.
so, given that west virginia is mostly white, why exactly would you expect sanders to win?
?
but, i'm data driven. so, i'm going to suggest a way out, and it's this - shit happens. people change.
again: i think some skepticism is in order with the polling. we don't have anything really solid right now. but, if sanders does win west virginia, what i would suggest is that voting intentions in the south have shifted since march.
this is likely a fruitless request: if you were to do some rigorous polling in tennessee or virginia, today, what would the results be? because if sanders wins west virginia (after winning indiana), and is then at least competitive in kentucky, it's hard to see how the results from the early primaries can be current.
again: if you want to take the information you have and apply it to west virginia, you should get a big clinton win. if sanders wins, it strongly suggests that southerners, or at least white ones, are actually abandoning clinton.
let's not get carried away, though. i actually still expect clinton to win in west virginia. and kentucky.
my response would have been something like "well, if you don't like the food stamps program, i can always start a riot and burn your house down and steal the food out of your fridge instead.".
welfare isn't charity. it's a way to prevent class warfare and ensure that the property rights dictatorship is not overwhelmed with sheer force. it was understood some time in the last century that the best way to stop the poor from taking what they are entitled to, by force, is to give them enough to survive on. it's a bribe.
if people like her want to get cocky about it, they'll eventually have to deal with the consequences of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwrNiRngMhc
welfare isn't charity. it's a way to prevent class warfare and ensure that the property rights dictatorship is not overwhelmed with sheer force. it was understood some time in the last century that the best way to stop the poor from taking what they are entitled to, by force, is to give them enough to survive on. it's a bribe.
if people like her want to get cocky about it, they'll eventually have to deal with the consequences of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwrNiRngMhc
j reacts to "self-driving cars"
i can't imagine there's any kind of market for this.
i bet the nsa would love it if they had control of your vehicle, though.
why aren't we building more electric vehicles? this is idiotic.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/no-promise-windsor-will-have-role-in-self-driving-chrysler-pacifica-1.3569919
i bet the nsa would love it if they had control of your vehicle, though.
why aren't we building more electric vehicles? this is idiotic.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/no-promise-windsor-will-have-role-in-self-driving-chrysler-pacifica-1.3569919
j reacts to the new radiohead single/video
predictable attempt to relive lost glory years after fading into irrelevance; a little paranoid android, much, eh?
it's good that thom has realized that he does require jonny to make a good record. but, this is egos clashing - it's not collaborative. thom is really doing everything he possibly can to drown out the strings. an epic mix manages to save a catastrophe. although, i'm sure there's more than one patch on that processor? we've heard quite a lot of that one.
this isn't going to turn out well if the process is that thom shows up after jonny's done all the work, like it's just another side project, and howls out some half formed nonsense. he couldn't even be bothered to write a second verse. a band is supposed to be a collaborative affair. i don't know how a band can go more than a decade without remembering that.
i'm not disappointed, i'm just jaded; cynical, even. i've been soooo over this band since 2003. really.
but, there's a bit of a tease here: this is actually new material, not just the same recycled sound they've been stripping down forever, to the point of parody. but, if he wants to go down this orchestral path, i wish he'd be a little more aspirational. i mean, it's not like it's avant garde - listen to eleanor rigby. or how to disappear completely and never be found. this just seems pedestrian, in comparison.
but, if moaning about radiohead were an olympic sport, i'd be competitive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI2oS2hoL0k
it's good that thom has realized that he does require jonny to make a good record. but, this is egos clashing - it's not collaborative. thom is really doing everything he possibly can to drown out the strings. an epic mix manages to save a catastrophe. although, i'm sure there's more than one patch on that processor? we've heard quite a lot of that one.
this isn't going to turn out well if the process is that thom shows up after jonny's done all the work, like it's just another side project, and howls out some half formed nonsense. he couldn't even be bothered to write a second verse. a band is supposed to be a collaborative affair. i don't know how a band can go more than a decade without remembering that.
i'm not disappointed, i'm just jaded; cynical, even. i've been soooo over this band since 2003. really.
but, there's a bit of a tease here: this is actually new material, not just the same recycled sound they've been stripping down forever, to the point of parody. but, if he wants to go down this orchestral path, i wish he'd be a little more aspirational. i mean, it's not like it's avant garde - listen to eleanor rigby. or how to disappear completely and never be found. this just seems pedestrian, in comparison.
but, if moaning about radiohead were an olympic sport, i'd be competitive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI2oS2hoL0k
Thursday, May 5, 2016
j reacts to the idea of a trump/gingrich ticket
marillyn hewson would be a better vp pick than newt gingrich. might balance out the identity politics a little.
picking gingrich would certainly send a message, but that message is something like "you might as well have voted for ted cruz, 'cause that's what you're getting".
we need a hipster meme for newt.
i shut down congress
i'll admit this, though: a cruz/gingrich ticket is bad enough that i'd happily vote for hillary. you'd expect them to go on strike, or something.
it ought to be crazy talk. but, you're batshit to try and read any sense into the campaign.
picking gingrich would certainly send a message, but that message is something like "you might as well have voted for ted cruz, 'cause that's what you're getting".
we need a hipster meme for newt.
i shut down congress
....before it was uncool.
i'll admit this, though: a cruz/gingrich ticket is bad enough that i'd happily vote for hillary. you'd expect them to go on strike, or something.
it ought to be crazy talk. but, you're batshit to try and read any sense into the campaign.
j reacts to apparent pressure from breitbart for trump to flop on trade
i've said this before: what mexico needs to do is get it's labour standards up. it needs more regulation. it needs higher wages. that's the actual ideal here, rather than ripping nafta up: getting mexico up to code. if mexico had comparable wages, standards and regulations to the united states and canada, they wouldn't have this labour advantage and other factors would determine where the factories end up.
there's a legitimate level of moral outrage over the idea that the comparative advantage is a race to the bottom. i'm no fan of market logic or competitive economies, but you'd get a lot less pushback if the competitive aspect was over who is better, not who is worse. for that reason, this issue is never going to go away. you can throw as many skewed statistics around as you want, you're ultimately not addressing the actual issue.
now, on the one hand, the argument was always that nafta would pull them up to code. on the other hand, everybody always knew that was bullshit - that the point of nafta was for the corporations to escape the code.
enough time has now passed to make the following conclusion: if the purpose of nafta was to pull mexico up to code, then it has failed. there's been some progress, sure, but not enough. and, this should be the focus from the next president, and perhaps the president after that.
so, the way this should work is like this: the president should put some demands down on the mexican political system, and provide it with a timetable to meet those demands. i'm not proposing anything onerous, only that mexico bring itself up to code so that there's an even playing field across the three countries. should it meet those demands, nafta stays. should it reject them, nafta ends.
but, i want to be clear that i don't think the failure here is at a legislative level. nobody seriously ought to expect that a parliament will pass these kinds of laws without pressure from below. i know that mexico has a history of labour repression, but newsflash: so does the united states. and, in fact, so does canada. there may be a difference of scale. but, why has mexican labour not risen up and demanded more? where are the mexican consumer watch dog groups? where is the mexican left?
again: they've had enough time to get this sorted out, and they're not doing it. so, they need some pressure from the outside. and, if they won't do it, the agreement can't continue.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/05/former-mexican-president-vicente-fox-nafta-miracle/
there's a legitimate level of moral outrage over the idea that the comparative advantage is a race to the bottom. i'm no fan of market logic or competitive economies, but you'd get a lot less pushback if the competitive aspect was over who is better, not who is worse. for that reason, this issue is never going to go away. you can throw as many skewed statistics around as you want, you're ultimately not addressing the actual issue.
now, on the one hand, the argument was always that nafta would pull them up to code. on the other hand, everybody always knew that was bullshit - that the point of nafta was for the corporations to escape the code.
enough time has now passed to make the following conclusion: if the purpose of nafta was to pull mexico up to code, then it has failed. there's been some progress, sure, but not enough. and, this should be the focus from the next president, and perhaps the president after that.
so, the way this should work is like this: the president should put some demands down on the mexican political system, and provide it with a timetable to meet those demands. i'm not proposing anything onerous, only that mexico bring itself up to code so that there's an even playing field across the three countries. should it meet those demands, nafta stays. should it reject them, nafta ends.
but, i want to be clear that i don't think the failure here is at a legislative level. nobody seriously ought to expect that a parliament will pass these kinds of laws without pressure from below. i know that mexico has a history of labour repression, but newsflash: so does the united states. and, in fact, so does canada. there may be a difference of scale. but, why has mexican labour not risen up and demanded more? where are the mexican consumer watch dog groups? where is the mexican left?
again: they've had enough time to get this sorted out, and they're not doing it. so, they need some pressure from the outside. and, if they won't do it, the agreement can't continue.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/05/former-mexican-president-vicente-fox-nafta-miracle/
04-05-2016: within the twilight of archiving (and japanese girls in windsor)
concert footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JS7MfHCjn4
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/05/04.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JS7MfHCjn4
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/05/04.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
j reacts to kasich dropping out (and trump's coming conversion into the establishment)
i think kasich would have actually seen his numbers go up without cruz. it wouldn't have been from cruz voters, exactly. but, a lot of people that were voting for trump to stop cruz may have eased up.
the thing is that the states that are left are not the right states - except maybe california. that would have been awkward, huh? kasich winning california, and preventing trump from clinching? then, what?
well, nothing, probably. he just wins on the second ballot.
like i say: this is only feasible now that cruz is gone. so long as cruz is running, trump wins in a landslide, because nobody wants to take the chance that cruz might win. but, when cruz is out, the stakes are not so dramatic, and there's a little more room to go with what they really want...
that's not what happened, though. what happened was that john got a call from head office, informing him that it's done: trump's the guy. and, they don't want to take the chance that he might frustrate the process.
this has been clear for a few days already, but watch it really pivot, now, in the next few weeks. he's going to be rebranding himself, more or less by the book. expect flip-flops on certain issues. expect gushing media coverage from people that were criticizing him last week. expect every ridiculous thing you can imagine.
....and hopefully, maybe, expect a little but of coaching and for it to begin to show.
the thing is that the states that are left are not the right states - except maybe california. that would have been awkward, huh? kasich winning california, and preventing trump from clinching? then, what?
well, nothing, probably. he just wins on the second ballot.
like i say: this is only feasible now that cruz is gone. so long as cruz is running, trump wins in a landslide, because nobody wants to take the chance that cruz might win. but, when cruz is out, the stakes are not so dramatic, and there's a little more room to go with what they really want...
that's not what happened, though. what happened was that john got a call from head office, informing him that it's done: trump's the guy. and, they don't want to take the chance that he might frustrate the process.
this has been clear for a few days already, but watch it really pivot, now, in the next few weeks. he's going to be rebranding himself, more or less by the book. expect flip-flops on certain issues. expect gushing media coverage from people that were criticizing him last week. expect every ridiculous thing you can imagine.
....and hopefully, maybe, expect a little but of coaching and for it to begin to show.
j reacts to reports that clinton is courting bush administration officials for cabinet
she takes the left for granted. what are they going to do? vote for trump?
dammit, bernie. i know you can't say it yet. but, let's start being a little vague, alright?
they won't vote for trump. they might vote for jill stein. they will vote for bernie sanders.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/03/steve_schmidt_the_candidate_most_like_bush_and_cheney_is_hillary_clinton.html
dammit, bernie. i know you can't say it yet. but, let's start being a little vague, alright?
they won't vote for trump. they might vote for jill stein. they will vote for bernie sanders.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/03/steve_schmidt_the_candidate_most_like_bush_and_cheney_is_hillary_clinton.html
shit hillary said vol 47
KING: So maybe a Republican or two in the cabinet?
CLINTON: I think we should look at that. We need to try to have a bipartisan government. We've got to restore confidence and competence to the American government.
CLINTON: I think we should look at that. We need to try to have a bipartisan government. We've got to restore confidence and competence to the American government.
j reacts to the indiana primary results
well, he got his unlikely split. exit polling suggests he actually managed to win women. yeah. and, he's doing better and better with young minorities - so long as they're allowed to vote. he apparently split non-white voters under 50 - although the numbers always come out skewed because young people of colour are not voting at the same frequency as young white people are.
i don't think it really changes anything, though. i mean, it suggests he got high turnout - he was able to overwhelm. but, the explanation could very well be that he was piggybacking on trump voters, who see sanders as their second choice. you can vote twice in these open primaries.
i'm all for open primaries. but i really think you should only be able to vote for one party.
you'll note that she won all the southern counties, which are bordering kentucky. that's a better predictor of what's coming. he's not going to lose kentucky or west virgnia because of minorities. he's going to lose white men in these states, as he did in tennessee and the other states in the immediate vicinity.
but, the fact that his numbers are improving with minorities, at least in the north, is promising - should he run outside the party.
i don't think it really changes anything, though. i mean, it suggests he got high turnout - he was able to overwhelm. but, the explanation could very well be that he was piggybacking on trump voters, who see sanders as their second choice. you can vote twice in these open primaries.
i'm all for open primaries. but i really think you should only be able to vote for one party.
you'll note that she won all the southern counties, which are bordering kentucky. that's a better predictor of what's coming. he's not going to lose kentucky or west virgnia because of minorities. he's going to lose white men in these states, as he did in tennessee and the other states in the immediate vicinity.
but, the fact that his numbers are improving with minorities, at least in the north, is promising - should he run outside the party.
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
almost ready to get back to work
month turnover things were unexpectedly hectic, but i'm legitimately finally "there". i should be back to work tomorrow.
it'll be a week before it updates, but i should be getting back to adding to this list, soon.
it'll be a week before it updates, but i should be getting back to adding to this list, soon.
if you would like candidates to address your concerns, it might help to stop claiming they're incapable of understanding things. this ridiculous arrogance coming out of crt is not only unhelpful, it's flatly wrong.
i'm not going to speak for sanders, but me let me say this: i fully understand what you're saying. but, i also deeply disagree with you.
i am colour blind. i am not racist. and, fuck you for implying that i am.
i don't want to organize with people that erect intellectual hierarchies before a discourse even begins.
rather, here's the truth: american minorities continue to align themselves with capitalist power hierarchies. and, the reason is that american minorities are the most ideologically capitalist voters on the planet.
it's all about the bling, nigga. it has nothing to do with racism.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/03/bernie-sanders-failure-diversity-hispanic-black-voters
black voters do not believe that the solution to their problems lays in state aid or social programs. rather, they believe the answer lies in hard work and strong policing. they don't want free health care, they want a fair chance at one day owning their own migrant worker.
it is you, sir, that do not get it.
white people grow up listening to hippie folk music that tells us that money is the root of all evil. black people grow up listening to hip-hop artists that tell us that money is the source of all happiness. it transfers over to every other type of media, and has entrenched itself in popular consciousness. then, we wonder why blacks vote for capitalism and whites vote against it?
i bet bernie would have loved to get beyonce up on the podium with him. she's not going to do it for free, though.
what's happening is reflective of reality: most black americans are voting for the hyper-capitalist, interventionist neo-liberal that wants to bring in a police state because that's what they actually want. if they wanted otherwise, they'd vote otherwise.
the left needs to do outreach to change how minorities think, not change itself to make itself more amenable to minorities. and, fuck you if you don't like it.
i'm not going to speak for sanders, but me let me say this: i fully understand what you're saying. but, i also deeply disagree with you.
i am colour blind. i am not racist. and, fuck you for implying that i am.
i don't want to organize with people that erect intellectual hierarchies before a discourse even begins.
rather, here's the truth: american minorities continue to align themselves with capitalist power hierarchies. and, the reason is that american minorities are the most ideologically capitalist voters on the planet.
it's all about the bling, nigga. it has nothing to do with racism.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/03/bernie-sanders-failure-diversity-hispanic-black-voters
black voters do not believe that the solution to their problems lays in state aid or social programs. rather, they believe the answer lies in hard work and strong policing. they don't want free health care, they want a fair chance at one day owning their own migrant worker.
it is you, sir, that do not get it.
white people grow up listening to hippie folk music that tells us that money is the root of all evil. black people grow up listening to hip-hop artists that tell us that money is the source of all happiness. it transfers over to every other type of media, and has entrenched itself in popular consciousness. then, we wonder why blacks vote for capitalism and whites vote against it?
i bet bernie would have loved to get beyonce up on the podium with him. she's not going to do it for free, though.
what's happening is reflective of reality: most black americans are voting for the hyper-capitalist, interventionist neo-liberal that wants to bring in a police state because that's what they actually want. if they wanted otherwise, they'd vote otherwise.
the left needs to do outreach to change how minorities think, not change itself to make itself more amenable to minorities. and, fuck you if you don't like it.
Monday, May 2, 2016
on the irrationality of bed-making
i refuse to believe this is actually true. i think my search results are getting filtered, in an attempt to enforce the utter irrationality of bed-making.
i was tipped off to this when youtube wouldn't accept my thumbnail - for no seeming reason other than apparent horror at the idea of thumbnailing an unkempt bed. frankly, i don't fucking care. but, it's worse than this.
i need to point out that i have presented this argument to virtually everybody in my family that is older than me : a mother, a father, a step-mother, a step-father, two grandmothers, various aunts and, i believe, even one uncle. thankfully, it was only really the direct parental units that had opinions that were of any real consequence, and i did manage to convince them both of my superior logic, and at quite a young age. my step-mother was a deeply impulsive type and would simply make the damned bed when i was gone.
but it is not a difficult argument: making your bed is irrational because you're just going to unmake it when you go back to sleep. i mean, what's the first thing you do when you get into a made bed? you rip the sheets out of the side and curl up in the blanket. so, why bother tucking them in? it's not a question of laziness. it's just an utterly preposterous habit.
if you make your bed, you are an irrational person. i'm not crazy: society is crazy. and, i mean that. it's actually fucking true.
i was tipped off to this when youtube wouldn't accept my thumbnail - for no seeming reason other than apparent horror at the idea of thumbnailing an unkempt bed. frankly, i don't fucking care. but, it's worse than this.
i need to point out that i have presented this argument to virtually everybody in my family that is older than me : a mother, a father, a step-mother, a step-father, two grandmothers, various aunts and, i believe, even one uncle. thankfully, it was only really the direct parental units that had opinions that were of any real consequence, and i did manage to convince them both of my superior logic, and at quite a young age. my step-mother was a deeply impulsive type and would simply make the damned bed when i was gone.
but it is not a difficult argument: making your bed is irrational because you're just going to unmake it when you go back to sleep. i mean, what's the first thing you do when you get into a made bed? you rip the sheets out of the side and curl up in the blanket. so, why bother tucking them in? it's not a question of laziness. it's just an utterly preposterous habit.
if you make your bed, you are an irrational person. i'm not crazy: society is crazy. and, i mean that. it's actually fucking true.
Sunday, May 1, 2016
shit hillary said vol 46
"The exchange that followed was remarkable. In strongly supporting the surge in Afghanistan, Hillary told the president that her opposition to the surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary [in 2008]. She went on to say, ‘The Iraq surge worked.’" - robert gates
j reacts to the continuing ideological incoherency of donald trump
the guy is really a walking contradiction, and the more you try and make sense of him, the less sense he makes. he came on here to defend a speech that i think was literally written by bush' old speechwriters, and he ends up using talking points, almost verbatim, from noam fucking chomsky.
no joke. forget hillary - he's plagiarizing fucking chomsky. and, if you're familiar with his interview talking points, you'll see that immediately.
you're voting for a moving target. you don't know what the fuck you're going to get.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h5uWzElIb8
no joke. forget hillary - he's plagiarizing fucking chomsky. and, if you're familiar with his interview talking points, you'll see that immediately.
you're voting for a moving target. you don't know what the fuck you're going to get.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h5uWzElIb8
j reacts to indiana pre-polling
indiana...
i'll admit the numbers are a tad closer than i expected. i was expecting clinton to win indiana by around ten points, based on the reality that it's more conservative than ohio. the civil war was 150 years ago. the boundaries of north and south have shifted, and we have a west, now, too. ohio is split - it's south is south, and it's north is north. but, it's increasingly becoming the south. indiana is the south. west virginia is the south. kentucky is the south, too.
the fact that most of the polls have her under ten, and it's an open primary, means he's within striking distance. she will probably win, but he may just get a split out of it. but, that's not a win, and he needs those right now.
further, given the reality of things, i think you have to expect her to stuff the mail-ins, again. she'll "win" indianapolis by a huge margin, and the numbers to overwhelm are just hard to generate - even without the reality that he's lost a lot of momentum over the last three weeks.
i can't claim that clinton will win. but, the chances of him generating the huge turnout that he needs to overwhelm her are a lot lower than they were a few weeks ago. he might do surprisingly well [that is, he might surprise me - he'll certainly underperform relative to the racist models]. but, a win is really a giant longshot.
on the republican side?
the data suggests that trump is going to beat the snot out of cruz. again. and, this is a state that cruz should be competitive in. but, the numbers suggest he isn't - he's done. where sanders may get close to a tie, cruz will struggle to get to 35.
but, i want to point something out about kasich. if you remove the obviously outlandish ipfw poll, cruz is very stable in his numbers - of the last six polls, two are at 35 and one is at each of 34, 33, 32 and 31. trump, on the other hand, fluctuates between 37 and 49, while kasich fluctuates between 13 and 22. the relationship is that as kasich' vote goes up, trump's goes down - and as kasich' goes down, trump's goes up. that seems to confirm what i've been saying: there is essentially no swing between kasich and cruz. the swing is between kasich and trump. it follows that cruz should have begged kasich to campaign hard in indiana to try and split the vote. but, he's a dipshit that is ideologically opposed to things like intelligence, mathematics, co-operation and strategy.
i'll admit the numbers are a tad closer than i expected. i was expecting clinton to win indiana by around ten points, based on the reality that it's more conservative than ohio. the civil war was 150 years ago. the boundaries of north and south have shifted, and we have a west, now, too. ohio is split - it's south is south, and it's north is north. but, it's increasingly becoming the south. indiana is the south. west virginia is the south. kentucky is the south, too.
the fact that most of the polls have her under ten, and it's an open primary, means he's within striking distance. she will probably win, but he may just get a split out of it. but, that's not a win, and he needs those right now.
further, given the reality of things, i think you have to expect her to stuff the mail-ins, again. she'll "win" indianapolis by a huge margin, and the numbers to overwhelm are just hard to generate - even without the reality that he's lost a lot of momentum over the last three weeks.
i can't claim that clinton will win. but, the chances of him generating the huge turnout that he needs to overwhelm her are a lot lower than they were a few weeks ago. he might do surprisingly well [that is, he might surprise me - he'll certainly underperform relative to the racist models]. but, a win is really a giant longshot.
on the republican side?
the data suggests that trump is going to beat the snot out of cruz. again. and, this is a state that cruz should be competitive in. but, the numbers suggest he isn't - he's done. where sanders may get close to a tie, cruz will struggle to get to 35.
but, i want to point something out about kasich. if you remove the obviously outlandish ipfw poll, cruz is very stable in his numbers - of the last six polls, two are at 35 and one is at each of 34, 33, 32 and 31. trump, on the other hand, fluctuates between 37 and 49, while kasich fluctuates between 13 and 22. the relationship is that as kasich' vote goes up, trump's goes down - and as kasich' goes down, trump's goes up. that seems to confirm what i've been saying: there is essentially no swing between kasich and cruz. the swing is between kasich and trump. it follows that cruz should have begged kasich to campaign hard in indiana to try and split the vote. but, he's a dipshit that is ideologically opposed to things like intelligence, mathematics, co-operation and strategy.
j reacts to the likely logic around hillary clinton's vp choice
who will hillary pick as vp?
i'm not sure. but, you can expect the following characteristics:
- southern
- conservative
- more likely to be black than female
i would strongly expect a person of colour. i think she'd like to pick condoleeza rice, but she's in the wrong party. that's her ideal pick: black, female, smart and just barely right of center. i don't know who that transfers over to on the democratic side.
remember: she doesn't think she needs to win votes on the left. she thinks she needs to win votes in the center. she takes the left for granted. because, she won. right?
i'm not sure. but, you can expect the following characteristics:
- southern
- conservative
- more likely to be black than female
i would strongly expect a person of colour. i think she'd like to pick condoleeza rice, but she's in the wrong party. that's her ideal pick: black, female, smart and just barely right of center. i don't know who that transfers over to on the democratic side.
remember: she doesn't think she needs to win votes on the left. she thinks she needs to win votes in the center. she takes the left for granted. because, she won. right?
Saturday, April 30, 2016
shit hillary said vol 45
“We now finally are where we need to be. We have a strategy and a commitment to go after ISIS, which is a danger to us, as well as the region, and we finally have a UN Security Council resolution bringing the world together to go after a political transition in Syria.”
j reacts to rubio angling for a spot on the ticket (and trump's optimal vp logic)
the headline should say:
"marco rubio continues to do what he's told, as establishment finally buys the trump brand."
if you were still unclear up to this point, this is the clincher: trump is now the establishment candidate. otherwise, rubio would still be saying mean things about him - because that's what rubio does: what he's told.
the thinking is probably that rubio will help trump win some actual conservatives. but, it's the same incompetence we've seen through the entire race. he's been spent. i mean, that's why he lost everywhere - the facade was blown off.
rubio will probably hurt trump more than he helps him.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/marco-rubio-warming-up-to-donald-trump/2275308
if trump is serious, he needs to go full retard. he'd be better off with somebody like jesse ventura. i'm not joking. he'll blow the conservative vote, but what is the conservative vote? it's not that much, really.
i mean, think about this: the epiphany of trump winning is that conservatism is pretty much a dead philosophy. it's been clear in the northeast and the west coast and most of canada for quite a while, now. the surprise is that it's pretty much dead in the south, too - except amongst black democrats, oddly enough. it's still kicking in the midwest, it seems, but it's probably it's last stand. eight years from now, it'll likely be on the absolute fringe.
so, what does trump do? he listens to the establishment - the establishment he just beat the snot out of - and toys with getting a conservative as vp.
he doesn't even understand his own phenomenon. that's the level of dipshit we've got, here.
trump wants anything but a conservative (quiet down, canadians) as a running mate. what he really wants is a libertarian. ideas...
1) jesse ventura. i don't think he'd do it.
2) rand paul. i don't think he'd do it, either.
3) ron paul. you know, i think he might, actually.
4) bob barr. ??.
5) glenn beck <-!!!!
6) gary johnson. ??.
trump/beck. holy shit. i'm already laughing.
but, i'm serious - this is the right tactic. he's never going to win conservatives - and he just proved there aren't enough of them to win a fucking primary, anyways. he wants to go after liberals.
can arnold be vp?
"marco rubio continues to do what he's told, as establishment finally buys the trump brand."
if you were still unclear up to this point, this is the clincher: trump is now the establishment candidate. otherwise, rubio would still be saying mean things about him - because that's what rubio does: what he's told.
the thinking is probably that rubio will help trump win some actual conservatives. but, it's the same incompetence we've seen through the entire race. he's been spent. i mean, that's why he lost everywhere - the facade was blown off.
rubio will probably hurt trump more than he helps him.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/marco-rubio-warming-up-to-donald-trump/2275308
if trump is serious, he needs to go full retard. he'd be better off with somebody like jesse ventura. i'm not joking. he'll blow the conservative vote, but what is the conservative vote? it's not that much, really.
i mean, think about this: the epiphany of trump winning is that conservatism is pretty much a dead philosophy. it's been clear in the northeast and the west coast and most of canada for quite a while, now. the surprise is that it's pretty much dead in the south, too - except amongst black democrats, oddly enough. it's still kicking in the midwest, it seems, but it's probably it's last stand. eight years from now, it'll likely be on the absolute fringe.
so, what does trump do? he listens to the establishment - the establishment he just beat the snot out of - and toys with getting a conservative as vp.
he doesn't even understand his own phenomenon. that's the level of dipshit we've got, here.
trump wants anything but a conservative (quiet down, canadians) as a running mate. what he really wants is a libertarian. ideas...
1) jesse ventura. i don't think he'd do it.
2) rand paul. i don't think he'd do it, either.
3) ron paul. you know, i think he might, actually.
4) bob barr. ??.
5) glenn beck <-!!!!
6) gary johnson. ??.
trump/beck. holy shit. i'm already laughing.
but, i'm serious - this is the right tactic. he's never going to win conservatives - and he just proved there aren't enough of them to win a fucking primary, anyways. he wants to go after liberals.
can arnold be vp?
j reacts to if bernie would split the left (he may prevent a split by running!)
(in reply to somebody's comment)
but, hillary also supports war against iran and mass deportations - along with the tpp and nafta. the wall is never getting built. and, did you know that clinton supports a constitutional amendment to limit abortion access?
i think most leftists would have to concede that trump is the lesser evil on foreign policy [he actually seems to be an isolationist, and seems to want to dismantle the empire - whereas hillary is a bellicose interventionist that will no doubt launch at least three unnecessary wars] and just flat out better on trade. his positions on trade and foreign policy are legitimately closer to sanders', although nowhere near as appealing.
where trump is really scary is his fiscal policy. i don't think he's going to punish anybody for getting an abortion. i do think he'll probably bankrupt the country.
...which is why you should probably expect hillary to run to the right of trump. while clinton may demolish him in a two-way race, it's going to be by winning red states - and by being more appealing to conservatives than trump is. so, clinton wins 40 states, sure. but, the result is that even the moderate left ends up disenfranchised.
i think he needs to wait until at least july to decide. but, i actually don't think that sanders really has a choice. if he doesn't run, what is going to happen is that jill stein is going to show up on the map in a big way. i share the author's view that sanders will win a three-way race, as clinton essentially pushes trump out of the spectrum and becomes the republican nominee. but, stein cannot win - not from where she is. so, if he doesn't run, stein could very well split the vote badly enough to screw things up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/case-for-sanders-running-independent-if-clinton-nominee_b_9803982.html
to put it another way: somebody is going to run to the left of clinton, and that person is going to generate significant support. the real question is whether that person is:
1) not a factor. so, you could see something like clinton 55, trump 35, stein 10. that's a huge boost for the third party, but clinton wins anyways.
2) enough of a factor to split. so, then you'd get something like clinton 45, trump 35, stein 20 - but the electoral college would be kind to trump. that would be the reverse of the perot scenario that elected bill clinton.
3) or enough to actually win. then, you'd get something like clinton 25, trump 35, sanders 38, stein 2.
it ought to be a very delicate decision, made at the very last minute. and, if (3) is made to prevent (2)? it's actually "unsplitting the vote".
i don't think you can put sanders back in the tube. his supporters are going to be looking for another option, which right now is likely to be stein.
but, hillary also supports war against iran and mass deportations - along with the tpp and nafta. the wall is never getting built. and, did you know that clinton supports a constitutional amendment to limit abortion access?
i think most leftists would have to concede that trump is the lesser evil on foreign policy [he actually seems to be an isolationist, and seems to want to dismantle the empire - whereas hillary is a bellicose interventionist that will no doubt launch at least three unnecessary wars] and just flat out better on trade. his positions on trade and foreign policy are legitimately closer to sanders', although nowhere near as appealing.
where trump is really scary is his fiscal policy. i don't think he's going to punish anybody for getting an abortion. i do think he'll probably bankrupt the country.
...which is why you should probably expect hillary to run to the right of trump. while clinton may demolish him in a two-way race, it's going to be by winning red states - and by being more appealing to conservatives than trump is. so, clinton wins 40 states, sure. but, the result is that even the moderate left ends up disenfranchised.
i think he needs to wait until at least july to decide. but, i actually don't think that sanders really has a choice. if he doesn't run, what is going to happen is that jill stein is going to show up on the map in a big way. i share the author's view that sanders will win a three-way race, as clinton essentially pushes trump out of the spectrum and becomes the republican nominee. but, stein cannot win - not from where she is. so, if he doesn't run, stein could very well split the vote badly enough to screw things up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/case-for-sanders-running-independent-if-clinton-nominee_b_9803982.html
to put it another way: somebody is going to run to the left of clinton, and that person is going to generate significant support. the real question is whether that person is:
1) not a factor. so, you could see something like clinton 55, trump 35, stein 10. that's a huge boost for the third party, but clinton wins anyways.
2) enough of a factor to split. so, then you'd get something like clinton 45, trump 35, stein 20 - but the electoral college would be kind to trump. that would be the reverse of the perot scenario that elected bill clinton.
3) or enough to actually win. then, you'd get something like clinton 25, trump 35, sanders 38, stein 2.
it ought to be a very delicate decision, made at the very last minute. and, if (3) is made to prevent (2)? it's actually "unsplitting the vote".
i don't think you can put sanders back in the tube. his supporters are going to be looking for another option, which right now is likely to be stein.
it was always about the price of oil. the criticism was that they tied themselves too strongly to the price of oil, thereby reducing the country's fiscal situation to the whim of global investors. so, when the price of oil comes down, you get huge deficits - and when it comes up, you get huge surpluses. you fix this by recreating a stable tax base, so the country can better deal with the volatility in oil prices.
oil was expected to stay low this year. it hasn't - it has risen. so, we're getting surpluses instead of deficits. it was largely agreed that the liberals low-balled the projections, but it was also largely agreed that the price would stay low.
this is not the point. it's a red herring. it's the situation of relying on oil prices that is the problem that needs to be resolved. and, the fact that we're in this situation cannot be spun out of - it is flat fiscal incompetence. if the government decides to hold to it, it's just carrying on the incompetence. an advanced nation requires an actual tax base.
(of course, i don't particularly care, anyways. i only care about keeping the imf vultures away. i'm just saying.)
www.cbc.ca/news/business/ottawa-federal-surplus-deficit-1.3559175
oil was expected to stay low this year. it hasn't - it has risen. so, we're getting surpluses instead of deficits. it was largely agreed that the liberals low-balled the projections, but it was also largely agreed that the price would stay low.
this is not the point. it's a red herring. it's the situation of relying on oil prices that is the problem that needs to be resolved. and, the fact that we're in this situation cannot be spun out of - it is flat fiscal incompetence. if the government decides to hold to it, it's just carrying on the incompetence. an advanced nation requires an actual tax base.
(of course, i don't particularly care, anyways. i only care about keeping the imf vultures away. i'm just saying.)
www.cbc.ca/news/business/ottawa-federal-surplus-deficit-1.3559175
Friday, April 29, 2016
shit hillary said vol 44
"I am advocating the no-fly zone both because I think it would help us on the ground to protect Syrians; I’m also advocating it because I think it gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia."
j reacts to how trump is morphing into bush III
"We’re getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the world."
that could be a direct quote from bush. and, it's probably neither coincidence nor calculation - rather, i suspect that this speech was literally written by bush' old speechwriters.
but, something else is curious. if you take away the two or three lines about trade and the opaque barbs at obama, it sounds exactly like something hillary would say.
trump's mild appeal as a possible lesser evil is fading fast as he gets in line and becomes a spokesperson for the republican old guard. if you voted for him to flip the tpp, you've been had. might it have been a ploy from the start?
please vote for jill stein or do not vote at all.
http://time.com/4309786/read-donald-trumps-america-first-foreign-policy-speech/
that could be a direct quote from bush. and, it's probably neither coincidence nor calculation - rather, i suspect that this speech was literally written by bush' old speechwriters.
but, something else is curious. if you take away the two or three lines about trade and the opaque barbs at obama, it sounds exactly like something hillary would say.
trump's mild appeal as a possible lesser evil is fading fast as he gets in line and becomes a spokesperson for the republican old guard. if you voted for him to flip the tpp, you've been had. might it have been a ploy from the start?
please vote for jill stein or do not vote at all.
http://time.com/4309786/read-donald-trumps-america-first-foreign-policy-speech/
j reacts to an anecdote by max blumenthal about sanders, warren and aipac
interesting sanders anecdote. and, i don't think this is news, i was just watching this as i was eating. nor is it the crux of the talk. i'm just saying....
nobody's ever argued that sanders is ideal. he's still a lesser evil. and, i've frankly never really taken his bit about corruption seriously - it's just politics.
i've heard elizabeth warren explain away her votes for israeli action by saying something like "america needs an ally in the middle east.". it's the same fundamental policy that's been in place since 1973. it's about the - reasonable - american refusal to accept the saudis as a full ally. it's not about any particular support for israeli policy, and really never has been. it's just all about the geo-political realities around controlling the oil supply.and, the palestinians just get thrown under the bus.
even that said, sanders has taken some really bold positions on the campaign trail. it may not be far enough for most activists, but, even on this issue, it's still incomparably better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HdHkdnc7iA
i think that, if you follow the argument properly, the best thing that activists in the united states can do on the palestine issue is support the shift to renewable energy. if we can get off oil, we can get off israel, too. you're bluntly not likely to see positive changes in american policy in the region until the shift to energy independence is completed.
nobody's ever argued that sanders is ideal. he's still a lesser evil. and, i've frankly never really taken his bit about corruption seriously - it's just politics.
i've heard elizabeth warren explain away her votes for israeli action by saying something like "america needs an ally in the middle east.". it's the same fundamental policy that's been in place since 1973. it's about the - reasonable - american refusal to accept the saudis as a full ally. it's not about any particular support for israeli policy, and really never has been. it's just all about the geo-political realities around controlling the oil supply.and, the palestinians just get thrown under the bus.
even that said, sanders has taken some really bold positions on the campaign trail. it may not be far enough for most activists, but, even on this issue, it's still incomparably better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HdHkdnc7iA
i think that, if you follow the argument properly, the best thing that activists in the united states can do on the palestine issue is support the shift to renewable energy. if we can get off oil, we can get off israel, too. you're bluntly not likely to see positive changes in american policy in the region until the shift to energy independence is completed.
j reacts to the supreme court argument [red herring...]
so, now it's about the supreme court, apparently - bernie supporters should support hillary to stop the republicans from stacking the supreme court. is that a better argument?
it's not. it's just a restatement of the other arguments, and the response is the same as it is with the other arguments.
first, let's acknowledge that it's a desperate reaction. what it states is that you can't win the argument that hillary is substantively better than trump, so you're just not making it. instead, you're essentially changing the topic. so, it's a red herring. when you say hillary isn't better than trump, that doesn't somehow not apply to the supreme court nominees.
what would hillary's supreme court nominees look like? they'd be pretty shitty, no doubt - designed to protect corporate power and uphold the status quo. and, remember: hillary supports a constitutional amendment to limit abortion rights. she only came out in favour of gay marriage after the court ruling, and only because of the court ruling. she is a conservative, so you should expect her to appoint conservatives. the best case is the status quo; a realistic expectation is actually a shift to the right, as she'll no doubt replace the democrats that resign with justices that are more conservative.
so, like everything else about hillary, you should expect her supreme court nominations to be horrendous. disastrous, even. but, they'll be chosen in such a way as to not rock boats. you won't realize the shit has hit the fan until it does, if you do at all. so, we get this continuing shift to the right without anybody noticing.
what about trump? well, you'd expect little subtlety in his picks, although i don't think you should take him seriously on the abortion thing. but, let's say you do. let's say he literally appoints judge judy. and, let's say he somehow gets her confirmed. people are going to riot.
so, what do you want? do you want eight more years of the status quo, where they're fucking everybody over and nobody reacts? or do you want some serious pushback?
it's not. it's just a restatement of the other arguments, and the response is the same as it is with the other arguments.
first, let's acknowledge that it's a desperate reaction. what it states is that you can't win the argument that hillary is substantively better than trump, so you're just not making it. instead, you're essentially changing the topic. so, it's a red herring. when you say hillary isn't better than trump, that doesn't somehow not apply to the supreme court nominees.
what would hillary's supreme court nominees look like? they'd be pretty shitty, no doubt - designed to protect corporate power and uphold the status quo. and, remember: hillary supports a constitutional amendment to limit abortion rights. she only came out in favour of gay marriage after the court ruling, and only because of the court ruling. she is a conservative, so you should expect her to appoint conservatives. the best case is the status quo; a realistic expectation is actually a shift to the right, as she'll no doubt replace the democrats that resign with justices that are more conservative.
so, like everything else about hillary, you should expect her supreme court nominations to be horrendous. disastrous, even. but, they'll be chosen in such a way as to not rock boats. you won't realize the shit has hit the fan until it does, if you do at all. so, we get this continuing shift to the right without anybody noticing.
what about trump? well, you'd expect little subtlety in his picks, although i don't think you should take him seriously on the abortion thing. but, let's say you do. let's say he literally appoints judge judy. and, let's say he somehow gets her confirmed. people are going to riot.
so, what do you want? do you want eight more years of the status quo, where they're fucking everybody over and nobody reacts? or do you want some serious pushback?
Thursday, April 28, 2016
shit hillary said vol 43
“Adults are not fulfilling their responsibility to talk to young people about the future, about how they should view their lives, about self-discipline and other values they should have. It’s not birth control, but self-control.”
sewer blockage
jessica
hi.
there's a really severe sewer blockage somewhere around my unit that seems to have clicked in overnight. i know that's vague, but i don't actually know where the blockage is. but, i do know that, the last time i had a block like this (two years ago), the eel company told me that the block was probably off the property and the city should have taken care of it. the toilet is currently inoperable due to the block [it takes ten minutes to drain and takes nothing with it].
i will have to call my landlord. but, i'm just wondering what the process is in getting the city to clear it's side of the lines, in case that's what the issue is (as i think it is).
i live at 805 marion.
311
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your email.
The City of Windsor offers an eeling program, I would suggest contacting the Public Works Maintenance Department immediately to schedule an appointment. Public Works maintenance can be reached at 519-255-6326. I have also provided The City of Windsor Eeling Program Link:
http://www.citywindsor.ca/residents/maintenanceandfieldservices/Sewers-/Pages/Eeling-Program.aspx
Thank you for using the City of Windsor 311 services.
(phone call made)
jessica
hi.
i have contacted them, and they are offering the eeling service at a charge that i can't place on the property owners without their consent. but i want to be clear that i believe that the blockage is not on the property - that it is in the actual sewer, and is a combination of things like coffee cups, tree branches and other trash that washed into the sewer from the street. i consequently feel like this is something the city should be dealing with through a different method than eeling through a cleanout, like by sending a truck to clear out the sewers. it just strikes me as unfair for my landlord to pick up the bill on something that is affecting the entire neighbourhood [simply because i'm pushy enough to force him to]. and, fwiw, the water level in the sewers on my side of the street is very high, while the water level in the sewers across the street is not - i think it's very clear the blockage is not on his property.
is there a different program for this that places the cost on the city, where it really belongs?
311
Good Afternoon Jessica,
I am so sorry to hear about the sewer blockage at your resident.
Can you please provide your address and if possible your contact information and I will register a Service Request to have your street sewer cleaned of the tree branches and other trash that has washed into the street sewer and I will also submit a Street Sweeping request to Environmental Services so the street can be cleared of waste.
Thank you for using the City of Windsor 311 services.
jessica
i'm at 805 marion.
can i ask how long you expect such a request to take to process and result in a clearing?
311
Good Afternoon,
A sewer complaint's duration can be up to 10 business day. I've have including your comments in the Service Request and also flagged your e-mail as Emergency. Your Service Request No. for your Sewer Complaint is 16-000 10159 in case you need to contact Public Works Maintenance.
Thank you for using the City of Windsor 311 services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Windsor - 311 Automated Response E-mail Notification - DO NOT REPLY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for using 311!
Your request has been added to the service request tracking system.
Request Type: Sewer Complaint
Your reference number is: 16-00015159.
Click here to view the status of your service request online.
Alternatively, you can call 311 for follow-up by quoting your reference number.
hi.
there's a really severe sewer blockage somewhere around my unit that seems to have clicked in overnight. i know that's vague, but i don't actually know where the blockage is. but, i do know that, the last time i had a block like this (two years ago), the eel company told me that the block was probably off the property and the city should have taken care of it. the toilet is currently inoperable due to the block [it takes ten minutes to drain and takes nothing with it].
i will have to call my landlord. but, i'm just wondering what the process is in getting the city to clear it's side of the lines, in case that's what the issue is (as i think it is).
i live at 805 marion.
311
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your email.
The City of Windsor offers an eeling program, I would suggest contacting the Public Works Maintenance Department immediately to schedule an appointment. Public Works maintenance can be reached at 519-255-6326. I have also provided The City of Windsor Eeling Program Link:
http://www.citywindsor.ca/residents/maintenanceandfieldservices/Sewers-/Pages/Eeling-Program.aspx
Thank you for using the City of Windsor 311 services.
(phone call made)
jessica
hi.
i have contacted them, and they are offering the eeling service at a charge that i can't place on the property owners without their consent. but i want to be clear that i believe that the blockage is not on the property - that it is in the actual sewer, and is a combination of things like coffee cups, tree branches and other trash that washed into the sewer from the street. i consequently feel like this is something the city should be dealing with through a different method than eeling through a cleanout, like by sending a truck to clear out the sewers. it just strikes me as unfair for my landlord to pick up the bill on something that is affecting the entire neighbourhood [simply because i'm pushy enough to force him to]. and, fwiw, the water level in the sewers on my side of the street is very high, while the water level in the sewers across the street is not - i think it's very clear the blockage is not on his property.
is there a different program for this that places the cost on the city, where it really belongs?
311
Good Afternoon Jessica,
I am so sorry to hear about the sewer blockage at your resident.
Can you please provide your address and if possible your contact information and I will register a Service Request to have your street sewer cleaned of the tree branches and other trash that has washed into the street sewer and I will also submit a Street Sweeping request to Environmental Services so the street can be cleared of waste.
Thank you for using the City of Windsor 311 services.
jessica
i'm at 805 marion.
can i ask how long you expect such a request to take to process and result in a clearing?
311
Good Afternoon,
A sewer complaint's duration can be up to 10 business day. I've have including your comments in the Service Request and also flagged your e-mail as Emergency. Your Service Request No. for your Sewer Complaint is 16-000 10159 in case you need to contact Public Works Maintenance.
Thank you for using the City of Windsor 311 services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Windsor - 311 Automated Response E-mail Notification - DO NOT REPLY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for using 311!
Your request has been added to the service request tracking system.
Request Type: Sewer Complaint
Your reference number is: 16-00015159.
Click here to view the status of your service request online.
Alternatively, you can call 311 for follow-up by quoting your reference number.
more good news (plumbing)
jessica
i'm just the messenger. i don't want all this shit to be happening, either.
the toilet is swirling slowly again. the pump is also hyperactive. it's the same as before: the drains need to be cleared, and the basement is probably going to eventually flood if they're not. i first noticed the pump yesterday when i was doing laundry and the slow toilet swirl this morning, meaning something backed up over night but it's been building up for a while.
i'll just remind you that the last clog was deep enough in the line that it was probably on city property. so, i don't know if there's a process to get the city to clear the lines, or if they'll pay for it that way.
(pause)
i just want to update that "slow flush" is more like "no flush". the toilet is really not operable. it's taking something like ten minutes to drain - it' stuck.
i'm going to see what information i can find about the city clearing the lines, and then see if i can get paul to call the line cleaners. this is really kind of a must-clear-asap type blockage. nothing is actually flushing at all.
(pause)
i have contacted the city and they will send an eel through for $95.00 - although they claim they won't charge you if it's from tree branches.
what i actually think is causing the blockage is a combination of trash that flowed in from the street - coffee cups, tree branches, french fry containers, etc. if you look at the sewers on this side of the street, they're a foot from the top; if you look at the sewers on the other side of the street, you can't even see the water. it's pretty clear that the block is on the street...
so, i'm pushing back a little and trying to figure out if there's a way to get the city to clear the sewers. i don't think it's fair to force the bill on you, when you're clearing a public line that benefits the entire neighbourhood, for the simple reason that i'm pro-active enough to push for an answer and the neighbour next door isn't.
if i don't get a response, or the response is negative, i suppose i'm waiting on permission from you or paul to call 311 back to get the eel in. the toilet does not work, and i can't be sitting with a bowl full of crap for an extended period.
(pause)
ok.
i've got the city coming to clear the sewers from the outside. i don't know when, yet.
they said up to ten business days, but that it's been flagged as emergency.
i'm comfortable waiting until tomorrow, but i don't think i can wait the weekend out.
(pause)
paul came down and plunged it and it seems like it cleared the immediate obstruction, but that doesn't make any sense, and i'm remaining skeptical. it almost seems like it was already cleared, somehow. i mean, i was gone all night last night - it was fine before i left, and it was fine when i came home and went to bed. it was even fine immediately when i woke up. but, the drain then got progressively worse over the day. that doesn't strike me as consistent with a local issue. it's almost more like something migrated into the pipes. an air bubble, even? but, whatever the cause, it is cleared - for now.
i'll say that i noticed something this morning in the bowl that was red and sort of bloody and seemed to be gurgling up. i made note of it because it was very bright red, and i wasn't sure what it was - it caught my eye. like it shouldn't have been there kind of thing. i had made some nachos when i got home last night, and thought it was probably just some salsa from a kleenex or something. but, i'm starting to wonder. the next flush is when it started to flush slowly - seemingly randomly.
there's other signs that there's still something funny. gurgling sounds. i'm glad the toilet works, but the service order for the cleaning in the outside sewer is still in progress and i'm not going to cancel it.
(pause)
lastly - and curiously - i went to throw something away a little after 17:00 and there was actually an enwin vehicle doing something to the manhole in the laneway next door. if they were clearing, that adds up.
i think it's all good.
the landlord
Jessica, I spoke to Paul and he said no other toilets (4 toilets) where backed up and the sewer, sinks etc have no sign of drainage problems. The conclusion was that your toilet was clogged with toilet paper. Please make aware to Paul as soon as possible when an issue arises so it can be handled quickly. Please do not rely on me reading my e-mails and please make sure it is not just you plugging up the toilet. I do not know why you would call the city since it is only when all toilets and sewer are backed up and then we would call a plumber with a snake to unplug to the city sewer. After taking that measure; and if that did not solve an issue with drainage, the next action would be, call the city. We would have to determine that it would be necessary to call the city after a thorough investigation. Please do not jump the gun and please do not put excessive amounts of toilet paper down the toilet sewer drain. Please deposit other uses of toilet paper to the garbage, such as blowing your nose etc , Please only flush paper that you wipe your butt with down the toilet. This is the wise way to make sure that a toilet does not plug up the system.
jessica
i really don't think that's what happened. and, as i've mentioned, there is no known cause - i had not defecated in the toilet before it began to slow.
in fact, the sinks remain very slow and it's a matter of time before you'll need to come clear the line. i repeat: there remains evidence of a clog in the main line.
there was a truck outside clearing the sewers a little before he came down. the truth is that the toilet was already unclogged before he plunged it - and you could see that if you looked. i nearly asked him to flush first, but it would have been risky because there was the normal amount of water (which was actually clear) in the bowl.
you wouldn't expect the toilets on the first floor to slow down until the one in the basement has already overflowed. it backs up through the lowest point - that's me, and only me.
again: it's impossible that i clogged the toilet. it worked when i left. it was clogged when i came back. the only way that the toilet could have clogged is if somebody came in and used it when i was gone.
but, as mentioned, it wasn't clogged - a truck cleared the sewers from outside.
(pause)
but, to answer your question: why would i call the city?
because i do not think the clog is on your property; i think it's on city property. it's not your responsibility, as a property owner, to clear out the sewers on the street.
you should keep that link handy. the city clears for free. and, i do believe that that was and remains the solution.
you really should *not* call the plumber and waste $100 on a snake until you've called the city to clear the street sewers, which are the actual problem, for free.
(pause)
i've been running a vlog for the last few months. it's not really popular or anything, it's more just something to do. and, this was kind of a boring day because all i did was freak out about the toilet.
it was set to publish tonight at 12:30, but i've published it a few hours early to make the point.
if you watch the whole thing (15 minutes), you'll get a better handle of what happened (and there is actually footage of the truck at the end).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOSGGEm_9Kw
the landlord
Jessica, I see the toilet is draining slow. I have seen this before and sometimes something large may have fallen in the toilet and is jammed in the toilet trap. Some times things fall in that are too large and get jammed. We may have to pull the toilet and turn it upside down. In the video when your where outside on the street, you where looking at the storm sewer. That is where all the evesdroughs and surface water are collected. The pipe from the toilets is connected to the Sanitary sewer much deeper under the streets. This is a closed sewer that you can not see. Google storm sewer vs sanitary sewer so you understand the difference. I will get around asap to check your problem.
jessica
remember when we had this discussion last year or the year before and i contacted the city's engineering department and they explained that there's a combined sewer system in windsor, rather than separate sanitary lines?
the systems in this house are such that if we get a hurricane or something, it could very well backup. and, if the storm drains get blocked, it *is* going to affect the plumbing.
i do still think that's what actually happened and the truck outside was pushing through leaves and other debris. and, that kind of spring cleaning of the storm drains should probably be done on at least a yearly basis.
there's an interesting article here about sewage run-offs from storm drain overflows:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/brown-stuff-in-windsor-waterways-could-be-human-feces-city-says-1.2782594
the landlord
To the best of my knowledge that is not possible for any city sewer system to be connected into a storm sewer or vice versa by city engineering. In fact if anyone connects storm to a sanitary sewer and are caught they would be fined. Our storm sewer is not connected to the Sanitary and we are in compliance. If illegal hookups are affecting our property from back pressure or over taxed sanitary sewer, your toilet would be overflowing with black shit all over the floor. Paul has cleared your toilet and it is flowing good right now. Please contact Paul ASAP to see the problem visually first hand if you think it is happening when there is a heavy rain or just after. This way we can determine your toilets condition and call the city to the condition if in fact city sanitary is a backup condition. Please call Paul to deal with this condition and do not send me e-mails, I cannot respond quickly.
jessica
this was the email i got from the city last year.
i really think that it's important that you understand the way the plumbing down here works, both for my own benefit and your own benefit.
the sewers in this area are over 100 years old. they were built before it became common to separate drain and sanitary sewers. as such, THERE IS A COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM ATTACHED TO THIS PROPERTY.
and, what that means is that the plumbing system is subject to effects from external conditions like blocked storm drains and heavy rains.
i have explained this in multiple ways. i mean, you can lead a horse to water, right? but, let's get this clear, please, for future concerns. because i will not behave as though the plumbing exists in a way that it doesn't simply because you refuse to listen to good evidence. and, if you refuse to accept the reality, i will have no choice but to take matters into my own hands when it is necessary and bypass you to get the work done.
this is the email from the city:
I would like to clear up a few points in your email.
While your landlord may be correct in that the house may be serviced by separate storm and sanitary connections (I can't confirm that), both these connections would outlet to the same combined sewer in the road. There is only one sewer Cataraqui and one on Marion, and they are both combined sewers meaning that they accept both rain water and sewage.
With respect to the Wyandotte project, there is no sewer work being undertaken as part of that project. Windsor Utilities is replacing the watermain and services and the City will reconstruct the pavement following that work. This project would have no impact on the sewers servicing your property.
You are most likely correct in that there is a correlation between rainfall and the slow running plumbing in your house. This is due to the combined nature of the sewer that services your property. During rain events, combined sewers fill with rainwater and therefore have limited capacity to accept flows from buildings.
With respect to the apartment building across the street from you, all rainfall runoff from this property would have entered the sewer system via foundation drains prior to the fire, so the fact that the basement may have flooded and the water is now entering the floor drain would change the drainage pattern very little. In fact, rainwater entering the sewers from this property would be very small in proportion to that coming from the catchbasins draining the roads in the area.
With respect to abandonment of the connections servicing the apartment building, that would be addressed when the building is demolished by the Building Department. If you have concerns regarding the state of the building, please contact the Building Department via 311.
Hopefully, this answers some of your questions. Please contact me if you want to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely;
------------. P.Eng.
A/Contracts Co-ordinator
the landlord
Jessica, what does this have to do with our building and the fact that your toilet does not overflow from the city backing up or a back due to overtaxed sewer system from rain water. Is it your belief that your toilet was plugged from a overtaxed or old city sewer? Please specify clearly? Paul cleared your toilet with all the paper in it which could not have come from anyone else but you as he tells me. Your toilet has been cleared and ever since Paul has cleared it you have not reported to Paul any other circumstance since he cleared it. No one can enter your place except you and Paul. Feel free to call the City to keep the city sewers cleared if this helps you. As far as your toilet getting plugged, you have to look at the circumstance of one plugged situation and not multiple problems as Paul or I understand. If you had multiple situations please update Paul so he understands your concern with dates, times, frequencies, etc. and any heavy rainfall occurring. Once we document these situations we will have evidence that we can report to the city. Heavy Rain falls must be the root cause to overtax the Illegal over flows to the city sewer. You must first report to Paul ASAP so we can assess the circumstance to have evidence of ongoing problems which so far is not evident to us. So far there is no evidence that we have documented of the city system backing up or causing your toilet to be plugged or any of our toilets in the building to be affected. We have no evidence of this so far. We will have to pay close attention and document details from now on to build a case. You cannot wait for me to look at e-mails to respond promptly to a situation when I do not read my e-mails every day. Paul and you are the Key to the documentation.
Paul can call and request the city to clear their system if that helps you with peace of mind. So if that is what you are requesting then please ask Paul to call the city to request a sewer servicing. Paul will read this e-mail. You have the power to ask him to call and he can call the city once he has an understanding of your concern. I will speak to Paul also.
jessica
well, like i say, we don't really agree about what happened. you can see in the video that there wasn't initially anything substantial in the toilet (some urine, and a couple of pieces of toilet paper - that's not going to create a clog). i suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
i apologize if i'm coming off as standoffish, it's just that a blocked mainline isn't something i want to play with, and if i think it's the city's lines then i'm going to call them as soon as i identify a problem in order to try and get them cleared outside. it's not just the rain. it's also the fact that people throw all kinds of garbage in the sewers. i don't want to sit around and argue about what the problem is. it's known that the lines in this area are very old and should really be replaced - it's just that it would cost a substantial sum for the city to do it.
as i mentioned, it wasn't just the toilet - the sinks were also draining slowly and sending through air bubbles when they drained. that's the classic sign of a blocked main. which, you wouldn't expect to back up upstairs because it's not the lowest point. you'd have to have a huge mess down here before it becomes an issue upstairs. on that level, i guess i'm the canary, right? i'm going to notice issues before anybody else does.
after the toilet cleared, the sinks were still draining slowly. so, it seemed like it was better but that more work was going to be necessary.
BUT, since then the issue has largely resolved itself. and, consistently, the sewers in the front have also come down about a meter. so, i'm left to conclude that the lines outside have drained and the issue went away with it.
so, i *don't* think anything requires any immediate attention.
but, i *do* think that it's going to remain a constant concern due to the infrastructure in the neighbourhood. and, rather than contact you and have a talk about this or that, i'm going to just jump to calling the city. because if the thing blows up while we're arguing about it....
when i was talking to the city, the impression i got was that they understand that the issue is structural and that periodic calls to get the lines cleared are actually expected. i mean, we can document it and send them a report, but you wouldn't be telling them anything they don't know. they know the lines need to be replaced. it's just, where do you get billions of dollars to do it? it's more cost effective to send out a truck to clear the lines when they get full of trash.
but, like i say - they've come down about a meter since then. we should expect that they'll clog again, eventually. but, they seem to be ok for now.
i'm just the messenger. i don't want all this shit to be happening, either.
the toilet is swirling slowly again. the pump is also hyperactive. it's the same as before: the drains need to be cleared, and the basement is probably going to eventually flood if they're not. i first noticed the pump yesterday when i was doing laundry and the slow toilet swirl this morning, meaning something backed up over night but it's been building up for a while.
i'll just remind you that the last clog was deep enough in the line that it was probably on city property. so, i don't know if there's a process to get the city to clear the lines, or if they'll pay for it that way.
(pause)
i just want to update that "slow flush" is more like "no flush". the toilet is really not operable. it's taking something like ten minutes to drain - it' stuck.
i'm going to see what information i can find about the city clearing the lines, and then see if i can get paul to call the line cleaners. this is really kind of a must-clear-asap type blockage. nothing is actually flushing at all.
(pause)
i have contacted the city and they will send an eel through for $95.00 - although they claim they won't charge you if it's from tree branches.
what i actually think is causing the blockage is a combination of trash that flowed in from the street - coffee cups, tree branches, french fry containers, etc. if you look at the sewers on this side of the street, they're a foot from the top; if you look at the sewers on the other side of the street, you can't even see the water. it's pretty clear that the block is on the street...
so, i'm pushing back a little and trying to figure out if there's a way to get the city to clear the sewers. i don't think it's fair to force the bill on you, when you're clearing a public line that benefits the entire neighbourhood, for the simple reason that i'm pro-active enough to push for an answer and the neighbour next door isn't.
if i don't get a response, or the response is negative, i suppose i'm waiting on permission from you or paul to call 311 back to get the eel in. the toilet does not work, and i can't be sitting with a bowl full of crap for an extended period.
(pause)
ok.
i've got the city coming to clear the sewers from the outside. i don't know when, yet.
they said up to ten business days, but that it's been flagged as emergency.
i'm comfortable waiting until tomorrow, but i don't think i can wait the weekend out.
(pause)
paul came down and plunged it and it seems like it cleared the immediate obstruction, but that doesn't make any sense, and i'm remaining skeptical. it almost seems like it was already cleared, somehow. i mean, i was gone all night last night - it was fine before i left, and it was fine when i came home and went to bed. it was even fine immediately when i woke up. but, the drain then got progressively worse over the day. that doesn't strike me as consistent with a local issue. it's almost more like something migrated into the pipes. an air bubble, even? but, whatever the cause, it is cleared - for now.
i'll say that i noticed something this morning in the bowl that was red and sort of bloody and seemed to be gurgling up. i made note of it because it was very bright red, and i wasn't sure what it was - it caught my eye. like it shouldn't have been there kind of thing. i had made some nachos when i got home last night, and thought it was probably just some salsa from a kleenex or something. but, i'm starting to wonder. the next flush is when it started to flush slowly - seemingly randomly.
there's other signs that there's still something funny. gurgling sounds. i'm glad the toilet works, but the service order for the cleaning in the outside sewer is still in progress and i'm not going to cancel it.
(pause)
lastly - and curiously - i went to throw something away a little after 17:00 and there was actually an enwin vehicle doing something to the manhole in the laneway next door. if they were clearing, that adds up.
i think it's all good.
the landlord
Jessica, I spoke to Paul and he said no other toilets (4 toilets) where backed up and the sewer, sinks etc have no sign of drainage problems. The conclusion was that your toilet was clogged with toilet paper. Please make aware to Paul as soon as possible when an issue arises so it can be handled quickly. Please do not rely on me reading my e-mails and please make sure it is not just you plugging up the toilet. I do not know why you would call the city since it is only when all toilets and sewer are backed up and then we would call a plumber with a snake to unplug to the city sewer. After taking that measure; and if that did not solve an issue with drainage, the next action would be, call the city. We would have to determine that it would be necessary to call the city after a thorough investigation. Please do not jump the gun and please do not put excessive amounts of toilet paper down the toilet sewer drain. Please deposit other uses of toilet paper to the garbage, such as blowing your nose etc , Please only flush paper that you wipe your butt with down the toilet. This is the wise way to make sure that a toilet does not plug up the system.
jessica
i really don't think that's what happened. and, as i've mentioned, there is no known cause - i had not defecated in the toilet before it began to slow.
in fact, the sinks remain very slow and it's a matter of time before you'll need to come clear the line. i repeat: there remains evidence of a clog in the main line.
there was a truck outside clearing the sewers a little before he came down. the truth is that the toilet was already unclogged before he plunged it - and you could see that if you looked. i nearly asked him to flush first, but it would have been risky because there was the normal amount of water (which was actually clear) in the bowl.
you wouldn't expect the toilets on the first floor to slow down until the one in the basement has already overflowed. it backs up through the lowest point - that's me, and only me.
again: it's impossible that i clogged the toilet. it worked when i left. it was clogged when i came back. the only way that the toilet could have clogged is if somebody came in and used it when i was gone.
but, as mentioned, it wasn't clogged - a truck cleared the sewers from outside.
(pause)
but, to answer your question: why would i call the city?
because i do not think the clog is on your property; i think it's on city property. it's not your responsibility, as a property owner, to clear out the sewers on the street.
you should keep that link handy. the city clears for free. and, i do believe that that was and remains the solution.
you really should *not* call the plumber and waste $100 on a snake until you've called the city to clear the street sewers, which are the actual problem, for free.
(pause)
i've been running a vlog for the last few months. it's not really popular or anything, it's more just something to do. and, this was kind of a boring day because all i did was freak out about the toilet.
it was set to publish tonight at 12:30, but i've published it a few hours early to make the point.
if you watch the whole thing (15 minutes), you'll get a better handle of what happened (and there is actually footage of the truck at the end).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOSGGEm_9Kw
the landlord
Jessica, I see the toilet is draining slow. I have seen this before and sometimes something large may have fallen in the toilet and is jammed in the toilet trap. Some times things fall in that are too large and get jammed. We may have to pull the toilet and turn it upside down. In the video when your where outside on the street, you where looking at the storm sewer. That is where all the evesdroughs and surface water are collected. The pipe from the toilets is connected to the Sanitary sewer much deeper under the streets. This is a closed sewer that you can not see. Google storm sewer vs sanitary sewer so you understand the difference. I will get around asap to check your problem.
jessica
remember when we had this discussion last year or the year before and i contacted the city's engineering department and they explained that there's a combined sewer system in windsor, rather than separate sanitary lines?
the systems in this house are such that if we get a hurricane or something, it could very well backup. and, if the storm drains get blocked, it *is* going to affect the plumbing.
i do still think that's what actually happened and the truck outside was pushing through leaves and other debris. and, that kind of spring cleaning of the storm drains should probably be done on at least a yearly basis.
there's an interesting article here about sewage run-offs from storm drain overflows:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/brown-stuff-in-windsor-waterways-could-be-human-feces-city-says-1.2782594
the landlord
To the best of my knowledge that is not possible for any city sewer system to be connected into a storm sewer or vice versa by city engineering. In fact if anyone connects storm to a sanitary sewer and are caught they would be fined. Our storm sewer is not connected to the Sanitary and we are in compliance. If illegal hookups are affecting our property from back pressure or over taxed sanitary sewer, your toilet would be overflowing with black shit all over the floor. Paul has cleared your toilet and it is flowing good right now. Please contact Paul ASAP to see the problem visually first hand if you think it is happening when there is a heavy rain or just after. This way we can determine your toilets condition and call the city to the condition if in fact city sanitary is a backup condition. Please call Paul to deal with this condition and do not send me e-mails, I cannot respond quickly.
jessica
this was the email i got from the city last year.
i really think that it's important that you understand the way the plumbing down here works, both for my own benefit and your own benefit.
the sewers in this area are over 100 years old. they were built before it became common to separate drain and sanitary sewers. as such, THERE IS A COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM ATTACHED TO THIS PROPERTY.
and, what that means is that the plumbing system is subject to effects from external conditions like blocked storm drains and heavy rains.
i have explained this in multiple ways. i mean, you can lead a horse to water, right? but, let's get this clear, please, for future concerns. because i will not behave as though the plumbing exists in a way that it doesn't simply because you refuse to listen to good evidence. and, if you refuse to accept the reality, i will have no choice but to take matters into my own hands when it is necessary and bypass you to get the work done.
this is the email from the city:
I would like to clear up a few points in your email.
While your landlord may be correct in that the house may be serviced by separate storm and sanitary connections (I can't confirm that), both these connections would outlet to the same combined sewer in the road. There is only one sewer Cataraqui and one on Marion, and they are both combined sewers meaning that they accept both rain water and sewage.
With respect to the Wyandotte project, there is no sewer work being undertaken as part of that project. Windsor Utilities is replacing the watermain and services and the City will reconstruct the pavement following that work. This project would have no impact on the sewers servicing your property.
You are most likely correct in that there is a correlation between rainfall and the slow running plumbing in your house. This is due to the combined nature of the sewer that services your property. During rain events, combined sewers fill with rainwater and therefore have limited capacity to accept flows from buildings.
With respect to the apartment building across the street from you, all rainfall runoff from this property would have entered the sewer system via foundation drains prior to the fire, so the fact that the basement may have flooded and the water is now entering the floor drain would change the drainage pattern very little. In fact, rainwater entering the sewers from this property would be very small in proportion to that coming from the catchbasins draining the roads in the area.
With respect to abandonment of the connections servicing the apartment building, that would be addressed when the building is demolished by the Building Department. If you have concerns regarding the state of the building, please contact the Building Department via 311.
Hopefully, this answers some of your questions. Please contact me if you want to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely;
------------. P.Eng.
A/Contracts Co-ordinator
the landlord
Jessica, what does this have to do with our building and the fact that your toilet does not overflow from the city backing up or a back due to overtaxed sewer system from rain water. Is it your belief that your toilet was plugged from a overtaxed or old city sewer? Please specify clearly? Paul cleared your toilet with all the paper in it which could not have come from anyone else but you as he tells me. Your toilet has been cleared and ever since Paul has cleared it you have not reported to Paul any other circumstance since he cleared it. No one can enter your place except you and Paul. Feel free to call the City to keep the city sewers cleared if this helps you. As far as your toilet getting plugged, you have to look at the circumstance of one plugged situation and not multiple problems as Paul or I understand. If you had multiple situations please update Paul so he understands your concern with dates, times, frequencies, etc. and any heavy rainfall occurring. Once we document these situations we will have evidence that we can report to the city. Heavy Rain falls must be the root cause to overtax the Illegal over flows to the city sewer. You must first report to Paul ASAP so we can assess the circumstance to have evidence of ongoing problems which so far is not evident to us. So far there is no evidence that we have documented of the city system backing up or causing your toilet to be plugged or any of our toilets in the building to be affected. We have no evidence of this so far. We will have to pay close attention and document details from now on to build a case. You cannot wait for me to look at e-mails to respond promptly to a situation when I do not read my e-mails every day. Paul and you are the Key to the documentation.
Paul can call and request the city to clear their system if that helps you with peace of mind. So if that is what you are requesting then please ask Paul to call the city to request a sewer servicing. Paul will read this e-mail. You have the power to ask him to call and he can call the city once he has an understanding of your concern. I will speak to Paul also.
jessica
well, like i say, we don't really agree about what happened. you can see in the video that there wasn't initially anything substantial in the toilet (some urine, and a couple of pieces of toilet paper - that's not going to create a clog). i suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
i apologize if i'm coming off as standoffish, it's just that a blocked mainline isn't something i want to play with, and if i think it's the city's lines then i'm going to call them as soon as i identify a problem in order to try and get them cleared outside. it's not just the rain. it's also the fact that people throw all kinds of garbage in the sewers. i don't want to sit around and argue about what the problem is. it's known that the lines in this area are very old and should really be replaced - it's just that it would cost a substantial sum for the city to do it.
as i mentioned, it wasn't just the toilet - the sinks were also draining slowly and sending through air bubbles when they drained. that's the classic sign of a blocked main. which, you wouldn't expect to back up upstairs because it's not the lowest point. you'd have to have a huge mess down here before it becomes an issue upstairs. on that level, i guess i'm the canary, right? i'm going to notice issues before anybody else does.
after the toilet cleared, the sinks were still draining slowly. so, it seemed like it was better but that more work was going to be necessary.
BUT, since then the issue has largely resolved itself. and, consistently, the sewers in the front have also come down about a meter. so, i'm left to conclude that the lines outside have drained and the issue went away with it.
so, i *don't* think anything requires any immediate attention.
but, i *do* think that it's going to remain a constant concern due to the infrastructure in the neighbourhood. and, rather than contact you and have a talk about this or that, i'm going to just jump to calling the city. because if the thing blows up while we're arguing about it....
when i was talking to the city, the impression i got was that they understand that the issue is structural and that periodic calls to get the lines cleared are actually expected. i mean, we can document it and send them a report, but you wouldn't be telling them anything they don't know. they know the lines need to be replaced. it's just, where do you get billions of dollars to do it? it's more cost effective to send out a truck to clear the lines when they get full of trash.
but, like i say - they've come down about a meter since then. we should expect that they'll clog again, eventually. but, they seem to be ok for now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)