Sunday, August 20, 2017
so, anarchists on the ground have long suspected that the 'black bloc' protesters are what you call agents provocateur.
this isn't exactly a conspiracy theory. it seems like it is in each instance, but it's more of a question of trying to identify a known phenomenon. this is something that was invented by bismarck and has been utilized by police forces in north america for a very long time. the black bloc in the quebec city ftaa protests was actually 'doxxed', although you wouldn't have used that term at the time - but it is a factual statement to state that there were black bloc agents working for the state at those protests.
so, we know that there are going to be agents at protests, the hard part is identifying them. but, it's not actually hard to identify them, if you've been to a few protests - especially if you're the meek tranny that they want to move out of the way. when a cop grabs you by the arm, you know it.
it's tempting to say something about how this is the stupidity i warned you against. but, this is clearly the work of a provocateur. and, the more important thing to draw attention to is the threat that the government may use the situation to roll back even more civil liberties, because that is probably the reason that this happened in the first place.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3683586/counter-protesters-clash-with-police-in-quebec-city/?utm_source=GlobalToronto&utm_medium=Facebook
this isn't exactly a conspiracy theory. it seems like it is in each instance, but it's more of a question of trying to identify a known phenomenon. this is something that was invented by bismarck and has been utilized by police forces in north america for a very long time. the black bloc in the quebec city ftaa protests was actually 'doxxed', although you wouldn't have used that term at the time - but it is a factual statement to state that there were black bloc agents working for the state at those protests.
so, we know that there are going to be agents at protests, the hard part is identifying them. but, it's not actually hard to identify them, if you've been to a few protests - especially if you're the meek tranny that they want to move out of the way. when a cop grabs you by the arm, you know it.
it's tempting to say something about how this is the stupidity i warned you against. but, this is clearly the work of a provocateur. and, the more important thing to draw attention to is the threat that the government may use the situation to roll back even more civil liberties, because that is probably the reason that this happened in the first place.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3683586/counter-protesters-clash-with-police-in-quebec-city/?utm_source=GlobalToronto&utm_medium=Facebook
fwiw, i think that the stories of bannon's influence were greatly exaggerated: trump only ever saw him as a pragmatic and cynical means to win and hold power, and now that this is crumbling, he's served his purpose and is out the door.
the idea that bannon had any real influence is not upheld by any evidence; it seems to me like it was less about bannon controlling trump, and more about the banking wing of the republican party using bannon as a useful idiot.
"you'll be the first to go..."
the idea that bannon had any real influence is not upheld by any evidence; it seems to me like it was less about bannon controlling trump, and more about the banking wing of the republican party using bannon as a useful idiot.
"you'll be the first to go..."
i actually remember the first day i walked into classes pretty well. my first class was calculus 102, which was a full year credit long course for honours math students. i was walking into a math/physics double major. there were a couple of pure math students, but it was just the general elite math course, meaning there were other double majors: math/economics, math/chemistry, math/comp. sci. i think there was even a math/psych student. there were no engineers, except the ones at the butt of the jokes.
it was a small first year class by university standards - maybe 40 students. the small class size was a consequence of the course being set aside specifically for honours math students, that is students that were expected to carry forward in honours math courses. i ended up switching, but a lot of these students had obscure degree requirements and would have ended up graduating alone in their classes.
it was in a room that wasn't any larger than a high school classroom.
i was expecting a room full of absolute nerds. what that meant, to me, was an abstraction of the berkeley stereotype; not pocket protectors, but pink floyd shirts. more broadly, i was expecting to meet a bunch of kids that didn't care about social expectations and didn't adhere to norms and had spent most of their lives as outcasts as a consequence of it.
i wore a pair of disshelved jeans and a loose-fitting plain white t-shirt with a faint mustard stain on it. i didn't bother showering or shaving.
i was kind of mortified when i walked in and instead found a bunch of extremely rich kids wearing exceedingly expensive clothes and talking about network television.
if that day had turned out differently, if i had met the nerds i was hoping for, i might have engaged. but, the fact is that i should have turned around right then and there - because i knew it, in my gut.
it was a small first year class by university standards - maybe 40 students. the small class size was a consequence of the course being set aside specifically for honours math students, that is students that were expected to carry forward in honours math courses. i ended up switching, but a lot of these students had obscure degree requirements and would have ended up graduating alone in their classes.
it was in a room that wasn't any larger than a high school classroom.
i was expecting a room full of absolute nerds. what that meant, to me, was an abstraction of the berkeley stereotype; not pocket protectors, but pink floyd shirts. more broadly, i was expecting to meet a bunch of kids that didn't care about social expectations and didn't adhere to norms and had spent most of their lives as outcasts as a consequence of it.
i wore a pair of disshelved jeans and a loose-fitting plain white t-shirt with a faint mustard stain on it. i didn't bother showering or shaving.
i was kind of mortified when i walked in and instead found a bunch of extremely rich kids wearing exceedingly expensive clothes and talking about network television.
if that day had turned out differently, if i had met the nerds i was hoping for, i might have engaged. but, the fact is that i should have turned around right then and there - because i knew it, in my gut.
i've said this before - if i could go back in time, i wouldn't study an academic subject, at all. rather, i'd take the money and invest it and live off the dividends.
my school years were really spent mostly focused on music production. second year was particularly bad; i rarely went to class, and didn't bother studying until the day before the exam. i say i didn't get along with anybody in the class, but i didn't really try very hard - i just didn't have any interest. i'd say i spent maybe 5 hours a week on my school work through second year, and 100 hours a week working on music. it was abundantly clear where my interests were, but i had to make counter-intuitive choices to maximize my ability to explore those interests - i didn't have the freedom to just sit and create, i had to either go to school or get a job. getting a job would have been far more time consuming than going to school, so i "went to school" out of necessity (but didn't actually go to school). i didn't even want to be there at all. there was actually one surreal period where i spent more time helping my dad with his homework (he was taking a business management course through correspondence) than i did doing my own.
any decisions i made about labour were always made to maximize the amount of time i could spend recording. so, the actual reason i went to university was that it meant i didn't have to go to work (and, i didn't have to go to work because i refused to go to school if i had to go to work, anyways). you could maybe feel badly for my father about the whole thing, as he was just constantly trying to coerce what he (mis)understood as reason out of me, and i just kept coming up with these responses that clearly broke his heart. but, i wasn't going to go be an engineer to make my dad proud, or something. i'd rather fucking kill myself.
i didn't really have a plan for the future. i mean, i guess i hoped the music would be successful; i think i knew it never would be. i didn't even want to be a superstar, i just wanted to be able to survive by doing what i actually cared about. but, my long term plans were always based on the assumption that it would eventually work out, and i'd be able to find ways to survive in the mean time.
i never had any intention of using my education to get a job; it was just a way to avoid going to work and maximize my time spent on art. so, the amount of time that i spent doing school work was in truth always quite minimal - and, my emotional and intellectual investment into it was in truth always quite scarce.
if you're going to meet me at a bar and talk about things i've put on the internet, i'd rather we talk about the music. it's the music that i've put my actual effort into. it's the music that i've tried to publish. it's the music that i actually care about. it's the music that i want you to interpret me through.
i have not published any math or science and do not expect that i ever will. i'm not upset about this. but, there is still a lot of discography to work through.
my school years were really spent mostly focused on music production. second year was particularly bad; i rarely went to class, and didn't bother studying until the day before the exam. i say i didn't get along with anybody in the class, but i didn't really try very hard - i just didn't have any interest. i'd say i spent maybe 5 hours a week on my school work through second year, and 100 hours a week working on music. it was abundantly clear where my interests were, but i had to make counter-intuitive choices to maximize my ability to explore those interests - i didn't have the freedom to just sit and create, i had to either go to school or get a job. getting a job would have been far more time consuming than going to school, so i "went to school" out of necessity (but didn't actually go to school). i didn't even want to be there at all. there was actually one surreal period where i spent more time helping my dad with his homework (he was taking a business management course through correspondence) than i did doing my own.
any decisions i made about labour were always made to maximize the amount of time i could spend recording. so, the actual reason i went to university was that it meant i didn't have to go to work (and, i didn't have to go to work because i refused to go to school if i had to go to work, anyways). you could maybe feel badly for my father about the whole thing, as he was just constantly trying to coerce what he (mis)understood as reason out of me, and i just kept coming up with these responses that clearly broke his heart. but, i wasn't going to go be an engineer to make my dad proud, or something. i'd rather fucking kill myself.
i didn't really have a plan for the future. i mean, i guess i hoped the music would be successful; i think i knew it never would be. i didn't even want to be a superstar, i just wanted to be able to survive by doing what i actually cared about. but, my long term plans were always based on the assumption that it would eventually work out, and i'd be able to find ways to survive in the mean time.
i never had any intention of using my education to get a job; it was just a way to avoid going to work and maximize my time spent on art. so, the amount of time that i spent doing school work was in truth always quite minimal - and, my emotional and intellectual investment into it was in truth always quite scarce.
if you're going to meet me at a bar and talk about things i've put on the internet, i'd rather we talk about the music. it's the music that i've put my actual effort into. it's the music that i've tried to publish. it's the music that i actually care about. it's the music that i want you to interpret me through.
i have not published any math or science and do not expect that i ever will. i'm not upset about this. but, there is still a lot of discography to work through.
this paradox is particularly useful in demonstrating my argument that physics is essentially impossible to do until we understand space.
put simply, we need the following work flow:
1. understand the space we exist in (space in a kantian or descartian sense, not outer space).
2. start math over from scratch, with a proper understanding of space (in fact, we can find most of the work already done).
3. reconstruct the physics using the math that now exists, which properly understands space.
what we have right now is something more like:
1. do physics that needs complicated math to understand space.
2. ask the mathematicians for it.
3. rely on their expertise that it's "right".
meanwhile, the mathematicians are being perfectly open about the fact that the math they're doing makes no attempt to verify whether it's valid in the universe we inhabit or not. nor do the mathematicians care if the math they're doing is true in this universe or not, either. the circle completes: that's a physics problem.
there was this argument advanced by the likes of kant that math is the perfect representation of perfect knowledge, and philosophers actually ran pretty far with it, but, while kant was writing, gauss (a very competent and very famous mathematician) was actually in the process of disproving exactly what kant thought was perfect knowledge. oops. regardless, this kantian delusion has really set hold in the minds of physicists, for some reason. you'd think physicists would listen to gauss instead of kant! not so, though.
(of course, physicists listen to gauss instead of kant every time they do relativity. but, as they're doing relativity, they repeat the kantian lie that mathematics is some kind of language of nature. the problem is that nobody makes physicists study their own history, or take a credit worth of philosophy classes.)
the math itself is a model. that's what mathematicians will tell you: math is not a perfect description of space, and nature doesn't adhere to it as a script, but is merely a model to better understand it. but, it's a non-empirical model. and, we know from experience that non-empirical models always fail.
maybe you've heard of this, maybe you haven't. if the system of mathematics allows for this, that system is obviously not modeling our universe very well. we should consequently expect that any physics that relies on a flawed system of mathematics will also be flawed; that a system of physics based on a mathematical model that is full of contradictions and paradoxes will also be full of contradictions and paradoxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox
put simply, we need the following work flow:
1. understand the space we exist in (space in a kantian or descartian sense, not outer space).
2. start math over from scratch, with a proper understanding of space (in fact, we can find most of the work already done).
3. reconstruct the physics using the math that now exists, which properly understands space.
what we have right now is something more like:
1. do physics that needs complicated math to understand space.
2. ask the mathematicians for it.
3. rely on their expertise that it's "right".
meanwhile, the mathematicians are being perfectly open about the fact that the math they're doing makes no attempt to verify whether it's valid in the universe we inhabit or not. nor do the mathematicians care if the math they're doing is true in this universe or not, either. the circle completes: that's a physics problem.
there was this argument advanced by the likes of kant that math is the perfect representation of perfect knowledge, and philosophers actually ran pretty far with it, but, while kant was writing, gauss (a very competent and very famous mathematician) was actually in the process of disproving exactly what kant thought was perfect knowledge. oops. regardless, this kantian delusion has really set hold in the minds of physicists, for some reason. you'd think physicists would listen to gauss instead of kant! not so, though.
(of course, physicists listen to gauss instead of kant every time they do relativity. but, as they're doing relativity, they repeat the kantian lie that mathematics is some kind of language of nature. the problem is that nobody makes physicists study their own history, or take a credit worth of philosophy classes.)
the math itself is a model. that's what mathematicians will tell you: math is not a perfect description of space, and nature doesn't adhere to it as a script, but is merely a model to better understand it. but, it's a non-empirical model. and, we know from experience that non-empirical models always fail.
maybe you've heard of this, maybe you haven't. if the system of mathematics allows for this, that system is obviously not modeling our universe very well. we should consequently expect that any physics that relies on a flawed system of mathematics will also be flawed; that a system of physics based on a mathematical model that is full of contradictions and paradoxes will also be full of contradictions and paradoxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox
this might be a better workaround to youtube dropping flash, as it still seems to work for embeds.
let's see...
that one doesn't embed the playlist. let me try this:
it doesn't like the idea of embedding the watch later. this is just proof of concept:
the embed was wrong, this works:
maybe i should try again for the watch later..no...
let's see...
that one doesn't embed the playlist. let me try this:
it doesn't like the idea of embedding the watch later. this is just proof of concept:
the embed was wrong, this works:
maybe i should try again for the watch later..no...
what exactly are we importing via st. john's and why aren't we producing it in a way that requires less transportation?
the companies surely realize that this is just going to make them less competitive. but, we ought to be trying to reduce trans-oceanic imports, anyways. if it makes local goods more competitive, that's a good thing.
but, it's a really dark reflection on this company that they expect some kind of tax revolt over measures designed to save the lives of endangered whales. that's a very disturbing view of human priorities.
better yet: why don't we boycott oceanex?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/oceanex-right-whales-surcharge-1.4252721
the companies surely realize that this is just going to make them less competitive. but, we ought to be trying to reduce trans-oceanic imports, anyways. if it makes local goods more competitive, that's a good thing.
but, it's a really dark reflection on this company that they expect some kind of tax revolt over measures designed to save the lives of endangered whales. that's a very disturbing view of human priorities.
better yet: why don't we boycott oceanex?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/oceanex-right-whales-surcharge-1.4252721
Saturday, August 19, 2017
to be clear: modern physics has obvious engineering applications, and that's fine. but, i really don't care about that.
what i care about is an epistemology - a way to understand the universe. as mentioned, i realized quickly that i'm not a scientist: i don't think like one. the few friends i had were always musicians; i never got along well with the kids in these science classes i took through high school, but i guess i thought things would be different when i got to university (they weren't). it's not like i found a group of like-minded people in the math department, either, but there were at least a couple of hopeless social outcasts in the math program at carleton that i could smoke and make misanthropic wisecracks with.
the reality is that i would have probably found more like-minded people in the philosophy department if i had bothered to go over and look, because i was approaching science as a philosopher rather than as a scientist - i wanted all the knowledge to myself, with little interest in actually doing anything with it.
i mean, people asked me what i was going to do with a math degree, and it always struck me as a stupid question: as though the purpose of going to school is to prepare yourself for your place as a cog in the system, or to better the world or something. it didn't even cross my mind. i didn't have an answer, because i'd never really thought about it. i just wanted a search for knowledge.
at the end of the process, i resigned myself to existing in too primitive of a space in human evolution to get the kind of answers i want. so, just hand me my guitar, instead.
but, i'm not going to deny the engineering applications of modern physics. it works well enough from that perspective, even if i think it's up against a really hard block in the near future.
but, as a way to actually understand the universe, modern physics really fails terribly in producing satisfying conclusions - and that's all i ever cared about.
what i care about is an epistemology - a way to understand the universe. as mentioned, i realized quickly that i'm not a scientist: i don't think like one. the few friends i had were always musicians; i never got along well with the kids in these science classes i took through high school, but i guess i thought things would be different when i got to university (they weren't). it's not like i found a group of like-minded people in the math department, either, but there were at least a couple of hopeless social outcasts in the math program at carleton that i could smoke and make misanthropic wisecracks with.
the reality is that i would have probably found more like-minded people in the philosophy department if i had bothered to go over and look, because i was approaching science as a philosopher rather than as a scientist - i wanted all the knowledge to myself, with little interest in actually doing anything with it.
i mean, people asked me what i was going to do with a math degree, and it always struck me as a stupid question: as though the purpose of going to school is to prepare yourself for your place as a cog in the system, or to better the world or something. it didn't even cross my mind. i didn't have an answer, because i'd never really thought about it. i just wanted a search for knowledge.
at the end of the process, i resigned myself to existing in too primitive of a space in human evolution to get the kind of answers i want. so, just hand me my guitar, instead.
but, i'm not going to deny the engineering applications of modern physics. it works well enough from that perspective, even if i think it's up against a really hard block in the near future.
but, as a way to actually understand the universe, modern physics really fails terribly in producing satisfying conclusions - and that's all i ever cared about.
but, let's say high school physics was all modern physics - let's say i went through a curriculum that didn't even mention classical physics. no apples falling on people's heads, just straight to relativity in a curved universe and god playing dice at the subatomic level. would i have enrolled in a physics program in the first place?
emphatically: no. i enrolled to study a newtonian universe.
i'd be a lot less cynical about physics if they had just told me the fucking truth in the first place. but, i would have probably studied biology, instead.
emphatically: no. i enrolled to study a newtonian universe.
i'd be a lot less cynical about physics if they had just told me the fucking truth in the first place. but, i would have probably studied biology, instead.
put simply: they lied to me three times, then they put something completely preposterous in front of me and asked me to believe it, and i simply didn't - instead, i walked away.
and, i've never regretted it.
but, i need to be explicit: i didn't believe it. well, how many times do you expect you can lie to me before i tell you that?
there is an underlying theory. give me a call when you work it out.
and, i've never regretted it.
but, i need to be explicit: i didn't believe it. well, how many times do you expect you can lie to me before i tell you that?
there is an underlying theory. give me a call when you work it out.
i don't know if they still teach kids classical physics or not, but i can tell you that i didn't want to let go of something i understood well for something that struck me as past the point of absurd and into the point of dystopic disinformation. i mean, i realized pretty quickly that i wasn't a scientist. i never had that quest for discovery that i guess a lot of kids had; i didn't have this zeal to fix the errors or solve the mysteries, i was just frustrated that i had to take the same course every year because it was wrong last year. rather than take the information as it was presented, fully cognizant that i'd eventually be told most of it is wrong, i found myself trying to get ahead of the program and figure out what they were going to tell me is actually wrong. the intent may have been to foster skepticism, but it instead left me unable to even take any of it seriously. i went for the assumptions nobody touches: photons obviously have mass, but you're assuming they don't, so then what?
a scientist would look at all of this as a challenge to work through. i wasn't remotely interested. what i wanted was to understand the truth, not to spend my time doing experiments and guessing what assumption was useful and what wasn't.
math offered me something that modern physics couldn't: it let me search for truth, rather than leave me guessing at approximations. but, i could have switched into math and taken physics courses on the side. i didn't. and, the reason i didn't was that i hated doing the labs; i hated using my hands, i hated doing the actual science. my electives were actually mostly math courses.
i've never fully shaken the idea that what they're teaching at the universities is a distraction, and that the government is carefully pulling kids out of classes to teach them the actual science. that's how little sense that quantum physics made to me: it struck me as a conspiracy against reason.
i don't want to live in a world defined by random probabilities. i want a theory of physics. and, i'm not interested in learning about the quantum theory, for that reason - whether it is true or not.
a scientist would look at all of this as a challenge to work through. i wasn't remotely interested. what i wanted was to understand the truth, not to spend my time doing experiments and guessing what assumption was useful and what wasn't.
math offered me something that modern physics couldn't: it let me search for truth, rather than leave me guessing at approximations. but, i could have switched into math and taken physics courses on the side. i didn't. and, the reason i didn't was that i hated doing the labs; i hated using my hands, i hated doing the actual science. my electives were actually mostly math courses.
i've never fully shaken the idea that what they're teaching at the universities is a distraction, and that the government is carefully pulling kids out of classes to teach them the actual science. that's how little sense that quantum physics made to me: it struck me as a conspiracy against reason.
i don't want to live in a world defined by random probabilities. i want a theory of physics. and, i'm not interested in learning about the quantum theory, for that reason - whether it is true or not.
i've never claimed to be a physicist, or to have any expertise in physics. in fact, i've stated repeatedly that i abandoned physics very early because i thought that the quantum theory was absolute bullshit. and, i still think that. i exist in a largely classical reality.
i have never taken any advanced courses in physics.
my degree is in mathematics.
i have never taken any advanced courses in physics.
my degree is in mathematics.
the legally correct way to have this discussion is to frame it around property rights, and extend concepts of speech that exist in real life into the digital world. it's not as difficult as you might think, except that there's a piece missing - we don't have any publicly owned spaces on the internet. in real life, it is the public square that protests take place in for the precise reason that nobody can clear them out - and we have constitutional rights that ensure nobody can clear them out. this just doesn't currently exist on the internet.
further, having the backbone of the internet run by private companies is a lot like having privately owned roads - it's not sustainable in the long run. the actual internet is of course run by the military; in the long run, it's inevitable that this will be maintained as a part of municipal, regional and national infrastructure. i've long argued for the nationalization of transmission lines and dns servers - and, yes, that means the cops can pull you over if you're drunk, but there should be constitutional protections that prevent them from stopping you from marching down the street. having all of the streets in private hands is a kind of technological feudalism. it may perhaps be when they abolish net neutrality and start charging tolls that we stand up and reclaim the lines.
WHOSE BROADBAND SPECTRUM?
the internet itself is then arranged into sites that exist on privately owned servers. the owners of those sites rent space on these privately owned servers, which is like a business renting space in a commercial complex. of course, some businesses own their own buildings, too. when you go to the forum on the site, it is like entering into a coffee shop or bar and chatting with the people in it.
so, who is going to throw the patron out? the owner of the shop/site - entirely at their discretion. that doesn't need to change, much.
and, who is going to evict the tenant? the owner of the property - in accordance with existing law. this law needs to be written, but my analogy should make it clear how it should be written.
the missing piece is that space for public expression, which is protected by constitutional rights. it's up to people to agitate for it and then keep it truly free....
...but you can't be arguing that you have the right to go on to a private server and say whatever you want, then accuse a private business of a speech violation. that's like walking into a bank, taking a shit on the counter and claiming it's protected - then arguing that the bank is not upholding the constitution. it's completely incoherent.
what should happen here, then? well, the government should be policing the roads. they would need to declare the site an unlawful assembly. and, the site would have access to due process.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/charlottesville-neo-nazis-white-supremacists-tech-hate-1.4253406
further, having the backbone of the internet run by private companies is a lot like having privately owned roads - it's not sustainable in the long run. the actual internet is of course run by the military; in the long run, it's inevitable that this will be maintained as a part of municipal, regional and national infrastructure. i've long argued for the nationalization of transmission lines and dns servers - and, yes, that means the cops can pull you over if you're drunk, but there should be constitutional protections that prevent them from stopping you from marching down the street. having all of the streets in private hands is a kind of technological feudalism. it may perhaps be when they abolish net neutrality and start charging tolls that we stand up and reclaim the lines.
WHOSE BROADBAND SPECTRUM?
the internet itself is then arranged into sites that exist on privately owned servers. the owners of those sites rent space on these privately owned servers, which is like a business renting space in a commercial complex. of course, some businesses own their own buildings, too. when you go to the forum on the site, it is like entering into a coffee shop or bar and chatting with the people in it.
so, who is going to throw the patron out? the owner of the shop/site - entirely at their discretion. that doesn't need to change, much.
and, who is going to evict the tenant? the owner of the property - in accordance with existing law. this law needs to be written, but my analogy should make it clear how it should be written.
the missing piece is that space for public expression, which is protected by constitutional rights. it's up to people to agitate for it and then keep it truly free....
...but you can't be arguing that you have the right to go on to a private server and say whatever you want, then accuse a private business of a speech violation. that's like walking into a bank, taking a shit on the counter and claiming it's protected - then arguing that the bank is not upholding the constitution. it's completely incoherent.
what should happen here, then? well, the government should be policing the roads. they would need to declare the site an unlawful assembly. and, the site would have access to due process.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/charlottesville-neo-nazis-white-supremacists-tech-hate-1.4253406
i'm not one to hold on to monuments of the past for the sake of it; if a historic church is in the way of a new development, and the new development is a useful allocation of space, i'm generally going to be in favour of tearing the church down. in that sense, i'll be the first to argue for tearing down monuments to failed ideologies - whether those monuments be to the confederacy or to the church or to any other institution that has held back progress.
but, i realize the importance of maintaining history where it's warranted, as well; i'm not a member of the taliban.
there's lots of reasons to be careful about this. the statues and monuments are, after all, public art. sometimes they're representative of a certain style that existed in a certain period, and have value in their maintenance for studies of art history. others have inscriptions that should be maintained for the historical record. generally speaking, statues of this sort experience the end of their lives, which can exist in debilitating lapses into dementia, in the retirement homes of art museums - and often to protect them from looters or vandals. it seems like it's time to put some of these statues away.
but, again, it's important to listen to what people are saying, and be leery of voices that want to destroy history, outright - and make sure they do not come into positions of power.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/protesters-arrest-confederate-statue-durham_us_5995b749e4b0acc593e5ef8b
but, i realize the importance of maintaining history where it's warranted, as well; i'm not a member of the taliban.
there's lots of reasons to be careful about this. the statues and monuments are, after all, public art. sometimes they're representative of a certain style that existed in a certain period, and have value in their maintenance for studies of art history. others have inscriptions that should be maintained for the historical record. generally speaking, statues of this sort experience the end of their lives, which can exist in debilitating lapses into dementia, in the retirement homes of art museums - and often to protect them from looters or vandals. it seems like it's time to put some of these statues away.
but, again, it's important to listen to what people are saying, and be leery of voices that want to destroy history, outright - and make sure they do not come into positions of power.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/protesters-arrest-confederate-statue-durham_us_5995b749e4b0acc593e5ef8b
Friday, August 18, 2017
you must be aware of the history, and avoid becoming influenced by
bolsheviks, whom will stab you in the back at the first chance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Days
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Days
actually, i think the focus ought to be on harnessing the revolutionary potential floating around, not on getting bogged down in a war between nazis and authoritarian marxists; and, as the nazis identify themselves, the stalinists do, too.
again: smashing nazis is necessary. but, preventing co-option by the authoritarian left is also essential. it wasn't franco that defeated the anarchists in spain, or in ukraine, either - it was stalin. he was always the greater threat to us, as he realized we were always the greater threat to him. if you trust them, they will destroy you.
but, beyond that, there's a certain application of divide and conquer at work. in the midst of all of this, where is the class analysis? where is the revolt against capital? where is the revolution?
if people want to go, let's go. but, let's do something productive while we're at it, please - let's make sure we're actually organizing. otherwise, this is ultimately just a waste of time.
...and, they will merely laugh as they continue their consolidation of power, watching us bicker from their towers, above.
again: smashing nazis is necessary. but, preventing co-option by the authoritarian left is also essential. it wasn't franco that defeated the anarchists in spain, or in ukraine, either - it was stalin. he was always the greater threat to us, as he realized we were always the greater threat to him. if you trust them, they will destroy you.
but, beyond that, there's a certain application of divide and conquer at work. in the midst of all of this, where is the class analysis? where is the revolt against capital? where is the revolution?
if people want to go, let's go. but, let's do something productive while we're at it, please - let's make sure we're actually organizing. otherwise, this is ultimately just a waste of time.
...and, they will merely laugh as they continue their consolidation of power, watching us bicker from their towers, above.
Thursday, August 17, 2017
so, what this article is telling me is that these third way people don't understand economics.
the kneejerk response is that the way to increase opportunity is to offer free tuition, and i support that, but not in that context. free tuition on it's own is likely to restrict opportunity by creating increased competition for scarce positions and even more downward pressures on wages. we are already over-educated for the job market that exists; we have people with master's degrees waiting tables, and people trying to balance defending their thesis with their coffee shop job - and potentially even realizing that there are more long term opportunities at the coffee shop.
debt is a burden, sure. but, the more pressing requirement at the moment is job creation.
and, how do we create jobs? c'mon kids: how do we create jobs?
(*crickets*)
by stimulating an increase in aggregate demand!
(oh. yeah. of course. increasing demand. how could i forget?)
the tuition thing is actually supply-side economics. it's not sanders' argument, mind you - he wants to cut the debt, which works out to a tax cut for the lower middle class, which is the kind of tax cuts you want, in order to stimulate the economy. it's better thought through than his opponents would have you believe, because i've never seen a costing with a proper multiplier effect worked in. the truth is that it will actually pay for itself in tax revenue, as all of that money lost to tuition instead gets spent on stuff.
which brings us back to the initial question: what do you do to increase opportunity? you stimulate an increase in aggregate demand, which is the only way that we know how to create jobs. and, how do you do that? you give more money to people that have less, so they can spend it.
if these guys had any idea at all what they're talking about, they would realize that.
but, maybe they just want to open up more spaces in astronaut school.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/business/economy/democratic-party-economy-inequality.html
the kneejerk response is that the way to increase opportunity is to offer free tuition, and i support that, but not in that context. free tuition on it's own is likely to restrict opportunity by creating increased competition for scarce positions and even more downward pressures on wages. we are already over-educated for the job market that exists; we have people with master's degrees waiting tables, and people trying to balance defending their thesis with their coffee shop job - and potentially even realizing that there are more long term opportunities at the coffee shop.
debt is a burden, sure. but, the more pressing requirement at the moment is job creation.
and, how do we create jobs? c'mon kids: how do we create jobs?
(*crickets*)
by stimulating an increase in aggregate demand!
(oh. yeah. of course. increasing demand. how could i forget?)
the tuition thing is actually supply-side economics. it's not sanders' argument, mind you - he wants to cut the debt, which works out to a tax cut for the lower middle class, which is the kind of tax cuts you want, in order to stimulate the economy. it's better thought through than his opponents would have you believe, because i've never seen a costing with a proper multiplier effect worked in. the truth is that it will actually pay for itself in tax revenue, as all of that money lost to tuition instead gets spent on stuff.
which brings us back to the initial question: what do you do to increase opportunity? you stimulate an increase in aggregate demand, which is the only way that we know how to create jobs. and, how do you do that? you give more money to people that have less, so they can spend it.
if these guys had any idea at all what they're talking about, they would realize that.
but, maybe they just want to open up more spaces in astronaut school.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/business/economy/democratic-party-economy-inequality.html
you know, a couple of years ago, these same car companies were at the treasury, hat in hand, begging for a bail out. the problem with shifting production outside of nafta is that there's not going to be anybody willing to save you the next time you go bankrupt - and you will, because that's the nature of poorly regulated capitalism.
obama made a huge error in spinning these companies off. he should have just nationalized them. and, maybe trump might want to think about that - and remind them of it - if they get too snotty.
maybe if we the people took control of the auto sector it would fucking convert to fucking electricity already.
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/us-nafta-demands-on-auto-rules-of-origin-could-backfire-experts-say/article36020951/
obama made a huge error in spinning these companies off. he should have just nationalized them. and, maybe trump might want to think about that - and remind them of it - if they get too snotty.
maybe if we the people took control of the auto sector it would fucking convert to fucking electricity already.
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/us-nafta-demands-on-auto-rules-of-origin-could-backfire-experts-say/article36020951/
the reason i moved to pc financial was to avoid bank fees. as it is, pc financial gives me free debit card access and free checks. i don't care about the other things, but if they start charging me a monthly fee then i'm moving to a credit union.
i don't currently have teller access, and it can be a little annoying sometimes. if i can get teller access, it's a benefit - but it's not worth paying a monthly fee for.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cibc-president-s-choice-simplii-financial-1.4250110
i don't currently have teller access, and it can be a little annoying sometimes. if i can get teller access, it's a benefit - but it's not worth paying a monthly fee for.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cibc-president-s-choice-simplii-financial-1.4250110
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
democracy is not something that happens when you elect somebody in a
ballot box, it's something that happens when members of the community
get together and govern themselves. the model that antifa uses is
actually an example of actual democracy, rather than some kind of
antithesis to it. but, the burden of proof then falls on the antifascist
body to ensure that what it is struggling against is real.
i've said this repeatedly: if i felt that antifa were actually struggling against actual nazis, i would be on their side in a second. the people marching in charlottesville were clearly actual nazis. as far as i can tell, that is the first time in recent months that that has actually been true.
you can't argue with nazis any more than you can argue with a lion. i understand his historical arguments, but i suspect that what he is saying is too literate for most americans to follow. this is something more tangible for people that don't know the history: imagine you're face to face with a mountain lion. do you think you're likely to talk your way out of this, or do you think you'd better defend yourself? now, let's all recognize that nazis have the mindset of remorseless predators. you are not an opponent, you are prey.
it's just absolutely imperative that you identify nazis correctly, and that you do not misidentify conservatives or liberals as nazis and then treat them the way you would treat nazis, which is what was happening at some of the other protests. and, the way you do that is you involve yourself in the collectives; the answer to the problems inherent to democracy are, in truth, almost always more democracy, as they are truly problems of democracy being poorly applied.
these are perspectives coming from an anarcho-communist, who is both a socialist and a civil libertarian. there's no conflict between these viewpoints; in truth, they make the most sense in conjunction with each other: true libertarianism is communism. you should be wary of people that want to set up a dichotomy, as what they are telling you is that they do not truly believe in civil rights and are using the situation for personal gain, and perhaps dangerously so.
he is right that there is no equivalency, but his arguments really leave a lot to be desired.
i also want to point out that if the administration starts falsely blaming attacks on leftists then it is not likely to be the consequence of some inability to deal with reality, but a tactic of suppression. i'll need to break my own advice here and use a historical comparison: hitler dissolved the legislature by burning it down and blaming it on communists, then claimed he needed special powers to fight them off. this is another reason why it is so important that antifascists pick their battles wisely as, equivalency or not, the reality is that the majority of the country abides by a pacifist christian value system that sees all violence as equivalent and will be easily manipulated into handing over stronger police powers should it be shown enough pictures of "left-wing extremists".
smashing nazis is necessary. but, you have to make sure that what you're smashing is actually a nazi. it's critically important.
i've said this repeatedly: if i felt that antifa were actually struggling against actual nazis, i would be on their side in a second. the people marching in charlottesville were clearly actual nazis. as far as i can tell, that is the first time in recent months that that has actually been true.
you can't argue with nazis any more than you can argue with a lion. i understand his historical arguments, but i suspect that what he is saying is too literate for most americans to follow. this is something more tangible for people that don't know the history: imagine you're face to face with a mountain lion. do you think you're likely to talk your way out of this, or do you think you'd better defend yourself? now, let's all recognize that nazis have the mindset of remorseless predators. you are not an opponent, you are prey.
it's just absolutely imperative that you identify nazis correctly, and that you do not misidentify conservatives or liberals as nazis and then treat them the way you would treat nazis, which is what was happening at some of the other protests. and, the way you do that is you involve yourself in the collectives; the answer to the problems inherent to democracy are, in truth, almost always more democracy, as they are truly problems of democracy being poorly applied.
these are perspectives coming from an anarcho-communist, who is both a socialist and a civil libertarian. there's no conflict between these viewpoints; in truth, they make the most sense in conjunction with each other: true libertarianism is communism. you should be wary of people that want to set up a dichotomy, as what they are telling you is that they do not truly believe in civil rights and are using the situation for personal gain, and perhaps dangerously so.
he is right that there is no equivalency, but his arguments really leave a lot to be desired.
i also want to point out that if the administration starts falsely blaming attacks on leftists then it is not likely to be the consequence of some inability to deal with reality, but a tactic of suppression. i'll need to break my own advice here and use a historical comparison: hitler dissolved the legislature by burning it down and blaming it on communists, then claimed he needed special powers to fight them off. this is another reason why it is so important that antifascists pick their battles wisely as, equivalency or not, the reality is that the majority of the country abides by a pacifist christian value system that sees all violence as equivalent and will be easily manipulated into handing over stronger police powers should it be shown enough pictures of "left-wing extremists".
smashing nazis is necessary. but, you have to make sure that what you're smashing is actually a nazi. it's critically important.
i did an apology tour last night to the people that i puked all over. i think it went well, although there was an encounter afterwards at donovan's that i simply didn't understand at all. i reiterate: i didn't understand at all. maybe somebody can explain that to me at some later date. i dunno.
but, i'm learning that i have doppelganger in detroit. this person may frequent ann arbor, as well as the clubs in corktown and mexicantown in detroit.
i suppose it would be useful to meet this person. however, i can't react to things i didn't do. and, i'm sorry - it's kind of other people's responsibility to make sure they've got the right person.
but, i'm learning that i have doppelganger in detroit. this person may frequent ann arbor, as well as the clubs in corktown and mexicantown in detroit.
i suppose it would be useful to meet this person. however, i can't react to things i didn't do. and, i'm sorry - it's kind of other people's responsibility to make sure they've got the right person.
october 7, 1763.
it was actually an important date in the history of both the united states and canada: the royal proclamation, that declared that the king of england has sole ownership of all indigenous land in north america. therefore, colonists were forbidden by law from purchasing land directly from the native americans. instead, only the crown could buy the land from the natives, which would then partition it to the colonists using a feudal parcel system that we refer to today as 'fee simple' - all land in the colonies would be arranged into fiefdoms owned by the crown, for rent to colonists. this is an understood factor in the war of independence, as the colonists wanted what is called allodial title, in buying land from the natives, who up to that day were considered sovereign land holders under british law. this would give them real ownership, and avoid the ability of the king to inflict property taxes.
the royal proclamation essentially extinguished a right of indigenous land title under british law; at the stroke of a pen, the king declared himself the owner of the entire continent, despite the existence of sovereign tribes living on the land.
you would think that indigenous groups in canada would look at this day as the darkest in their history, as it was the end of their legal sovereignty under colonial law. but, they are instead taught that this was the day that the king recognized their rights under the law as british subjects. there were public celebrations in indigenous communities to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the proclamation.
i've been in absolutely surreal debates with indigenous people around this topic that have just left me baffled.
this is a small step. but, everybody should welcome it.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/ontario-first-nation-ottawa-sign-self-governing-education-agreement/article35996541/?reqid=8b5fdb28-f90e-4239-a0eb-e5dc62b02f71
it was actually an important date in the history of both the united states and canada: the royal proclamation, that declared that the king of england has sole ownership of all indigenous land in north america. therefore, colonists were forbidden by law from purchasing land directly from the native americans. instead, only the crown could buy the land from the natives, which would then partition it to the colonists using a feudal parcel system that we refer to today as 'fee simple' - all land in the colonies would be arranged into fiefdoms owned by the crown, for rent to colonists. this is an understood factor in the war of independence, as the colonists wanted what is called allodial title, in buying land from the natives, who up to that day were considered sovereign land holders under british law. this would give them real ownership, and avoid the ability of the king to inflict property taxes.
the royal proclamation essentially extinguished a right of indigenous land title under british law; at the stroke of a pen, the king declared himself the owner of the entire continent, despite the existence of sovereign tribes living on the land.
you would think that indigenous groups in canada would look at this day as the darkest in their history, as it was the end of their legal sovereignty under colonial law. but, they are instead taught that this was the day that the king recognized their rights under the law as british subjects. there were public celebrations in indigenous communities to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the proclamation.
i've been in absolutely surreal debates with indigenous people around this topic that have just left me baffled.
this is a small step. but, everybody should welcome it.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/ontario-first-nation-ottawa-sign-self-governing-education-agreement/article35996541/?reqid=8b5fdb28-f90e-4239-a0eb-e5dc62b02f71
treating your workers like serfs is not a "specific efficiency", and bringing in the ricardian machinery around it is simply disingenuous. but, you expect that from the fraser institute.
http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/unifor-hopes-to-put-mexico-in-check-with-once-in-a-generation-nafta-re-negotiation
http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/unifor-hopes-to-put-mexico-in-check-with-once-in-a-generation-nafta-re-negotiation
i've been over this with nafta polling before: nobody's ever opposed the idea of a trade agreement with the united states, what's always been contentious are certain aspects of it. you have to get really modular in your polling if you want to get a handle on what people are thinking about this. you want to see the trees here, not the forest; these vague questions just obscure the point.
i was too young to be actively engaged in the debate. but, i think that the liberals were both right to oppose it and right to sign it - and i think that most of the ways they criticized the deal have proven astute and poignant, and overwhelmingly correct.
remember: the liberal position was never against reciprocity (it was their idea...), but against certain components of the deal that were seen as surrendering sovereignty. what happened, of course, is that the ndp performed very well under broadbent and the party split the vote; polls in the 80s were not aligned with the conservative position, but split between the liberal position (necessarily trade, but not necessarily nafta) and the ndp position (no trade deal at all).
i certainly hope the party approaches renegotiating the deal with the same broad mindset it had in 1988, with an attempt to try and fix some of the problems they had to let get away at the time. again: their criticisms of the deal have proven astute, poignant and overwhelmingly correct. there's the part on chapter 11, for example: i'm not convinced that a turner or chretien government would have been able to overcome opposition in their own party to sign a deal with that in it. and, it has caused serious damage in canada. we would be far better off without that chapter. it probably wasn't worth cancelling the deal over, though. freeland included that in her list of demands, and you just wouldn't see that kind of language coming from a conservative government because they've never opposed it.
on the other hand, democrats and republicans say basically the same thing on trade; you could take statements by bush and obama and throw them in a hat and mix them up and legitimately not know who said what, except maybe through hints in sophistication of language. and, obama ran and won on the same buy america provisions that trump ran and won on, too.
granted: in the end, the liberals may end up sounding like the conservatives on trade. more precise polling would demonstrate that this will be a liability for them. but, if the older voices in the party win out, the canadian position on certain things may even be (perhaps pleasantly) unrecognizable to even well-informed canadians. as the american trade people have up to this point done essentially all of their trade negotiations with conservatives, they may not see this coming, or even be aware of these differences, and we may catch them off guard on certain points that the conservatives have never opposed, or bring issues to the table that the conservatives never brought to the table.
the liberals should know that people are going to be paying attention, and are going to want to see the liberals demonstrate that they are not just the same thing as conservatives, on trade. this is a substantive voting issue. and, the party has an opportunity to finally define itself properly, on it, by drawing attention to the differences, which is what it should be doing, at least domestically.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-nafta-talks-polls-1.4247820
i was too young to be actively engaged in the debate. but, i think that the liberals were both right to oppose it and right to sign it - and i think that most of the ways they criticized the deal have proven astute and poignant, and overwhelmingly correct.
remember: the liberal position was never against reciprocity (it was their idea...), but against certain components of the deal that were seen as surrendering sovereignty. what happened, of course, is that the ndp performed very well under broadbent and the party split the vote; polls in the 80s were not aligned with the conservative position, but split between the liberal position (necessarily trade, but not necessarily nafta) and the ndp position (no trade deal at all).
i certainly hope the party approaches renegotiating the deal with the same broad mindset it had in 1988, with an attempt to try and fix some of the problems they had to let get away at the time. again: their criticisms of the deal have proven astute, poignant and overwhelmingly correct. there's the part on chapter 11, for example: i'm not convinced that a turner or chretien government would have been able to overcome opposition in their own party to sign a deal with that in it. and, it has caused serious damage in canada. we would be far better off without that chapter. it probably wasn't worth cancelling the deal over, though. freeland included that in her list of demands, and you just wouldn't see that kind of language coming from a conservative government because they've never opposed it.
on the other hand, democrats and republicans say basically the same thing on trade; you could take statements by bush and obama and throw them in a hat and mix them up and legitimately not know who said what, except maybe through hints in sophistication of language. and, obama ran and won on the same buy america provisions that trump ran and won on, too.
granted: in the end, the liberals may end up sounding like the conservatives on trade. more precise polling would demonstrate that this will be a liability for them. but, if the older voices in the party win out, the canadian position on certain things may even be (perhaps pleasantly) unrecognizable to even well-informed canadians. as the american trade people have up to this point done essentially all of their trade negotiations with conservatives, they may not see this coming, or even be aware of these differences, and we may catch them off guard on certain points that the conservatives have never opposed, or bring issues to the table that the conservatives never brought to the table.
the liberals should know that people are going to be paying attention, and are going to want to see the liberals demonstrate that they are not just the same thing as conservatives, on trade. this is a substantive voting issue. and, the party has an opportunity to finally define itself properly, on it, by drawing attention to the differences, which is what it should be doing, at least domestically.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-nafta-talks-polls-1.4247820
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
no, actually, i'm sick of this.
enough time has past that you should be able to throw your party allegiances in the trash, or at least put them aside, when it comes to clear empirical observation. whether you were a disgruntled sanders supporter or a trump supporter, you need to pull your head of your ass, now: it was the most obvious thing in the fucking world that trump was the media's preferred candidate. that is the reason i predicted he would win.
all of the major networks gave him way more coverage. even the liberal ones. even the jewish ones. and, perhaps especially the liberal jewish ones.
if you're still holding to the absolute canard that clinton was the establishment candidate, you need to go kill yourself, already. ffs.
or, you can look at it like this: if she was the establishment candidate, she would have won, right?
enough time has past that you should be able to throw your party allegiances in the trash, or at least put them aside, when it comes to clear empirical observation. whether you were a disgruntled sanders supporter or a trump supporter, you need to pull your head of your ass, now: it was the most obvious thing in the fucking world that trump was the media's preferred candidate. that is the reason i predicted he would win.
all of the major networks gave him way more coverage. even the liberal ones. even the jewish ones. and, perhaps especially the liberal jewish ones.
if you're still holding to the absolute canard that clinton was the establishment candidate, you need to go kill yourself, already. ffs.
or, you can look at it like this: if she was the establishment candidate, she would have won, right?
so, what's my political wisdom on where trump stands on nafta?
i told you they didn't want to get rid of obamacare, and would fuck around for months over it. i was basing that analysis on things i had read at sites like counterpunch during the obama years, but i'm not aware of anybody else that saw what happened coming. and, i told you about the russian fiasco before it happened, too - because it was just the obvious logical corollary of the clear fact that the cia rigged the election to put trump in power. trump was an inside job! so, what about nafta?
in fact, i've already posted this here several times: "cancel the tpp and rewrite nafta" is going to, in the end, become "replace nafta with the tpp". and, you don't need to go to obscure sites or have a math degree to figure that out, it's all over the business press.
one of the selling points that obama used for the tpp is that it had environmental and labour standards, although how these would be enforced in a country like indonesia was never made clear. the precise focus of improving mexico's labour standards is a lot easier to grapple with, and consequently a lot easier to support. it's attainable. i mean, they told us that free markets would increase standards of living in mexico; that was a lie, and a malicious one, but it wasn't some fatalistic necessity - mexico should have higher living standards and doesn't due to absurd amounts of corruption. but, it's certainly created jobs, at least, and that's a precursor to use government to balance the playing field and actualize the promises that market economics has failed to deliver, and will always fail to deliver. i can support this. and, i don't know how you get mexico to let go of it's oligarchic corruption without getting threatening with it, either.
i've been saying for a long time that the way you save nafta is that you have to get tough with enforcement in mexico. they're a laggard, here. and, they're dragging the whole thing down.
the part of the tpp that was most daunting was it's strengthening of intellectual property rights, which is going to increase the price of everything at the benefit of almost nobody. this is something we're going to feel more in a country like canada, as it's going to hurt our regulatory systems that keep prices down. this is something the left needs to fight. it's going to be the focus of opposition.
but, i don't know what a cost-benefit is on this, yet. some of what i'm hearing may actually be a real improvement. is it worth supporting an agreement that levels wages out, if it increases drug prices?
i do think that the trump administration wants a "deal". but, this is different, because it has to co-ordinate with actors outside of the country. and, i'm not sure it's going to get what it wants, partly because what it wants is kind of outlandish.
there is a different government in canada now, as well. that is going to be the biggest difference between tpp negotiations and nafta renegotiation. obama was basically a republican, anyways, so he didn't disagree much with republicans on trade. trudeau is dealing with a different dynamic - he, himself, may share most of obama's views on trade, but he's dealing with a lot of opposition in his party that sees tpp and nafta style deals as a process of ending canadian sovereignty. the liberals were actually largely responsible for the auto pact, and it was actually the elder trudeau that initiated nafta discussions, but the liberals have been out of power for the actual substantive negotiations over the fta, the nafta and the tpp. they campaigned hard against nafta. so, the united states is going to find itself face-to-face with a different animal, this time around. there are prominent old veterans of the 80s battles in the party that must know this is their only chance to fix what they see as catastrophic problems - and these voices should be supported.
what i'm getting at is that canada is the wildcard here and that the outcome is going to depend on what we want, which isn't yet clear. the liberals were always confusing on trade. they never had a united voice.
but, is trump fucking around on this? no - he wants an update. and, what he's going to push is going to look a lot like the tpp.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/17/private-sector-advisory-group-suggests-nafta-rewrite-based-on-tpp.html
i told you they didn't want to get rid of obamacare, and would fuck around for months over it. i was basing that analysis on things i had read at sites like counterpunch during the obama years, but i'm not aware of anybody else that saw what happened coming. and, i told you about the russian fiasco before it happened, too - because it was just the obvious logical corollary of the clear fact that the cia rigged the election to put trump in power. trump was an inside job! so, what about nafta?
in fact, i've already posted this here several times: "cancel the tpp and rewrite nafta" is going to, in the end, become "replace nafta with the tpp". and, you don't need to go to obscure sites or have a math degree to figure that out, it's all over the business press.
one of the selling points that obama used for the tpp is that it had environmental and labour standards, although how these would be enforced in a country like indonesia was never made clear. the precise focus of improving mexico's labour standards is a lot easier to grapple with, and consequently a lot easier to support. it's attainable. i mean, they told us that free markets would increase standards of living in mexico; that was a lie, and a malicious one, but it wasn't some fatalistic necessity - mexico should have higher living standards and doesn't due to absurd amounts of corruption. but, it's certainly created jobs, at least, and that's a precursor to use government to balance the playing field and actualize the promises that market economics has failed to deliver, and will always fail to deliver. i can support this. and, i don't know how you get mexico to let go of it's oligarchic corruption without getting threatening with it, either.
i've been saying for a long time that the way you save nafta is that you have to get tough with enforcement in mexico. they're a laggard, here. and, they're dragging the whole thing down.
the part of the tpp that was most daunting was it's strengthening of intellectual property rights, which is going to increase the price of everything at the benefit of almost nobody. this is something we're going to feel more in a country like canada, as it's going to hurt our regulatory systems that keep prices down. this is something the left needs to fight. it's going to be the focus of opposition.
but, i don't know what a cost-benefit is on this, yet. some of what i'm hearing may actually be a real improvement. is it worth supporting an agreement that levels wages out, if it increases drug prices?
i do think that the trump administration wants a "deal". but, this is different, because it has to co-ordinate with actors outside of the country. and, i'm not sure it's going to get what it wants, partly because what it wants is kind of outlandish.
there is a different government in canada now, as well. that is going to be the biggest difference between tpp negotiations and nafta renegotiation. obama was basically a republican, anyways, so he didn't disagree much with republicans on trade. trudeau is dealing with a different dynamic - he, himself, may share most of obama's views on trade, but he's dealing with a lot of opposition in his party that sees tpp and nafta style deals as a process of ending canadian sovereignty. the liberals were actually largely responsible for the auto pact, and it was actually the elder trudeau that initiated nafta discussions, but the liberals have been out of power for the actual substantive negotiations over the fta, the nafta and the tpp. they campaigned hard against nafta. so, the united states is going to find itself face-to-face with a different animal, this time around. there are prominent old veterans of the 80s battles in the party that must know this is their only chance to fix what they see as catastrophic problems - and these voices should be supported.
what i'm getting at is that canada is the wildcard here and that the outcome is going to depend on what we want, which isn't yet clear. the liberals were always confusing on trade. they never had a united voice.
but, is trump fucking around on this? no - he wants an update. and, what he's going to push is going to look a lot like the tpp.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/17/private-sector-advisory-group-suggests-nafta-rewrite-based-on-tpp.html
do you think that trump pushing for patent rights for pharmaceuticals or breaking up supply management is any less ridiculous or standoffish than a chapter on indigenous rights?
are we to believe that trump thinks that trudeau wants an agreement that allows for a final abrogation of canadian sovereignty, or the final takeover of canada by american capital?
i tend to agree with coyne in roundabout ways - rarely at face, but it's because he tends to miss the obvious and get to substantive points in these roundabout ways, instead. and, coyne is right, in a sense, here: this is a ridiculous and mostly pr-driven response to an equally ridiculous set of demands. and, if anybody set this up to fail, it was trump.
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-is-the-liberals-nafta-wish-list-a-sign-they-are-setting-up-talks-up-to-fail/wcm/e977f815-7311-4598-ab21-77df1d955acf
are we to believe that trump thinks that trudeau wants an agreement that allows for a final abrogation of canadian sovereignty, or the final takeover of canada by american capital?
i tend to agree with coyne in roundabout ways - rarely at face, but it's because he tends to miss the obvious and get to substantive points in these roundabout ways, instead. and, coyne is right, in a sense, here: this is a ridiculous and mostly pr-driven response to an equally ridiculous set of demands. and, if anybody set this up to fail, it was trump.
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-is-the-liberals-nafta-wish-list-a-sign-they-are-setting-up-talks-up-to-fail/wcm/e977f815-7311-4598-ab21-77df1d955acf
Monday, August 14, 2017
that sounds close to right, to me.
but, is she just telling us what we want to hear?
if she is, she left out water and pharmaceuticals.
no, seriously: this is a good start. it's certainly a lot better than it could be. that said, the drug thing is really key for everybody, on both sides of the border and is probably what a poll is going to identify as the public's biggest concern, in canada. but, i'm just a nerd on the internet, i can't go through this point-by-point. but, i can call on people more qualified than i am (toby sanger? maude barlow?) to get to work on it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-canada-demands-list-1.4246498
but, is she just telling us what we want to hear?
if she is, she left out water and pharmaceuticals.
no, seriously: this is a good start. it's certainly a lot better than it could be. that said, the drug thing is really key for everybody, on both sides of the border and is probably what a poll is going to identify as the public's biggest concern, in canada. but, i'm just a nerd on the internet, i can't go through this point-by-point. but, i can call on people more qualified than i am (toby sanger? maude barlow?) to get to work on it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-canada-demands-list-1.4246498
i'd take this a step further: these institutions should be secularized. why are tax funds going to catholic hospitals? but, they shouldn't be privatized or shut down, they should be converted into normal hospitals.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/assisted-dying-religion-ethics-accessibility-1.4244328
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/assisted-dying-religion-ethics-accessibility-1.4244328
but, to be clear: it's not just that abolishing government means abolishing property.
it's that the reason you want to abolish government is that it's the only way to abolish property.
being an anarchist on the left consequently should really be thought of as the ideological position that attaining freedom means abolishing all property; abolishing the state is just a necessary, albeit not sufficient, step to the elimination of property.
it's that the reason you want to abolish government is that it's the only way to abolish property.
being an anarchist on the left consequently should really be thought of as the ideological position that attaining freedom means abolishing all property; abolishing the state is just a necessary, albeit not sufficient, step to the elimination of property.
i mean, you don't think property rights exist somewhere out there in the ether, do you?
a "property right" is a law passed by an oligarchy, and enforced with a gun. the term is older than orwell, but it's an incoherent contradiction in terms. proudhom deconstructed this well - for if you have property then you are infringing on the rights of others, and to uphold the rights of all is to abolish property. property rights are neither freedom nor theft but truly impossible, and the only outcome of a system built on property rights is an oppressive dystopia.
but, the basic point is that property can only exist in the presence of government. there really isn't a substantial difference between these concepts; government and property are largely the same thing. and, the so-called ancaps that wish to suggest otherwise are really just living in a fantasy reality.
a "property right" is a law passed by an oligarchy, and enforced with a gun. the term is older than orwell, but it's an incoherent contradiction in terms. proudhom deconstructed this well - for if you have property then you are infringing on the rights of others, and to uphold the rights of all is to abolish property. property rights are neither freedom nor theft but truly impossible, and the only outcome of a system built on property rights is an oppressive dystopia.
but, the basic point is that property can only exist in the presence of government. there really isn't a substantial difference between these concepts; government and property are largely the same thing. and, the so-called ancaps that wish to suggest otherwise are really just living in a fantasy reality.
an anarchist would not interpret regulatory bodies as "big government", because it would reject the underlying premise of property rights. the government does not exist to regulate the market, but to protect it from regulation. regulation - real regulation by democratic or scientific bodies, not captured industry bodies - is consequently a way to break through the statist system of property rights and assert control by the people over their own resources.
regarding meat....well, maybe we shouldn't really have slaughterhouses. but, if we're to have slaughterhouses, they should belong to the people, and not to corporations. what currently prevents the democratization of resources is the government, through it's enforcement of property rights. regulation is consequently not about the government "interfering" in the realm of "private production", but about the people abolishing the state's control over resources, through the tyranny of property.
what removing the government from the business of meat processing means is abolishing the property rights used by private corporations and setting up local councils that distribute the meat on a needs basis.
nonsense about "free markets" is exactly that.
regarding meat....well, maybe we shouldn't really have slaughterhouses. but, if we're to have slaughterhouses, they should belong to the people, and not to corporations. what currently prevents the democratization of resources is the government, through it's enforcement of property rights. regulation is consequently not about the government "interfering" in the realm of "private production", but about the people abolishing the state's control over resources, through the tyranny of property.
what removing the government from the business of meat processing means is abolishing the property rights used by private corporations and setting up local councils that distribute the meat on a needs basis.
nonsense about "free markets" is exactly that.
these issues tend to follow conservtive governments, who cut regulations in order to "eliminate red tape" (that is, increase profit). this leads to a giant social outcry, and then either the ndp or the liberals try to rebuild what was destroyed. and, this creates long term damage for the conservatives.
the conservatives in ontario, for example, are still dealing with the memory of the walkerton water tragedy, which was blamed on the government's cost-cutting behaviours. there are people who will avoid voting conservative for the rest of their lives because of this.
canada did go through the same anti-intellectual revolt against logic that the united states went through under reagan, it just happened here in the 00s rather than the 80s. and, we have a lot of work to do in undoing the damage created by the previous government.
unfortunately, it's not going to be the current prime minister that leads the charge on this. let's hope that his successor is a little more pro-active about it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cfia-us-report-concerns-meat-inspections-1.4239198
the conservatives in ontario, for example, are still dealing with the memory of the walkerton water tragedy, which was blamed on the government's cost-cutting behaviours. there are people who will avoid voting conservative for the rest of their lives because of this.
canada did go through the same anti-intellectual revolt against logic that the united states went through under reagan, it just happened here in the 00s rather than the 80s. and, we have a lot of work to do in undoing the damage created by the previous government.
unfortunately, it's not going to be the current prime minister that leads the charge on this. let's hope that his successor is a little more pro-active about it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cfia-us-report-concerns-meat-inspections-1.4239198
see, this is what i want to hear.
and, it's similar to what the liberal party has historically held to - it's at the crux of their (i think very correct) historical criticism of the nafta deal. i've been over this here; it's similar to what happened in the united states, in that the deal was negotiated by the conservative party, but then the liberals came in in late 1993 and had to basically rubber stamp it, despite opposing it, because the alternative was dire...
i think the difference is that there's more real evidence that the liberals actually believed what they said, or at least that they did in 1993. i didn't vote for justin trudeau as a person so much as i voted for a hope of a return to the social liberalism of his father's liberal party; this is backwards in canada, but he struck me as a figurehead that would ultimately have little real decision-making power. it was the old liberal party machinery (the uplift in diversity, especially female representation, was certainly welcomed) that i wanted back in power. this is pretty much what that old party machinery would say. but, we've seen a lot of conflicting signals that the pmo leans more towards positions that are currently held by democrats, and were held historically by the conservative party :\.
everybody needs to be skeptical. but, this is a good signal, at least. it's the right approach, and for the right reasons. let's see what actually happens..
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/freeland-to-press-for-new-labour-environmental-sections-within-nafta-1.3544101
and, it's similar to what the liberal party has historically held to - it's at the crux of their (i think very correct) historical criticism of the nafta deal. i've been over this here; it's similar to what happened in the united states, in that the deal was negotiated by the conservative party, but then the liberals came in in late 1993 and had to basically rubber stamp it, despite opposing it, because the alternative was dire...
i think the difference is that there's more real evidence that the liberals actually believed what they said, or at least that they did in 1993. i didn't vote for justin trudeau as a person so much as i voted for a hope of a return to the social liberalism of his father's liberal party; this is backwards in canada, but he struck me as a figurehead that would ultimately have little real decision-making power. it was the old liberal party machinery (the uplift in diversity, especially female representation, was certainly welcomed) that i wanted back in power. this is pretty much what that old party machinery would say. but, we've seen a lot of conflicting signals that the pmo leans more towards positions that are currently held by democrats, and were held historically by the conservative party :\.
everybody needs to be skeptical. but, this is a good signal, at least. it's the right approach, and for the right reasons. let's see what actually happens..
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/freeland-to-press-for-new-labour-environmental-sections-within-nafta-1.3544101
Sunday, August 13, 2017
so, what have i been doing the last two weeks, anyways?
the last update was july 30th. i spent the first part of that week trying to watch vlogs and edit, but i lost myself in a variety of things, including legal wrangling. i picked up a bicycle on the 3rd in detroit for $35 usd ($45 cad) and then lost the weekend having fun; i was at least able to get through the editing over the course of last week, including necessary editing for the court process. i picked up a new bicycle lock for $30, as well. i finished this friday morning, and went out friday night; i'm in fact actually still a little bit oozy, but i feel i'll be back to full strength after the next sleep.
i need to spend the day getting things back in motion, but i should be able to get back to the living room makeover within a day or two, which is going to mean buying a lot of wood and building the cd shelves.
updated total:
airwalk shoes (payless): $33
bicycle repair (city cyclery): $23
bicycle lock: ($30)
3x40 gb ide hds (kijiji): $10
dell ultrasharp 1703 fp with dvi cables (kijiji): $20
two lamps, one table and one floor [kijiji]: $15
tape holders [kijiji]: $15
bicycle for detroit [craig's list]: $45 [$35 usd]
2x500 gb sshd laptop drives (best buy): $2x82
2 tb internal drive (best buy): $104
100 dvd-rs [best buy]: $30
50 bd-rs [best buy]: $45
2x2 gb laptop ram (amazon.ca): $2x15 + shipping, $47
8 gb sd ram for mp3 player (amazon.ca): $13
2 tb external drive (amazon.ca) : $123
50 cd-rs [amazon.ca]: $30
ps/2 to usb connector [amazon.ca]: $5
intel core i3-4710 [amazon.ca]: $243
atx mid tower [amazon.ca] - $52
asus p9d ws [amazon.ca]: $360
2x8 gb ddr3-1600 ram [amazon.ca]: $150
arctic silver [amazon.ca]:$11 $0
450 joule surge protector (amazon.ca): $9
600 watt psu (amazon.ca): $80
700 joule surge protector (amazon.ca): $10
laptop battery (ebay): $26
2x4 gb laptop ram (ebay): $2x33
ip68 phone (ebay): $128
m-audio audiophile 2496 (ebay) [used]: $60
250 gb ssd drive (newegg.ca): $135
200 jewel cases (newegg.ca): $117
bathroom supplies (food basics, walmart, loblaws, shopper's): $296
ps/2 keyboard (axxon computer corporation, windsor): $23
usb mouse (walmart): $15
universal battery charger + aaa batteries (canadian tire): $54
stereo table: $34 (antique store)
cassette deck: $23 (antique store)
bookcase for bathroom supplies: $30 (antique store)
==================
2360.37
the last update was july 30th. i spent the first part of that week trying to watch vlogs and edit, but i lost myself in a variety of things, including legal wrangling. i picked up a bicycle on the 3rd in detroit for $35 usd ($45 cad) and then lost the weekend having fun; i was at least able to get through the editing over the course of last week, including necessary editing for the court process. i picked up a new bicycle lock for $30, as well. i finished this friday morning, and went out friday night; i'm in fact actually still a little bit oozy, but i feel i'll be back to full strength after the next sleep.
i need to spend the day getting things back in motion, but i should be able to get back to the living room makeover within a day or two, which is going to mean buying a lot of wood and building the cd shelves.
updated total:
airwalk shoes (payless): $33
bicycle repair (city cyclery): $23
bicycle lock: ($30)
3x40 gb ide hds (kijiji): $10
dell ultrasharp 1703 fp with dvi cables (kijiji): $20
two lamps, one table and one floor [kijiji]: $15
tape holders [kijiji]: $15
bicycle for detroit [craig's list]: $45 [$35 usd]
2x500 gb sshd laptop drives (best buy): $2x82
2 tb internal drive (best buy): $104
100 dvd-rs [best buy]: $30
50 bd-rs [best buy]: $45
2x2 gb laptop ram (amazon.ca): $2x15 + shipping, $47
8 gb sd ram for mp3 player (amazon.ca): $13
2 tb external drive (amazon.ca) : $123
50 cd-rs [amazon.ca]: $30
ps/2 to usb connector [amazon.ca]: $5
intel core i3-4710 [amazon.ca]: $243
atx mid tower [amazon.ca] - $52
asus p9d ws [amazon.ca]: $360
2x8 gb ddr3-1600 ram [amazon.ca]: $150
arctic silver [amazon.ca]:
450 joule surge protector (amazon.ca): $9
600 watt psu (amazon.ca): $80
700 joule surge protector (amazon.ca): $10
laptop battery (ebay): $26
2x4 gb laptop ram (ebay): $2x33
ip68 phone (ebay): $128
m-audio audiophile 2496 (ebay) [used]: $60
250 gb ssd drive (newegg.ca): $135
200 jewel cases (newegg.ca): $117
ps/2 keyboard (axxon computer corporation, windsor): $23
usb mouse (walmart): $15
universal battery charger + aaa batteries (canadian tire): $54
stereo table: $34 (antique store)
cassette deck: $23 (antique store)
bookcase for bathroom supplies: $30 (antique store)
==================
2360.37
"they made you sleep outside?"
to begin with, i didn't sleep.
but, actually, they didn't - they asked me several times to come in, and then they got a blanket for me, and tried to get me to drink water (which i didn't want to drink, because it was making me vomit). they told me point blank to come in and sleep inside. repeatedly. if anything, they seemed a little insulted that i wouldn't come in.
given my difficulties speaking at the time, i may have failed in trying to explain that i was going to get a coffee as soon as i could get up. but, i thought that was going to be before 7:00. my first bus back on saturday mornings is 5:55, so if i was going to get a coffee and sip on it for a bit, i would have wanted to leave around 5:00, or even a bit before, depending on when the night quieted down. they were trying to pull me inside well before that, and for quite a while at that. it just didn't make sense for me to go in and sleep at 3:30 when i was planning on leaving as soon as my body worked the toxins out. and, i didn't want to fall asleep there and miss my bus, because i left my 8:00 meds at home.
on top of that, i would have likely had to have been lifted in. i needed more than an arm. i'm not joking - i couldn't walk. i tend to get insular in these situations, and refuse to move unless somebody that i know and trust offers a hand. as kind as these strangers were, i have a lot of faith in the persistence of gravity and am pretty much always going to insist on getting up on my own, which means not getting up at all until i can.
in hindsight, i'm glad they got that blanket - i guess they realized i wasn't getting up as soon as i thought. but, i wasn't outside due to lack of trying to get me in; i just really wasn't able to get up, and consequently wasn't willing to be moved. further, if i was able to get up at all, i would have left.
to begin with, i didn't sleep.
but, actually, they didn't - they asked me several times to come in, and then they got a blanket for me, and tried to get me to drink water (which i didn't want to drink, because it was making me vomit). they told me point blank to come in and sleep inside. repeatedly. if anything, they seemed a little insulted that i wouldn't come in.
given my difficulties speaking at the time, i may have failed in trying to explain that i was going to get a coffee as soon as i could get up. but, i thought that was going to be before 7:00. my first bus back on saturday mornings is 5:55, so if i was going to get a coffee and sip on it for a bit, i would have wanted to leave around 5:00, or even a bit before, depending on when the night quieted down. they were trying to pull me inside well before that, and for quite a while at that. it just didn't make sense for me to go in and sleep at 3:30 when i was planning on leaving as soon as my body worked the toxins out. and, i didn't want to fall asleep there and miss my bus, because i left my 8:00 meds at home.
on top of that, i would have likely had to have been lifted in. i needed more than an arm. i'm not joking - i couldn't walk. i tend to get insular in these situations, and refuse to move unless somebody that i know and trust offers a hand. as kind as these strangers were, i have a lot of faith in the persistence of gravity and am pretty much always going to insist on getting up on my own, which means not getting up at all until i can.
in hindsight, i'm glad they got that blanket - i guess they realized i wasn't getting up as soon as i thought. but, i wasn't outside due to lack of trying to get me in; i just really wasn't able to get up, and consequently wasn't willing to be moved. further, if i was able to get up at all, i would have left.
i think i'm ok, now.
full effects were more than 30 hours.
for the record, my alcohol intake for the night was one beer around 10:00 followed by a shot of vodka, and then three and a half rockstar vodkas between 11:00 and 3:00. three and half because somebody took the last one away (i didn't argue). i drank more than half of it. so, i opened around 11:00, 12:00, 1:00 and 2:00. roughly. that's by no means excessive and well in my "can easily handle" range.
those rockstar vodkas have a mixture of energy drink components, including high caffeine levels, and are 7% vodka. i drink them because they keep me awake. while they've never passed me out, the caffeine has kept me up more than once; if anything, the caffeine might have delayed the onset of the thc.
there's no ambiguity, here. yes: there may have been an interaction in my stomach. so, if i wasn't drinking, i may not have vomited. but, the paralysis i was in was about the brownies. don't question that, it's true.
i prefer coffee over cocaine. and, in the future, i think i'll just stick to smoking it.
full effects were more than 30 hours.
for the record, my alcohol intake for the night was one beer around 10:00 followed by a shot of vodka, and then three and a half rockstar vodkas between 11:00 and 3:00. three and half because somebody took the last one away (i didn't argue). i drank more than half of it. so, i opened around 11:00, 12:00, 1:00 and 2:00. roughly. that's by no means excessive and well in my "can easily handle" range.
those rockstar vodkas have a mixture of energy drink components, including high caffeine levels, and are 7% vodka. i drink them because they keep me awake. while they've never passed me out, the caffeine has kept me up more than once; if anything, the caffeine might have delayed the onset of the thc.
there's no ambiguity, here. yes: there may have been an interaction in my stomach. so, if i wasn't drinking, i may not have vomited. but, the paralysis i was in was about the brownies. don't question that, it's true.
i prefer coffee over cocaine. and, in the future, i think i'll just stick to smoking it.
is there something to that idea, though?
is what's happening in places like virginia ultimately deconstructed into a kind of schism on the christian right, which is being torn between it's history and it's present? and, is the entire conflict really ultimately so insulated from the dominant culture as to be more or less irrelevant?
i would guess that a very large percentage of people probably share my apprehension in not really wanting to take a side in a conflict between nazis and christians, which is what appears to be actually happening on the ground, rather than the kind of imagined narrative on the alt-right about fighting jews and communists. the christian groups seem to be outnumbering the socialist groups by a substantial factor.
it's legitimately hard to imagine what the christian right is going to look like in 20 years if it doesn't open it's arms to hispanics and blacks. for all the concern about rising fascism, is there maybe even something valid in the idea that the culture of white christian dominance is actually in the throes of it's last dying gasps, and that it's about to be overtaken on the right by a coalition of conservative hispanics and conservative blacks, under the banner of a rejuvenated and pluralist christian right, as whites abandon religion for secular liberalism in an america-wide quiet revolution?
and, is there any real use in getting involved in a civil war on the right?
if i was there, i would insist that socialists do not protest with faith groups, but carry on separate protests. it wouldn't be hard to organize, either. but, i suspect i'd realize pretty quickly that this actually isn't about socialism at all, but about what christians want christianity to be.
is what's happening in places like virginia ultimately deconstructed into a kind of schism on the christian right, which is being torn between it's history and it's present? and, is the entire conflict really ultimately so insulated from the dominant culture as to be more or less irrelevant?
i would guess that a very large percentage of people probably share my apprehension in not really wanting to take a side in a conflict between nazis and christians, which is what appears to be actually happening on the ground, rather than the kind of imagined narrative on the alt-right about fighting jews and communists. the christian groups seem to be outnumbering the socialist groups by a substantial factor.
it's legitimately hard to imagine what the christian right is going to look like in 20 years if it doesn't open it's arms to hispanics and blacks. for all the concern about rising fascism, is there maybe even something valid in the idea that the culture of white christian dominance is actually in the throes of it's last dying gasps, and that it's about to be overtaken on the right by a coalition of conservative hispanics and conservative blacks, under the banner of a rejuvenated and pluralist christian right, as whites abandon religion for secular liberalism in an america-wide quiet revolution?
and, is there any real use in getting involved in a civil war on the right?
if i was there, i would insist that socialists do not protest with faith groups, but carry on separate protests. it wouldn't be hard to organize, either. but, i suspect i'd realize pretty quickly that this actually isn't about socialism at all, but about what christians want christianity to be.
again: i usually side with the aclu.
i'm a really strict ideological liberal on speech - but that actually doesn't imply a lack of oversight. ideological liberals should be holding to the harm principle, which was outlined by mill. and, i think there are good reasons to argue that some types of speech are harmful.
it's very careful, very delicate.
if an old man wants to walk down the street by himself and wave a flag as he holds to some delusional and scientifically debunked concept of race supremacy, is he actually harming anybody? probably not. but, if a militia wants to march down the street with guns and chant racist slogans, there's some serious harm being created, there.
what the aclu usually represents is something closer to the first scenario, and i'm usually going to side with them on it. the situation in virginia is getting dangerously close to the second situation. and, the organization should consequently ensure it's being properly judicious about what it's doing.
should this have been shut down ahead of time? it's a judgement call. but, some of what i've seen from these protests does get very close to incitement, and if that evidence did not exist before, it does now: there's a reason to shut future protests by this group down on the harm principle. and, there's perhaps a reason to charge some individuals with incitement, as well.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/12/16138326/aclu-charlottesville-protests-racism
i'm a really strict ideological liberal on speech - but that actually doesn't imply a lack of oversight. ideological liberals should be holding to the harm principle, which was outlined by mill. and, i think there are good reasons to argue that some types of speech are harmful.
it's very careful, very delicate.
if an old man wants to walk down the street by himself and wave a flag as he holds to some delusional and scientifically debunked concept of race supremacy, is he actually harming anybody? probably not. but, if a militia wants to march down the street with guns and chant racist slogans, there's some serious harm being created, there.
what the aclu usually represents is something closer to the first scenario, and i'm usually going to side with them on it. the situation in virginia is getting dangerously close to the second situation. and, the organization should consequently ensure it's being properly judicious about what it's doing.
should this have been shut down ahead of time? it's a judgement call. but, some of what i've seen from these protests does get very close to incitement, and if that evidence did not exist before, it does now: there's a reason to shut future protests by this group down on the harm principle. and, there's perhaps a reason to charge some individuals with incitement, as well.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/12/16138326/aclu-charlottesville-protests-racism
i've been apprehensive about trying to pick a side in these clashes, as i've considered both sides delusional - the antifascist groups are fighting imaginary nazis (that are probably actually mostly liberals), while the alt-right groups are fighting imaginary authoritarian communists (which actually sound like conservatives, if you go to talk to them). "hitler or stalin?" is a choice that millions of real people had to make in the 30s, and it's as shitty a choice now as it was then. as an anarchist, i'd want to fight the stalinists as much as i'd want to fight the nazis, but which side do you take in a struggle defined by competing strawmen? you just don't do that; instead, you take a step back and make misanthropic observations about the dystopic absurdity playing out in front of you.
but, these are actual nazis. and, all decent people need to unite to shut them down.
just, try and keep the counter-protests secular, please. you don't want to chase off allies by bogging things down with ritual. i've certainly avoided protests over this. it's just not the time to shamelessly promote your religious institution....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Unite_the_Right_rally
but, these are actual nazis. and, all decent people need to unite to shut them down.
just, try and keep the counter-protests secular, please. you don't want to chase off allies by bogging things down with ritual. i've certainly avoided protests over this. it's just not the time to shamelessly promote your religious institution....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Unite_the_Right_rally
and, how long did the effects of that little bite of bownie last for?
i want to be clear: i just took a little piece. i knew to be careful, i just didn't have any reasonable metrics to use: i didn't know the strength, and i didn't know what i could handle, because i had no experience with it. i took what i thought was a small piece that i thought i could deal with.
i was able to move around 7:00. i tried to eat when i got home, but passed out around 11:00. i tried to get up around 21:00, and finished eating, but passed out again around 00:00. it's now 4:40 and i'm still feeling it behind my eyes.
again: it was just a little bite. and, i'm an old pro...
i want to be clear: i just took a little piece. i knew to be careful, i just didn't have any reasonable metrics to use: i didn't know the strength, and i didn't know what i could handle, because i had no experience with it. i took what i thought was a small piece that i thought i could deal with.
i was able to move around 7:00. i tried to eat when i got home, but passed out around 11:00. i tried to get up around 21:00, and finished eating, but passed out again around 00:00. it's now 4:40 and i'm still feeling it behind my eyes.
again: it was just a little bite. and, i'm an old pro...
Saturday, August 12, 2017
so, i had my story about being overcome by unlabeled edibles, last night.
it was homemade, and just handed off to me. not only was it unlabeled, but it probably wasn't even measured; there likely isn't a person in the world that really knows the dosage of what i ate last night. i figured i've smoked enough pot in my life, right? what could it do to me?
i got through the concert, but not much more than that; it didn't knock me out, in fact i remember the entire night, but it left me completely useless for around 4-5 hours. i had two rounds of intense vomiting and wasn't able to control my legs well enough to get back on my bicycle until around 7:00. so, i spent the night outside. thankfully, i was around kind people.
if i was to describe the experience, it wouldn't be much like anything i've experienced on alcohol or marijuana. i've smoked some hashish that's knocked me down, but not quite like that. i've been unable to move on mushroom trips for a few minutes at a time, but mushrooms have a higher level of excitation to them - a "faster wavelength", if you will - and it actually wasn't a great comparison. acid can veg you out for a long time, but i didn't get any hallucinations - no tracers, nothing. the closest comparison to anything i've experienced was probably to the tylenol-3s i took when i got my wisdom teeth out, years ago.
i could understand the people around me, and i hope i thanked them for their kindness. but, i was pretty numb, really. and, i should be more careful about eating random amounts of random things...
it was homemade, and just handed off to me. not only was it unlabeled, but it probably wasn't even measured; there likely isn't a person in the world that really knows the dosage of what i ate last night. i figured i've smoked enough pot in my life, right? what could it do to me?
i got through the concert, but not much more than that; it didn't knock me out, in fact i remember the entire night, but it left me completely useless for around 4-5 hours. i had two rounds of intense vomiting and wasn't able to control my legs well enough to get back on my bicycle until around 7:00. so, i spent the night outside. thankfully, i was around kind people.
if i was to describe the experience, it wouldn't be much like anything i've experienced on alcohol or marijuana. i've smoked some hashish that's knocked me down, but not quite like that. i've been unable to move on mushroom trips for a few minutes at a time, but mushrooms have a higher level of excitation to them - a "faster wavelength", if you will - and it actually wasn't a great comparison. acid can veg you out for a long time, but i didn't get any hallucinations - no tracers, nothing. the closest comparison to anything i've experienced was probably to the tylenol-3s i took when i got my wisdom teeth out, years ago.
i could understand the people around me, and i hope i thanked them for their kindness. but, i was pretty numb, really. and, i should be more careful about eating random amounts of random things...
aug 11-12 vlog, where i go to a doom rock show at the anarchist house in detroit, am handed something to eat and get trapped in my own body until the morning, awake but otherwise unable to function.
the narrative here is of being given something to eat and reacting to the contents of it, but, in hindsight, i may have been experiencing the effects of iron deficiency. i did not have much to drink, and the alcohol alone was not the cause. that said, even if the reason for shutting down was due to iron deficiency, the brownie clearly had an overwhelming effect on me. i don't really know how to separate the issues, but i know now that i have long term iron deficiency concerns and that it appears to be exacerbated by heavy exercise.
Friday, August 11, 2017
in one of the strangest (and yet hugely widespread) contradictions i'm aware of, it is the truth that a large percentage of vegans are also cat owners. how does a vegan co-exist and care for an obligate carnivore without imploding into a mess of speciesist contradictions? and, yet, it is an easily observable condition in the actual universe that we exist within, thereby demonstrating once and for all that there are no underlying rational laws of physics underpinning the universe we inhabit.
i'm an ideological vegan. we need protein, but we should grow it using animals that don't have brains. so, i'll break on strict veganism by interjecting some actual real science - it is true that the animals that we enslave for our consumption are too cognizant of their own existences to justify that kind of treatment and that farming as we understand it should be abolished. a caterpillar, on the other hand, does not have a discernible brain, and consequently has no ability to understand it's own struggle. but, this is an empirical observation backed up by repeatable experiments, and not a claimed dictate by an entity that doesn't exist - or a rule determined by a committee that has given itself the task of distributing the earth's resources.
an economy of scale around insect production would actually solve a myriad of problems. it's something that should be actively worked towards.
as an ideological vegan roots their ideas in science rather than religion, a sympathetic attitude towards abolishing factory farms doesn't extend to non-violence towards all animals. we don't need to talk about mosquitoes and malaria; again, mosquitoes don't have brains. let me ask you this question: what makes the life of your neighbourhood feral cat more valuable than the life of the bird that it killed this morning, or even the rat that it killed last week? how can you stand up for the cat's violence while condemning the human's?
"a cat is being a cat" may be true. but, a human is being a human. and, yes: humans are animals, too.
nor is the premise that cats reduce pests thought out well, as the cats themselves are riddled with diseases and leave feces everywhere. humane rat traps are a better idea.
what would you do with a human that came back every day and took a shit in your garden? you'd probably kick the shit out of that human, if you got the chance, right? or, at least institutionalize them. you can't fine a cat. it doesn't give a fuck about your fiat monetary systems. it's just something else to poop on.
we don't need to torture them. but, we need to control them.
i'm an ideological vegan. we need protein, but we should grow it using animals that don't have brains. so, i'll break on strict veganism by interjecting some actual real science - it is true that the animals that we enslave for our consumption are too cognizant of their own existences to justify that kind of treatment and that farming as we understand it should be abolished. a caterpillar, on the other hand, does not have a discernible brain, and consequently has no ability to understand it's own struggle. but, this is an empirical observation backed up by repeatable experiments, and not a claimed dictate by an entity that doesn't exist - or a rule determined by a committee that has given itself the task of distributing the earth's resources.
an economy of scale around insect production would actually solve a myriad of problems. it's something that should be actively worked towards.
as an ideological vegan roots their ideas in science rather than religion, a sympathetic attitude towards abolishing factory farms doesn't extend to non-violence towards all animals. we don't need to talk about mosquitoes and malaria; again, mosquitoes don't have brains. let me ask you this question: what makes the life of your neighbourhood feral cat more valuable than the life of the bird that it killed this morning, or even the rat that it killed last week? how can you stand up for the cat's violence while condemning the human's?
"a cat is being a cat" may be true. but, a human is being a human. and, yes: humans are animals, too.
nor is the premise that cats reduce pests thought out well, as the cats themselves are riddled with diseases and leave feces everywhere. humane rat traps are a better idea.
what would you do with a human that came back every day and took a shit in your garden? you'd probably kick the shit out of that human, if you got the chance, right? or, at least institutionalize them. you can't fine a cat. it doesn't give a fuck about your fiat monetary systems. it's just something else to poop on.
we don't need to torture them. but, we need to control them.
there were some people out culling the cats, tonight. this is excellent news.
but, you should have seen the look on the woman's face when i told her i didn't believe in standing up for all god's creatures.
"naw. those cats - they're vermin. they should be culled."
she looked like somebody stabbed her in the throat.
but, it's the truth of it: they're just useless shit producers.
fuck your god. fuck your culture. and, fuck your sanctity of life.
but, you should have seen the look on the woman's face when i told her i didn't believe in standing up for all god's creatures.
"naw. those cats - they're vermin. they should be culled."
she looked like somebody stabbed her in the throat.
but, it's the truth of it: they're just useless shit producers.
fuck your god. fuck your culture. and, fuck your sanctity of life.
reality check: we are, in fact, on our way to building a majority atheist society, where judeo-christian values are flushed down the drain in favour of a science-driven culture. i welcome this. and, i will happily make enemies out of those that would retard our movement forwards, with the full intent of permanently destroying them.
this is the truth of things, but i don't want to even get there:
Where Board may dismiss
197 (1) The Board may dismiss an application without holding a hearing or refuse to allow an application to be filed if, in the opinion of the Board, the matter is frivolous or vexatious, has not been initiated in good faith or discloses no reasonable cause of action. 2006, c. 17, s. 197 (1).
Where Board may dismiss
197 (1) The Board may dismiss an application without holding a hearing or refuse to allow an application to be filed if, in the opinion of the Board, the matter is frivolous or vexatious, has not been initiated in good faith or discloses no reasonable cause of action. 2006, c. 17, s. 197 (1).
Same
(2) The Board may dismiss a proceeding without
holding a hearing if the Board finds that the applicant filed documents
that the applicant knew or ought to have known contained false or
misleading information. 2006, c. 17, s. 197 (2).
i want to be clear.
i would not expect the board to process the order. she is trying to evict me over behaviour that is happening off of her property, under the ridiculous claim that it is interfering with her enjoyment of her own property. it fails the test of causality. the board should not even hear this. and, i should be able to counter-sue for malice.
and, this is ignoring the fact that she placed an illegal date on the form, which voids it in the first place.
but, i don't want to go down this path. things can go wrong. i need the content of the order voided, immediately.
i would not expect the board to process the order. she is trying to evict me over behaviour that is happening off of her property, under the ridiculous claim that it is interfering with her enjoyment of her own property. it fails the test of causality. the board should not even hear this. and, i should be able to counter-sue for malice.
and, this is ignoring the fact that she placed an illegal date on the form, which voids it in the first place.
but, i don't want to go down this path. things can go wrong. i need the content of the order voided, immediately.
so, the property owner has really gone down the rabbit hole. the reality is that the order she served this afternoon is so incoherent that the law doesn't seem to have predicted it; it's so ridiculous, that i can't figure out a proper response
how does a tenant react to a demand by the landlord, when the landlord cannot make that demand? the landlord has demanded that i cease a behaviour within 7 days, or be evicted, but she has no right to make the demand. i could just ignore her - and suspect that the court would even refuse the eviction order - but i don't want to go through an eviction process. what i want is for the order to be voided from the start.
the closest remedy i can find has to do with charging her with criminal harassment. but, this is more of a consequence of stupidity than malice. i mean, it's both - don't get me wrong. but, it's so poorly thought out, that it would be difficult to prosecute; occam's razor is that she's just horribly wrong.
further, it would be difficult for me to make the case that the demand is interfering with my enjoyment of the property - for the reason that the point of contention is happening off of the property. the kind of obvious reaction relies on making the same incoherent legal error that's underlying her demand, in the first place. if this *was* on her property, i could countersue...but i know better....
what i want to do is bring the cease and desist order to a judge that will overrule it and tell her she can't file an order over this - that a judge won't hear it. but, i can't find the right documents. surely, i must have some recourse over an absurd accusation besides going through the process of eviction. can i not bring the cease and desist order, itself, to a judge, and request a stop order or an injunction? that form isn't on the page...
i'll have to call toronto tomorrow.
how does a tenant react to a demand by the landlord, when the landlord cannot make that demand? the landlord has demanded that i cease a behaviour within 7 days, or be evicted, but she has no right to make the demand. i could just ignore her - and suspect that the court would even refuse the eviction order - but i don't want to go through an eviction process. what i want is for the order to be voided from the start.
the closest remedy i can find has to do with charging her with criminal harassment. but, this is more of a consequence of stupidity than malice. i mean, it's both - don't get me wrong. but, it's so poorly thought out, that it would be difficult to prosecute; occam's razor is that she's just horribly wrong.
further, it would be difficult for me to make the case that the demand is interfering with my enjoyment of the property - for the reason that the point of contention is happening off of the property. the kind of obvious reaction relies on making the same incoherent legal error that's underlying her demand, in the first place. if this *was* on her property, i could countersue...but i know better....
what i want to do is bring the cease and desist order to a judge that will overrule it and tell her she can't file an order over this - that a judge won't hear it. but, i can't find the right documents. surely, i must have some recourse over an absurd accusation besides going through the process of eviction. can i not bring the cease and desist order, itself, to a judge, and request a stop order or an injunction? that form isn't on the page...
i'll have to call toronto tomorrow.
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
so, i came home tonight to a failed attempt to cut the lock on my bicycle storage space. this area is behind a pass code; the suspects are entirely internal, and really relegated solely to the guy with the a/c.
this person has now opened my mail, entered my apartment illegally and tried to cut the lock on my storage space. and, the property owner is just telling me to call the cops.
i'm an anarchist; i have no use for policing. what is a cop going to do? write a report and hand out a warning? make him pay a fine to the queen? what's the use in that?
civil liability is much more useful. this is the great benefit of tort law: it converts liability out of a social contract with the state and into a social contract between human beings. if he is to be found guilty of something, i should be the benefactor, not the government.
i've been over this before: we should abolish criminal law and replace it with tort law. all liability should flow between individuals.
and, conservatives can go shove their precious tort reform up their collective asses.
...but what i really want is neither criminal nor civil proceedings. what i want is for the property owner to law down some rules and enforce them - i want people to stop opening my mail and stop trying to cut my locks. sadly, it's becoming increasingly clear that this isn't going to happen without enforcing very hefty punitive damages.
this person has now opened my mail, entered my apartment illegally and tried to cut the lock on my storage space. and, the property owner is just telling me to call the cops.
i'm an anarchist; i have no use for policing. what is a cop going to do? write a report and hand out a warning? make him pay a fine to the queen? what's the use in that?
civil liability is much more useful. this is the great benefit of tort law: it converts liability out of a social contract with the state and into a social contract between human beings. if he is to be found guilty of something, i should be the benefactor, not the government.
i've been over this before: we should abolish criminal law and replace it with tort law. all liability should flow between individuals.
and, conservatives can go shove their precious tort reform up their collective asses.
...but what i really want is neither criminal nor civil proceedings. what i want is for the property owner to law down some rules and enforce them - i want people to stop opening my mail and stop trying to cut my locks. sadly, it's becoming increasingly clear that this isn't going to happen without enforcing very hefty punitive damages.
feral cats do not have rights under the law.
in order to generate protection for a feral cat, you must claim ownership over it - at which point you become liable for the damage and nuisance that it causes to the quality of life of human beings, through waste generation or whatever other annoyance. i would be ecstatic if somebody would claim ownership over the local cats, as i could send bylaw after them for the waste problem. oops?
the idea that we have some obligation to live in the filth of wild animals is called barbarism. and, if you do not enjoy living inside of civilization, i would gladly invite you to leave it.
i have no patience for stupidity of this sort.
...and, if it was up to me, we'd round them all up and incinerate them.
in order to generate protection for a feral cat, you must claim ownership over it - at which point you become liable for the damage and nuisance that it causes to the quality of life of human beings, through waste generation or whatever other annoyance. i would be ecstatic if somebody would claim ownership over the local cats, as i could send bylaw after them for the waste problem. oops?
the idea that we have some obligation to live in the filth of wild animals is called barbarism. and, if you do not enjoy living inside of civilization, i would gladly invite you to leave it.
i have no patience for stupidity of this sort.
...and, if it was up to me, we'd round them all up and incinerate them.
the north koreans are rational actors, though.
just ask dennis rodman.
it's true. and, that's what actually defines their bluster: it's all very calculated to play the superpowers off against each other and get another shipment of food.
so, what does a rational actor do in response to trump's threats? nothing at all, really. and, you shouldn't expect much, either.
the sad part about this is that when trump looks at the north korean dictator, what he's actually seeing is his own reflection. for, this is what trump actually aspires to: the ability to bluster and bullshit your way into forcing the world to do what you want it to do.
and, the irony is that trump may very well be the man that america needed to send to north korea, for that reason: the regime may have met it's equal, and may be forced to stand down.
just ask dennis rodman.
it's true. and, that's what actually defines their bluster: it's all very calculated to play the superpowers off against each other and get another shipment of food.
so, what does a rational actor do in response to trump's threats? nothing at all, really. and, you shouldn't expect much, either.
the sad part about this is that when trump looks at the north korean dictator, what he's actually seeing is his own reflection. for, this is what trump actually aspires to: the ability to bluster and bullshit your way into forcing the world to do what you want it to do.
and, the irony is that trump may very well be the man that america needed to send to north korea, for that reason: the regime may have met it's equal, and may be forced to stand down.
where i'm going to be, in downtown detroit, should be dark enough to catch quite a bit of it.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/perseid-meteor-shower-2017-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/84888/
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/perseid-meteor-shower-2017-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/84888/
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
yup.
i will reiterate that i can hardly imagine the united states actually doing this, to begin with.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/misleading-information-haitian-asylum-seekers-1.4235565
i will reiterate that i can hardly imagine the united states actually doing this, to begin with.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/misleading-information-haitian-asylum-seekers-1.4235565
i went to that hershey factory on a field trip for school.
you're not even beginning to imagine the production capabilities of creating that much biomass. we only smoke the buds, leaving the leaves and stalks for other use. right now, the plant has a split cultivation use; it is hemp that is used for industrial purposes, and it has been artificially selected for useful traits. this should be easily resolved through artificial selection on the bud-producing plants.
the reality is that marijuana holds the solution to a wide array of environmental problems, and this should end up driving numerous different sectors, from plastics to paper. this is the real "green economy".
it's going to take a while, but there will be a day when marijuana overtakes oil as the central focus of this country's economy. it will be on that day that we can start to seriously accelerate transition away from a fossil-fuel economy, and it will be marijuana that offers us those real solutions, both economically and in terms of tangible products.
so, this story is making the rounds, and it's no doubt causing eyerolls. but, it is in truth merely touching the surface.
marijuana is at the centre of the future of the economy, of the future of energy and probably of the future of the species.
https://www.mtlblog.com/whats-happening/marijuana-is-saving-these-small-towns-all-across-canada-heres-how
you're not even beginning to imagine the production capabilities of creating that much biomass. we only smoke the buds, leaving the leaves and stalks for other use. right now, the plant has a split cultivation use; it is hemp that is used for industrial purposes, and it has been artificially selected for useful traits. this should be easily resolved through artificial selection on the bud-producing plants.
the reality is that marijuana holds the solution to a wide array of environmental problems, and this should end up driving numerous different sectors, from plastics to paper. this is the real "green economy".
it's going to take a while, but there will be a day when marijuana overtakes oil as the central focus of this country's economy. it will be on that day that we can start to seriously accelerate transition away from a fossil-fuel economy, and it will be marijuana that offers us those real solutions, both economically and in terms of tangible products.
so, this story is making the rounds, and it's no doubt causing eyerolls. but, it is in truth merely touching the surface.
marijuana is at the centre of the future of the economy, of the future of energy and probably of the future of the species.
https://www.mtlblog.com/whats-happening/marijuana-is-saving-these-small-towns-all-across-canada-heres-how
i've been over this.
my skin colour switches over the course of the year.
the reason my skin colour switches is that i'm a combination of races. and, it's actually truly staggering. there is some uncertainty on my father's side, but i actually have ancestry from the indigenous groups of four out of six continents (i'm excluding antarctica): europe, africa, asia and north america. and, south america doesn't really count, either. it's really only australia that i'm not genetically connected to.
so, if you saw me in the dead of winter, you'd be likely to pull out the norse or finnish in me and conclude i'm probably white. but, if you saw me last week, you'd have no doubt noticed that i'm actually a fairly dark brown, coming from my brown ancestors, which were native american (certain), middle eastern (certain) and sub-saharan african (probably).
just ask me questions, please. i'm friendly. and, i don't like religion. but, i'm willing to be friendly with atheists of any and all backgrounds; i don't care what colour you are - i care about whether you renounce the faith of your ancestors or not.
my skin colour switches over the course of the year.
the reason my skin colour switches is that i'm a combination of races. and, it's actually truly staggering. there is some uncertainty on my father's side, but i actually have ancestry from the indigenous groups of four out of six continents (i'm excluding antarctica): europe, africa, asia and north america. and, south america doesn't really count, either. it's really only australia that i'm not genetically connected to.
so, if you saw me in the dead of winter, you'd be likely to pull out the norse or finnish in me and conclude i'm probably white. but, if you saw me last week, you'd have no doubt noticed that i'm actually a fairly dark brown, coming from my brown ancestors, which were native american (certain), middle eastern (certain) and sub-saharan african (probably).
just ask me questions, please. i'm friendly. and, i don't like religion. but, i'm willing to be friendly with atheists of any and all backgrounds; i don't care what colour you are - i care about whether you renounce the faith of your ancestors or not.
i'm not actually even white.
i keep telling you that...
i've protested with anti-fascist groups, and i'm usually on their side. but, calling me a racist - in the absence of anything remotely resembling evidence and the presence of a plethora of evidence that suggests otherwise - just demonstrates the intellectually vapid knee-jerks that these people so easily fall into. and, i know through experience that there is no value in arguing with them.
i can actually be a brown person that wants to abolish islam, as well as all other religions. and, it's kind of scary to me that the idea is beyond the general public's grasp.
what i want is for everybody of all races to unite to abolish superstition and nonsense. you can disagree with me, if you'd like. but, please keep your disagreements topical.
i keep telling you that...
i've protested with anti-fascist groups, and i'm usually on their side. but, calling me a racist - in the absence of anything remotely resembling evidence and the presence of a plethora of evidence that suggests otherwise - just demonstrates the intellectually vapid knee-jerks that these people so easily fall into. and, i know through experience that there is no value in arguing with them.
i can actually be a brown person that wants to abolish islam, as well as all other religions. and, it's kind of scary to me that the idea is beyond the general public's grasp.
what i want is for everybody of all races to unite to abolish superstition and nonsense. you can disagree with me, if you'd like. but, please keep your disagreements topical.
Monday, August 7, 2017
no, i still think you're not quite sure where i stand on this. try to listen, rather than fall into a false dichotomy.
so, as stated repeatedly, i'm an anarchist. first, that puts me on the left. you see that spectrum up there? see where i am? alright. and, second that means i want less government in people's day-to-day lives, or at least less formalities and less bureaucracy. and, that applies to immigration policy as well.
so, what does "less government" mean, when applied to immigration?
1) it would mean less enforcement around what you call "illegal" immigration.
2) it would mean scaling down efforts to actively bring people into the country - so, less "legal" immigration.
that is what "less government" on the immigration file actually means, applied in a consistent way that is actually thought through.
but, less immigration enforcement does not negate the principle of democracy, which asserts that people have the right to govern themselves, locally, how they see fit. and, while i would not vote against entry for people based upon ethnicity, i would vote against entry for people based upon religion.
nor does less border enforcement imply accepting a breakdown of labour laws. migrants need to have the same labour rights as everybody else and should expect to be treated the same way as other workers are.
does that make my ideology some kind of alternative? well, it's certainly an ideological alternative to neo-liberalism, and it's mirror reflections on the pseudo-left. but, what i'm expressing is a rather ideologically orthodox type of rather bland leftism. and, if you don't recognize it or think it's extreme, it's because you're the one that's not familiar with a leftist approach.
the right has historically not been strictly ideological, so it's been able to express itself in ways that uphold and contradict itself at the same time. hitler and churchill were both able to exist on the right, while holding disagreements that were strong enough to nearly destroy the whole fucking planet. but, you can trace them ideologically backwards to the same principles of a strong, centralized bureaucratic elite. they are equally valid expressions of the dominant ideas on the right, as expressed from hobbes through to burke and beyond, without having anything close to a comparable theory. terms like "alt-right" can consequently at least have some kind of coherent meaning, as it is possible to build an alternative to the right without exiting it.
the left is too ideological for this. while leftists are of course famous for their infighting, there is a simple question for belonging on the left, as well: do you advocate for worker self-management? this implies support for grassroots democracy. if you do not answer that question in the affirmative, you cannot be on the left. and, this has been the case all along. there is no such litmus test on the right, which opens it up to these alternative expressions of dominance and authoritarianism that leftists have always discarded out of hand (despite having sometimes lost to fraudulent expressions of the pseudo-left, which is the correct terminology on this side of the spectrum).
this term, "alt-left", is consequently not of the left but an attempt by the right to limit the realm of discourse and expunge any premise of the left from history. it's an attempt to enforce an end of history. in this narrative, "the left" becomes synonymous with the identity politics that anchor neo-liberalism in place. that is, "the left" becomes some kind of marginally less violent concept of capitalism. the next step is to reduce it to a slogan to divide opposition with.
but, a leftist can only frown and laugh at the absurdity of the discourse - while acknowledging that we perhaps will not object too strenuously upon being accused of offering an alternative to capitalism, or should become too upset at the elite for presenting an argument that renders them so fully irrelevant. for, this is the true graveyard of political elites: irrelevance.
so, as stated repeatedly, i'm an anarchist. first, that puts me on the left. you see that spectrum up there? see where i am? alright. and, second that means i want less government in people's day-to-day lives, or at least less formalities and less bureaucracy. and, that applies to immigration policy as well.
so, what does "less government" mean, when applied to immigration?
1) it would mean less enforcement around what you call "illegal" immigration.
2) it would mean scaling down efforts to actively bring people into the country - so, less "legal" immigration.
that is what "less government" on the immigration file actually means, applied in a consistent way that is actually thought through.
but, less immigration enforcement does not negate the principle of democracy, which asserts that people have the right to govern themselves, locally, how they see fit. and, while i would not vote against entry for people based upon ethnicity, i would vote against entry for people based upon religion.
nor does less border enforcement imply accepting a breakdown of labour laws. migrants need to have the same labour rights as everybody else and should expect to be treated the same way as other workers are.
does that make my ideology some kind of alternative? well, it's certainly an ideological alternative to neo-liberalism, and it's mirror reflections on the pseudo-left. but, what i'm expressing is a rather ideologically orthodox type of rather bland leftism. and, if you don't recognize it or think it's extreme, it's because you're the one that's not familiar with a leftist approach.
the right has historically not been strictly ideological, so it's been able to express itself in ways that uphold and contradict itself at the same time. hitler and churchill were both able to exist on the right, while holding disagreements that were strong enough to nearly destroy the whole fucking planet. but, you can trace them ideologically backwards to the same principles of a strong, centralized bureaucratic elite. they are equally valid expressions of the dominant ideas on the right, as expressed from hobbes through to burke and beyond, without having anything close to a comparable theory. terms like "alt-right" can consequently at least have some kind of coherent meaning, as it is possible to build an alternative to the right without exiting it.
the left is too ideological for this. while leftists are of course famous for their infighting, there is a simple question for belonging on the left, as well: do you advocate for worker self-management? this implies support for grassroots democracy. if you do not answer that question in the affirmative, you cannot be on the left. and, this has been the case all along. there is no such litmus test on the right, which opens it up to these alternative expressions of dominance and authoritarianism that leftists have always discarded out of hand (despite having sometimes lost to fraudulent expressions of the pseudo-left, which is the correct terminology on this side of the spectrum).
this term, "alt-left", is consequently not of the left but an attempt by the right to limit the realm of discourse and expunge any premise of the left from history. it's an attempt to enforce an end of history. in this narrative, "the left" becomes synonymous with the identity politics that anchor neo-liberalism in place. that is, "the left" becomes some kind of marginally less violent concept of capitalism. the next step is to reduce it to a slogan to divide opposition with.
but, a leftist can only frown and laugh at the absurdity of the discourse - while acknowledging that we perhaps will not object too strenuously upon being accused of offering an alternative to capitalism, or should become too upset at the elite for presenting an argument that renders them so fully irrelevant. for, this is the true graveyard of political elites: irrelevance.
it is actually not difficult to tell the difference between marijuana and skunk excretion. the similarity is only at the top of the smell. marijuana only exists at this top level of the scent, whereas skunk plunges much deeper into a multifaceted odour.
so, i'm tempted to conclude that somebody in the neighbourhood really needs to take a walk, late at night. but, the aroma consistently delves too deep for the cause to actually be marijuana.
instead, i'm left to conclude that there is somewhat of a struggle going on between cats and skunks, out there.
so, i'm tempted to conclude that somebody in the neighbourhood really needs to take a walk, late at night. but, the aroma consistently delves too deep for the cause to actually be marijuana.
instead, i'm left to conclude that there is somewhat of a struggle going on between cats and skunks, out there.
Sunday, August 6, 2017
my actual response to this is that i think it's a little bit hard to believe that the trump administration is actually in the process of sending haitian refugees back to haiti, and that this whole situation is probably in truth an unfortunate example of how bad media - perhaps bad social media - can lead people to behave irrationally.
but, i will repeat that - broadly speaking - i am not opposed to allowing entry to refugees that show up at the border. this can be a difficult journey. it's the idea of sending planes to the other side of the world to bring them here that gets under my skin.
as i've stated previously, i am broadly in favour of allowing what we call "illegal" immigration, but think we need to drastically slow down what we call "legal" immigration.
but, the solution here does not have to do with immigration policy, it has to do with calling the united states and getting a clear answer on what is going on - and then probably sending them back when it's realized that their fears are not well founded.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/border-crossing-quebec-asylum-analysis-wherry-1.4234050
but, i will repeat that - broadly speaking - i am not opposed to allowing entry to refugees that show up at the border. this can be a difficult journey. it's the idea of sending planes to the other side of the world to bring them here that gets under my skin.
as i've stated previously, i am broadly in favour of allowing what we call "illegal" immigration, but think we need to drastically slow down what we call "legal" immigration.
but, the solution here does not have to do with immigration policy, it has to do with calling the united states and getting a clear answer on what is going on - and then probably sending them back when it's realized that their fears are not well founded.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/border-crossing-quebec-asylum-analysis-wherry-1.4234050
aug 4-5 vlogs, which are two aimless nights out in detroit, where i'm really just going over to check on my bike.
at this point in time, it was not possible to bring a bicycle back and forth across the border under the tunnel without disassembling it, first. it is now possible to do so. i should be able to drive across the new bridge when it's finished, if i'm still here, and if they do away with unscientific vaccination restrictions.
Saturday, August 5, 2017
but, it doesn't - or at least shouldn't - matter if i make the boys uncomfortable.
see, i like the place for what it is. but, like most of what i see in detroit, it is poorly run - and, management doesn't understand the problem.
the reality is that if you could snap your fingers and create a bar full of a hundred mes as regulars, it would be full of hot ciswomen within weeks. i'm what every bar in this city needs in order to build a good client base; i'm a walking fantasy for bicurious women. and, i understand that with great power comes great responsibility. but, it's the absence of hot ciswomen that is what you're whining about, right?
further, the girls would stop coming as soon as the guys that are regulars at your existing establishment started showing up. get it, yet? i mean, you're identifying a real problem, sure: there's not enough women at the club. that's the same problem that exists at every fucking club. but, did you take a moment to notice that your dance floor smelled like body odor because it was full of overweight, single men? i had to stay in the front for a good while last night just because the back stunk so terribly of smelly fat dudes.
you're like the kid in the south park episode that thinks they're entitled to profit, but can't figure out the important step.
i recently built a computer over amazon & newegg
it was frequently the case that i would purchase items on amazon.ca and have them shipped to me through the united states. i could have purchased them over amazon.com for minimal differences - if i could buy the gift cards here, or if i had a credit card.
the functional difference lay only in where the domain was registered.
the reality is that large amounts of goods purchased online are manufactured neither in the united states or in canada. sure: it would make sense to better integrate the distribution network, which is what actually exists on this continent. but, that's not really an argument to knock down tariffs, and you don't really need to do so to maximize efficiency in distribution.
don't let them trick you into using good ideas to push through bad ones.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/cross-border-shopping-1.4226427
it was frequently the case that i would purchase items on amazon.ca and have them shipped to me through the united states. i could have purchased them over amazon.com for minimal differences - if i could buy the gift cards here, or if i had a credit card.
the functional difference lay only in where the domain was registered.
the reality is that large amounts of goods purchased online are manufactured neither in the united states or in canada. sure: it would make sense to better integrate the distribution network, which is what actually exists on this continent. but, that's not really an argument to knock down tariffs, and you don't really need to do so to maximize efficiency in distribution.
don't let them trick you into using good ideas to push through bad ones.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/cross-border-shopping-1.4226427
so, yes - i have a bicycle in detroit, now.
there's lots of reasons i wanted a bicycle for detroit. i've been talking about it for months - years, even. but, the event a few weeks ago where i got trailed really demonstrated the necessity of it. i was trapped by the bus line.
it's becoming normal, now, for dudes to hit on me late at night. i like to talk. and i won't talk to people that don't demonstrate a veener of politeness. but, the disappointed reactions at the end give me pause.
the ability to bicycle away is a strong escape tactic. i hope that it stays realistic. and, i need to rely on the city to make sure of that.
i'll update my list soon.
there's lots of reasons i wanted a bicycle for detroit. i've been talking about it for months - years, even. but, the event a few weeks ago where i got trailed really demonstrated the necessity of it. i was trapped by the bus line.
it's becoming normal, now, for dudes to hit on me late at night. i like to talk. and i won't talk to people that don't demonstrate a veener of politeness. but, the disappointed reactions at the end give me pause.
the ability to bicycle away is a strong escape tactic. i hope that it stays realistic. and, i need to rely on the city to make sure of that.
i'll update my list soon.
Friday, August 4, 2017
what the science actually says is that you're not designed at birth by a magic molecule; you evolve over time as a reaction to your experiences. as such, you do not exist as a fixed entity. you are not innate to anything. you have no objective existence outside of the context you are in, and you are constantly and forever in flux, constantly modified by events around you that you do not have any control over.
you consequently do not get to make your own choices in life - or at least not in any defined, insulated way.
so, what is this shit about genetic determinism? in fact, it's actually the christians that believe in predestinaton and "god's plan" and all that bullshit of the sort. and, the media has spun you around and confused the fuck out of you - they have relabeled religion as science, and then fed it back to you through shiny media.
you can code for trivial physical traits like eye colour. if that is important to you, whatever. but, virtually everything that science fiction has presented to you as genetic is in truth a religiously motivated fraud that science treats as almost entirely environmental.
most of the science fiction that exists today should in truth be recategorized as speculative religion.
http://theconversation.com/forget-about-designer-babies-gene-editing-wont-work-on-complex-traits-like-intelligence-51557
you consequently do not get to make your own choices in life - or at least not in any defined, insulated way.
so, what is this shit about genetic determinism? in fact, it's actually the christians that believe in predestinaton and "god's plan" and all that bullshit of the sort. and, the media has spun you around and confused the fuck out of you - they have relabeled religion as science, and then fed it back to you through shiny media.
you can code for trivial physical traits like eye colour. if that is important to you, whatever. but, virtually everything that science fiction has presented to you as genetic is in truth a religiously motivated fraud that science treats as almost entirely environmental.
most of the science fiction that exists today should in truth be recategorized as speculative religion.
http://theconversation.com/forget-about-designer-babies-gene-editing-wont-work-on-complex-traits-like-intelligence-51557
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
this is a real travesty.
i was planning on maybe going there this friday. and, the building is ancient. it's across from the old tiger stadium. babe ruth apparently used to frequent it...
ugh.
https://www.metrotimes.com/table-and-bar/archives/2017/08/02/construction-workers-damage-corktowns-ufo-factory
i was planning on maybe going there this friday. and, the building is ancient. it's across from the old tiger stadium. babe ruth apparently used to frequent it...
ugh.
https://www.metrotimes.com/table-and-bar/archives/2017/08/02/construction-workers-damage-corktowns-ufo-factory
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)