Sunday, May 14, 2017
if you want to get into the history of it, you have to begin with the
recognition that assad's father was actually in the same political party
as saddam hussein, namely the ba'ath party, which was initially a
soviet front exporting the global revolution to arabs with a set of
ideological tweaks designed to accommodate the culture. they wrapped
this up and called it arabic socialism and used it to take power in
iraq and syria.
while assad is not his father, his father was every bit as brutal as saddam hussein was. the reason that usually informed actors find it so easy to lapse into fantasy on contemporary syria is that they remember the brutality of his father.
the calls for regime change in the early years of the younger assad's regime (and, it is a regime....) were tied into a call to democratize the country upon his father's death. at the time, you could even call it a call for debaathification. i supported those calls, and for good reason: there was an opportunity to peacefully democratize the country, as it opened up after the death of it's stalinist dictator. and, you have to understand how intertwined the process of democratization needs to be with the process of demilitarization, and removing inherited military power from the hands of elite families.
in fact, one of the strongest proponents for reform was the younger assad, himself, who was not groomed for power and only found himself in charge due to the assassination of his brother. assad is western-educated and had to actually be brought home in order to be installed. before the war opened up, assad was in the process of an orderly transition to a democratic government.
in fact, this is the reason that the saudis have invaded syria: they welcome assad's removal, but they do not want a democratization. they want a syria that is either under the control of conservative clerics, or at least dominated by a friendly dictator like al-sisi.
that's right: the truth in syria is that we are backing rebels to prevent democracy, which is what the regime actually wants. and, i do not believe that assad has ever indicated that he has changed his viewpoint on the matter. but, you can't have a democratic transition in the midst of a foreign invasion.
that said, it is not likely at this point, now, that the russians would back a transition to a democracy, either. that window has closed for the immediate future.
while assad is not his father, his father was every bit as brutal as saddam hussein was. the reason that usually informed actors find it so easy to lapse into fantasy on contemporary syria is that they remember the brutality of his father.
the calls for regime change in the early years of the younger assad's regime (and, it is a regime....) were tied into a call to democratize the country upon his father's death. at the time, you could even call it a call for debaathification. i supported those calls, and for good reason: there was an opportunity to peacefully democratize the country, as it opened up after the death of it's stalinist dictator. and, you have to understand how intertwined the process of democratization needs to be with the process of demilitarization, and removing inherited military power from the hands of elite families.
in fact, one of the strongest proponents for reform was the younger assad, himself, who was not groomed for power and only found himself in charge due to the assassination of his brother. assad is western-educated and had to actually be brought home in order to be installed. before the war opened up, assad was in the process of an orderly transition to a democratic government.
in fact, this is the reason that the saudis have invaded syria: they welcome assad's removal, but they do not want a democratization. they want a syria that is either under the control of conservative clerics, or at least dominated by a friendly dictator like al-sisi.
that's right: the truth in syria is that we are backing rebels to prevent democracy, which is what the regime actually wants. and, i do not believe that assad has ever indicated that he has changed his viewpoint on the matter. but, you can't have a democratic transition in the midst of a foreign invasion.
that said, it is not likely at this point, now, that the russians would back a transition to a democracy, either. that window has closed for the immediate future.
i also need to point out that countries like japan and new zealand continue to send signals on the tpp that are in contradiction to what the president has said, as though they're being instructed to carry on.
remember: pence was a big tpp supporter.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/03/trump-nafta-renegotiation-environment-trade
remember: pence was a big tpp supporter.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/03/trump-nafta-renegotiation-environment-trade
so, what is the trump administration, rather than trump himself, going to push on nafta, in the end? i think that the chances are that the confluence of policies on the tpp and nafta is going to piss you off that much more. you thought you were going to maybe get a win on this right? ha.
see, the way you manipulate trump into doing what you want on this is that you feed him tpp provisions as improvements to nafta. in the end, "renegotiating nafta and cancelling the tpp" morphs into "replacing nafta with the tpp".
he won't know that they're tpp revisions, because he doesn't actually know what was actually in the tpp. i'll repeat that he wouldn't have actually opposed the tpp if he understood it. the one concrete difference may be in throwing the geo-strategic and security-minded people out of the trade policy discussions, but that will just mean pursuing the same outcomes in two different processes. that sounds like the kind of thing that billionaires want to bicker over. people pushing for this point may win this battle.
i'm actually interested to see how well this works in reconverting republican voters, at least, back to trade orthodoxy, which has to be a key social engineering goal in the party, right now. i expect that the left won't fall for it. and, it would actually be nice for the left to get it's issue back, actually - these anti-globalization groups on the right are not temporary allies. we need to resurrect the kind of trade politics on the left that we had in the 90s; this was an effective vehicle for mobilization, before the war broke it up. now, the right has taken it. and, it's a neat trick, right? if it works, you end up with these typical clueless anti-everything trump voters actually providing the political cover for the tpp, because they think passing tpp revisions is dismantling nafta. and, don't think they won't fall for it. after all: they're in favour of the aca, and opposed to obamacare. this is considerably more complicated, and that much easier to hoodwink them with.
remember when we stopped pipa and sopa? they were actually both in the tpp, though. and, expect them both to resurface in nafta talks.
i know that everybody wants to be optimistic on this. and, i think there's some chance that the one thing we could get some concrete wins on is in curbing the isds powers, as that fits into trump's economic nationalism - we can play this game ourselves, in pushing the idea that the isds process harms american sovereignty, which is absolutely true. it's been awful for canadian sovereignty, certainly. unions and other left-leaning forces that have a voice should prioritize this, as they can win this.
but, brace yourself - because if you get your hopes up, you're going to get crushed.
see, the way you manipulate trump into doing what you want on this is that you feed him tpp provisions as improvements to nafta. in the end, "renegotiating nafta and cancelling the tpp" morphs into "replacing nafta with the tpp".
he won't know that they're tpp revisions, because he doesn't actually know what was actually in the tpp. i'll repeat that he wouldn't have actually opposed the tpp if he understood it. the one concrete difference may be in throwing the geo-strategic and security-minded people out of the trade policy discussions, but that will just mean pursuing the same outcomes in two different processes. that sounds like the kind of thing that billionaires want to bicker over. people pushing for this point may win this battle.
i'm actually interested to see how well this works in reconverting republican voters, at least, back to trade orthodoxy, which has to be a key social engineering goal in the party, right now. i expect that the left won't fall for it. and, it would actually be nice for the left to get it's issue back, actually - these anti-globalization groups on the right are not temporary allies. we need to resurrect the kind of trade politics on the left that we had in the 90s; this was an effective vehicle for mobilization, before the war broke it up. now, the right has taken it. and, it's a neat trick, right? if it works, you end up with these typical clueless anti-everything trump voters actually providing the political cover for the tpp, because they think passing tpp revisions is dismantling nafta. and, don't think they won't fall for it. after all: they're in favour of the aca, and opposed to obamacare. this is considerably more complicated, and that much easier to hoodwink them with.
remember when we stopped pipa and sopa? they were actually both in the tpp, though. and, expect them both to resurface in nafta talks.
i know that everybody wants to be optimistic on this. and, i think there's some chance that the one thing we could get some concrete wins on is in curbing the isds powers, as that fits into trump's economic nationalism - we can play this game ourselves, in pushing the idea that the isds process harms american sovereignty, which is absolutely true. it's been awful for canadian sovereignty, certainly. unions and other left-leaning forces that have a voice should prioritize this, as they can win this.
but, brace yourself - because if you get your hopes up, you're going to get crushed.
Saturday, May 13, 2017
while the vancover rape crisis center is ultimately doing a disservice to the people it claims it wants to help in telling somebody they're not welcome, the case strikes me as frivolous, as it was a volunteer position. and, i think that gets to the crux of the issue.
every generalization has a counter-example...
...but trans-women don't generally want to go where they're not wanted, and are usually bright enough to realize the differences.
passing these kinds of laws aren't serious answers to discrimination. most people don't have the resources to fight decades long court battles. what the article really draws attention to is the continuing bigotry that exists in the second-wave and radical feminist communities, and that's a social issue rather than a legal one. but, it's being addressed as well; most feminists today reject the second-wave.
i've never been raped. but, one day, i might be. i mean, i hope not. but, in that scenario, i'm going to go to the groups that accept me, and reject the ones that don't. that experience will repeat itself over time, leaving groups that push exclusionary policies on the outside, looking in. and, they'll complain it's not fair. but, that's how we evolve, socially.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/transgender-rights-bill-female-born-spaces-1.4110634
every generalization has a counter-example...
...but trans-women don't generally want to go where they're not wanted, and are usually bright enough to realize the differences.
passing these kinds of laws aren't serious answers to discrimination. most people don't have the resources to fight decades long court battles. what the article really draws attention to is the continuing bigotry that exists in the second-wave and radical feminist communities, and that's a social issue rather than a legal one. but, it's being addressed as well; most feminists today reject the second-wave.
i've never been raped. but, one day, i might be. i mean, i hope not. but, in that scenario, i'm going to go to the groups that accept me, and reject the ones that don't. that experience will repeat itself over time, leaving groups that push exclusionary policies on the outside, looking in. and, they'll complain it's not fair. but, that's how we evolve, socially.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/transgender-rights-bill-female-born-spaces-1.4110634
watch the video.
it's exactly the right answer. and, the idea that it's expensive is some kind of disincentive is the wrong thinking anyways; building stuff is always good for the economy.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-tour-floods-gatineau-1.4109872
it's exactly the right answer. and, the idea that it's expensive is some kind of disincentive is the wrong thinking anyways; building stuff is always good for the economy.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-tour-floods-gatineau-1.4109872
we used to just print money for infrastructure projects.
i was initially under the impression that this was the purpose of the bank
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/the-house-sohi-infrastructure-bank-1.4113681
i was initially under the impression that this was the purpose of the bank
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/the-house-sohi-infrastructure-bank-1.4113681
the precondition for the invasion of syria was taking the air defences
out from the ground, and we see how hard that's been. short of breaking
the russian-iranian alliance, which appears to be strengthening, it's
hard to see how an invasion of iran is even a viable option. i don't
think it's truly on the table; the strategy is cold war, by necessity,
for the foreseeable future. i suspect trump would rather pick on a
country like nicaragua and tie it to immigration.
good analysis, though.
good analysis, though.
you have to wonder if these butt-hurt corporate liberal stooges were upset when they fired mccarthy, too.
BREAKING STORY: arthur watkins admits that he censured mccarthy because of his activities in the senate.
stop.
cite me some real evidence, or let the story fade into the tabloid trash that it is - and let us take note of who pushed it, and allow it to harm their journalistic credibility.
the guy was making a mockery of the fbi - first with clinton, and now with trump.
it could still swing the senate, if not the house. i get it. voters aren't the brightest, nowadays. but, i'm sick of the bullshit.
BREAKING STORY: arthur watkins admits that he censured mccarthy because of his activities in the senate.
stop.
cite me some real evidence, or let the story fade into the tabloid trash that it is - and let us take note of who pushed it, and allow it to harm their journalistic credibility.
the guy was making a mockery of the fbi - first with clinton, and now with trump.
it could still swing the senate, if not the house. i get it. voters aren't the brightest, nowadays. but, i'm sick of the bullshit.
Ignoring the issue and legalizing pot anyway puts Canada, historically a strong supporter of the UN and other international organizations, in the position of violating international law.
i'm still not convinced that this happens, but if it does happen, then this is how it's going to happen.
the reality is that this government has already signalled that it is going to follow the lead of the united states in abandoning the united nations - hence it's support of unilateral bombing in syria without so much as an apparent thought to the illegality of it. i might even support it as a tactic. the main enforcer here is of course the united states. how can the americans think they can enforce drug treaties, when they ignore climate treaties and randomly bomb whomever they like with impunity? and, how do they expect to enforce this treaty internationally, when they will not enforce it locally?
i'm a strong supporter of the united nations, in principle, but the americans destroyed the institution a long time ago. i put this question out there during the last election: how will this new government react to a world without a rule of law? will it seek to build a new rule of law, or adjust itself to the absence of one? and, trudeau responded very clearly that he would respond to the absence of one.
it's not an answer i liked. but, don't act shocked. this government is, broadly, an extension of the previous one. the policy on the un, like so many other things, is an extension of the previous government's policy, itself a reaction to the united states' rejection of the united nations as a functional body.
this is reality: the united nations is dead.
i would like to rebuild it.
but, do not expect leadership from this government. they're followers; expect them to follow.
i'm still not convinced that this happens, but if it does happen, then this is how it's going to happen.
the reality is that this government has already signalled that it is going to follow the lead of the united states in abandoning the united nations - hence it's support of unilateral bombing in syria without so much as an apparent thought to the illegality of it. i might even support it as a tactic. the main enforcer here is of course the united states. how can the americans think they can enforce drug treaties, when they ignore climate treaties and randomly bomb whomever they like with impunity? and, how do they expect to enforce this treaty internationally, when they will not enforce it locally?
i'm a strong supporter of the united nations, in principle, but the americans destroyed the institution a long time ago. i put this question out there during the last election: how will this new government react to a world without a rule of law? will it seek to build a new rule of law, or adjust itself to the absence of one? and, trudeau responded very clearly that he would respond to the absence of one.
it's not an answer i liked. but, don't act shocked. this government is, broadly, an extension of the previous one. the policy on the un, like so many other things, is an extension of the previous government's policy, itself a reaction to the united states' rejection of the united nations as a functional body.
this is reality: the united nations is dead.
i would like to rebuild it.
but, do not expect leadership from this government. they're followers; expect them to follow.
Concert
halls and arenas along the route have more than 200 events per year. So
there’s little doubt the streetcar will be full of bar-hopping hipsters
and fans of Detroit’s four sports teams.
not if it stops at midnight, it won't.
it would have to run until at least 1:00, and ideally 3:00. but, then, it had might as well always run.
it's the same issue that they have with the tunnel bus. the last bus is at 1:00, which just doesn't make any sense. either you're out late or you're not. so, the people that take the bus take the 11:00 or the 12:00 bus, and the people that stay late come back in the morning. i'm almost always the only person on the thing, but it's only because i so routinely walk distances that people can't fathom. if i cabbed, i'd take the 11:00 or 12:00 bus, when i do.
i mean, i'm glad the 1:00 bus is there, sure. but, given that i'm usually the only person on it, it must run empty most nights. it doesn't actually make sense. what would make sense would be to stop early, or run late. given that the bars close at 2:00, there should be a 2:30 bus - and if there was one, i assure you it would have more demand than the 1:00 bus.
i don't know if this is really what they want this thing to be. but, if it is what they want it to be, they're going to need to extend the hours of it to fit the demand for it.
not if it stops at midnight, it won't.
it would have to run until at least 1:00, and ideally 3:00. but, then, it had might as well always run.
it's the same issue that they have with the tunnel bus. the last bus is at 1:00, which just doesn't make any sense. either you're out late or you're not. so, the people that take the bus take the 11:00 or the 12:00 bus, and the people that stay late come back in the morning. i'm almost always the only person on the thing, but it's only because i so routinely walk distances that people can't fathom. if i cabbed, i'd take the 11:00 or 12:00 bus, when i do.
i mean, i'm glad the 1:00 bus is there, sure. but, given that i'm usually the only person on it, it must run empty most nights. it doesn't actually make sense. what would make sense would be to stop early, or run late. given that the bars close at 2:00, there should be a 2:30 bus - and if there was one, i assure you it would have more demand than the 1:00 bus.
i don't know if this is really what they want this thing to be. but, if it is what they want it to be, they're going to need to extend the hours of it to fit the demand for it.
so, it turns out that the streetcar is operational in detroit, as of yesterday. it's free this weekend - and i suspect, for many people, it always will be.
my honest assessment is that it's not likely that i'll use it during peak hours. to me, it's utility would be getting me back to the tunnel to catch the 1:09 bus, or maybe zooming me between bars, after hours. if the last run ends before 00:00, i'll never not prefer to walk, with the possible exception of wanting to flee the rain.
i'm not sure they'll see a demand for all night streetcars. but, that's the only use i'd really have for them.
my honest assessment is that it's not likely that i'll use it during peak hours. to me, it's utility would be getting me back to the tunnel to catch the 1:09 bus, or maybe zooming me between bars, after hours. if the last run ends before 00:00, i'll never not prefer to walk, with the possible exception of wanting to flee the rain.
i'm not sure they'll see a demand for all night streetcars. but, that's the only use i'd really have for them.
Friday, May 12, 2017
this is step one - realizing that trump himself has little control over what's happening around him.
but, step two is realizing that, while trump himself may be basically retarded, the state around him is not. i don't mean the whitehouse, i mean the state. frankly, i don't think that steve bannon is that bright, either. and, i don't think that jared kushner is even interested in actually governing. pence may end up president in the end, but he can't walk and chew gum at the same time, either.
there isn't anybody in the actual white house that knows what they're doing; all of the direction is coming, ultimately, from different arms of the actual state. the article presents trump's stupidity as unusual, but it is not: the stupid president is really the norm since the second world war. clinton was really the sole counter-example. trump is a buffoon, but so was obama and dubya and reagan and carter and ford and nixon and johnson and kennedy and eisenhower, too. the elder bush' buffoonery is at best questionable. as a literal rhodes scholar, clinton truly stands alone as the only halfways-intelligent president the country has had in the lifetime of most living people.
but, they all had smart people around them. what is different about trump is that he does not. and, he is going to need to find some smart people to help him.
in the mean time, what that means is recognizing the increased power of the state around him. i should clarify that when anarchists throw this term state around, it means more than the government - it means the collusion between the government and the market, and refers mostly to the upper echelons of capital. so, lockheed martin is the state. robert mercer is the state. the koch brothers are the state. steve mnuchin and goldman sachs are the state. the heritage institute is the state. and, the more you understand how stupid trump is, and how incompetent the people directly around him are, the more you realize how important these state actors are, in their ability to manipulate what he does.
so, step one is realizing that trump is, indeed, hopelessly transparent. he's even transparent when he's trying to bluff; hopelessly, so. but, step two is realizing that this distributes power to the state around him, who are much better poker players and can and must be analysed in order to get your head around the policy that they hand to the president in order for him to sign into law.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/12/15621140/interpret-trump
but, step two is realizing that, while trump himself may be basically retarded, the state around him is not. i don't mean the whitehouse, i mean the state. frankly, i don't think that steve bannon is that bright, either. and, i don't think that jared kushner is even interested in actually governing. pence may end up president in the end, but he can't walk and chew gum at the same time, either.
there isn't anybody in the actual white house that knows what they're doing; all of the direction is coming, ultimately, from different arms of the actual state. the article presents trump's stupidity as unusual, but it is not: the stupid president is really the norm since the second world war. clinton was really the sole counter-example. trump is a buffoon, but so was obama and dubya and reagan and carter and ford and nixon and johnson and kennedy and eisenhower, too. the elder bush' buffoonery is at best questionable. as a literal rhodes scholar, clinton truly stands alone as the only halfways-intelligent president the country has had in the lifetime of most living people.
but, they all had smart people around them. what is different about trump is that he does not. and, he is going to need to find some smart people to help him.
in the mean time, what that means is recognizing the increased power of the state around him. i should clarify that when anarchists throw this term state around, it means more than the government - it means the collusion between the government and the market, and refers mostly to the upper echelons of capital. so, lockheed martin is the state. robert mercer is the state. the koch brothers are the state. steve mnuchin and goldman sachs are the state. the heritage institute is the state. and, the more you understand how stupid trump is, and how incompetent the people directly around him are, the more you realize how important these state actors are, in their ability to manipulate what he does.
so, step one is realizing that trump is, indeed, hopelessly transparent. he's even transparent when he's trying to bluff; hopelessly, so. but, step two is realizing that this distributes power to the state around him, who are much better poker players and can and must be analysed in order to get your head around the policy that they hand to the president in order for him to sign into law.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/12/15621140/interpret-trump
fwiw, i meant to see pile tonight.
knowing it was an early show, and reasoning that if i'm going to pay cover i'd like to hang out a bit, i looked into what was happening at the bar after the show and learned that:
1) the show is over at 10:30.
2) if i wanted to stay past 10:30, i'd have to pay cover a second time.
it's friday. i don't really want to pay to get into a bar at 9:00 and then be told i have to leave at 10:30. whatever scheduling conflicts exist, that's a shitty deal all around. i actually really don't mind the early show, it's the whole getting pushed out thing that's kind of unjustifiable.
it's not really the bar's fault, though, either. there's a production company in between that shouldn't have let that happen. again: not because it's an early show, and not because there's another event afterwards, but because cover expires at 10:30. i mean, who heard of such a thing, right?
even so, i'd probably have trekked out anyways if there was an all-night option but for some reason everything is closing early tonight. i don't know why. just a slow night, for whatever reason.
if there was a conflict at the venue, the show really should have been moved. as it is, it's just not worth getting down there...
fwiw, i've also seen pile twice, recently.
knowing it was an early show, and reasoning that if i'm going to pay cover i'd like to hang out a bit, i looked into what was happening at the bar after the show and learned that:
1) the show is over at 10:30.
2) if i wanted to stay past 10:30, i'd have to pay cover a second time.
it's friday. i don't really want to pay to get into a bar at 9:00 and then be told i have to leave at 10:30. whatever scheduling conflicts exist, that's a shitty deal all around. i actually really don't mind the early show, it's the whole getting pushed out thing that's kind of unjustifiable.
it's not really the bar's fault, though, either. there's a production company in between that shouldn't have let that happen. again: not because it's an early show, and not because there's another event afterwards, but because cover expires at 10:30. i mean, who heard of such a thing, right?
even so, i'd probably have trekked out anyways if there was an all-night option but for some reason everything is closing early tonight. i don't know why. just a slow night, for whatever reason.
if there was a conflict at the venue, the show really should have been moved. as it is, it's just not worth getting down there...
fwiw, i've also seen pile twice, recently.
so, this is literally a solution in search of a problem.
...and the media is criticizing the government for not finding the problem fast enough.
the absurdity just escalates.
i've been over this several times: the purpose of canadian peacekeeping was always to avoid the proxy conflicts of the cold war. various liberal governments, and especially his father's, were keen to avoid conflicts like vietnam, and so instead offered to provide logistical support in what amounted to empire building. a lot of the criticism on the left points to peacekeeping as this orwellian concept, and it's not exactly that it was ever wrong so much as that it always misses the pragmatism of it; it may be true that canada has been functionally occupying large swaths of africa for decades, but that's a better option than carpet bombing southeast asia ever was.
with the cessation of the cold war proxy conflicts, and requests for canadian contributions, the tactic of using peacekeeping as an escape tactic fell into disuse, as it should have.
the thing is that canadians see it as a source of national pride. it's more than national pride, even, it's existential. this is why the media is latching on to it, as an antidote to the lingering unpopularity and cynicism of the previous government - which lingers on in seemingly non-negotiable but very unpopular policy directions.
so, what trudeau is doing, here, is political. it's for internal consumption. but, it's misguided on both fronts.
1) the russians do not have presences in africa or latin america to counter. the functional value of peacekeeping as an escape is no longer existent. this is not going to appease trump the way it appeased nixon.
2) thanks to the effects of koch brothers propaganda, canadians under the age of 70 don't have the same attachment to the idea of a global police force that they once did. to young people, this is globalism. it's the new world order.
i don't know how to get out of the obligation to participate in the colonial project, at this point. the liberals are going to have to put their brains together and think something up. maybe, we could contribute to an anti-terrorism force. and, what africa needs, today, is engineers. but, i do know that this is likely to backfire, as a pr tactic.
it's an idea whose time has passed.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/05/12/trudeau-says-government-taking-appropriate-time-to-decide-peace-mission.html
...and the media is criticizing the government for not finding the problem fast enough.
the absurdity just escalates.
i've been over this several times: the purpose of canadian peacekeeping was always to avoid the proxy conflicts of the cold war. various liberal governments, and especially his father's, were keen to avoid conflicts like vietnam, and so instead offered to provide logistical support in what amounted to empire building. a lot of the criticism on the left points to peacekeeping as this orwellian concept, and it's not exactly that it was ever wrong so much as that it always misses the pragmatism of it; it may be true that canada has been functionally occupying large swaths of africa for decades, but that's a better option than carpet bombing southeast asia ever was.
with the cessation of the cold war proxy conflicts, and requests for canadian contributions, the tactic of using peacekeeping as an escape tactic fell into disuse, as it should have.
the thing is that canadians see it as a source of national pride. it's more than national pride, even, it's existential. this is why the media is latching on to it, as an antidote to the lingering unpopularity and cynicism of the previous government - which lingers on in seemingly non-negotiable but very unpopular policy directions.
so, what trudeau is doing, here, is political. it's for internal consumption. but, it's misguided on both fronts.
1) the russians do not have presences in africa or latin america to counter. the functional value of peacekeeping as an escape is no longer existent. this is not going to appease trump the way it appeased nixon.
2) thanks to the effects of koch brothers propaganda, canadians under the age of 70 don't have the same attachment to the idea of a global police force that they once did. to young people, this is globalism. it's the new world order.
i don't know how to get out of the obligation to participate in the colonial project, at this point. the liberals are going to have to put their brains together and think something up. maybe, we could contribute to an anti-terrorism force. and, what africa needs, today, is engineers. but, i do know that this is likely to backfire, as a pr tactic.
it's an idea whose time has passed.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/05/12/trudeau-says-government-taking-appropriate-time-to-decide-peace-mission.html
the correct person to explain this would be chretien, though.
"well, you know, i knew pierre and i knew prime minister blair, and they were of course very different. i don't know what..."
they mean the third way.
"the third way? well, when we talked about the third way, we meant asia. india. i don't know what..."
clinton also called himself "third way".
"well, i don't know what you mean. if we had a third way, and they had a third way, but maybe i had the same third way, you know with clinton and blair, even if it was different. so, maybe i had two third ways."
wouldn't that be a fourth way?
"no, because they're two different third ways."
but, if you are to enumerate the number of ways, sir...
"no, because it's still third, it's just two different times."
*pause*
"i don't know what this other third way is. our third way was about nixon. you know, he didn't like pierre much, and we wanted independence from the queen, so we had to look at the rest of the world. and, we didn't want to, you know, join with the russians, either, although we didn't want to hate them, too. it's just silly to go around hating countries. we want peace. so, we thought it made sense to have relationships with other countries, too. and, india was a big country in the commonwealth, with similar ideas about independence and about mixed markets, so we thought maybe we could build closer ties. i think prime minister blair was just a kid. i don't know this other third way, but if it's clinton and blair, it's probably me too."
"well, you know, i knew pierre and i knew prime minister blair, and they were of course very different. i don't know what..."
they mean the third way.
"the third way? well, when we talked about the third way, we meant asia. india. i don't know what..."
clinton also called himself "third way".
"well, i don't know what you mean. if we had a third way, and they had a third way, but maybe i had the same third way, you know with clinton and blair, even if it was different. so, maybe i had two third ways."
wouldn't that be a fourth way?
"no, because they're two different third ways."
but, if you are to enumerate the number of ways, sir...
"no, because it's still third, it's just two different times."
*pause*
"i don't know what this other third way is. our third way was about nixon. you know, he didn't like pierre much, and we wanted independence from the queen, so we had to look at the rest of the world. and, we didn't want to, you know, join with the russians, either, although we didn't want to hate them, too. it's just silly to go around hating countries. we want peace. so, we thought it made sense to have relationships with other countries, too. and, india was a big country in the commonwealth, with similar ideas about independence and about mixed markets, so we thought maybe we could build closer ties. i think prime minister blair was just a kid. i don't know this other third way, but if it's clinton and blair, it's probably me too."
the reason that michael hudson is repeating things he was told by partisan ndp hacks is that he didn't bother to question their honesty. and, that's his fault.
but, the reason they told him what they told him comes down to projection. the current outgoing leader of the federal ndp, thomas mulcair, was damaged badly in the last election by pro-thatcher comments that he had made in the past, and which made him seem decidedly blairite.
it's a shame that dr. hudson didn't take the time to verify the things he was told before he repeated them.
but, the reason they told him what they told him comes down to projection. the current outgoing leader of the federal ndp, thomas mulcair, was damaged badly in the last election by pro-thatcher comments that he had made in the past, and which made him seem decidedly blairite.
it's a shame that dr. hudson didn't take the time to verify the things he was told before he repeated them.
so, what was pierre trudeau actually like?
castro is maybe not so good....
a better comparison is to hugo chavez. the elder trudeau was a fiery, charismatic, populist orator with a strong authoritarian streak, as demonstrated most famously in what canadians know as the october crisis. he nationalized the oil industry in the 70s (with support from the ndp...), with the intent to use oil revenue to fund social services, like universal health care. he was a very strong advocate of multilateral institutions, and tended to piss off the americans a lot due to this; canada was actually on the brink of joining the non-aligned movement in the 70s. we were trying to kind of sidestep nato by building closer ties with india. if trudeau called this a "third way", it had nothing to do with blairism.
reagan fucking hated him.
like chavez, he's also responsible for rewriting the country's constitution to place his own ideological biases of social liberalism at the constitutional centre of the country.
there's a stronger comparison between tony blair and jean chretien, but even that is a ridiculous stretch of the imagination. chretien opposed iraq, for example.
we never really got to our blairite moment until recently.
castro is maybe not so good....
a better comparison is to hugo chavez. the elder trudeau was a fiery, charismatic, populist orator with a strong authoritarian streak, as demonstrated most famously in what canadians know as the october crisis. he nationalized the oil industry in the 70s (with support from the ndp...), with the intent to use oil revenue to fund social services, like universal health care. he was a very strong advocate of multilateral institutions, and tended to piss off the americans a lot due to this; canada was actually on the brink of joining the non-aligned movement in the 70s. we were trying to kind of sidestep nato by building closer ties with india. if trudeau called this a "third way", it had nothing to do with blairism.
reagan fucking hated him.
like chavez, he's also responsible for rewriting the country's constitution to place his own ideological biases of social liberalism at the constitutional centre of the country.
there's a stronger comparison between tony blair and jean chretien, but even that is a ridiculous stretch of the imagination. chretien opposed iraq, for example.
we never really got to our blairite moment until recently.
"pierre trudeau was something like tony blair" - michael hudson demonstrating his ignorance of canadian history
"a brilliant and courageous politician." - fidel castro describing pierre trudeau, who was in fact a close friend of his.
i'm not saying that what castro said is right or wrong, i'm just asking you to consider the source. the right spent years attacking him as a communist.
and, unfortunately, you have to consult the right-wing smear campaigns to get an honest assessment of the man, at this point, as the canadian left is more interested in partisan attacks than responsible history.
as the chinese would say, maybe it's too soon to write the history, anyways.
"a brilliant and courageous politician." - fidel castro describing pierre trudeau, who was in fact a close friend of his.
i'm not saying that what castro said is right or wrong, i'm just asking you to consider the source. the right spent years attacking him as a communist.
and, unfortunately, you have to consult the right-wing smear campaigns to get an honest assessment of the man, at this point, as the canadian left is more interested in partisan attacks than responsible history.
as the chinese would say, maybe it's too soon to write the history, anyways.
i wrote extensively on this point before and after the election, and it's there in the side (you can even search...), but i'll summarize the point for the greater good.
we're unravelling many layers, here. i'll admit that my very recent statements can be easily misunderstood if you haven't been reading this space for the last several months.
1) i spent a lot of time analysing polls, and concluded that they were generally skewed in favour of donald trump by using sneaky sampling tricks.
2) i argued strongly that the media was overwhelmingly pro-trump from the very start, although this was often done in sneaky ways, like bringing kellyanne conway on and then letting her win the argument (and letting her put down all kinds of code).
3) putting the situation in context, i developed the following theory - before the election actually happened:
a) the clinton emails were leaked not by russia, but by the fbi.
b) the purpose of leaking the emails was to create an official story that the media and establishment could cite as to how it is that trump could possibly win, because:
c) the deep state had already decided that it was going to pick trump over clinton.
so, yes - it's an establishment cover. but, that doesn't relieve comey of responsibility so much as it is the explanation of why it's his responsibility.
i further speculated, citing some specific and curious quotes, that clinton appeared to be at war with specific sections of the security establishment, who saw a clinton presidency as a potential security nightmare. i don't think assange is an intelligence agent, but i think he was badly manipulated by american intelligence (and that he has no idea what's actually happening in the world anymore). specifically, clinton was for sale to foreign influences. she couldn't be allowed to win.
i didn't know how they were doing this, i just knew that it was obvious that it was happening. after the election, the methods were revealed: software like crosscheck, voter id laws (this is what carried wisconsin, not opposition to nafta), restricted access to voting stations (arizona was brutal...), etc.
so, when i said that comey was directly responsible, i should have clarified the point a little. but, i do still think it is the case.
and, i cannot in good faith oppose his firing.
i will also add that i predicted, before the election, that the deep state was going to use the russian conspiracy theory both as a distraction from it's own responsibility in controlling the outcome of the election and as a vehicle to carry out the final phase of operation "fuck clinton" - the installation of mike pence as president. that was the plan from the start.
we're unravelling many layers, here. i'll admit that my very recent statements can be easily misunderstood if you haven't been reading this space for the last several months.
1) i spent a lot of time analysing polls, and concluded that they were generally skewed in favour of donald trump by using sneaky sampling tricks.
2) i argued strongly that the media was overwhelmingly pro-trump from the very start, although this was often done in sneaky ways, like bringing kellyanne conway on and then letting her win the argument (and letting her put down all kinds of code).
3) putting the situation in context, i developed the following theory - before the election actually happened:
a) the clinton emails were leaked not by russia, but by the fbi.
b) the purpose of leaking the emails was to create an official story that the media and establishment could cite as to how it is that trump could possibly win, because:
c) the deep state had already decided that it was going to pick trump over clinton.
so, yes - it's an establishment cover. but, that doesn't relieve comey of responsibility so much as it is the explanation of why it's his responsibility.
i further speculated, citing some specific and curious quotes, that clinton appeared to be at war with specific sections of the security establishment, who saw a clinton presidency as a potential security nightmare. i don't think assange is an intelligence agent, but i think he was badly manipulated by american intelligence (and that he has no idea what's actually happening in the world anymore). specifically, clinton was for sale to foreign influences. she couldn't be allowed to win.
i didn't know how they were doing this, i just knew that it was obvious that it was happening. after the election, the methods were revealed: software like crosscheck, voter id laws (this is what carried wisconsin, not opposition to nafta), restricted access to voting stations (arizona was brutal...), etc.
so, when i said that comey was directly responsible, i should have clarified the point a little. but, i do still think it is the case.
and, i cannot in good faith oppose his firing.
i will also add that i predicted, before the election, that the deep state was going to use the russian conspiracy theory both as a distraction from it's own responsibility in controlling the outcome of the election and as a vehicle to carry out the final phase of operation "fuck clinton" - the installation of mike pence as president. that was the plan from the start.
the british spectrum is fucked.
to begin with, labour can't win without entering into a coalition arrangement with the snp. but, that's not actually the story behind their collapse into perpetual opposition status.
the reality is that labour has been cratered by the ukip. and, this is the same basic story as exists in france, as well as in the united states.
neither side of the labour split really understands what it needs to do to win. the corbyn wing isn't going to magically create left of centre votes out of nothing (and, like sanders, corbyn is hardly a leftist ideologue). nor are moderate tory voters going to move to some concept of new labour. further, the liberals are as moribund as they ever were...
snp can and should be dealt with in a coalition. the place where the votes that labour needs are sitting with is ukip. so, how can labour disarm their prejudices and bring them back into a class-focused party?
it doesn't matter who their leader is; so long as labour is bleeding support to ukip, the tories will remain in power.
to begin with, labour can't win without entering into a coalition arrangement with the snp. but, that's not actually the story behind their collapse into perpetual opposition status.
the reality is that labour has been cratered by the ukip. and, this is the same basic story as exists in france, as well as in the united states.
neither side of the labour split really understands what it needs to do to win. the corbyn wing isn't going to magically create left of centre votes out of nothing (and, like sanders, corbyn is hardly a leftist ideologue). nor are moderate tory voters going to move to some concept of new labour. further, the liberals are as moribund as they ever were...
snp can and should be dealt with in a coalition. the place where the votes that labour needs are sitting with is ukip. so, how can labour disarm their prejudices and bring them back into a class-focused party?
it doesn't matter who their leader is; so long as labour is bleeding support to ukip, the tories will remain in power.
Thursday, May 11, 2017
the ruling is coming via mail.
it's not at all clear when that will be. by june, if i'm lucky, i think. so, i want to say i'm glad it's over, buuuut....
i think the judge accepted the basic premise of my position: if the area has a second hand smoke problem, they are obligated to "do something", and this whole refusal to do anything thing is bullshit. i could get the wall, and have the smokers pay for it. or, they could just let me run the fucking fan, already, and pay me costs for wasting my time. but, have i established that there's actually a problem?
she pushed the idea of an air quality test, and i'm all about empiricism, of course, but i had to push back that there are limits to empiricism and that the tort i'm suing over has generally accepted a lesser standard of subjective experience, in the form of journals or witnesses. is there an established ppm?
it took me some convincing to get her to take the usb key seriously. but, i'm convinced that she did, in the end, and that the reason she's doing this by mail is that she wants to examine the video evidence, to determine if i've made my case or not.
i think it would be hard to deduce i haven't.
but, i think this is the basic premise: she agrees that i'm right, if i've demonstrated a problem exists, but she left open the idea, because she seemed apprehensive about the vlog as evidence.
i'll find out in a few weeks.
it's not at all clear when that will be. by june, if i'm lucky, i think. so, i want to say i'm glad it's over, buuuut....
i think the judge accepted the basic premise of my position: if the area has a second hand smoke problem, they are obligated to "do something", and this whole refusal to do anything thing is bullshit. i could get the wall, and have the smokers pay for it. or, they could just let me run the fucking fan, already, and pay me costs for wasting my time. but, have i established that there's actually a problem?
she pushed the idea of an air quality test, and i'm all about empiricism, of course, but i had to push back that there are limits to empiricism and that the tort i'm suing over has generally accepted a lesser standard of subjective experience, in the form of journals or witnesses. is there an established ppm?
it took me some convincing to get her to take the usb key seriously. but, i'm convinced that she did, in the end, and that the reason she's doing this by mail is that she wants to examine the video evidence, to determine if i've made my case or not.
i think it would be hard to deduce i haven't.
but, i think this is the basic premise: she agrees that i'm right, if i've demonstrated a problem exists, but she left open the idea, because she seemed apprehensive about the vlog as evidence.
i'll find out in a few weeks.
see, this isn't the right way to deal with it. what we need to do is keep them out of the cities, not open up hunting season in the outback.
why do we have to do everything in such extremes, and reduce everything down into these caricatures?
we don't need to exterminate them in order to cull them. we just need more freedom to deal with the problem in urban regions. and, we need more leadership by the proper authorities - animal control, law enforcement, etc.
there's no benefit to having coyotes running around in cities. they're going to eat your pets. and, don't tell me to lock up my dog; i shouldn't have to live in fear or reduce my dog's freedom for the benefit of a fucking coyote. it's like telling your daughter to wear pants if she doesn't want to get raped.
as far as i'm concerned, they should be treated like serial killers.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/wolves-mnrf-hunting-coyotes-1.3522065
why do we have to do everything in such extremes, and reduce everything down into these caricatures?
we don't need to exterminate them in order to cull them. we just need more freedom to deal with the problem in urban regions. and, we need more leadership by the proper authorities - animal control, law enforcement, etc.
there's no benefit to having coyotes running around in cities. they're going to eat your pets. and, don't tell me to lock up my dog; i shouldn't have to live in fear or reduce my dog's freedom for the benefit of a fucking coyote. it's like telling your daughter to wear pants if she doesn't want to get raped.
as far as i'm concerned, they should be treated like serial killers.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/wolves-mnrf-hunting-coyotes-1.3522065
i just want to say something about the bc election, though.
it's easy to have a culture shock when you look at the results:
liberals - 41%
socialists - 40%
greens - 17%
there is a conservative party in bc, and it got around 2%.
oh - canada! ...?
well, not really, actually.
the story actually lies in watching the bc conservatives go up and down in pre-election cycles, and they might be a part of the reason that bc is so hard to predict (although i'll state it flat out - i think the liberals routinely carry out massive voter fraud, too). the same thing happens every cycle. the conservatives peak around 10% a few weeks before the election, which moves the socialists ahead in the polls - and then the conservatives all come running back to the liberals.
in fact, the conservatives and liberals once formed a coalition to keep the socialists out of power, although that was a long time ago, when the socialists were actually socialists. the liberal party in the province has since absorbed everything to the right of center, which is partly why the greens are doing so well in the first place.
so, the party labels make the province seem dreamy - sure. but, if you were to convert the party policies into more realistic labels, it would look more like this:
progressive conservatives - 41% [they're conservatives. but, they're moderates, too.]
liberals - 40%
socialists - 17%
it's still a nice place to live. but, it's more like washington than it is like sweden.
it's easy to have a culture shock when you look at the results:
liberals - 41%
socialists - 40%
greens - 17%
there is a conservative party in bc, and it got around 2%.
oh - canada! ...?
well, not really, actually.
the story actually lies in watching the bc conservatives go up and down in pre-election cycles, and they might be a part of the reason that bc is so hard to predict (although i'll state it flat out - i think the liberals routinely carry out massive voter fraud, too). the same thing happens every cycle. the conservatives peak around 10% a few weeks before the election, which moves the socialists ahead in the polls - and then the conservatives all come running back to the liberals.
in fact, the conservatives and liberals once formed a coalition to keep the socialists out of power, although that was a long time ago, when the socialists were actually socialists. the liberal party in the province has since absorbed everything to the right of center, which is partly why the greens are doing so well in the first place.
so, the party labels make the province seem dreamy - sure. but, if you were to convert the party policies into more realistic labels, it would look more like this:
progressive conservatives - 41% [they're conservatives. but, they're moderates, too.]
liberals - 40%
socialists - 17%
it's still a nice place to live. but, it's more like washington than it is like sweden.
what the reaction to the comey fiasco truly demonstrates is just how feeble-minded and willing to prostrate to power it is that democrats and progressives truly are.
it was just a few weeks ago that this guy interfered in the election. people will make other arguments, but i don't agree: james comey is probably the single biggest reason that clinton lost. then, he makes a play on behalf of the pentagon and they're willing to rally around him, as though he's now on their side.
he was never on trump's side, and he's not now on the democrat's side. he was a pretend republican appointed by a pretend democrat; the only side he was ever on was the side of power.
and, by standing up for comey, you are standing up for power.
but, that's what you really want to do, anyways.
because you're a fucking tool.
it was just a few weeks ago that this guy interfered in the election. people will make other arguments, but i don't agree: james comey is probably the single biggest reason that clinton lost. then, he makes a play on behalf of the pentagon and they're willing to rally around him, as though he's now on their side.
he was never on trump's side, and he's not now on the democrat's side. he was a pretend republican appointed by a pretend democrat; the only side he was ever on was the side of power.
and, by standing up for comey, you are standing up for power.
but, that's what you really want to do, anyways.
because you're a fucking tool.
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
but, seriously.
the next time that harper gets together with his buddies to do his oldies set at the corner bar, he should make this song front and centre. he should work it into his regular setlist...
the true prime sinister? well, maggie did a lot of serious harm. maybe if the british had a constitution, she couldn't have.
again: i don't know of any real comparison. he ruled for almost a decade, and he didn't do anything substantial except write case law in the process of getting smacked down by the courts over and over and over again. but, because of that, his legacy will outlive almost everybody.
he will live on in infamy for decades to come.
the next time that harper gets together with his buddies to do his oldies set at the corner bar, he should make this song front and centre. he should work it into his regular setlist...
the true prime sinister? well, maggie did a lot of serious harm. maybe if the british had a constitution, she couldn't have.
again: i don't know of any real comparison. he ruled for almost a decade, and he didn't do anything substantial except write case law in the process of getting smacked down by the courts over and over and over again. but, because of that, his legacy will outlive almost everybody.
he will live on in infamy for decades to come.
harper never expected this to hold up, it was just red meat for his base. there's a dozen or so examples of this, too.
it's easy to give him shit for wasting everybody's time but that's actually not the right way to look at it in the longer lens of history. i've stated repeatedly that harper's most enduring - and perhaps singular - legacy is going to be all of the laws that he had struck down. he's actually going to end up as a very important prime minister, for that reason alone. he's done more to shape constitutional law than any other leader since the elder trudeau.
100 years from now, nobody's going to be able to cite anything he wrote or anything he built. but, law students will study the multiple important and enduring precedents that were set when his laws were struck down.
i really don't know of anybody that's comparable. anywhere.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-court-citizenship-act-1.4108346
it's easy to give him shit for wasting everybody's time but that's actually not the right way to look at it in the longer lens of history. i've stated repeatedly that harper's most enduring - and perhaps singular - legacy is going to be all of the laws that he had struck down. he's actually going to end up as a very important prime minister, for that reason alone. he's done more to shape constitutional law than any other leader since the elder trudeau.
100 years from now, nobody's going to be able to cite anything he wrote or anything he built. but, law students will study the multiple important and enduring precedents that were set when his laws were struck down.
i really don't know of anybody that's comparable. anywhere.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-court-citizenship-act-1.4108346
it sounds to me like what they need is a dam up the ottawa to slow the tributaries down. i guess that at the time they built the seaway, ottawa was mostly just sending logs down the river, and nobody was really worried about climate change.
if you need a dam, it's worth a turbine.
this is actually a good example of what i was hoping the infrastructure bank would be used for.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/flooding-along-st-lawrence-could-worsen-if-ny-politics-wins/82113/
if you need a dam, it's worth a turbine.
this is actually a good example of what i was hoping the infrastructure bank would be used for.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/flooding-along-st-lawrence-could-worsen-if-ny-politics-wins/82113/
no.
the light is a circuit.
so, either:
1) the electricity is coming in, and not coming back or
2) it's never getting in at all.
a measurable voltage difference still doesn't absolutely mean it's getting there. but, it would be pretty obscure, i'd think...
it also heated up on me, indicating the current is moving.
i'm going to need to try to reflow it. i just need to figure out where it's cut, and i'm going to need some help to do it.
i wonder if i could try hackforge. hrmmn.
the light is a circuit.
so, either:
1) the electricity is coming in, and not coming back or
2) it's never getting in at all.
a measurable voltage difference still doesn't absolutely mean it's getting there. but, it would be pretty obscure, i'd think...
it also heated up on me, indicating the current is moving.
i'm going to need to try to reflow it. i just need to figure out where it's cut, and i'm going to need some help to do it.
i wonder if i could try hackforge. hrmmn.
this laptop...
there's a guy in town who will identify things. he may even have a heat gun. i think i want to go down this route:
1) figure out where the break is.
2) see if i can reflow it.
i could always even be wrong.
see, i'm not understanding the led in the power jack. is the led supposed to tell you the circuit is complete, or that the jack is receiving power? because the circuit completion seems superfluous. what i want to know is if the jack is broken. i would want the led to tell me the jack works, and the dead led to mean the jack is busted.
but, i might be being clinically rational at my own peril. again. reality isn't a fucking logic gate, j.
but the existence of a current, after all, doesn't necessarily mean the jack isn't broken. it's more than a relay. i may have tricked myself.
so, why don't i bring the thing in and see if i can get him to test it better. i won't pay him $40 for a jack, but i'll at least buy it from him. and, if it's not the jack, maybe we can figure out where the break is and see if we can heat gun it. i might pay him $40 for that if it works. or, if he doesn't have a heat gun, maybe i can hit it with a hair dryer.
if not, maybe i can sell him the board and the parts i don't want. what i'll have left is 4 gb of ram that i'm going to want to convert into 2 gb of ram, and maybe a square monitor if he's willing.
i'm done the video editing for court. i'm going to just take the 90s laptop. so, the last thing i need to do is compile documents.
there's a guy in town who will identify things. he may even have a heat gun. i think i want to go down this route:
1) figure out where the break is.
2) see if i can reflow it.
i could always even be wrong.
see, i'm not understanding the led in the power jack. is the led supposed to tell you the circuit is complete, or that the jack is receiving power? because the circuit completion seems superfluous. what i want to know is if the jack is broken. i would want the led to tell me the jack works, and the dead led to mean the jack is busted.
but, i might be being clinically rational at my own peril. again. reality isn't a fucking logic gate, j.
but the existence of a current, after all, doesn't necessarily mean the jack isn't broken. it's more than a relay. i may have tricked myself.
so, why don't i bring the thing in and see if i can get him to test it better. i won't pay him $40 for a jack, but i'll at least buy it from him. and, if it's not the jack, maybe we can figure out where the break is and see if we can heat gun it. i might pay him $40 for that if it works. or, if he doesn't have a heat gun, maybe i can hit it with a hair dryer.
if not, maybe i can sell him the board and the parts i don't want. what i'll have left is 4 gb of ram that i'm going to want to convert into 2 gb of ram, and maybe a square monitor if he's willing.
i'm done the video editing for court. i'm going to just take the 90s laptop. so, the last thing i need to do is compile documents.
andrew weaver should put the ndp in power and make them hold to their promises - or suffer the consequences.
as an environmentalist, albeit a distant eastern one, this is kind of a dream scenario. i don't at all trust the ndp. the greens have a unique opportunity, here, to put them in power and then pull the plug if they don't perform - or stand back and let them govern, if they do.
as an environmentalist, albeit a distant eastern one, this is kind of a dream scenario. i don't at all trust the ndp. the greens have a unique opportunity, here, to put them in power and then pull the plug if they don't perform - or stand back and let them govern, if they do.
no, you don't under...
i would have held a press conference, in prime time, on the first day...
"you're fired."
i would have filmed him being escorted out of the building, too.
why?
ok - it's good theatre, granted. but, it also sends the message that what he did wasn't ok, and that just because it advantaged me doesn't mean i'm going to look the other way.
if you're going to criticize him for firing this goof, the basis of the criticism should be that he took so long to do it.
i would have held a press conference, in prime time, on the first day...
"you're fired."
i would have filmed him being escorted out of the building, too.
why?
ok - it's good theatre, granted. but, it also sends the message that what he did wasn't ok, and that just because it advantaged me doesn't mean i'm going to look the other way.
if you're going to criticize him for firing this goof, the basis of the criticism should be that he took so long to do it.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
this is closer to the operating mindset that the government should be adopting in dealing with the demographic problem.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/genymoney/geny-millennial-employment-jobs-canada/article34867183/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/genymoney/geny-millennial-employment-jobs-canada/article34867183/
again: i'm in favour of a pretty open free trade deal with the united states (not nafta. a free trade deal.), but think we need trade realism with mexico until they reform their system to allow for labour rights - and would support policies designed to coerce them into doing so.
we can't have a bilateral free trade deal with mexico. it's incoherent, in it's face.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-withdrawl-from-nafta-is-back-on-table-wilbur-ross/article34934318/
we can't have a bilateral free trade deal with mexico. it's incoherent, in it's face.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-withdrawl-from-nafta-is-back-on-table-wilbur-ross/article34934318/
but, i'd rather see them abolish the tax exemption than write laws that restrict political activity. how can a charity not be political? and, how can a church not be political?
of course, if you take a look at who was affected by the conservative law, what you see is a lot of things they were opposed to. they didn't just go after environmental groups (who are universally disappointed with this government - don't think this is helping friendly parties. this government is getting sued from every direction for carrying on the policies of the previous one.), they also went after overseas abortion providers and were particularly harsh on pro-palestinian groups.
so, i don't oppose lifting political restrictions on charities. it's hardly an issue i'm passionate about, but whatever. but, i am in very strong opposition to the idea that donations to charities should be tax exempt.
here's the thing: when you make donations to charities tax-exempt, what you're doing is evading social responsibility for your policies, and making it contingent on a set of ideological principles. so, you end up perverting anti-poverty work into religious proselytizing. and, you allow people to divert what should be redistributed tax money into institutions that are potentially oppressing people.
i've made life choices for myself that have left me in perpetual poverty; there's a trade-off on this, in that i never need to be anywhere in the morning. i'd rather be poor. and i don't currently need to use food banks. but, i shouldn't have to deal with a religious person in order to eat - in whatever abstraction that is. these kinds of services should be run by secular groups and open to everybody without any basis of coercion.
this is an extreme example, but i've heard stories (primary sources.) about religious compounds in haiti literally exchanging food for conversion. don't think this kind of coercion is a scare story. it's a reality in the developing world. and, it's only possible because the secular society isn't doing what it needs to be doing in order to prevent it.
of course, charities can also be used as money laundering fronts...
....but i'm really more interested in ensuring that these resources end up collectivized, and directed by popular consensus, rather than left up to the individual whims of wealthy donors, who may or may not be acting in the public good.
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/05/08/charities-too-political-under-trudeau
of course, if you take a look at who was affected by the conservative law, what you see is a lot of things they were opposed to. they didn't just go after environmental groups (who are universally disappointed with this government - don't think this is helping friendly parties. this government is getting sued from every direction for carrying on the policies of the previous one.), they also went after overseas abortion providers and were particularly harsh on pro-palestinian groups.
so, i don't oppose lifting political restrictions on charities. it's hardly an issue i'm passionate about, but whatever. but, i am in very strong opposition to the idea that donations to charities should be tax exempt.
here's the thing: when you make donations to charities tax-exempt, what you're doing is evading social responsibility for your policies, and making it contingent on a set of ideological principles. so, you end up perverting anti-poverty work into religious proselytizing. and, you allow people to divert what should be redistributed tax money into institutions that are potentially oppressing people.
i've made life choices for myself that have left me in perpetual poverty; there's a trade-off on this, in that i never need to be anywhere in the morning. i'd rather be poor. and i don't currently need to use food banks. but, i shouldn't have to deal with a religious person in order to eat - in whatever abstraction that is. these kinds of services should be run by secular groups and open to everybody without any basis of coercion.
this is an extreme example, but i've heard stories (primary sources.) about religious compounds in haiti literally exchanging food for conversion. don't think this kind of coercion is a scare story. it's a reality in the developing world. and, it's only possible because the secular society isn't doing what it needs to be doing in order to prevent it.
of course, charities can also be used as money laundering fronts...
....but i'm really more interested in ensuring that these resources end up collectivized, and directed by popular consensus, rather than left up to the individual whims of wealthy donors, who may or may not be acting in the public good.
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/05/08/charities-too-political-under-trudeau
the more i think about it, i have to point out that it seems like the laptop was already damaged before i opened it.
to begin with, it had been emitting a foul odor for quite a while. the smell was like burning dust, though, so it wasn't clear if it was blown or just dirty.
to be clear: the fan needed to be cleaned, i knew it needed to be cleaned a good while before i actually opened it and when i did open it up i took out a huge pile of dust that was clearly preventing it from spinning. in fact, i may have exacerbated the problem by running a lysol wipe over the vent, thereby dropping the dust off the vent and down into the fan. what i'm thinking is that i may have been too late: the clogged up fan may have already damaged something before i opened it up.
i was also dealing with some strange issues around the usb ports on that side, and what seemed like a possessed touchpad. i actually suspected that i might be dealing with some kind of cia keylogger that was trying to force me to use the touchpad to navigate. see, i use a usb mouse, because i'm old enough that i'm not touchpad-native. well, it's a term, now. it's not just that i'm old, it's that i spent a very large amount of time typing as a teenager and really held to it. at this point, i'll never get used to any kind of mobile device: i need a keyboard and i need a mouse. this is non-negotiable. i'll throw the thing through a window before i start using a touchpad...
if the cia were using some kind of windows backdoor, it would probably be written to utilize the touchpad driver, which is for both typing and pointing. so, my insistence on a usb mouse may have accidentally broken their surveillance software.
i fixed it by disabling the driver altogether. but, it's just as easy to conclude that the hardware was malfunctioning due to faulty wiring.
but, the usb port on that side also got sticky when it was hot. this was repeatably demonstrable, too: whenever it warmed up, i would need to push the usb connection upwards. that's an obvious electrical short.
the fact that the fan stopped may itself have been at least as much of an electrical problem as it was a dust problem.
so, it's hard to say how long it would have remained functional had i not opened it, or if it was even functional at all at that point in time. and, i'm not retreating from the claim that the design is horrific - nor am i the first to make the claim. but, on closer introspection, i think it's obvious that the thing was already in rough shape, and if it wasn't already broken, it probably could not have survived any disassembly at all.
i need to reiterate that i knew what i was doing and did not do anything that should have led to a short. it was either already broken, or impossibly fragile - or, potentially, both.
to begin with, it had been emitting a foul odor for quite a while. the smell was like burning dust, though, so it wasn't clear if it was blown or just dirty.
to be clear: the fan needed to be cleaned, i knew it needed to be cleaned a good while before i actually opened it and when i did open it up i took out a huge pile of dust that was clearly preventing it from spinning. in fact, i may have exacerbated the problem by running a lysol wipe over the vent, thereby dropping the dust off the vent and down into the fan. what i'm thinking is that i may have been too late: the clogged up fan may have already damaged something before i opened it up.
i was also dealing with some strange issues around the usb ports on that side, and what seemed like a possessed touchpad. i actually suspected that i might be dealing with some kind of cia keylogger that was trying to force me to use the touchpad to navigate. see, i use a usb mouse, because i'm old enough that i'm not touchpad-native. well, it's a term, now. it's not just that i'm old, it's that i spent a very large amount of time typing as a teenager and really held to it. at this point, i'll never get used to any kind of mobile device: i need a keyboard and i need a mouse. this is non-negotiable. i'll throw the thing through a window before i start using a touchpad...
if the cia were using some kind of windows backdoor, it would probably be written to utilize the touchpad driver, which is for both typing and pointing. so, my insistence on a usb mouse may have accidentally broken their surveillance software.
i fixed it by disabling the driver altogether. but, it's just as easy to conclude that the hardware was malfunctioning due to faulty wiring.
but, the usb port on that side also got sticky when it was hot. this was repeatably demonstrable, too: whenever it warmed up, i would need to push the usb connection upwards. that's an obvious electrical short.
the fact that the fan stopped may itself have been at least as much of an electrical problem as it was a dust problem.
so, it's hard to say how long it would have remained functional had i not opened it, or if it was even functional at all at that point in time. and, i'm not retreating from the claim that the design is horrific - nor am i the first to make the claim. but, on closer introspection, i think it's obvious that the thing was already in rough shape, and if it wasn't already broken, it probably could not have survived any disassembly at all.
i need to reiterate that i knew what i was doing and did not do anything that should have led to a short. it was either already broken, or impossibly fragile - or, potentially, both.
i need to spend the rest of the day getting documents together.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1159404#answer-966458
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1159404#answer-966458
i can imagine a row of preachers lined up on a fast rising coast line, and citizens walking towards it, in single file, and carefully volunteering to be baptized - before they are thrown into the crushing current.
they're not dying, they're just going to the next life!
a helicopter pan zooms upwards, to reveal the gulf of mexico full of floating dead bodies.
the lord works in mysterious ways.
they're not dying, they're just going to the next life!
a helicopter pan zooms upwards, to reveal the gulf of mexico full of floating dead bodies.
the lord works in mysterious ways.
as the flood waters rise in the american south, they will stand in the water, knee-deep and bible in hand, and question imaginary creatures in the sky as to what it is that they did that created such wrath.
they will not consult the science. they will not mitigate. they will not adapt.
what they will do, instead, is pray.
some will pray for forgiveness, whereas others will welcome the end times, comfortable in their own self-righteousness and awaiting a future of eternal life. all of it as the byzantines did centuries earlier, as the barbarians closed in from all sides.
such is the inevitable downfall of a society rooted in faith.
and, if there is somehow a god, such stupidity is truly worthy of it's wrath and contempt.
they will not consult the science. they will not mitigate. they will not adapt.
what they will do, instead, is pray.
some will pray for forgiveness, whereas others will welcome the end times, comfortable in their own self-righteousness and awaiting a future of eternal life. all of it as the byzantines did centuries earlier, as the barbarians closed in from all sides.
such is the inevitable downfall of a society rooted in faith.
and, if there is somehow a god, such stupidity is truly worthy of it's wrath and contempt.
Monday, May 8, 2017
farcical considering the source? sure.
but, it's fairly obvious that the right answer is that nobody thought it through, and somebody needs to point out that they need to think this through, lest they ruin international law without even realizing it.
this is beyond surreal. but get used to it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/world/middleeast/syria-united-protect-democracy-trump-lawsuit.html?_r=0
but, it's fairly obvious that the right answer is that nobody thought it through, and somebody needs to point out that they need to think this through, lest they ruin international law without even realizing it.
this is beyond surreal. but get used to it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/world/middleeast/syria-united-protect-democracy-trump-lawsuit.html?_r=0
again, my self-interest is not in "job creation" (i don't want a job...), but in maximizing the tax base while minimizing the number of people on social assistance, as the services that exist become less and less effective as more and more people use them.
my self-interest is also in minimizing the power of socially conservative bodies, like organized religions, which also means fighting to reduce the number of adherents, as well as actively working to convert people away from their influence.
these are the normal, historical priorities of self-interested parties on the left.
my self-interest is also in minimizing the power of socially conservative bodies, like organized religions, which also means fighting to reduce the number of adherents, as well as actively working to convert people away from their influence.
these are the normal, historical priorities of self-interested parties on the left.
the way to protect against such a nefarious ploy is to always wear an aluminum hat.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4484760/North-Korea-preparing-EMP-strike-US.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4484760/North-Korea-preparing-EMP-strike-US.html
so, what's going on with me?
i've been focusing primarily on editing since about the 10th of april - so about a month. i've been to a lot of concerts in the last month. but, the life goal has been about editing.
i didn't want it to turn out like this, where i'd do no editing for months, and then spend a month editing. it will slow down dramatically in the next few days. but, i wanted to gather the material i needed for my court date, which is on thursday morning...
it's easy to criticize me for being slow about it, but it was actually a lot of work to edit two and half months of vlogging, watch those vlogs, upload them and cut out the parts that are relevant. i was cut up to the 28th of april - which was caught up.
it was a week ago now that my laptop told me that the fan wasn't running anymore. it didn't take long for me to realize that it was clogged with dust. it's a thing that happens. but, the design on the laptop requires disassembling the entire laptop and removing the motherboard and heatsink in order to clean the fan. fans are going to get dirty, that is normal; it is the design of the laptop that is the root cause of the problem i now have to deal with.
i can't run a laptop without a fan. so, i took it apart to clean it. it took me a few days to get some thermal paste for the heatsink, but when i finally put it back together this morning i got no power. no lights. nothing.
i would think that i should at least get an led beside the power for merely plugging it in, right? i wasn't even getting that. so, i reasoned that there's a break in the circuit, somewhere.
i don't have a multimeter, but i have a bus pirate that i bought a few years ago when i fucked up my recording pc by trying to flash it from inside windows (doh...) and a set of probes. so, i had to install it as a serial port on my 90s laptop in order to convert it into a voltmeter. it turns out the jack is drawing electricity normally, so i'm left to conclude that there's a short in the board.
but, i have a sign of life: the area of the motherboard closest to the plug is now warm. it was not previously. i'm going to put it back together and leave it plugged in, hoping that the current can re-establish itself.
i'm typing this on my backup laptop. i had to pull the hard drive out of my main laptop and put it in this one, and it seems to work fine, so if the board ends up lost it's really a minor annoyance. this machine only has two gigs of ram in it, and no built in microphone, but if the other machine is now parts i can at least salvage the ram.
i'm pissed off, but not at myself. i know how to open a laptop. i couldn't have done it better. it's a shoddy design to make it impossible to clean the fan without trashing it. but, they teach graduate courses on this - it's called forced obsolescence.
if it was the jack, i could have fixed it for a few dollars. but, the cost of replacing the system board makes the project a waste of time.
for now, it looks like i'm moving to the backup laptop. but, in the long run, i probably won't replace this machine at all, i'll probably just go back to the desktop.
i'm going to sleep shortly. but, when i wake up, i'll need to pick up where i left off.
i've been focusing primarily on editing since about the 10th of april - so about a month. i've been to a lot of concerts in the last month. but, the life goal has been about editing.
i didn't want it to turn out like this, where i'd do no editing for months, and then spend a month editing. it will slow down dramatically in the next few days. but, i wanted to gather the material i needed for my court date, which is on thursday morning...
it's easy to criticize me for being slow about it, but it was actually a lot of work to edit two and half months of vlogging, watch those vlogs, upload them and cut out the parts that are relevant. i was cut up to the 28th of april - which was caught up.
it was a week ago now that my laptop told me that the fan wasn't running anymore. it didn't take long for me to realize that it was clogged with dust. it's a thing that happens. but, the design on the laptop requires disassembling the entire laptop and removing the motherboard and heatsink in order to clean the fan. fans are going to get dirty, that is normal; it is the design of the laptop that is the root cause of the problem i now have to deal with.
i can't run a laptop without a fan. so, i took it apart to clean it. it took me a few days to get some thermal paste for the heatsink, but when i finally put it back together this morning i got no power. no lights. nothing.
i would think that i should at least get an led beside the power for merely plugging it in, right? i wasn't even getting that. so, i reasoned that there's a break in the circuit, somewhere.
i don't have a multimeter, but i have a bus pirate that i bought a few years ago when i fucked up my recording pc by trying to flash it from inside windows (doh...) and a set of probes. so, i had to install it as a serial port on my 90s laptop in order to convert it into a voltmeter. it turns out the jack is drawing electricity normally, so i'm left to conclude that there's a short in the board.
but, i have a sign of life: the area of the motherboard closest to the plug is now warm. it was not previously. i'm going to put it back together and leave it plugged in, hoping that the current can re-establish itself.
i'm typing this on my backup laptop. i had to pull the hard drive out of my main laptop and put it in this one, and it seems to work fine, so if the board ends up lost it's really a minor annoyance. this machine only has two gigs of ram in it, and no built in microphone, but if the other machine is now parts i can at least salvage the ram.
i'm pissed off, but not at myself. i know how to open a laptop. i couldn't have done it better. it's a shoddy design to make it impossible to clean the fan without trashing it. but, they teach graduate courses on this - it's called forced obsolescence.
if it was the jack, i could have fixed it for a few dollars. but, the cost of replacing the system board makes the project a waste of time.
for now, it looks like i'm moving to the backup laptop. but, in the long run, i probably won't replace this machine at all, i'll probably just go back to the desktop.
i'm going to sleep shortly. but, when i wake up, i'll need to pick up where i left off.
i don't think anybody will ever know what france would have been like under the presidency of marine le pen. my understanding is that the party behind her is as unhappy about her projections as she was about their past, and that she will probably be replaced - potentially by her much more racist niece - for the next election.
i suspect she would have been far more moderate than some had feared.
but, we'll never know.
what we know is that macron is going to amplify the embrace of neo-liberalism that put le pen into the second round, and carry on with the austerity that is fueling the rise of xenophobia in the country. nobody should expect him to be any less enthusiastic about bombing people in the middle east or the north of africa, or to ease the increasing police state crack down, either. he probably won't even lift the burka ban that has already been in place for many years - and i don't even think that anybody even expects him to.
the left would have been preferable, of course. but, unfortunately, i suspect that we will look back on this election in five years and lament that we did not give a more moderate nationalist voice a chance to undo the effects of corporatism and austerity, as we are fighting off actual nazis.
macron will be a disaster; i will repeat that i think le pen would have been the lesser evil.
i suspect she would have been far more moderate than some had feared.
but, we'll never know.
what we know is that macron is going to amplify the embrace of neo-liberalism that put le pen into the second round, and carry on with the austerity that is fueling the rise of xenophobia in the country. nobody should expect him to be any less enthusiastic about bombing people in the middle east or the north of africa, or to ease the increasing police state crack down, either. he probably won't even lift the burka ban that has already been in place for many years - and i don't even think that anybody even expects him to.
the left would have been preferable, of course. but, unfortunately, i suspect that we will look back on this election in five years and lament that we did not give a more moderate nationalist voice a chance to undo the effects of corporatism and austerity, as we are fighting off actual nazis.
macron will be a disaster; i will repeat that i think le pen would have been the lesser evil.
Sunday, May 7, 2017
i'd tweak this a little bit, in investing more effort into separating between mlms and communists. i'd identify as both an anarchist and a communist, but not as a marxist (despite citing marx fairly frequently) and certainly not at all as any kind of leninist or maoist. nihilism is likewise a complicated term, and the author is actually using it wrong, here; i would certainly identify as an existential nihilist, while rejecting colloquial uses of either term.
but, i think this gets an idea across.
http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp001550.html
but, i think this gets an idea across.
http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp001550.html
it's hard being a legitimate anti-capitalist and legitimate leftist in this society, because even the self-identified "left" ends up turning on you at every point that you question the status quo.
how the fuck did we get to the point where the so-called left stands up for religion, supports cultural segregation and upholds property rights? i'm not even telling you what to believe. i'm telling you to stop pretending you're on the left of anything at all. there's never been a left in the history of the world that holds these views. but, this is what we call the left, here.
and, when you actually present leftist ideas to self-identified leftists, this so-called left repeats the same capitalist reasoning that you'd get from any other set of capitalists.
this has been the core of my messaging for years: these people that walk around calling themselves "progressives" and "liberals" nowadays are what we historically have referred to as conservatives. and, the people that call themselves "conservatives" are what we have historically referred to as nihilists, or even barbarians.
i don't want to pick a side between conservatives and barbarians; if we can't have socialism, what is truly left is shades of barbarism. i'd rather stand back and criticize you all. maybe, once this era has passed, i'll be seen as a voice of reason in a period of madness. if the voice survives, i suppose.
...but, all i've ever done is criticize progressives from the left. there is absolutely no evidence that i've ever aligned with these people, and no basis to be surprised by my continuing criticism of their politics, nor any reason to think that criticism will ever subside.
how the fuck did we get to the point where the so-called left stands up for religion, supports cultural segregation and upholds property rights? i'm not even telling you what to believe. i'm telling you to stop pretending you're on the left of anything at all. there's never been a left in the history of the world that holds these views. but, this is what we call the left, here.
and, when you actually present leftist ideas to self-identified leftists, this so-called left repeats the same capitalist reasoning that you'd get from any other set of capitalists.
this has been the core of my messaging for years: these people that walk around calling themselves "progressives" and "liberals" nowadays are what we historically have referred to as conservatives. and, the people that call themselves "conservatives" are what we have historically referred to as nihilists, or even barbarians.
i don't want to pick a side between conservatives and barbarians; if we can't have socialism, what is truly left is shades of barbarism. i'd rather stand back and criticize you all. maybe, once this era has passed, i'll be seen as a voice of reason in a period of madness. if the voice survives, i suppose.
...but, all i've ever done is criticize progressives from the left. there is absolutely no evidence that i've ever aligned with these people, and no basis to be surprised by my continuing criticism of their politics, nor any reason to think that criticism will ever subside.
once again: i am not a "progressive", and i am not a "conservative". i'll accept "liberal", but only with a small-l and in a historical context.
i'm an anarchist. i'm a socialist. i'm a communist.
i'm the textbook leftist that makes you realize that you're not, that most of the things you believe in are either very centrist or are downright conservative.
i'm the mirror in which you can see your own embrace of capitalism in.
and, i've been telling you we're not on the same side for years.
i'm an anarchist. i'm a socialist. i'm a communist.
i'm the textbook leftist that makes you realize that you're not, that most of the things you believe in are either very centrist or are downright conservative.
i'm the mirror in which you can see your own embrace of capitalism in.
and, i've been telling you we're not on the same side for years.
well, i mean, what would you rather: seniors forced to retire early (many of whom don't need government checks at all), or 35% youth unemployment and soaring welfare and disability payments, leading to a generation that never gains the experience it needs to take over?
there's your new philips curve: the longer you keep old people working, the more you create young people that have no future outside of social assistance and damage the long term prospects of the country to recover from the boomer catastrophe.
and, no: you can't solve this by bringing in refugees, either.
i don't think it's a choice: you push the old people out. it's a no-brainer.
there's your new philips curve: the longer you keep old people working, the more you create young people that have no future outside of social assistance and damage the long term prospects of the country to recover from the boomer catastrophe.
and, no: you can't solve this by bringing in refugees, either.
i don't think it's a choice: you push the old people out. it's a no-brainer.
so, we need to design policies to prevent this, even if it means encouraging early retirement on government funds. the focus needs to be pushing older workers out of the workforce as quickly as possible, not in trying to convince them to hang on.
these policies don't need to be forever, they just need to get us over this demographic bump.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/job-market-older-workers-1.4101163
these policies don't need to be forever, they just need to get us over this demographic bump.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/job-market-older-workers-1.4101163
here's a fucking reality check, guys.
According to the Pew Research Center, Americans 65 and older are 47 times richer than those 35 and younger.
and, you're worried about finding ways for young people to support old people? it's a priority rooted in delusions, in a world where data doesn't exist.
how about we put in a special tax for retirees to pay for universal tuition?
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/08/old_people_getting_richer_young_people_getting_poorer/
According to the Pew Research Center, Americans 65 and older are 47 times richer than those 35 and younger.
and, you're worried about finding ways for young people to support old people? it's a priority rooted in delusions, in a world where data doesn't exist.
how about we put in a special tax for retirees to pay for universal tuition?
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/08/old_people_getting_richer_young_people_getting_poorer/
did this report bother to empirically analyze which generations have wealth to share and which don't? because such an empirical analysis would make it clear that we should be taxing retirees to pay for social services: they're the ones with all of the money, whereas the younger generations are mired in debt, for the precise reason that the older generation refused to pay for anything.
i think what the government needs to do with this is recognize that it's in a special case. there was a demographic bulge, and it was able to skew resources towards itself. their parents suffered, and their kids have suffered, too. at some point, that has to reverse, and resources are going to need to be pulled out of this bulge. what the report is really highlighting is that we're not going to be able to allow this to happen naturally. we're not going to be able to just wait until they die. we're going to need to start distributing resources from rich retirees to less rich retirees, and tell them to their face that they reap what they sow.
if you follow the data properly, you're actually left to conclude that we'd be better off *lowering* the retirement age, in order to shuffle wealthy retirees out and give younger people the opportunity to move into higher wage positions, and generate some savings of their own.
but, whatever the state does to adjust to this over the next twenty to thirty years should be seen as a temporary reaction to a special demographic problem, and should not be intended to be structural or binding on the next generation.
i think what the government needs to do with this is recognize that it's in a special case. there was a demographic bulge, and it was able to skew resources towards itself. their parents suffered, and their kids have suffered, too. at some point, that has to reverse, and resources are going to need to be pulled out of this bulge. what the report is really highlighting is that we're not going to be able to allow this to happen naturally. we're not going to be able to just wait until they die. we're going to need to start distributing resources from rich retirees to less rich retirees, and tell them to their face that they reap what they sow.
if you follow the data properly, you're actually left to conclude that we'd be better off *lowering* the retirement age, in order to shuffle wealthy retirees out and give younger people the opportunity to move into higher wage positions, and generate some savings of their own.
but, whatever the state does to adjust to this over the next twenty to thirty years should be seen as a temporary reaction to a special demographic problem, and should not be intended to be structural or binding on the next generation.
actually, i think you need to tax old people to pay for old people.
they have all of the money, right? the root of the problem is that they're sitting on it. so, they're going to need to pay for themselves.
i usually attack the "most vulnerable" line as a bunch of high tory anglican gibberish. but, this idea that seniors in canada today are vulnerable is complete nonsense. it was true of their parents, for the reason that the boomers wouldn't support them. but, now the boomers are sitting on all of the money they wouldn't give their parents, and won't give their kids. this is the 'me' generation, after all.
they're not just not vulnerable, they're astoundingly wealthy.
no. stop. there's no choice. they ruined the economy. they slashed state finances. they've left unemployment and debt. their own savings are not only sufficient to cover their costs, but they're the only source of wealth that there is.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3428212/old-age-security-report-cd-howe/
they have all of the money, right? the root of the problem is that they're sitting on it. so, they're going to need to pay for themselves.
i usually attack the "most vulnerable" line as a bunch of high tory anglican gibberish. but, this idea that seniors in canada today are vulnerable is complete nonsense. it was true of their parents, for the reason that the boomers wouldn't support them. but, now the boomers are sitting on all of the money they wouldn't give their parents, and won't give their kids. this is the 'me' generation, after all.
they're not just not vulnerable, they're astoundingly wealthy.
no. stop. there's no choice. they ruined the economy. they slashed state finances. they've left unemployment and debt. their own savings are not only sufficient to cover their costs, but they're the only source of wealth that there is.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3428212/old-age-security-report-cd-howe/
what?
the senate descends from the house of lords. it's meant to represent the interests of property, as a counterbalance to the house of commons.
this is a bunch of fucking bullshit. and, that's the exact language you should use, as you send your kids to the fucking internet to do some real research.
but, it's not just a bunch of fucking bullshit, it's a scary level of revisionism - the kind of thing we're not just going to look back and laugh at, but the kind of thing we're going to look back and laugh at very uncomfortably.
don't rot your kids' brains with lies. tell them the truth. we have a lower chamber for commoners, and an upper chamber for feudal property owners. the balance of power was initially designed to ensure that the property owners could override the commoners. over time, this fell into disuse - and for good reason, as it is undemocratic. unfortunately, the current government seems to want to return to feudalism. so, it wants to rebrand the house of lords as some kind of guardian council.
i will repeat what i've stated previously: the senate is invalid as a governing body. it can act as a kind of proof-reading institution without any real backlash. but, the day the senate overturns legislation from the house (that has not already been ruled unconstitutional), the social contract is broken and the entire state loses any claim to legitimacy it claims it has.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wise-owls-senate-childrens-book-1.4094066
the senate descends from the house of lords. it's meant to represent the interests of property, as a counterbalance to the house of commons.
this is a bunch of fucking bullshit. and, that's the exact language you should use, as you send your kids to the fucking internet to do some real research.
but, it's not just a bunch of fucking bullshit, it's a scary level of revisionism - the kind of thing we're not just going to look back and laugh at, but the kind of thing we're going to look back and laugh at very uncomfortably.
don't rot your kids' brains with lies. tell them the truth. we have a lower chamber for commoners, and an upper chamber for feudal property owners. the balance of power was initially designed to ensure that the property owners could override the commoners. over time, this fell into disuse - and for good reason, as it is undemocratic. unfortunately, the current government seems to want to return to feudalism. so, it wants to rebrand the house of lords as some kind of guardian council.
i will repeat what i've stated previously: the senate is invalid as a governing body. it can act as a kind of proof-reading institution without any real backlash. but, the day the senate overturns legislation from the house (that has not already been ruled unconstitutional), the social contract is broken and the entire state loses any claim to legitimacy it claims it has.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wise-owls-senate-childrens-book-1.4094066
there appears to be a substantial shift in policy under way in the middle east, with the united states actually supporting the kurds.
if you wanted to end the war against isis, this would be the obvious and rational strategy as they are the only force on the ground that is capable of doing so. the problem is that it escalates the broader conflict. the syrians can't let the kurds carve out a state. and, all of a sudden, the russians and turks end up on the same side, again.
more to the point is that the united states has provided weak or even treacherous "support" for the kurds for the precise reason that it hasn't wanted to end the conflict. it's moves have been calculated to keep the region in chaos. it's the same tactic the romans used to distract their foes: divide and conquer. this shift in strategy may in the end be stupid, but you should expect that to be the norm for the next four years - most of the geopolitical decisions that trump signs off on will be foolish, will continue to demonstrate a deficit of understanding of the underlying chess board and will often act against us strategic interests, perhaps even often in ways that are catastrophic, as this might end up.
turkey is fucking nato, dude. you want to hand the russians the dardanelles? like, what the fuck?
but, the shift - clueless or not - seems to be towards pulling out. that's the story: for the first time in years, the united states is genuinely signalling that it wants out of the middle east, and is making decisions to that end, with the sole caveat that it wants isis removed first, regardless of the other consequences.
if you wanted to end the war against isis, this would be the obvious and rational strategy as they are the only force on the ground that is capable of doing so. the problem is that it escalates the broader conflict. the syrians can't let the kurds carve out a state. and, all of a sudden, the russians and turks end up on the same side, again.
more to the point is that the united states has provided weak or even treacherous "support" for the kurds for the precise reason that it hasn't wanted to end the conflict. it's moves have been calculated to keep the region in chaos. it's the same tactic the romans used to distract their foes: divide and conquer. this shift in strategy may in the end be stupid, but you should expect that to be the norm for the next four years - most of the geopolitical decisions that trump signs off on will be foolish, will continue to demonstrate a deficit of understanding of the underlying chess board and will often act against us strategic interests, perhaps even often in ways that are catastrophic, as this might end up.
turkey is fucking nato, dude. you want to hand the russians the dardanelles? like, what the fuck?
but, the shift - clueless or not - seems to be towards pulling out. that's the story: for the first time in years, the united states is genuinely signalling that it wants out of the middle east, and is making decisions to that end, with the sole caveat that it wants isis removed first, regardless of the other consequences.
Saturday, May 6, 2017
"The decision to impose tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber was based on the facts presented, not on political considerations,"
lol.
wilbur ross seems to think he's the wto.
what a clown...
but, again: this is empire.
they picked on us because they didn't think we'd fight back. now, they're claiming it's no fair when we did. so, we have to follow through.
the situation is 100% trump's fault, and he's going to have to eventually eat it, if not in public than at least in practice.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-trudeau-softwood-lumber-dispute-threat-inappropriate-1.4103305
lol.
wilbur ross seems to think he's the wto.
what a clown...
but, again: this is empire.
they picked on us because they didn't think we'd fight back. now, they're claiming it's no fair when we did. so, we have to follow through.
the situation is 100% trump's fault, and he's going to have to eventually eat it, if not in public than at least in practice.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-trudeau-softwood-lumber-dispute-threat-inappropriate-1.4103305
people need to freak out about this. you can't have the fcc coming in and shutting down prominent opposition voices, like this.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39828336
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39828336
the reversal, or compromising, of secularism in france would be a betrayal of the revolution, and ultimately fail in it's path to civil conflict. a policy to replace secularism with multiculturalism will end in it's reversal, in a new republic. and, i stand in solidarity with secularism.
the french fought hard to free themselves from the control of the church. allowing themselves to relapse into islam would be historically irresponsible.
a better question is this: how does the french left generate a revolt by muslims against their religion that is comparable to the revolt of the french against catholicism? how do we get them to renounce islam and become secular? and, this is a necessary task, as they are now the core of the lumpenproletariat.
i think it's relatively common for canadians to identify more strongly with the liberal ideals of the french revolution than the conservative ideals of the american revolution. and, i may speak for the average french citizen when i present the following response to this article: yanqui, go home; yanqui, fuck off!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/05/05/in-a-secular-country-religion-inserts-an-unpredictable-dynamic-into-decisive-french-vote/
the french fought hard to free themselves from the control of the church. allowing themselves to relapse into islam would be historically irresponsible.
a better question is this: how does the french left generate a revolt by muslims against their religion that is comparable to the revolt of the french against catholicism? how do we get them to renounce islam and become secular? and, this is a necessary task, as they are now the core of the lumpenproletariat.
i think it's relatively common for canadians to identify more strongly with the liberal ideals of the french revolution than the conservative ideals of the american revolution. and, i may speak for the average french citizen when i present the following response to this article: yanqui, go home; yanqui, fuck off!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/05/05/in-a-secular-country-religion-inserts-an-unpredictable-dynamic-into-decisive-french-vote/
Friday, May 5, 2017
when this first came up, the crown was heavily criticized for filing the wrong charges - observers across the spectrum agreed that the most likely outcome was for the court to strike down the polygamy laws, allowing the community to continue to exist and even throwing the validity of laws against child marriage into question. there was also concern that the real issue was going to be lost, in the process.
the issue in the minds of most people has never been around the question of polygamy. the real issue has always been related to child abuse, and specifically to underage marriages. this concern is not even mentioned in this terse press release.
i don't care about polygamy between consenting adults. i wouldn't exactly argue that it should be legal; i don't think the state should recognize any concept of marriage at all, and property in common should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. so, what would it mean for me to say polygamy should be legal when i don't think marriage should be legal? but, i certainly don't see any purpose in prosecuting consenting adults.
this community, however, needs to be shut down. and, i can only hope that the correct charges of child abuse, statutory rape and human trafficking are filed very quickly, along with the proper legislation banning underage marriages, should the existing legislation be overturned by proxy.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/polygamy-trial-closing-arguments-1.4101033
the issue in the minds of most people has never been around the question of polygamy. the real issue has always been related to child abuse, and specifically to underage marriages. this concern is not even mentioned in this terse press release.
i don't care about polygamy between consenting adults. i wouldn't exactly argue that it should be legal; i don't think the state should recognize any concept of marriage at all, and property in common should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. so, what would it mean for me to say polygamy should be legal when i don't think marriage should be legal? but, i certainly don't see any purpose in prosecuting consenting adults.
this community, however, needs to be shut down. and, i can only hope that the correct charges of child abuse, statutory rape and human trafficking are filed very quickly, along with the proper legislation banning underage marriages, should the existing legislation be overturned by proxy.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/polygamy-trial-closing-arguments-1.4101033
careful with the reporting in france.
the polling actually says this:
macron ~ 45%
le pen ~ 30%
neither ~ 25%
i'd be surprised if there wasn't a bradley effect at work. and, we all know that low turnout helps le pen, too.
the correct thing or me to say is that i haven't been following the polling closely enough to provide an interesting analysis. but, please read the polls correctly if you're to read them at all.
the polling actually says this:
macron ~ 45%
le pen ~ 30%
neither ~ 25%
i'd be surprised if there wasn't a bradley effect at work. and, we all know that low turnout helps le pen, too.
the correct thing or me to say is that i haven't been following the polling closely enough to provide an interesting analysis. but, please read the polls correctly if you're to read them at all.
if the state is convinced that it is worthwhile to increase diversity amongst scientists, what it needs to do is address the issue at an earlier career stage.
scientists care about one thing: science. if you have a good idea, you have a good idea; if you have good research, you have good research. they don't care about anything else.
so, this idea that people are being denied funds because of their ethnicity is spurious, as it is in contradiction to the purposes of scientific inquiry. you will not find any data that upholds this speculation. physicists are not going to reject a good paper because the person is black, or female or subscribes to some kind of superstition (although they may lament the latter). it's a ridiculous idea, and those that promote it are ridiculous people.
on the other hand, what is worrying about the idea of the state enforcing gender quotas is that it presents the possibility that good research will not get funded because somebody is not the right gender or ethnic type. it is the quota system that has the greater potential of enforcing harmful discrimination. those who push back against this are unfamiliar with the culture within scientific communities, and are instead projecting an ideal that they read in a philosophy course - an ideal that does not hold up to any sort of empirical scrutiny and should be forcefully discarded as pseudo-science.
i mean, it will be the ultimate irony if we end up mutilating our research departments due to the pronouncements of foucauldian pseudo-science.
i think the empirical evidence on the topic is pretty clear: girls don't have the same levels of interest in science that boys do. is that actually a problem? well, i don't think that feminism is supposed to be about forcing girls to be boys. what feminism is supposed to be about is breaking down barriers to opportunity. if, in the end, girls make different choices, so be it. you could disagree with this if you want, i guess. personally, i'd argue that a proportional outcome - which is what we have - is a measure of success. but, to argue that the solution to increasing female involvement in the sciences is enforcing quotas is unquestionably wrong. if you think this is a problem, and you think it should be addressed, then it's the culture that needs to be addressed: the system needs to find a way to fight back against all of the corporate and religious messaging that exists and convince girls that they want to be scientists.
they'd have better luck if they were to create a csi or xfiles like show on the cbc. if you think this needs addressing, that's the level it needs to be addressed on.
scientists care about one thing: science. if you have a good idea, you have a good idea; if you have good research, you have good research. they don't care about anything else.
so, this idea that people are being denied funds because of their ethnicity is spurious, as it is in contradiction to the purposes of scientific inquiry. you will not find any data that upholds this speculation. physicists are not going to reject a good paper because the person is black, or female or subscribes to some kind of superstition (although they may lament the latter). it's a ridiculous idea, and those that promote it are ridiculous people.
on the other hand, what is worrying about the idea of the state enforcing gender quotas is that it presents the possibility that good research will not get funded because somebody is not the right gender or ethnic type. it is the quota system that has the greater potential of enforcing harmful discrimination. those who push back against this are unfamiliar with the culture within scientific communities, and are instead projecting an ideal that they read in a philosophy course - an ideal that does not hold up to any sort of empirical scrutiny and should be forcefully discarded as pseudo-science.
i mean, it will be the ultimate irony if we end up mutilating our research departments due to the pronouncements of foucauldian pseudo-science.
i think the empirical evidence on the topic is pretty clear: girls don't have the same levels of interest in science that boys do. is that actually a problem? well, i don't think that feminism is supposed to be about forcing girls to be boys. what feminism is supposed to be about is breaking down barriers to opportunity. if, in the end, girls make different choices, so be it. you could disagree with this if you want, i guess. personally, i'd argue that a proportional outcome - which is what we have - is a measure of success. but, to argue that the solution to increasing female involvement in the sciences is enforcing quotas is unquestionably wrong. if you think this is a problem, and you think it should be addressed, then it's the culture that needs to be addressed: the system needs to find a way to fight back against all of the corporate and religious messaging that exists and convince girls that they want to be scientists.
they'd have better luck if they were to create a csi or xfiles like show on the cbc. if you think this needs addressing, that's the level it needs to be addressed on.
These findings confirm the presence of an unidentified species of Homo
at the CM site during the last interglacial period (MIS 5e; early late
Pleistocene), indicating that humans with manual dexterity and the
experiential knowledge to use hammerstones and anvils processed mastodon
limb bones for marrow extraction and/or raw material for tool
production.
i wanted to make sure that the publication wasn't presenting this the way that the news reports are.
the bering hypothesis is as good as anything in science, and has extremely strong support in dna evidence. indigenous dna is not very diverse, indicating a small founder population very recently. these results do not challenge this hypothesis, which is virtually unassailable.
what they're saying is that there may have been an unrelated species of hominid - not humans, exactly, but close relatives to humans - in north america, after all.
i have no idea how such a hominid would have ended up in north america, or if it would have been more likely to have been related to neanderthalensis (and hence come from the west) or erectus (and hence come from the east). i do not believe that pre-humans are currently believed to have been capable of purposeful seafaring at such extents, but this is all reconstructive. what i might suggest is that if pre-humans could sail from sunda to san diego, you'd might as well go ahead and call them humans.
but, do not be tricked into thinking that these hominids were related to existing indigenous populations. the research suggests no such thing.
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v544/n7651/full/nature22065.html
i wanted to make sure that the publication wasn't presenting this the way that the news reports are.
the bering hypothesis is as good as anything in science, and has extremely strong support in dna evidence. indigenous dna is not very diverse, indicating a small founder population very recently. these results do not challenge this hypothesis, which is virtually unassailable.
what they're saying is that there may have been an unrelated species of hominid - not humans, exactly, but close relatives to humans - in north america, after all.
i have no idea how such a hominid would have ended up in north america, or if it would have been more likely to have been related to neanderthalensis (and hence come from the west) or erectus (and hence come from the east). i do not believe that pre-humans are currently believed to have been capable of purposeful seafaring at such extents, but this is all reconstructive. what i might suggest is that if pre-humans could sail from sunda to san diego, you'd might as well go ahead and call them humans.
but, do not be tricked into thinking that these hominids were related to existing indigenous populations. the research suggests no such thing.
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v544/n7651/full/nature22065.html
As of December 2016, there were 1,612 filled positions, among which 30
per cent were women. That fits with the fact between 2000 and 2015, 31
per cent of applicants for the jobs were from women.
so, there's no actual issue, then. this is just political interference.
and, in fact, i believe it is potentially an abuse of power.
s. 15 has a clause for affirmative action; it would be farcical to use it in context, even if the numbers weren't proportionally representative.
these kinds of things move in pendulum shifts. the day that you start demanding that scientists fit a gender or ethnic quota is the day the pendulum has swung too far, and needs to swing back. hopefully, the court sees the issue correctly, and is able to properly apply s. 15 to block this political interference and abuse of power. but, we need some brave lawyers to step up, first.
so, there's no actual issue, then. this is just political interference.
and, in fact, i believe it is potentially an abuse of power.
s. 15 has a clause for affirmative action; it would be farcical to use it in context, even if the numbers weren't proportionally representative.
these kinds of things move in pendulum shifts. the day that you start demanding that scientists fit a gender or ethnic quota is the day the pendulum has swung too far, and needs to swing back. hopefully, the court sees the issue correctly, and is able to properly apply s. 15 to block this political interference and abuse of power. but, we need some brave lawyers to step up, first.
ed was always usually right.
this is the right way to do this. but, the current government appears to be further right than mulroney's was, and this will be met with scorn, if it is read at all.
i've said for years that we would have been better off if the liberals had negotiated nafta - we would have still had a nafta, no doubt, but a lot of what's wrong with it would be mitigated, at least. that window has clearly passed, as the new liberals are exactly what the party once fought to protect the country from.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/lets-make-human-rights-central-to-a-new-nafta/article34898657/
this is the right way to do this. but, the current government appears to be further right than mulroney's was, and this will be met with scorn, if it is read at all.
i've said for years that we would have been better off if the liberals had negotiated nafta - we would have still had a nafta, no doubt, but a lot of what's wrong with it would be mitigated, at least. that window has clearly passed, as the new liberals are exactly what the party once fought to protect the country from.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/lets-make-human-rights-central-to-a-new-nafta/article34898657/
the debate here misses the point: science is not a bureaucracy, and the goal of being a scientist is not in climbing up ladders and chains of hierarchy. almost nobody in any research field sees diversity for the sake of diversity as a desirable end point: this is a contrived ideal, being pushed down from the outside for purely political purposes.
these arguments about resumes and advancement are fine if you're talking about the private sector, but that is not what science is, and it is not a model that fits the purposes of scientific inquiry.
you'd think we shouldn't have to explain this - that it is self-evident, and there is no reaction besides introverted depression, and cynical statements about how embarrassing the whole thing is. but, this is the kind of policy that happens when you put corporations, via government, in charge of science: it becomes distorted to fit the goals of the private sector. given this government's full-throttled embrace of neo-liberalism, it is not surprising for them to try and enforce their ideological leanings in places that do not make sense. a deeper reflection on the implications of the corporatization of research is perhaps required.
but, we will not get this. we will merely suffer the consequences, and leave it to future generations to salvage what is left.
these arguments about resumes and advancement are fine if you're talking about the private sector, but that is not what science is, and it is not a model that fits the purposes of scientific inquiry.
you'd think we shouldn't have to explain this - that it is self-evident, and there is no reaction besides introverted depression, and cynical statements about how embarrassing the whole thing is. but, this is the kind of policy that happens when you put corporations, via government, in charge of science: it becomes distorted to fit the goals of the private sector. given this government's full-throttled embrace of neo-liberalism, it is not surprising for them to try and enforce their ideological leanings in places that do not make sense. a deeper reflection on the implications of the corporatization of research is perhaps required.
but, we will not get this. we will merely suffer the consequences, and leave it to future generations to salvage what is left.
i have a better reason to fire stephen colbert: he's not funny.
what i mean is that stephen colbert is not funny. stephen colbert, on the other hand, was hilarious.
but, i certainly hope that he's about to get strong statements of solidarity from speech activists on the alt-right.
right?
*crickets*
this is a legitimate speech issue. they are rare on this continent. but, the left doesn't do this. speech violations always come from the right.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/05/04/fcc-chair-on-colberts-trump-bash-will-apply-obscenity-law-if-needed.html
what i mean is that stephen colbert is not funny. stephen colbert, on the other hand, was hilarious.
but, i certainly hope that he's about to get strong statements of solidarity from speech activists on the alt-right.
right?
*crickets*
this is a legitimate speech issue. they are rare on this continent. but, the left doesn't do this. speech violations always come from the right.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/05/04/fcc-chair-on-colberts-trump-bash-will-apply-obscenity-law-if-needed.html
Thursday, May 4, 2017
churches would find themselves in the worst of predicaments, with
their rights and possibly even existences dependent on the capricious
mercies of the federal courts.
just a little soft porn from the national review, here. is it just me, or is it hot in here all of a sudden? wow.
from what i can see, this analysis is correct, but what trump thinks is true is probably more important than what actually is true. so, expect to have to sue them. but, i agree with the national review: there's an upside to this.
i don't think it's possible to separate money from politics using regulatory bodies, and think we instead need to rely on an engaged population to keep the politicians honest. so, the premise of churches openly funding candidates is less frightening to me than it is to others. basically, i would rather they do it in the open than under the table. so, i would rather see legislation that ensures funding transparency. i'd like to see all candidates forced to put all of their donors up on the internet, listed by donation amounts. people that don't want to disclose their politics should not donate - and i will argue that point quite vehemently. participating in politics is not a personal decision, it is a community process. in order to make an informed choice, voters must be able to determine who is paying who. this is not supplemental, not incidental, but at the core of the decision-making process.
you could reasonably argue that voting is the act of choosing preferred donors. if we continue to remain blind to who the donors are, we'll never actualize a meaningful representative democracy. it can never be anything but a charade.
so, i'm not very tied to the johnson amendment - or things like it. and, let's be real: the johnson amendment is small-c conservatism. i'm really just being consistent.
what i'd rather see come out of this is a kind of grand compromise: if religious institutions want a greater say in the political process, they should be allowed to do so under the following conditions:
1) they must publicly disclose the recipients of all of their funding. not to regulators, but to voters.
2) they need to start paying taxes on income (donations) and on property.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447338/trump-religious-liberty-executive-order-failure
just a little soft porn from the national review, here. is it just me, or is it hot in here all of a sudden? wow.
from what i can see, this analysis is correct, but what trump thinks is true is probably more important than what actually is true. so, expect to have to sue them. but, i agree with the national review: there's an upside to this.
i don't think it's possible to separate money from politics using regulatory bodies, and think we instead need to rely on an engaged population to keep the politicians honest. so, the premise of churches openly funding candidates is less frightening to me than it is to others. basically, i would rather they do it in the open than under the table. so, i would rather see legislation that ensures funding transparency. i'd like to see all candidates forced to put all of their donors up on the internet, listed by donation amounts. people that don't want to disclose their politics should not donate - and i will argue that point quite vehemently. participating in politics is not a personal decision, it is a community process. in order to make an informed choice, voters must be able to determine who is paying who. this is not supplemental, not incidental, but at the core of the decision-making process.
you could reasonably argue that voting is the act of choosing preferred donors. if we continue to remain blind to who the donors are, we'll never actualize a meaningful representative democracy. it can never be anything but a charade.
so, i'm not very tied to the johnson amendment - or things like it. and, let's be real: the johnson amendment is small-c conservatism. i'm really just being consistent.
what i'd rather see come out of this is a kind of grand compromise: if religious institutions want a greater say in the political process, they should be allowed to do so under the following conditions:
1) they must publicly disclose the recipients of all of their funding. not to regulators, but to voters.
2) they need to start paying taxes on income (donations) and on property.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447338/trump-religious-liberty-executive-order-failure
my guess is that paul ryan agreed to push something haphazard through under administration pressure, but for the pragmatic purpose of focusing on tax reform.
the house bill is a punt.
and it landed out of bounds.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/04/house-health-care-bill-senate-doa-238000
the house bill is a punt.
and it landed out of bounds.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/04/house-health-care-bill-senate-doa-238000
fwiw, the sterilization board ran in alberta from the 20s to the early 70s. canada adopted universal health care in the late 60s; we had an american-style free market system during the period the board was in operation. that canard is baseless.
there were similar boards in "progressive" states as well, mostly notably in california.
there were similar boards in "progressive" states as well, mostly notably in california.
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
the liberal party has begun using the term "snitch line" to describe a proposal by the conservative party to set up a telephone line to report human rights abuses, as though there is nothing wrong with slicing off a little girl's vulva, or it's perfectly acceptable to kill your gay relatives - and it's these snitches, these uncle toms, that need to be pushed back against.
this probably reflects polling done in communities that seek the "freedom" to continue to carry out gross human rights violations in impunity, and resent government interference into what they see as a sacred realm.
these arguments are preposterous. a liberal rights activist needs to be on the sides of the little girls and the queer folk, not on the side of the conservative institutions that want to oppress them. there is not a serious discussion to be had, here. these practices are wrong regardless of context, history or culture - and, if you disagree, you're sitting on the wrong side of the aisle. no self-respecting leftist could possibly exist in this space of cultural conservatism, or refer to rights activists as "snitches". it's beyond orwellian; it lacks the subtlety of orwell.
it's just farcical.
i've been over this before: it's a sad day in canada when the conservative party is the only political entity that is interested in human rights.
this probably reflects polling done in communities that seek the "freedom" to continue to carry out gross human rights violations in impunity, and resent government interference into what they see as a sacred realm.
these arguments are preposterous. a liberal rights activist needs to be on the sides of the little girls and the queer folk, not on the side of the conservative institutions that want to oppress them. there is not a serious discussion to be had, here. these practices are wrong regardless of context, history or culture - and, if you disagree, you're sitting on the wrong side of the aisle. no self-respecting leftist could possibly exist in this space of cultural conservatism, or refer to rights activists as "snitches". it's beyond orwellian; it lacks the subtlety of orwell.
it's just farcical.
i've been over this before: it's a sad day in canada when the conservative party is the only political entity that is interested in human rights.
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
andrew jackson was a highly consequential president. it's consequently difficult to know what things would have been like had he lived after he did, because things wouldn't have been the way they actually were.
but, if we ignore this important point, there's nothing particularly egregious about speculating about whether andrew jackson would have been able to prevent the conflict. lincoln himself was not actually opposed to slavery, which is why he didn't abolish it so much as he restricted it to convicts. that caveat in the 13th amendment led to the jim crow laws, marijuana prohibition and every other excuse to put black people in jail.
so, the fact that andrew jackson was an asshole doesn't really address the question. lincoln was an asshole, too.
how about this: get historians on either side of the question and have them debate the topic. that's what you do when somebody makes a claim of this sort...
do i agree? well, trump is probably parroting a right-wing conspiracy about the federal reserve, and it probably went over most people's heads. if that his argument, i don't agree with his argument. but, i don't understand the basis of the blanket condemnation, either.
but, if we ignore this important point, there's nothing particularly egregious about speculating about whether andrew jackson would have been able to prevent the conflict. lincoln himself was not actually opposed to slavery, which is why he didn't abolish it so much as he restricted it to convicts. that caveat in the 13th amendment led to the jim crow laws, marijuana prohibition and every other excuse to put black people in jail.
so, the fact that andrew jackson was an asshole doesn't really address the question. lincoln was an asshole, too.
how about this: get historians on either side of the question and have them debate the topic. that's what you do when somebody makes a claim of this sort...
do i agree? well, trump is probably parroting a right-wing conspiracy about the federal reserve, and it probably went over most people's heads. if that his argument, i don't agree with his argument. but, i don't understand the basis of the blanket condemnation, either.
this space was on the east side of downtown detroit; i usually find myself on the west side, and it's consequently always been a walk away from where i was, and never a rational end point. i decided a few months ago that it would only make sense to make the walk on a saturday, and i haven't been over on one since. so, i planned to end up here eventually, but never did.
...unless this is where i was on the night i woke up in that dude's car, and it may have been. but i was drunk. nothing more exotic than vodka.
in hindsight, i calculated that it was actually equidistant from my endpoint to the magic stick and i may have been better off there on that night had i done any dj research. but, i didn't know that the cops were eying it, either.
i've never had a real issue in detroit. but, it seems like the cops are focusing on the east side of the city. i don't know the precise details, but you have to understand that what the cops do is provide muscle for property. if this area of the city is being targeted, it is because people that own property in the area are demanding it.
i share the goal of a lively late night scene in detroit, and would throw out the following tactical advice: stay away from areas that are in proximity to any kind of property development. it's not a question of whether you're following the law or not; the cops don't care about the law. it's a question of whether you are pissing off property owners or not.
http://thedetroitilove.com/2017/05/01/cultural-imbalance/
...unless this is where i was on the night i woke up in that dude's car, and it may have been. but i was drunk. nothing more exotic than vodka.
in hindsight, i calculated that it was actually equidistant from my endpoint to the magic stick and i may have been better off there on that night had i done any dj research. but, i didn't know that the cops were eying it, either.
i've never had a real issue in detroit. but, it seems like the cops are focusing on the east side of the city. i don't know the precise details, but you have to understand that what the cops do is provide muscle for property. if this area of the city is being targeted, it is because people that own property in the area are demanding it.
i share the goal of a lively late night scene in detroit, and would throw out the following tactical advice: stay away from areas that are in proximity to any kind of property development. it's not a question of whether you're following the law or not; the cops don't care about the law. it's a question of whether you are pissing off property owners or not.
http://thedetroitilove.com/2017/05/01/cultural-imbalance/
Monday, May 1, 2017
so, i think i may have found my open all night, every night bar in downtown detroit after all, and i've been walking right by it for years. shit, huh? it's close enough to the tunnel that i can even get back to it if i miss the bus by two minutes.
well, i know what to do if i'm out all night on a friday or a saturday. but, i've had to leave early to catch the 1:10 bus on a random tuesday or wednesday. and, it's kind of a piss off, because it would be easier to deal with the situation on a weekday morning than a sunday morning. if i miss the 1:10 bus, i have to wait until 6:30. best case scenario, i could stay at a 2:00 am bar until 2:30, and get back to the tunnel at 3:30. that's three painful hours. more realistically is a four hour wait.
what i've needed is an all night dance club with cheap cover. finally finding this place - which i was sure didn't exist - is a potentially liberating turning point. it gives me back five nights a week...
but, there's a catch: it actually looks like a slightly scary place. it would have to be, though, by definition.
how scary could it really be at 4:00 am on a tuesday, though? gah.
here's a litmus test: can i find a news report of anybody getting shot here?
well, i know what to do if i'm out all night on a friday or a saturday. but, i've had to leave early to catch the 1:10 bus on a random tuesday or wednesday. and, it's kind of a piss off, because it would be easier to deal with the situation on a weekday morning than a sunday morning. if i miss the 1:10 bus, i have to wait until 6:30. best case scenario, i could stay at a 2:00 am bar until 2:30, and get back to the tunnel at 3:30. that's three painful hours. more realistically is a four hour wait.
what i've needed is an all night dance club with cheap cover. finally finding this place - which i was sure didn't exist - is a potentially liberating turning point. it gives me back five nights a week...
but, there's a catch: it actually looks like a slightly scary place. it would have to be, though, by definition.
how scary could it really be at 4:00 am on a tuesday, though? gah.
here's a litmus test: can i find a news report of anybody getting shot here?
Sunday, April 30, 2017
i refuse to concede the point that i'm being offensive in any way. people just aren't thinking clearly.
nobody thinks we should let in every single refugee everywhere, no matter what, right? there has to be some criteria. if you reject this statement, you're just not thinking clearly. if i propose the criteria of religion, why is that so much more horrible than some other criteria?
there has to be some criteria for rejection, right?
and, listen: i don't want to live in a religious society. i'll reiterate what i've stated repeatedly: if you're a right-wing christian and you want to bring in more religious people, we're pretty diametrically opposed to begin with. i can dream about deporting christians, right? it's the hippies that don't understand what they're doing that piss me off.
see, and here's the thing, with myself, anyways: religion is really the only criteria i'd propose. i don't care what colour people are or what language they speak. i think we need to be careful about bringing in refugees with low education levels, but i'd actually propose that as a proxy for religion: the points system may be a little strict for refugees, but we should be making more of an effort than we are to determine utility. i don't care if they're queer or not, but i'll point out that queer refugees should have a high priority level in religious societies, which is at the crux of my point. it's really only religion - and, any religion - that i think ought to be a stopping point.
and, you're free to disagree with me.
but, this isn't and shouldn't be seen as some taboo. a religion is not a phenotype. it's a choice that reflects a character. and, i don't have a problem telling people that make this choice that i'm deeply uncomfortable with their character, and strongly apprehensive about welcoming them into my community.
nobody thinks we should let in every single refugee everywhere, no matter what, right? there has to be some criteria. if you reject this statement, you're just not thinking clearly. if i propose the criteria of religion, why is that so much more horrible than some other criteria?
there has to be some criteria for rejection, right?
and, listen: i don't want to live in a religious society. i'll reiterate what i've stated repeatedly: if you're a right-wing christian and you want to bring in more religious people, we're pretty diametrically opposed to begin with. i can dream about deporting christians, right? it's the hippies that don't understand what they're doing that piss me off.
see, and here's the thing, with myself, anyways: religion is really the only criteria i'd propose. i don't care what colour people are or what language they speak. i think we need to be careful about bringing in refugees with low education levels, but i'd actually propose that as a proxy for religion: the points system may be a little strict for refugees, but we should be making more of an effort than we are to determine utility. i don't care if they're queer or not, but i'll point out that queer refugees should have a high priority level in religious societies, which is at the crux of my point. it's really only religion - and, any religion - that i think ought to be a stopping point.
and, you're free to disagree with me.
but, this isn't and shouldn't be seen as some taboo. a religion is not a phenotype. it's a choice that reflects a character. and, i don't have a problem telling people that make this choice that i'm deeply uncomfortable with their character, and strongly apprehensive about welcoming them into my community.
in the end, he decided to fight a terminal cancer that essentially nobody beats. he had a giant tumor in his head: no fucking chance to beat it at all.
the doctors made it clear as day.
so, the realist that i am, i suggested that he spend his remaining months doing the things he always wanted. he always wanted to go on a deep sea fishing trip up north, for example.
i was excommunicated, for the reason that i accepted the diagnosis. he was going to beat it, and didn't need the negativity.
three lobotomies and countless painful chemo & radiation treatments later, he died clinically retarded, after being bed-ridden for months.
he did not accept his fate until the last moments, and it's not clear if he understood it or not.
there's a lesson, there.
the doctors made it clear as day.
so, the realist that i am, i suggested that he spend his remaining months doing the things he always wanted. he always wanted to go on a deep sea fishing trip up north, for example.
i was excommunicated, for the reason that i accepted the diagnosis. he was going to beat it, and didn't need the negativity.
three lobotomies and countless painful chemo & radiation treatments later, he died clinically retarded, after being bed-ridden for months.
he did not accept his fate until the last moments, and it's not clear if he understood it or not.
there's a lesson, there.
i don't want to say that i didn't learn anything from him, because i did.
see, he was a very stupid man. and, very stupid men make large numbers of mistakes over the course of their lives.
he worked hard his whole life and gained nothing from it - there is a valuable lesson to be learned, there. namely, don't waste your life working.
he did much of it for his children, who didn't want what he gave them. another valuable lesson: don't have kids.
he married thrice, and was miserable in all three of the relationships. lesson: don't get married.
kids don't learn in a vacuum. in the long run, i was actually probably better off.
see, he was a very stupid man. and, very stupid men make large numbers of mistakes over the course of their lives.
he worked hard his whole life and gained nothing from it - there is a valuable lesson to be learned, there. namely, don't waste your life working.
he did much of it for his children, who didn't want what he gave them. another valuable lesson: don't have kids.
he married thrice, and was miserable in all three of the relationships. lesson: don't get married.
kids don't learn in a vacuum. in the long run, i was actually probably better off.
it may not be clear, so let me be explicit: i actually don't even have a driver's license.
i don't mean to say that it was suspended or whatever. what i mean to say is that i never learned how to drive.
there was a complex of factors underlying this. a part of it was that my dad was really insistent on it, and i was at the age where i was pushing back against parental control. my dad was neither an educated person nor an intelligent one. he didn't understand why i was spending so much time doing homework, instead of trying to get a driver's license and go after girls. so, a big part of it was a fuck you to his macho attitude and the broader society that he spoke for and represented.
i'll have you know that i never learned how to ice skate, either - which in canada is unusual. it's even more unusual, considering that my father was drafted into the ontario hockey league, which is one of the top junior leagues in the country.
but, a bigger part of it was that i was a strong climate activist as a teenager and felt a strong moral imperative to avoid fossil fuels as much as possible. i never bothered to learn how to drive because i never had any intent of driving.
today, i'm 36 years old, and i've never driven a car, despite ample opportunity to do so.
i've told myself in the past that i'd revisit this if there were ever serious opportunities for electric vehicles, but i've actually changed my mind since then. the environmental impact of the automobile industry is not merely limited to carbon emissions. i think that it would be very hard to find me a vehicle that i would feel comfortable enough using for me to finally learn how to operate it.
i don't mean to say that it was suspended or whatever. what i mean to say is that i never learned how to drive.
there was a complex of factors underlying this. a part of it was that my dad was really insistent on it, and i was at the age where i was pushing back against parental control. my dad was neither an educated person nor an intelligent one. he didn't understand why i was spending so much time doing homework, instead of trying to get a driver's license and go after girls. so, a big part of it was a fuck you to his macho attitude and the broader society that he spoke for and represented.
i'll have you know that i never learned how to ice skate, either - which in canada is unusual. it's even more unusual, considering that my father was drafted into the ontario hockey league, which is one of the top junior leagues in the country.
but, a bigger part of it was that i was a strong climate activist as a teenager and felt a strong moral imperative to avoid fossil fuels as much as possible. i never bothered to learn how to drive because i never had any intent of driving.
today, i'm 36 years old, and i've never driven a car, despite ample opportunity to do so.
i've told myself in the past that i'd revisit this if there were ever serious opportunities for electric vehicles, but i've actually changed my mind since then. the environmental impact of the automobile industry is not merely limited to carbon emissions. i think that it would be very hard to find me a vehicle that i would feel comfortable enough using for me to finally learn how to operate it.
the most important part of reciprocal altruism is not the altruism part, but the reciprocal part. what that means is that you should only be altruistic with those that are willing and able to reciprocate. being altruistic with those that will not or cannot reciprocate is the definition of stupidity - it is just a net loss of resources that will in the end harm the individual's ability to reproduce.
mexico has demonstrated time and again that it will not reciprocate. it will not allow it's workers to organize. it will not address it's issues of corruption. it takes, but it does not give back.
attempts at altruism should consequently be withdrawn, as there is no reciprocity in it. rather, outreaches towards co-operation should be exceedingly shrewd, with the attempt to coerce a shift towards a more altruistic mindset from the mexicans.
this is, after all, the root of the problem - the mexicans will not reform their institutions so that they are comparable to the ones in the united states and canada. this was the point of bringing the mexicans in - it was to create a pool of cheap labour to evade laws in canada and the united states. so, it's not like the mexicans are solely at fault, here - mexico is what it is because of american capital. but, if we are to behave in our self-interest, what that means is pushing back against this and tying our co-operation to mexican reform.
mexico has demonstrated time and again that it will not reciprocate. it will not allow it's workers to organize. it will not address it's issues of corruption. it takes, but it does not give back.
attempts at altruism should consequently be withdrawn, as there is no reciprocity in it. rather, outreaches towards co-operation should be exceedingly shrewd, with the attempt to coerce a shift towards a more altruistic mindset from the mexicans.
this is, after all, the root of the problem - the mexicans will not reform their institutions so that they are comparable to the ones in the united states and canada. this was the point of bringing the mexicans in - it was to create a pool of cheap labour to evade laws in canada and the united states. so, it's not like the mexicans are solely at fault, here - mexico is what it is because of american capital. but, if we are to behave in our self-interest, what that means is pushing back against this and tying our co-operation to mexican reform.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)