so, here's the thing.
maybe i'm wrong. maybe the russians didn't bomb paris.
but, if the result is that marine le pen wins the election and pulls france out of nato?
then, they bloody well should have bombed paris.
that would be the biggest victory for the russians since stalingrad.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/01/marine-le-pen-front-national-political-gains-paris-attacks
france operates on a run-off. there seems to be three major candidates, right now - the so-called "socialist" party of hollande (which is anything but...), the "republican party" (sarkozy's party) and the front nationale.
if the run-off ends up between sarkozy and le pen, it can be reasonably expected that the "socialists" will probably line up behind sarkozy in sufficient enough numbers to prevent le pen from winning.
it's the possibility of a run-off between le pen and hollande, which forces the conservative republican voters to pick a side, that gives her a distinct possibility of winning.
if you see another attack leading up to the election...
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
i got some blood test results back today.
the real reason for the blood test was to check my estrogen levels, which was actually done on my request. i've been thinking for a while now that i should get my dose boosted. but, i was running around from doctor to doctor and just didn't really get a chance to get an empirical test done to determine what the levels were and whether they should be boosted. as expected, they're a little low.
that's actually pretty normal. it's an expected part of transitioning to increase dosages after a while. i'm actually way past due on this. so, i've been boosted from 4 mg/day to 6 mg/day. but, i'm going to wait until i quit smoking first before i do it.
i've been stuck on this remix project for months because my machine just won't behave, and have been waiting until i'm done the project before i give myself a few weeks of filing to occupy myself with. for me, quitting smoking is primarily a problem at the mental level. basically, i find myself unable to focus on anything. it's a huge problem for me because i'm always focusing on something or other. the only way i'm going to get over the smoking is by giving myself something menial to do for, like, weeks. i just have to throw that time away. that's really hard for me - even if i get the long term benefits of it - because i interpret time as the only meaningful quantifiable in the entire universe. the filing is the perfect opportunity for this. but i can't get to it because i can't get the machine to co-operate.
i've been getting impatient, anyways. i only budgeted myself $60 for cigarettes this month. that needs to be a hard limit, now. smoking ends when that budget runs out, whether i'm done the project or not. the hormone switch is just an added incentive.
first, nicotine is an estrogen suppressant. second, smoking on estrogen can cause blood clots. i shouldn't be smoking at all, really - well, *at all*, but at all when i'm taking hormones. it's a risk for people on birth control, which is something like 100 mcg/day. i'm about to jump to 6 mg/day. i'm hesitant about the safety of this. i should really be hesitant about the safety of it at 4 mg/day.
but, he also told me that i'm the "healthiest person he's ever seen". he's "never seen lower blood cholesterol". it seemed obvious to him to ask me about my diet, but he seemed rather disappointed in my responses.
in the 96 hours before the blood test, i had consumed 5 rockstar vodkas, several pots of coffee, several packs of cigarettes and had even smoked a couple of bowls. ten hours previous to the blood test, i had a large meal that included a giant plate of pasta with a third of a brick of cheese, caesar dressing (not light.) as an alfredo sauce, eight slices of crumpled salami, tomatoes and green peppers. i also had a smoothie with a banana, five strawberries, two scoops of ice cream and about 500 ml of soy milk. i've actually had exactly that meal almost every day for the last two months - although i got a pizza one day, and have had some doritos in between as well.
i'll post the link to the culinary series in my vlog as a comment.
that doesn't come off as a particularly healthy diet. he liked the soy smoothies, and didn't like the salami and the cheese. he thought i must be eating some kind of miracle foods like quinoa or something.
while my diet is consciously designed to ensure i get sufficient nutrients (the soy smoothies are key to this, but i also would normally eat a lot of eggs to get my amino acids), it is really not designed to minimize so-called harmful foods - except in the sense that i do not eat a lot. i eat, at most, once a day - most days. once in a while, i won't eat at all.
the correct way to interpret the test results is as confirmation of my approach to food, which i've posted here a few times over the last few years. that is, the important thing to realize is that it isn't the content of the food that is important, but the quantity of it that you consume.
basically, your body stores everything almost exactly the same way. it may not be the most politically correct thing to say, but the actual hard reality of it is that if you're too fat or you have too much cholesterol then you simply eat too much. the way to minimize excess fat storage in the various ways that your body stores fat - which includes blood cholesterol - is to ensure that you're not giving your body too much fuel, because it will then store it as some kind of fat.
my blood cholesterol is not low because of what i eat. it's low because of how much i eat.
but, even that said, there is an even more dominant factor, and it's lifestyle. i walk everywhere. i walked about 40 minutes to the doctor's office today, in fact. i then walked to the grocery store to get some more very high fat caesar dressing for my high fat pasta diet. the reason i do this is that i don't have a car.
that is the actual takeaway: i am the healthiest person the doctor has ever seen because i do not have a car. and, if you want to be that healthy, too? then, stop using your car on a day-to-day basis. walk as much as you can.
i'm proof of it. most nutritionists would claim my diet is terrible (but they're wrong, because the quantity of what i consume is low). i smoke two things. i don't drink a lot of alcohol, but i had consumed some within a few days of the blood test. and, i drink at least a pot of coffee a day.
but, my heart is in pristine condition!
and, it's simply because i don't have a car.
the real reason for the blood test was to check my estrogen levels, which was actually done on my request. i've been thinking for a while now that i should get my dose boosted. but, i was running around from doctor to doctor and just didn't really get a chance to get an empirical test done to determine what the levels were and whether they should be boosted. as expected, they're a little low.
that's actually pretty normal. it's an expected part of transitioning to increase dosages after a while. i'm actually way past due on this. so, i've been boosted from 4 mg/day to 6 mg/day. but, i'm going to wait until i quit smoking first before i do it.
i've been stuck on this remix project for months because my machine just won't behave, and have been waiting until i'm done the project before i give myself a few weeks of filing to occupy myself with. for me, quitting smoking is primarily a problem at the mental level. basically, i find myself unable to focus on anything. it's a huge problem for me because i'm always focusing on something or other. the only way i'm going to get over the smoking is by giving myself something menial to do for, like, weeks. i just have to throw that time away. that's really hard for me - even if i get the long term benefits of it - because i interpret time as the only meaningful quantifiable in the entire universe. the filing is the perfect opportunity for this. but i can't get to it because i can't get the machine to co-operate.
i've been getting impatient, anyways. i only budgeted myself $60 for cigarettes this month. that needs to be a hard limit, now. smoking ends when that budget runs out, whether i'm done the project or not. the hormone switch is just an added incentive.
first, nicotine is an estrogen suppressant. second, smoking on estrogen can cause blood clots. i shouldn't be smoking at all, really - well, *at all*, but at all when i'm taking hormones. it's a risk for people on birth control, which is something like 100 mcg/day. i'm about to jump to 6 mg/day. i'm hesitant about the safety of this. i should really be hesitant about the safety of it at 4 mg/day.
but, he also told me that i'm the "healthiest person he's ever seen". he's "never seen lower blood cholesterol". it seemed obvious to him to ask me about my diet, but he seemed rather disappointed in my responses.
in the 96 hours before the blood test, i had consumed 5 rockstar vodkas, several pots of coffee, several packs of cigarettes and had even smoked a couple of bowls. ten hours previous to the blood test, i had a large meal that included a giant plate of pasta with a third of a brick of cheese, caesar dressing (not light.) as an alfredo sauce, eight slices of crumpled salami, tomatoes and green peppers. i also had a smoothie with a banana, five strawberries, two scoops of ice cream and about 500 ml of soy milk. i've actually had exactly that meal almost every day for the last two months - although i got a pizza one day, and have had some doritos in between as well.
i'll post the link to the culinary series in my vlog as a comment.
that doesn't come off as a particularly healthy diet. he liked the soy smoothies, and didn't like the salami and the cheese. he thought i must be eating some kind of miracle foods like quinoa or something.
while my diet is consciously designed to ensure i get sufficient nutrients (the soy smoothies are key to this, but i also would normally eat a lot of eggs to get my amino acids), it is really not designed to minimize so-called harmful foods - except in the sense that i do not eat a lot. i eat, at most, once a day - most days. once in a while, i won't eat at all.
the correct way to interpret the test results is as confirmation of my approach to food, which i've posted here a few times over the last few years. that is, the important thing to realize is that it isn't the content of the food that is important, but the quantity of it that you consume.
basically, your body stores everything almost exactly the same way. it may not be the most politically correct thing to say, but the actual hard reality of it is that if you're too fat or you have too much cholesterol then you simply eat too much. the way to minimize excess fat storage in the various ways that your body stores fat - which includes blood cholesterol - is to ensure that you're not giving your body too much fuel, because it will then store it as some kind of fat.
my blood cholesterol is not low because of what i eat. it's low because of how much i eat.
but, even that said, there is an even more dominant factor, and it's lifestyle. i walk everywhere. i walked about 40 minutes to the doctor's office today, in fact. i then walked to the grocery store to get some more very high fat caesar dressing for my high fat pasta diet. the reason i do this is that i don't have a car.
that is the actual takeaway: i am the healthiest person the doctor has ever seen because i do not have a car. and, if you want to be that healthy, too? then, stop using your car on a day-to-day basis. walk as much as you can.
i'm proof of it. most nutritionists would claim my diet is terrible (but they're wrong, because the quantity of what i consume is low). i smoke two things. i don't drink a lot of alcohol, but i had consumed some within a few days of the blood test. and, i drink at least a pot of coffee a day.
but, my heart is in pristine condition!
and, it's simply because i don't have a car.
well, the government would spend it on weapons.
i'd do the same thing if i were them. they're going to lose a huge amount of it, regardless. their choice is whether they get to spend it on something they agree with, or whether the government gets to spend it on blowing people up.
the ideal solution would be to have some kind of a taxation rule, where tax bills over a certain amount can be directed by the person being taxed into specific directions. if i were them, and i had a 20 billion dollar tax bill, i wouldn't have a problem paying it - so long as i could direct the money into a combination of subsidized housing, primary education and health care.
but, i'd be livid if it ended up in the pockets of raytheon.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/zuckerbergs-letter-newborn-1.3345986
i'd do the same thing if i were them. they're going to lose a huge amount of it, regardless. their choice is whether they get to spend it on something they agree with, or whether the government gets to spend it on blowing people up.
the ideal solution would be to have some kind of a taxation rule, where tax bills over a certain amount can be directed by the person being taxed into specific directions. if i were them, and i had a 20 billion dollar tax bill, i wouldn't have a problem paying it - so long as i could direct the money into a combination of subsidized housing, primary education and health care.
but, i'd be livid if it ended up in the pockets of raytheon.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/zuckerbergs-letter-newborn-1.3345986
has it crossed anybody's mind to just buy our own oil, while we're trying to get off of it?
last time we tried that, we got a hissy fit from the west. maybe they've grown up a little bit...
i mean, we're importing over half of our oil from the us, and most of the rest of it from europe, while we're cutting jobs in alberta.
it makes no sense.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/cmhc-low-oil-1.3345304
geologist
I assume that you mean that the government of Canada should buy the oil. Where would the money come from?
jessica murray
why would the government need to buy the oil?
eastern canada imports almost all of it's oil. western canada exports almost all of it's oil.
i mean, do i really need to explain this? why is it not obvious?
last time we tried that, we got a hissy fit from the west. maybe they've grown up a little bit...
i mean, we're importing over half of our oil from the us, and most of the rest of it from europe, while we're cutting jobs in alberta.
it makes no sense.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/cmhc-low-oil-1.3345304
geologist
I assume that you mean that the government of Canada should buy the oil. Where would the money come from?
jessica murray
why would the government need to buy the oil?
eastern canada imports almost all of it's oil. western canada exports almost all of it's oil.
i mean, do i really need to explain this? why is it not obvious?
it may be a little fishy to assume that what is essentially good luck will continue forward, for no reason.
but, i think that more than balances itself out with increased revenue from other sources.
but, this is a hypothetical on a hypothetical. pointless.
from a pr perspective, and what else is really valid here, the government should probably not be predicting budget surpluses or deficits five years in advance in the first place. that would shield it from hypothetical criticism on hypothetical outcomes.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pbo-fiscal-outlook-government-optimistic-1.3345113
but, i think that more than balances itself out with increased revenue from other sources.
but, this is a hypothetical on a hypothetical. pointless.
from a pr perspective, and what else is really valid here, the government should probably not be predicting budget surpluses or deficits five years in advance in the first place. that would shield it from hypothetical criticism on hypothetical outcomes.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pbo-fiscal-outlook-government-optimistic-1.3345113
IrishDuck
Well Gotta go to work, pay for Trudeau's nannies
jessica murray
all two thousandths of a cent?
it should be over with quickly, anyways. you can grit it out for a few seconds. i believe in you.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-nannies-taxpayers-1.3344533
Well Gotta go to work, pay for Trudeau's nannies
jessica murray
all two thousandths of a cent?
it should be over with quickly, anyways. you can grit it out for a few seconds. i believe in you.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-nannies-taxpayers-1.3344533
shouldda listened to danny.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/newfoundland-labrador-election-main-1.3343794
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/newfoundland-labrador-election-main-1.3343794
i haven't been here long (mid 2013), but it is actually quite pleasant. i grew up in ottawa; it's not as nice as ottawa, but few places are.
sometimes, canadians take our green spaces for granted. maybe we shouldn't.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/syrian-refugees-canada-ormiston-1.3344218
sometimes, canadians take our green spaces for granted. maybe we shouldn't.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/syrian-refugees-canada-ormiston-1.3344218
a real waste of taxpayer money is the cbc running frivolous stories like this to distort the conversation on public finances.
it's the kind of thing you expect in a murdoch tabloid, not in a serious publication - nor one funded by public money.
i hope the government realizes that it has some housecleaning to do at the cbc.
a lot of trash to take out...
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-nannies-taxpayers-1.3344533
Byron Linley
In love with yourself I see.
jessica murray
love does not exist. it's merely a delusional delve into fantasy, as created by hormones. sorry.
it's the kind of thing you expect in a murdoch tabloid, not in a serious publication - nor one funded by public money.
i hope the government realizes that it has some housecleaning to do at the cbc.
a lot of trash to take out...
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-nannies-taxpayers-1.3344533
Byron Linley
In love with yourself I see.
jessica murray
love does not exist. it's merely a delusional delve into fantasy, as created by hormones. sorry.
see, this is the media narrative that we've been burdened with for the last several decades and that i'd really like to see just go away.
two $40,000/yr jobs (if that) isn't even statistical error in the budget.
and, i don't say this in any particular defense of trudeau. i state it in defense of rational thinking on the fiscal front - as it applies to a wide variety of things.
if you're angry about this, it's just flat out irrational.
i'd rather flip the situation around.
are these workers getting enough hours to earn a living wage? do they have sufficient benefits - dental, for example?
what's more important, here - that these workers have rights or the couple of thousandths of a cent it would cost you to ensure they do?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-nannies-taxpayers-1.3344533
hylobates
Yeah, but logic and rational thought never were Con strong points.
jessica murray
well, the reality is that it isn't even that they're bad at logic, it's more that they go out of their way to subvert it.
two $40,000/yr jobs (if that) isn't even statistical error in the budget.
and, i don't say this in any particular defense of trudeau. i state it in defense of rational thinking on the fiscal front - as it applies to a wide variety of things.
if you're angry about this, it's just flat out irrational.
i'd rather flip the situation around.
are these workers getting enough hours to earn a living wage? do they have sufficient benefits - dental, for example?
what's more important, here - that these workers have rights or the couple of thousandths of a cent it would cost you to ensure they do?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-nannies-taxpayers-1.3344533
hylobates
Yeah, but logic and rational thought never were Con strong points.
jessica murray
well, the reality is that it isn't even that they're bad at logic, it's more that they go out of their way to subvert it.
i still don't know what "legally binding" means, but this is a nice change in language from the messaging over the last little while. good. now, let's hope it gets done. and, let's hope the american people develop some sense in kicking the republicans out if they block it, too.
it may be the case that the rest of the world will have to move ahead without the united states, if that happens. but, i mean, what else are we going to do? we can't just keep waiting.
and, if it gets blocked by some other country, it's fair game to blame that other country for that, too.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/obama-pushes-for-climate-pact-with-some-legally-binding-aspects/article27555366/
it may be the case that the rest of the world will have to move ahead without the united states, if that happens. but, i mean, what else are we going to do? we can't just keep waiting.
and, if it gets blocked by some other country, it's fair game to blame that other country for that, too.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/obama-pushes-for-climate-pact-with-some-legally-binding-aspects/article27555366/
this makes sense: there's a fight between the warm air moving up and the cold air moving down and the forecast is that the warm air will mostly win that fight. i concur. but, i just want to add that you have to work in a concept of uncertainty. this el nino has also been unpredictable. this time last year, it wasn't even clear that we were going to have an el nino at all. if various factors lead to a faster collapse. or a longer lingering, this will effect how much warm air is able to move it's way up. there's also uncertainty related to how powerful that north wind may end up. canadians know to never underestimate that north wind.
while i think the idea is correct, i would suggest that you should not be surprised if we get a nasty cold snap or two before february. i would also not be surprised if the el nino stays longer than expected (as this has been the pattern with this el nino up to now - it has consistently exceeded forecasts). the cold snaps may be short, and may ultimately be overpowered by the warm air. but, there's reasons to expect them that go beyond the obvious "well, it's winter".
it's actually a situation, i think, where "a few degrees above normal" is misleading. fifteen days of temperatures that are 6 degrees above normal followed by five days of temperatures that are 10 degrees below normal (maybe dipping over the first day and rising over the last) balances out to "a few degrees above normal". but, it doesn't feel that way. and you won't remember it that way.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/winter-hasnt-been-cancelled-but-will-be-milder-for-most/60506?intcmp=twn_promo_news1
while i think the idea is correct, i would suggest that you should not be surprised if we get a nasty cold snap or two before february. i would also not be surprised if the el nino stays longer than expected (as this has been the pattern with this el nino up to now - it has consistently exceeded forecasts). the cold snaps may be short, and may ultimately be overpowered by the warm air. but, there's reasons to expect them that go beyond the obvious "well, it's winter".
it's actually a situation, i think, where "a few degrees above normal" is misleading. fifteen days of temperatures that are 6 degrees above normal followed by five days of temperatures that are 10 degrees below normal (maybe dipping over the first day and rising over the last) balances out to "a few degrees above normal". but, it doesn't feel that way. and you won't remember it that way.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/winter-hasnt-been-cancelled-but-will-be-milder-for-most/60506?intcmp=twn_promo_news1
Monday, November 30, 2015
india: 6% of the emissions, with 17% of the population.
china: 30% of emissions, with 19% of the population.
canada: 1.5% of the emissions with .5% of the population.
usa: 15% of the emissions, with 4% of the population.
i guess barack has decided to share the blame a little. "blame canada" was maybe getting a little old.
reality?
the democrats have a decent blame-shifting marketing campaign going on, but they've done absolutely nothing substantive.
blame america.
together, china & america make nearly half of the emissions. india is fourth, after the eu, but there's a huge drop from 2nd to 4th.
and, yes, china *must* get their emissions down. but, they also have a fifth of the population, and one would expect they'd produce a fifth of the emissions. somewhere around 20% is a reasonable target.
it's the united states that remains the most egregious polluter and has to take the biggest steps. any suggestions otherwise are just a pr strategy to shift the blame.
one would expect china and india to be the world's biggest polluters, because they have nearly 40% of the world's population. a real solution to this will necessitate that india become the world's second largest polluter due to reductions elsewhere.
it is the day that this becomes true that we will know we've made some progress in reducing emissions in the developed world.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-climate-change-conference-1.3343125
you know what?
screw obama.
let's push for legally binding targets, and make him make the choice to sign it or not. letting him squirm out of this is too easy. you're letting him blame it on the republicans. and, it's a lot of bs.
make it tough. make him sign it. and, make him take the heat when he doesn't.
china: 30% of emissions, with 19% of the population.
canada: 1.5% of the emissions with .5% of the population.
usa: 15% of the emissions, with 4% of the population.
i guess barack has decided to share the blame a little. "blame canada" was maybe getting a little old.
reality?
the democrats have a decent blame-shifting marketing campaign going on, but they've done absolutely nothing substantive.
blame america.
together, china & america make nearly half of the emissions. india is fourth, after the eu, but there's a huge drop from 2nd to 4th.
and, yes, china *must* get their emissions down. but, they also have a fifth of the population, and one would expect they'd produce a fifth of the emissions. somewhere around 20% is a reasonable target.
it's the united states that remains the most egregious polluter and has to take the biggest steps. any suggestions otherwise are just a pr strategy to shift the blame.
one would expect china and india to be the world's biggest polluters, because they have nearly 40% of the world's population. a real solution to this will necessitate that india become the world's second largest polluter due to reductions elsewhere.
it is the day that this becomes true that we will know we've made some progress in reducing emissions in the developed world.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-climate-change-conference-1.3343125
you know what?
screw obama.
let's push for legally binding targets, and make him make the choice to sign it or not. letting him squirm out of this is too easy. you're letting him blame it on the republicans. and, it's a lot of bs.
make it tough. make him sign it. and, make him take the heat when he doesn't.
jessica murray
my fall forecast was similar, but i'm not using any fancy models. it's not exactly divination, either. but, there's two things happening: you've got el nino pulling warm air up and you've got that blob exaggerating the pull of cold air down (the solar minimum has now passed). these are acting against each other. but, the difference is that el nino is a primary driver whereas the blob is a secondary one (that is, it exaggerates other things). the conclusion was to expect a mostly mild fall with shots of cold air. this is actually what the professionals here suggested, albeit with more complex formulas. they weren't wrong so much as they were off by a factor - el nino won the tug of war.
my winter forecast is actually that the conditions mostly hold. the graph needs to come down a few degrees, to account for less sunlight (and a colder ground). but, the basic idea of there being a tug of war between el nino and the polar vortex doesn't strike me as changing over the next few months. expect mostly warmer than average temperatures, with periodic blasts of arctic air.
also, i apologize - i should not have said that the solar minimum has passed. it is the opposite - the weak solar max has now passed. i was thinking of how weak the solar max was and jumbled the language. this is why editing posts is useful. we're actually now heading towards solar minimum, which should actually exaggerate the jet stream (on top of the blob, which may also be disappearing). it will be interesting to see what el nino looks like when we get to a more normal solar maximum and the factors begin to compound rather than cancel each other out. but, it's still a basic conflict in air masses and what we get will be determined by which air mass over powers the other.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/winter-is-coming-heres-how-we-develop-our-winter-forecast/60278/
my fall forecast was similar, but i'm not using any fancy models. it's not exactly divination, either. but, there's two things happening: you've got el nino pulling warm air up and you've got that blob exaggerating the pull of cold air down (the solar minimum has now passed). these are acting against each other. but, the difference is that el nino is a primary driver whereas the blob is a secondary one (that is, it exaggerates other things). the conclusion was to expect a mostly mild fall with shots of cold air. this is actually what the professionals here suggested, albeit with more complex formulas. they weren't wrong so much as they were off by a factor - el nino won the tug of war.
my winter forecast is actually that the conditions mostly hold. the graph needs to come down a few degrees, to account for less sunlight (and a colder ground). but, the basic idea of there being a tug of war between el nino and the polar vortex doesn't strike me as changing over the next few months. expect mostly warmer than average temperatures, with periodic blasts of arctic air.
also, i apologize - i should not have said that the solar minimum has passed. it is the opposite - the weak solar max has now passed. i was thinking of how weak the solar max was and jumbled the language. this is why editing posts is useful. we're actually now heading towards solar minimum, which should actually exaggerate the jet stream (on top of the blob, which may also be disappearing). it will be interesting to see what el nino looks like when we get to a more normal solar maximum and the factors begin to compound rather than cancel each other out. but, it's still a basic conflict in air masses and what we get will be determined by which air mass over powers the other.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/winter-is-coming-heres-how-we-develop-our-winter-forecast/60278/
he keeps saying that, and harper is going to have to announce a press conference consisting of three words muttered in an austrian accent.
i understand the issue with the american house. but, part of me would like to see "legally binding" targets anyways. i'm just not clear on what that actually means, though.
i mean, call me an anarchist - i'm guilty - but i'd argue that a law is only as valuable as it's means of enforcement. let's say you pass these legally binding targets. what happens if you break that law?
there are examples of enforceable international law. well, sort of. so long as you're not american, anyways. so, we have an international war crimes tribunal in the hague. will there be an international climate crimes tribunal? and, who gets tried?
it just strikes me as an absolute red herring.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-address-climate-change-paris-1.3343394
i understand the issue with the american house. but, part of me would like to see "legally binding" targets anyways. i'm just not clear on what that actually means, though.
i mean, call me an anarchist - i'm guilty - but i'd argue that a law is only as valuable as it's means of enforcement. let's say you pass these legally binding targets. what happens if you break that law?
there are examples of enforceable international law. well, sort of. so long as you're not american, anyways. so, we have an international war crimes tribunal in the hague. will there be an international climate crimes tribunal? and, who gets tried?
it just strikes me as an absolute red herring.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-address-climate-change-paris-1.3343394
Sunday, November 29, 2015
let's just get this done with quickly, please, and move on to something substantive.
the government will get little sympathy from anybody at all - not the media, not voters, nobody - if it ties it's own hands.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-era-parliamentary-reform-1.3342440
--
(deleted post about 'sunni ways')
deathtokoalas
just about anything would be a nice change over the shiite ways of the last ten years.
the government will get little sympathy from anybody at all - not the media, not voters, nobody - if it ties it's own hands.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-era-parliamentary-reform-1.3342440
--
(deleted post about 'sunni ways')
deathtokoalas
just about anything would be a nice change over the shiite ways of the last ten years.
india is making massive investments in solar and has promised to cut emissions by over a third. further, modi has a history of strong green initiatives. expect india to be a leader, here.
it is very typical of the western media to blame the problem on developing countries in order to distract from our own inaction.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-climate-change-deal-1.3341716
Randi7
India hasn't promised to even LOOK at their emissions until 2020.
Never mind actually DO anything.
jessica murray
completely false.
what india is doing is exactly what we should be doing - they are investing billions (in fact, i saw the number 2.5 trillion) on building clean electricity generation, primarily through solar. they expect to get over 100 gw on line of pure solar within the next couple of years, which would make them the world leader in renewables - ahead of germany.
as it is, their emissions per capita are already very low. one could not reasonably expect them to have a lower emissions per capita. it's just that there's a lot of people there, so even an emissions per capita that is lower than most developing countries (let alone most developed countries...) adds up.
but, the only way to get around the issue is to build clean generation capacity. that is what they are doing. it is what we should be doing, too.
india will feel the worst effects of climate change, of anywhere in the world. you will consequently find few world leaders that are as committed to the issue as modi is, as he has a strong grasp on the potential consequence for india. this is admittedly a change from previous governments. but it is something that has happened.
we need to stop demonizing others and take responsibility for our own actions.
put another way.
india is the second most populous country in the world, and has 17.6% of the population. canada is the 37th and has 0.49% of the population.
yet, india produces the 4th greatest amount of emissions (the eu is third) - and only 5.8% of total emissions. it has an emission-per-capita ratio of 1.7, which is lower than any other major country. the closest i could find was brazil at 2.4. this is an emissions-per-capita ratio that is similar to or in fact lower than most countries in sub-saharan africa.
conversely, canada has an emission-per-capita ratio of 15.7. that is over 9 times as many emissions, per person. we are 0.49% of the world population, but produce 1.6% of the emissions. in order to do our part, we should cut our emissions by seventy percent.
yet, it is india that is leading the way in solar development, and not us.
now, i don't pretend that canada is the major culprit, here. the major culprit remains the united states, which produces 15% of the global emissions with 4.4% of the population. they also need to cut their emissions by 70% in order to their part. they have done absolutely nothing substantive whatsoever. china is also polluting beyond it's population - 18.9% of the population and 29.2% of emissions means they should be looking to reduce emissions by 35%. they have been taking some steps recently, as well.
but, to blame it on india? this is wrong. it's western propaganda. whitewashing, basically.
frankly, the truth is that it's more than a little bit racist - by design.
it is very typical of the western media to blame the problem on developing countries in order to distract from our own inaction.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-climate-change-deal-1.3341716
Randi7
India hasn't promised to even LOOK at their emissions until 2020.
Never mind actually DO anything.
jessica murray
completely false.
what india is doing is exactly what we should be doing - they are investing billions (in fact, i saw the number 2.5 trillion) on building clean electricity generation, primarily through solar. they expect to get over 100 gw on line of pure solar within the next couple of years, which would make them the world leader in renewables - ahead of germany.
as it is, their emissions per capita are already very low. one could not reasonably expect them to have a lower emissions per capita. it's just that there's a lot of people there, so even an emissions per capita that is lower than most developing countries (let alone most developed countries...) adds up.
but, the only way to get around the issue is to build clean generation capacity. that is what they are doing. it is what we should be doing, too.
india will feel the worst effects of climate change, of anywhere in the world. you will consequently find few world leaders that are as committed to the issue as modi is, as he has a strong grasp on the potential consequence for india. this is admittedly a change from previous governments. but it is something that has happened.
we need to stop demonizing others and take responsibility for our own actions.
put another way.
india is the second most populous country in the world, and has 17.6% of the population. canada is the 37th and has 0.49% of the population.
yet, india produces the 4th greatest amount of emissions (the eu is third) - and only 5.8% of total emissions. it has an emission-per-capita ratio of 1.7, which is lower than any other major country. the closest i could find was brazil at 2.4. this is an emissions-per-capita ratio that is similar to or in fact lower than most countries in sub-saharan africa.
conversely, canada has an emission-per-capita ratio of 15.7. that is over 9 times as many emissions, per person. we are 0.49% of the world population, but produce 1.6% of the emissions. in order to do our part, we should cut our emissions by seventy percent.
yet, it is india that is leading the way in solar development, and not us.
now, i don't pretend that canada is the major culprit, here. the major culprit remains the united states, which produces 15% of the global emissions with 4.4% of the population. they also need to cut their emissions by 70% in order to their part. they have done absolutely nothing substantive whatsoever. china is also polluting beyond it's population - 18.9% of the population and 29.2% of emissions means they should be looking to reduce emissions by 35%. they have been taking some steps recently, as well.
but, to blame it on india? this is wrong. it's western propaganda. whitewashing, basically.
frankly, the truth is that it's more than a little bit racist - by design.
are americans really so sheltered and juvenile that this is a big deal?
what the fuck did you expect him to say?
or, let me guess.
the movement to ban rodgers for the year is being driven by parents concerned for a safer minneapolis.
Kolza
It's just something that doesn't happen often on television.
jessica
+Kolza no, i think i get it. it's just liberation, right? you can taste some abstraction of freedom in this, under the heavy burdens of day-to-day social censorship, and you're exhilarated by it.
but, don't suppress it further. be inspired. throw caution to the wind. live. be real.
it will be monday morning in but 24 hours. march right in there and tell your boss to fuck off. and throw your hands to the sky when you do - feel that surge of freedom.
what the fuck did you expect him to say?
or, let me guess.
the movement to ban rodgers for the year is being driven by parents concerned for a safer minneapolis.
Kolza
It's just something that doesn't happen often on television.
jessica
+Kolza no, i think i get it. it's just liberation, right? you can taste some abstraction of freedom in this, under the heavy burdens of day-to-day social censorship, and you're exhilarated by it.
but, don't suppress it further. be inspired. throw caution to the wind. live. be real.
it will be monday morning in but 24 hours. march right in there and tell your boss to fuck off. and throw your hands to the sky when you do - feel that surge of freedom.
Saturday, November 28, 2015
finalizing if god somehow does exist, it is sadistic and should be destroyed
this track is also finalized.
there's actually three versions of this done, but only two up. i'm considering splitting it off to a single with a couple of extra mixes, as well. this is the instrumental electronic mix.
regarding the singles, my thoughts have evolved on this. at first, i was skeptical about it because of the need to add numbers - now, i think i'll need to add in an extra series between integers, somehow. then, i wanted to work it down to just a couple. now, i'm thinking that if i do any, i should do all of them.
as before, my focus right now is to finish all of the versions of all of the songs. afterwards, i'll check each possible single for listenability value.
and, i still haven't completely ruled out renumbering. i've only mailed three discs. it will just make them that much more valuable, right?
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/dohgye
full remix:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/if-god-somehow-does-exist-it-is-sadistic-and-should-be-destroyed
there's actually three versions of this done, but only two up. i'm considering splitting it off to a single with a couple of extra mixes, as well. this is the instrumental electronic mix.
regarding the singles, my thoughts have evolved on this. at first, i was skeptical about it because of the need to add numbers - now, i think i'll need to add in an extra series between integers, somehow. then, i wanted to work it down to just a couple. now, i'm thinking that if i do any, i should do all of them.
as before, my focus right now is to finish all of the versions of all of the songs. afterwards, i'll check each possible single for listenability value.
and, i still haven't completely ruled out renumbering. i've only mailed three discs. it will just make them that much more valuable, right?
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/dohgye
full remix:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/if-god-somehow-does-exist-it-is-sadistic-and-should-be-destroyed
a scattered ancient memory
jessica
hi.
i don't have your mother's email address.
i just have a scattered memory of there being photos of me at a christmas party at the prime minister's office. it was brian mulroney that was prime minister, so it would have been the late 80s or early 90s. it had something to do with your mother's work.
i was just a kid; the memory is very fuzzy.
...but i think it would be interesting to track that picture down, if it still exists.
the oldest aunt
why don't you try the surviving uncle?
jessica
i really wouldn't expect he'd have those photos....
it'd be kind of weird if he did, i think.
the oldest aunt
Your right it would be weird but possible , apparently in 1996 or 97 when my mother moved to Victoria she gave all her children their own photos baby photos and all. so that would mean your dad was given his. so when he passed away ,I recall being given some photos of your dad from your stepmother and I was given photos to give to the surviving uncle
jessica
well, i'll give it a shot...
hi.
i don't have your mother's email address.
i just have a scattered memory of there being photos of me at a christmas party at the prime minister's office. it was brian mulroney that was prime minister, so it would have been the late 80s or early 90s. it had something to do with your mother's work.
i was just a kid; the memory is very fuzzy.
...but i think it would be interesting to track that picture down, if it still exists.
the oldest aunt
why don't you try the surviving uncle?
jessica
i really wouldn't expect he'd have those photos....
it'd be kind of weird if he did, i think.
the oldest aunt
Your right it would be weird but possible , apparently in 1996 or 97 when my mother moved to Victoria she gave all her children their own photos baby photos and all. so that would mean your dad was given his. so when he passed away ,I recall being given some photos of your dad from your stepmother and I was given photos to give to the surviving uncle
jessica
well, i'll give it a shot...
looks simple enough. what could possibly go wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvU6qsLfAuE
(deleted)
gender dysphoria is the medical term given to people suffering the exclusionary effects that society places on trans people. this is a recognized condition; it is essentially a type of trauma. however, there is currently no dsm category for gendered behaviour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvU6qsLfAuE
(deleted)
gender dysphoria is the medical term given to people suffering the exclusionary effects that society places on trans people. this is a recognized condition; it is essentially a type of trauma. however, there is currently no dsm category for gendered behaviour.
mr. okafor, you're a millionaire.
you need $3 pbrs? then, why are you hanging out in this place with the people that do? he was wrong: money means you can't be real anymore, you gotta chill with the fucking banksters. 'cause these lame motherfuckers are everywhere. they wanna fight you because you're rich, because you're successful.
you're not one of them anymore. stop pretending you are.
you need $3 pbrs? then, why are you hanging out in this place with the people that do? he was wrong: money means you can't be real anymore, you gotta chill with the fucking banksters. 'cause these lame motherfuckers are everywhere. they wanna fight you because you're rich, because you're successful.
you're not one of them anymore. stop pretending you are.
she said "oppressive", not "aggressive". i agree that it looks like a skit.
but, i'm posting here because this comes up every year and i can't stand the narrative. if this is a skit, it just demonstrates the point, further.
look at all the stupid poor people fighting over shit. they're funny.
listen...
it may be kind of nice to have some cash and shit. maybe you even earned it. good for you. but, these yearly delves into black friday insanity should be interpreted through the filter of how fucked up the wealth distribution is in our society, and it's not something that should make you feel good about yourself at the expense of others.
the question of picking something up on sale like this may seem trivial to you, but you have to understand that for the bulk of the people standing in line it's the difference between having a christmas and not having a christmas. and, what that means is explaining to your kids why you don't have a christmas. what it means is finding a way to uphold societal expectations about getting your in-laws, that you hate, something - because you have to. because they'll judge you, if you don't.
it may be great for our collective sanity if more people just stopped celebrating christmas. fuck, i haven't celebrated christmas in years. then again, i don't talk to my family, either. nor would it really have an effect on our economy anymore; stores hire temporary over the holidays, and 95% of the crap people buy is made in another country. it would be great if people just stopped. but, it's just not that easy.
showing up empty-handed at your in-laws, or telling your kids it doesn't happen this year, is just a measure of self-worth. of basic pride.
that so many people need to go through this ritual to maintain that basic level of self-respect should generate reflection, not ridicule. the insanity, here, is the level of inequality underlying this.
but, i'm posting here because this comes up every year and i can't stand the narrative. if this is a skit, it just demonstrates the point, further.
look at all the stupid poor people fighting over shit. they're funny.
listen...
it may be kind of nice to have some cash and shit. maybe you even earned it. good for you. but, these yearly delves into black friday insanity should be interpreted through the filter of how fucked up the wealth distribution is in our society, and it's not something that should make you feel good about yourself at the expense of others.
the question of picking something up on sale like this may seem trivial to you, but you have to understand that for the bulk of the people standing in line it's the difference between having a christmas and not having a christmas. and, what that means is explaining to your kids why you don't have a christmas. what it means is finding a way to uphold societal expectations about getting your in-laws, that you hate, something - because you have to. because they'll judge you, if you don't.
it may be great for our collective sanity if more people just stopped celebrating christmas. fuck, i haven't celebrated christmas in years. then again, i don't talk to my family, either. nor would it really have an effect on our economy anymore; stores hire temporary over the holidays, and 95% of the crap people buy is made in another country. it would be great if people just stopped. but, it's just not that easy.
showing up empty-handed at your in-laws, or telling your kids it doesn't happen this year, is just a measure of self-worth. of basic pride.
that so many people need to go through this ritual to maintain that basic level of self-respect should generate reflection, not ridicule. the insanity, here, is the level of inequality underlying this.
this may be rhetorical flourish and everything, and i'll acknowledge that few canadians really know the historical narrative well, but it is simply.....weird....to have a liberal prime minister fall all over himself for the queen.
the liberals are supposed to be about canadian sovereignty, and the separation of links to the monarchy. this is out of the whig tradition of parliamentary government, as applied to a far flung colony on another continent. there's even a strong historical strain of support for republican government in the liberal party (it's most recent prominent exponent was john manley). it is the desire for separation that drove patriation, which was the end of a very long historical and political process. it is the tories that have historically played up ties to the monarchy and canada's place in the commonwealth, out of the tory tradition of promoting "class harmony" in hierarchical fealty to king & country.
again: i know i'm speaking greek to most people. but, historians are going to look back at this and interpret it as flat out bizarre.
liberal supporters largely expect the prime minister to do the bare minimum in this circumstance, keep the language to the expected formalities, avoid any sort of direct praise (however faint) and get out of the hive's nest as soon as possible.
"the whigs are praising the queen now, are they?"
"indeed. has the whole world gone mad?"
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/full-text-trudeau-toast-queen-1.3340584
jplondon
no. actually, there are liberals (of the large and small-l variety) who see the role of the crown in a constitutinal monarchy.
in fact, i would argue - as a small-l liberal at all times and a large-l liberal on occasion - that personal liberties are best safeguarded in a constitutional monarchy.
i appreciate your historical take on the subject, but, just as democrats and republicans are the reverse of their historical antecedents, liberals are not the direct descendants of their whig progenitors.
any more than today's canadian conservatives bear the slightest resemblance to their 'tory' roots, even going back as recently as two decades.
and, given that, it is possible to share common values - particularly since the definition of the two modern parties is no longer rooted in their differing expectations of parliamentry government.
again, with the exception of the current interation of the conservative party, which sees parliament as an obstacle.
jessica murray
i don't think the differences between the modern parties and their historical roots are, in practice, are as large as you're suggesting.
consider, for example, what we call "free trade". standing in 1988, it seemed strange to see the liberals oppose it (that is, after all, what the term "liberal" actually *means*) and the conservatives (with their history of tory protectionism) support it.
but, if you look at the agreement, it is actually very much closer to the idea of tory protectionism than it is to the idea of free trade. there wasn't really a change in substantive position, so much as the term "free trade" went through a standard orwellian newspeak process to be converted into it's antithesis.
he last election was, at it's core, a choice between increasing authoritarian government under harper or a return to parliamentarian democracy under the liberal party. i don't think this was a corollary. i think it was the direct ballot question.
i also don't understand how you could argue that a constitutional monarchy (where the queen has no power at all) has any effect on the enforcement of rights. not that it's good or bad, but that it's at all remotely relevant...
i mean...
i don't think there's a really strong *anti*-monarchy streak amongst liberal supporters any more, so much as i think that liberal supporters mostly consider the issue dealt with after patriation.
if put it up to a direct plebiscite amongst liberal voters, i'm sure you'd find a hefty majority would support severing all ties. but, it's not a vote driver, either because it's been swept aside as an issue of little substance. a crisis of any sort would no doubt bring it back up, but for now the monarchy is just largely seen as an irrelevance - perhaps a mildly annoying one, but an irrelevance nonetheless. so, it's like - abolition of the monarchy as the head of state if necessary, but not necessarily abolition of the monarchy as the head of state.
so, i don't think a toast in malta is going to really swing anybody's vote or upset anybody.
but, i *do* think that the government ought to be more concerned about distancing itself from the monarchy than cozying up to it. it's that kind of lingering thing that is currently under control, but has the potential to become a tinder box.
under the proper circumstances, i'm certain the ndp could win an election on the issue. it's more a question of avoiding those circumstances.
Patrick Wilson
The patriation you seem to think dealt with the matter only really gave us the power to amend. In Trudeau's '82 Charter, to change the head of state requires the unanimous agreement of both the House of Commons and Senate—all members, as well as unanimous consent of all the provinces’ legislative MLA's. To change that rule requires the same. Good luck with that.
jessica murray
section 41 does not refer to unanimous consent within each body, it only refers to the unanimous consent of all bodies. there is nowhere in canada where support for the monarchy is a populist position. excluding the senate, the various bodies would need to reject an amendment of this sort at their own peril. while it may not be the easiest task, i think it would be a lot easier than repealing the senate. if a crisis were to be set off, i think it would actually be very difficult to fight against abolition - and any party that does so would likely walk out of the situation utterly ruined, even if it succeeds in the short run.
but, the point is that it's the power to write our own laws that is really at the heart of the issue. we today have absolute sovereignty in any functionally meaningful sense. so, it's hard to really come up with any reason why we should be putting any resources into fighting to eject the queen as a nominal head of state when she has no ability to interfere, anyways.
but, that doesn't mean that liberal supporters are gung-ho about the monarchy, or that we're going to interpret cozying up to the monarchy as something that is "ok". it just means there's more important things to concern ourselves with - so long as that actually remains true.
jplondon
well, if we are going to wander off into 'free trade', let me simply say this:
any 'free trade agreement' that requires more than 4,000 pages to codify is anything but 'free'. it is an industry unto itself.
to your original point, though.
i am guilty of not making myself as clear as i might have. my original point should have been this: given its diminishing influence over parliament - beginning at least since the bill of rights,1689, and accelerating since, the monarchy has become less and less of a point of difference between 'tories' and 'whigs' and especially their successor parties in canada.
the differences between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' in their modern, canadian iterations has devoved largely into symbolism. the romantic attachment of either party to the crown (if any) doesn't interest me except as an historical artifact. my concerns there are more a matter of constitutional form.
in short, i don't think the crown matters enough to either party to get worked up over.
with respect to the crown as a bulwark against incursions onto civil liberties by the state, i think my concern there is more a matter of seeing how matters such as lgbt rights and same-sex marriage, for example, have become political footballs by an elected, american head of state.
i don't like social or moral issues subject to the vicissitudes of electoral politics. if we are to have a head of state, let's have one with as little political influence as possible.
and, having none, or next to none i think our model for a head of state is spot on.
jessica murray
i think it's a very complicated question as to whether the president has more or less power than the prime minister. but, i don't think many people that are advocating for the abolition of the monarchy are also advocating for the creation of a presidency; those are rather different positions. i would certainly be opposed to the creation of a canadian presidency, even as i advocate for the abolition of the monarchy.
regarding same sex marriage, that was something that happened here as a consequence of our court system, which is more powerful than the american court system. that's a consequence of a couple of parts of the constitution, including the division of powers. it's certainly a difference in framework. but, i can't see how it's reducible to the existence of a constitutional monarchy.
while i take your point that your position is to prefer a system where power is divested, i just don't see how abolishing the monarchy has much to do with that at all. while i oppose the idea of a canadian presidency, i realize that he's much less powerful than the prime minister in a lot of ways.
now, what i was getting at is that if you look at the narrative of the liberal party since mazkenzie and papineau and through to laurier and mackenzie-king and all the way up to trudeau and chretien, the idea of severing ties to the british monarchy is inherently intertwined with the history of the party, and the country, itself. i don't know how you can claim there's no difference. it was one of the primary differences! there's many complicating factors, such as the liberal party's historical connection to french and irish canadians. but, it's smack dab in the middle of the narrative of the country: a conflict between liberals and tories over the question of british association. and, that itself is precisely the historical narrative of tory-whig differences from the very start of the parliamentary process, as it applied to a distant colony on another continent.
i do not believe that the liberals have retreated from this position, even if i think trudeau's personal history may be somewhat intertwined with a traditionally tory perspective, due to his background as a canadian aristocrat. but, i don't think he changes the party on this. rather, i think the party changes him. in the end, it must. and, don't be surprised if it happens near the end of his mandate - in ten, fifteen years time - that the younger trudeau finishes the job and severs ties entirely. that would be a proper historical narrative.
i'll again point out that it was _exactly_ the narrative of the last election, as well. in some sense, it's remarkable. i don't even think that the narrative still exists in britain, if we can even speak of liberal democrats as "whigs" at all. but, harper presented himself from the start as the quintessential old tory: a "strong leader" to "guide the economy". this is absolute toryism, to the letter. and, trudeau did nothing less than present himself as the absolute foil to this, by promising free votes in parliament and a decentralization of power out of the pmo.
again: that wasn't a sideshow. it was the direct ballot question. and, it was nothing more or less than the classic whig-tory division over the nature of authoritarian government.
Patrick Wilson
Why, then, was the Meech Lake accord defeated by one member of the MB legislature voting no if unanimity was of all members was not required ? You guys are the experts; I just want to understand.
jessica murray
it was about timing. manitoba had to meet a deadline. in order to meet a deadline, it had to skip public consultation. in order to skip public consultation, it had to pass a unanimous vote. elijah harper didn't kill the meech lake accord, so much as he voted to force public consultations on it - because he thought pushing it through without consultations was undemocratic. this prevented manitoba from meeting the deadline, which would have forced other legislatures to also hold public consultations, as their own mechanisms had timelines attached to them, as well.
it was clyde wells that really killed the accord by refusing to allow a vote on it at all
Red_Deer_CatMom
No, historians are going to look back at this and interpret it as a young Prime Minister being friendly and respectful toward an elderly Queen who he met decades before as a child, and even then she'd been Queen for over 20 years.
Is that too "greek" to understand?
jessica murray
no. but it's maybe a little bit barbaric.
i will, however, concede that it may be true - but only if the man turns out to be the dunce his opponents claimed he was.
otherwise, one would think he has defined perspectives about the institution that transcend his experience as a child.
or, at least one would hope for as much.
i mean, there's a picture of me somewhere sitting on brian mulroney's lap at a christmas party. i was about 8 or so. i had no idea who he was. i didn't care, either.
it doesn't affect my opinion of him, today.
the liberals are supposed to be about canadian sovereignty, and the separation of links to the monarchy. this is out of the whig tradition of parliamentary government, as applied to a far flung colony on another continent. there's even a strong historical strain of support for republican government in the liberal party (it's most recent prominent exponent was john manley). it is the desire for separation that drove patriation, which was the end of a very long historical and political process. it is the tories that have historically played up ties to the monarchy and canada's place in the commonwealth, out of the tory tradition of promoting "class harmony" in hierarchical fealty to king & country.
again: i know i'm speaking greek to most people. but, historians are going to look back at this and interpret it as flat out bizarre.
liberal supporters largely expect the prime minister to do the bare minimum in this circumstance, keep the language to the expected formalities, avoid any sort of direct praise (however faint) and get out of the hive's nest as soon as possible.
"the whigs are praising the queen now, are they?"
"indeed. has the whole world gone mad?"
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/full-text-trudeau-toast-queen-1.3340584
jplondon
no. actually, there are liberals (of the large and small-l variety) who see the role of the crown in a constitutinal monarchy.
in fact, i would argue - as a small-l liberal at all times and a large-l liberal on occasion - that personal liberties are best safeguarded in a constitutional monarchy.
i appreciate your historical take on the subject, but, just as democrats and republicans are the reverse of their historical antecedents, liberals are not the direct descendants of their whig progenitors.
any more than today's canadian conservatives bear the slightest resemblance to their 'tory' roots, even going back as recently as two decades.
and, given that, it is possible to share common values - particularly since the definition of the two modern parties is no longer rooted in their differing expectations of parliamentry government.
again, with the exception of the current interation of the conservative party, which sees parliament as an obstacle.
jessica murray
i don't think the differences between the modern parties and their historical roots are, in practice, are as large as you're suggesting.
consider, for example, what we call "free trade". standing in 1988, it seemed strange to see the liberals oppose it (that is, after all, what the term "liberal" actually *means*) and the conservatives (with their history of tory protectionism) support it.
but, if you look at the agreement, it is actually very much closer to the idea of tory protectionism than it is to the idea of free trade. there wasn't really a change in substantive position, so much as the term "free trade" went through a standard orwellian newspeak process to be converted into it's antithesis.
he last election was, at it's core, a choice between increasing authoritarian government under harper or a return to parliamentarian democracy under the liberal party. i don't think this was a corollary. i think it was the direct ballot question.
i also don't understand how you could argue that a constitutional monarchy (where the queen has no power at all) has any effect on the enforcement of rights. not that it's good or bad, but that it's at all remotely relevant...
i mean...
i don't think there's a really strong *anti*-monarchy streak amongst liberal supporters any more, so much as i think that liberal supporters mostly consider the issue dealt with after patriation.
if put it up to a direct plebiscite amongst liberal voters, i'm sure you'd find a hefty majority would support severing all ties. but, it's not a vote driver, either because it's been swept aside as an issue of little substance. a crisis of any sort would no doubt bring it back up, but for now the monarchy is just largely seen as an irrelevance - perhaps a mildly annoying one, but an irrelevance nonetheless. so, it's like - abolition of the monarchy as the head of state if necessary, but not necessarily abolition of the monarchy as the head of state.
so, i don't think a toast in malta is going to really swing anybody's vote or upset anybody.
but, i *do* think that the government ought to be more concerned about distancing itself from the monarchy than cozying up to it. it's that kind of lingering thing that is currently under control, but has the potential to become a tinder box.
under the proper circumstances, i'm certain the ndp could win an election on the issue. it's more a question of avoiding those circumstances.
Patrick Wilson
The patriation you seem to think dealt with the matter only really gave us the power to amend. In Trudeau's '82 Charter, to change the head of state requires the unanimous agreement of both the House of Commons and Senate—all members, as well as unanimous consent of all the provinces’ legislative MLA's. To change that rule requires the same. Good luck with that.
jessica murray
section 41 does not refer to unanimous consent within each body, it only refers to the unanimous consent of all bodies. there is nowhere in canada where support for the monarchy is a populist position. excluding the senate, the various bodies would need to reject an amendment of this sort at their own peril. while it may not be the easiest task, i think it would be a lot easier than repealing the senate. if a crisis were to be set off, i think it would actually be very difficult to fight against abolition - and any party that does so would likely walk out of the situation utterly ruined, even if it succeeds in the short run.
but, the point is that it's the power to write our own laws that is really at the heart of the issue. we today have absolute sovereignty in any functionally meaningful sense. so, it's hard to really come up with any reason why we should be putting any resources into fighting to eject the queen as a nominal head of state when she has no ability to interfere, anyways.
but, that doesn't mean that liberal supporters are gung-ho about the monarchy, or that we're going to interpret cozying up to the monarchy as something that is "ok". it just means there's more important things to concern ourselves with - so long as that actually remains true.
jplondon
well, if we are going to wander off into 'free trade', let me simply say this:
any 'free trade agreement' that requires more than 4,000 pages to codify is anything but 'free'. it is an industry unto itself.
to your original point, though.
i am guilty of not making myself as clear as i might have. my original point should have been this: given its diminishing influence over parliament - beginning at least since the bill of rights,1689, and accelerating since, the monarchy has become less and less of a point of difference between 'tories' and 'whigs' and especially their successor parties in canada.
the differences between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' in their modern, canadian iterations has devoved largely into symbolism. the romantic attachment of either party to the crown (if any) doesn't interest me except as an historical artifact. my concerns there are more a matter of constitutional form.
in short, i don't think the crown matters enough to either party to get worked up over.
with respect to the crown as a bulwark against incursions onto civil liberties by the state, i think my concern there is more a matter of seeing how matters such as lgbt rights and same-sex marriage, for example, have become political footballs by an elected, american head of state.
i don't like social or moral issues subject to the vicissitudes of electoral politics. if we are to have a head of state, let's have one with as little political influence as possible.
and, having none, or next to none i think our model for a head of state is spot on.
jessica murray
i think it's a very complicated question as to whether the president has more or less power than the prime minister. but, i don't think many people that are advocating for the abolition of the monarchy are also advocating for the creation of a presidency; those are rather different positions. i would certainly be opposed to the creation of a canadian presidency, even as i advocate for the abolition of the monarchy.
regarding same sex marriage, that was something that happened here as a consequence of our court system, which is more powerful than the american court system. that's a consequence of a couple of parts of the constitution, including the division of powers. it's certainly a difference in framework. but, i can't see how it's reducible to the existence of a constitutional monarchy.
while i take your point that your position is to prefer a system where power is divested, i just don't see how abolishing the monarchy has much to do with that at all. while i oppose the idea of a canadian presidency, i realize that he's much less powerful than the prime minister in a lot of ways.
now, what i was getting at is that if you look at the narrative of the liberal party since mazkenzie and papineau and through to laurier and mackenzie-king and all the way up to trudeau and chretien, the idea of severing ties to the british monarchy is inherently intertwined with the history of the party, and the country, itself. i don't know how you can claim there's no difference. it was one of the primary differences! there's many complicating factors, such as the liberal party's historical connection to french and irish canadians. but, it's smack dab in the middle of the narrative of the country: a conflict between liberals and tories over the question of british association. and, that itself is precisely the historical narrative of tory-whig differences from the very start of the parliamentary process, as it applied to a distant colony on another continent.
i do not believe that the liberals have retreated from this position, even if i think trudeau's personal history may be somewhat intertwined with a traditionally tory perspective, due to his background as a canadian aristocrat. but, i don't think he changes the party on this. rather, i think the party changes him. in the end, it must. and, don't be surprised if it happens near the end of his mandate - in ten, fifteen years time - that the younger trudeau finishes the job and severs ties entirely. that would be a proper historical narrative.
i'll again point out that it was _exactly_ the narrative of the last election, as well. in some sense, it's remarkable. i don't even think that the narrative still exists in britain, if we can even speak of liberal democrats as "whigs" at all. but, harper presented himself from the start as the quintessential old tory: a "strong leader" to "guide the economy". this is absolute toryism, to the letter. and, trudeau did nothing less than present himself as the absolute foil to this, by promising free votes in parliament and a decentralization of power out of the pmo.
again: that wasn't a sideshow. it was the direct ballot question. and, it was nothing more or less than the classic whig-tory division over the nature of authoritarian government.
Patrick Wilson
Why, then, was the Meech Lake accord defeated by one member of the MB legislature voting no if unanimity was of all members was not required ? You guys are the experts; I just want to understand.
jessica murray
it was about timing. manitoba had to meet a deadline. in order to meet a deadline, it had to skip public consultation. in order to skip public consultation, it had to pass a unanimous vote. elijah harper didn't kill the meech lake accord, so much as he voted to force public consultations on it - because he thought pushing it through without consultations was undemocratic. this prevented manitoba from meeting the deadline, which would have forced other legislatures to also hold public consultations, as their own mechanisms had timelines attached to them, as well.
it was clyde wells that really killed the accord by refusing to allow a vote on it at all
Red_Deer_CatMom
No, historians are going to look back at this and interpret it as a young Prime Minister being friendly and respectful toward an elderly Queen who he met decades before as a child, and even then she'd been Queen for over 20 years.
Is that too "greek" to understand?
jessica murray
no. but it's maybe a little bit barbaric.
i will, however, concede that it may be true - but only if the man turns out to be the dunce his opponents claimed he was.
otherwise, one would think he has defined perspectives about the institution that transcend his experience as a child.
or, at least one would hope for as much.
i mean, there's a picture of me somewhere sitting on brian mulroney's lap at a christmas party. i was about 8 or so. i had no idea who he was. i didn't care, either.
it doesn't affect my opinion of him, today.
i actually admit that i’d like to hear the adoption of justin gregoire-trudeau, or trudeau-gregoire. he could unveil it at a lunch with jay-z and jack white.
but, not really.
what might be more progressive is sticking with what you’ve got and letting the kids pick the surname they want. and first names, for that matter.
www.macleans.ca/society/life/sophie-gregoire-what-it-may-be-2015-but-not-for-political-wives/
but, not really.
what might be more progressive is sticking with what you’ve got and letting the kids pick the surname they want. and first names, for that matter.
www.macleans.ca/society/life/sophie-gregoire-what-it-may-be-2015-but-not-for-political-wives/
Friday, November 27, 2015
Thursday, November 26, 2015
26-11-2015: aliens are more likely than god
tracks worked on in this vlog:
1) https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/aliens-are-more-likely-than-god
1) https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/aliens-are-more-likely-than-god
finalizing aliens are more likely than god
i've got a final mix of this up. it really sounds a lot better, and i'm very much relieved about it.
i wanted to get more done today, but at least i got that done. i've been playing with it the last few days. i need to do beginning/end of the month stuff tomorrow, but things should accelerate over the weekend.
initially written in 1996. recreated in march, 1998. reclaimed june 29, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on nov 26, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/aliens-are-more-likely-than-god
i wanted to get more done today, but at least i got that done. i've been playing with it the last few days. i need to do beginning/end of the month stuff tomorrow, but things should accelerate over the weekend.
initially written in 1996. recreated in march, 1998. reclaimed june 29, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on nov 26, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/aliens-are-more-likely-than-god
hard to say whether this is ignorance or politics. she did indicate that she realizes that the russians were bombing turkish assets, so i'm left to conclude it's politics.
you could imagine how such a communication would carry out.
"greetings, unwashed turkish hordes. we're sending some planes to blow up your allies at 11:00 gmt. so, try to suppress your barbarian instincts for a few hours and let us eliminate your investments."
"no problem, russky. btw, we're sending a convoy over the pass at 12:00 gmt, to refuel the positions you're bombing. but we know you're too backwards and incompetent to be able to hit the target, anyways, so we're going to move our positions forward. try and get out of our way before we get to the village, so we don't have to kill anybody. and, send assad our regards. i'm sure we could have been great friends under different circumstances."
it would be one thing if they were just upholding a narrative. and, maybe i'm demonstrating the fact that i haven't had a tv in 15 years - maybe i don't even know what the propaganda even is anymore. but, who doesn't understand that they're bombing turkish assets?
this has driven me mad for years. a noble lie is one thing - i'll argue against this in most cases, but i'll at least recognize the motives. but, it has to be convincing, first. it can't be deconstructed by easily googled facts. then, it's not a noble lie. it's just an obvious one...
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/25/canada-nato-envoy-says-russia-not-communicating-prior-to-jet-downing_n_8649224.html
you could imagine how such a communication would carry out.
"greetings, unwashed turkish hordes. we're sending some planes to blow up your allies at 11:00 gmt. so, try to suppress your barbarian instincts for a few hours and let us eliminate your investments."
"no problem, russky. btw, we're sending a convoy over the pass at 12:00 gmt, to refuel the positions you're bombing. but we know you're too backwards and incompetent to be able to hit the target, anyways, so we're going to move our positions forward. try and get out of our way before we get to the village, so we don't have to kill anybody. and, send assad our regards. i'm sure we could have been great friends under different circumstances."
it would be one thing if they were just upholding a narrative. and, maybe i'm demonstrating the fact that i haven't had a tv in 15 years - maybe i don't even know what the propaganda even is anymore. but, who doesn't understand that they're bombing turkish assets?
this has driven me mad for years. a noble lie is one thing - i'll argue against this in most cases, but i'll at least recognize the motives. but, it has to be convincing, first. it can't be deconstructed by easily googled facts. then, it's not a noble lie. it's just an obvious one...
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/25/canada-nato-envoy-says-russia-not-communicating-prior-to-jet-downing_n_8649224.html
russia vs. turkey. hrmmn. this may be silly, but forgive my indulgence.
if you look at a map, russia looks big and scary. but, the truth is that it's mostly trees. the core of russia is really not that much bigger than turkey. but, keeping with this logic, you have to realize that the eastern half of turkey has little allegiance to the western half. this, however, does not balance out. russia's much larger size is not a serious advantage.
a serious conflict is not going to come down to brute strength, but to technology and tactics. the russians are always two steps behind the americans, but they're several steps ahead of the turks.
the way this would work is that the russians would dismantle their military from a distance, using a variety of missile-based tactics. if you've seen them hitting targets in syria from ships in the caspian, that's the kind of thing i'm talking about. they'd probably rely mostly on kurdish foot soldiers. and, if they're lucky, greek foot soldiers. with the proper air and naval support, they could likely collapse the state without setting foot on the ground. they'd then parachute in, afterwards.
but, to do this effectively, it has to be done quickly in order to overwhelm them before they can bring in more advanced defense systems from the americans. further, it should not be forgotten that the united states keeps nuclear warheads on turkish soil and that this could be a strong enough deterrent to prevent what i just said from actually happening.
so, what we have here is kind of the wrong comparison. if it comes down to this, the russians are going to use their technological superiority, rather than rely on overpowering them through ground combat. but, it's very hard to see how the americans let that happen. and, they don't have to do a lot to stop it from happening, either - they just have to remind putin where those warheads are pointing.
.....and that is, after all, why turkey joined nato, and why nato put those warheads where they are.
it's exceedingly unlikely. granted.
but, i have to say that it would be interesting to wake up one day and look at a map and see the name constantinople on it, at the center of a neo-byzantine state.
if you have a soft spot for narratives about historical purposes, however unscientific it may be, russia could then cease to exist. it will have accomplished it's purpose.
if you look at a map, russia looks big and scary. but, the truth is that it's mostly trees. the core of russia is really not that much bigger than turkey. but, keeping with this logic, you have to realize that the eastern half of turkey has little allegiance to the western half. this, however, does not balance out. russia's much larger size is not a serious advantage.
a serious conflict is not going to come down to brute strength, but to technology and tactics. the russians are always two steps behind the americans, but they're several steps ahead of the turks.
the way this would work is that the russians would dismantle their military from a distance, using a variety of missile-based tactics. if you've seen them hitting targets in syria from ships in the caspian, that's the kind of thing i'm talking about. they'd probably rely mostly on kurdish foot soldiers. and, if they're lucky, greek foot soldiers. with the proper air and naval support, they could likely collapse the state without setting foot on the ground. they'd then parachute in, afterwards.
but, to do this effectively, it has to be done quickly in order to overwhelm them before they can bring in more advanced defense systems from the americans. further, it should not be forgotten that the united states keeps nuclear warheads on turkish soil and that this could be a strong enough deterrent to prevent what i just said from actually happening.
so, what we have here is kind of the wrong comparison. if it comes down to this, the russians are going to use their technological superiority, rather than rely on overpowering them through ground combat. but, it's very hard to see how the americans let that happen. and, they don't have to do a lot to stop it from happening, either - they just have to remind putin where those warheads are pointing.
.....and that is, after all, why turkey joined nato, and why nato put those warheads where they are.
it's exceedingly unlikely. granted.
but, i have to say that it would be interesting to wake up one day and look at a map and see the name constantinople on it, at the center of a neo-byzantine state.
if you have a soft spot for narratives about historical purposes, however unscientific it may be, russia could then cease to exist. it will have accomplished it's purpose.
ok, so it's been obvious from the start that this is scripted, but is anybody aware of whether these are actually actors, or if he's just got his parents to do this for him? i mean, the acting is pretty low grade.
i'm just wondering because if that is actually his mom then she's not going to be written out. but, if it's an actress than she very well might be.
i'm just wondering because if that is actually his mom then she's not going to be written out. but, if it's an actress than she very well might be.
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
25-11-2015: the vampire diaries
tracks worked on in this vlog:
1) https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/aliens-are-more-likely-than-god
1) https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/aliens-are-more-likely-than-god
see, this is why it is so important to have democratic oversight over banking institutions.
the primary purpose of a central bank is supposed to be to prevent inflation. that is a central bank's democratic mandate - it's purpose in a free society. europe had managed to achieve almost zero inflation. this is a great victory, in fact, for the people over the plutocrats. but, as soon as you allow the bank to operate without oversight, they show up at the brookings institute and start making speeches about how they're putting "unconventional" policies in place to increase inflation.
in neo-fascist europe, inflation regulates banks!
the primary purpose of a central bank is supposed to be to prevent inflation. that is a central bank's democratic mandate - it's purpose in a free society. europe had managed to achieve almost zero inflation. this is a great victory, in fact, for the people over the plutocrats. but, as soon as you allow the bank to operate without oversight, they show up at the brookings institute and start making speeches about how they're putting "unconventional" policies in place to increase inflation.
in neo-fascist europe, inflation regulates banks!
i think it's pretty obvious that he threw an arbitrary date out in the election without really doing the research on it, and now the bureaucracy is telling him it's impossible. i think it was kind of clear that would happen from the start.
the error he made here was waiting too long to be more realistic about it. now, it looks like he's caving to pressure and being told what to do by brad wall, rather than just reacting to the reality of the situation regarding available resources.
but, i don't expect anybody that supported the plan is going to get upset about this. nor do i think the timeline change will soften up the opposition. nor do i think anybody will even remember this four years from now...
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/programs/metromorning/justin-trudeau-interview-refugees-1.3333632
the error he made here was waiting too long to be more realistic about it. now, it looks like he's caving to pressure and being told what to do by brad wall, rather than just reacting to the reality of the situation regarding available resources.
but, i don't expect anybody that supported the plan is going to get upset about this. nor do i think the timeline change will soften up the opposition. nor do i think anybody will even remember this four years from now...
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/programs/metromorning/justin-trudeau-interview-refugees-1.3333632
this is a poor narrative that will backfire, politically. it makes him seem like he's soft on xenophobia and willing to compromise with conservatives. that makes him an easy target from the left. and, it's a fool's game to expect reciprocation from the conservatives he's reaching out to.
he should be sticking to the narrative about simply needing more time. it's reasonable and believable and doesn't set himself up like this.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/paris-attacks-changed-refugee-plan-trudeau-says/article27477121/
i'm going to go with hypocrisy.
there was nothing wrong with admitting that the time tables were unrealistic. but, caving into pressure like this is very disappointing.
he should be sticking to the narrative about simply needing more time. it's reasonable and believable and doesn't set himself up like this.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/paris-attacks-changed-refugee-plan-trudeau-says/article27477121/
i'm going to go with hypocrisy.
there was nothing wrong with admitting that the time tables were unrealistic. but, caving into pressure like this is very disappointing.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
i miss the old isolationist conservatives.
c'mon, guys. this has nothing to do with us. and there's absolutely no reason driven by any sort of discernible national interest why you'd want to make it have something to do with us. shouldn't you be arguing that we should be minding our own business?
i think the best we can do is get some of the chretien old guard in touch with some of the clinton old guard to try and ensure nobody's thinking about over-reacting.
otherwise?
the reality on the ground is that the russians are blowing up turkish bases, and those turkish bases are trying to oust an internationally recognized government with serious russian backing. i don't know how long they thought they could do that without some sort of retaliation, but there's not any good way to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. you're looking at dramatic shifts in foreign policy by all of the powers involved, or this will keep happening. i consequently can't think of a reason in the world why we ought to involve ourselves in this, other than to avoid something like an article 5 invocation that would drag us into it.
the best solution is for the turks to pull out, for the international coalition to align with russia to take out isis and to then let the russians transition assad out when the borders are secure and the state is put back together again. and, that's actually the popular consensus in turkey, if you're curious. but, it's not the washington consensus. it's impossible until at least jan 20, 2017 - and probably for at least four more years after that.
assuming washington continues it's existing policy, the only way this ends is if some combination of diplomacy and force pulls the russians out and assad falls to the turkish-backed militants. but, what the russians are really trying to do is move the war out of their homeland (ukraine) and into their periphery, where the threat of conflict is less existential. there's consequently almost nothing nato could do that would force the russians to pull out, outside of a serious attack in russia proper. that is, to end the war in syria, washington must launch a war in russia. while that may actually be consistent with long term american strategic geopolitical objectives, it's tactically impossible in the short term. i mean, if you want the russians out of syria? like, tomorrow? nuke smolensk. you don't like that answer, though. you shouldn't, either. fat chance with any other tactic...
so, if the american position is not up for discussion and the russian position is an existential necessity, the only way to break the deadlock is for one side to win the fight. well, the russians aren't winning this fight any time soon. sure: they could probably beat the rebels, as they exist. but, they can't beat the tactic of raising more rebellion. the americans could probably drive the russians out through sheer use of force, but if they start doing that the gloves are off.
so, then could we get a ceasefire? a demarcation zone? a line of control? a korean peninsula? see, it's not a peninsula. and, the situation is too complex to enforce.
i'm all for alleviating tensions and everything, but one needs to pick their battles. this isn't going to end any time soon, and there's not anything we can do about it. so, considering that we don't truly care about anything besides the humanitarian aspect of the conflict - and should not, as we have no national interest tied into one side or the other - our reaction should reflect that: we should not care about anything besides preventing an article 5. our position should be less neutral, and more non-interventionist.
and, of course, we should do what we can to help the victims of pointless imperialist conflicts.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/24/prime-minister-trudeau-says-canada-will-help-de-escalate-tensions-between-russia-turkey_n_8642134.html
c'mon, guys. this has nothing to do with us. and there's absolutely no reason driven by any sort of discernible national interest why you'd want to make it have something to do with us. shouldn't you be arguing that we should be minding our own business?
i think the best we can do is get some of the chretien old guard in touch with some of the clinton old guard to try and ensure nobody's thinking about over-reacting.
otherwise?
the reality on the ground is that the russians are blowing up turkish bases, and those turkish bases are trying to oust an internationally recognized government with serious russian backing. i don't know how long they thought they could do that without some sort of retaliation, but there's not any good way to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. you're looking at dramatic shifts in foreign policy by all of the powers involved, or this will keep happening. i consequently can't think of a reason in the world why we ought to involve ourselves in this, other than to avoid something like an article 5 invocation that would drag us into it.
the best solution is for the turks to pull out, for the international coalition to align with russia to take out isis and to then let the russians transition assad out when the borders are secure and the state is put back together again. and, that's actually the popular consensus in turkey, if you're curious. but, it's not the washington consensus. it's impossible until at least jan 20, 2017 - and probably for at least four more years after that.
assuming washington continues it's existing policy, the only way this ends is if some combination of diplomacy and force pulls the russians out and assad falls to the turkish-backed militants. but, what the russians are really trying to do is move the war out of their homeland (ukraine) and into their periphery, where the threat of conflict is less existential. there's consequently almost nothing nato could do that would force the russians to pull out, outside of a serious attack in russia proper. that is, to end the war in syria, washington must launch a war in russia. while that may actually be consistent with long term american strategic geopolitical objectives, it's tactically impossible in the short term. i mean, if you want the russians out of syria? like, tomorrow? nuke smolensk. you don't like that answer, though. you shouldn't, either. fat chance with any other tactic...
so, if the american position is not up for discussion and the russian position is an existential necessity, the only way to break the deadlock is for one side to win the fight. well, the russians aren't winning this fight any time soon. sure: they could probably beat the rebels, as they exist. but, they can't beat the tactic of raising more rebellion. the americans could probably drive the russians out through sheer use of force, but if they start doing that the gloves are off.
so, then could we get a ceasefire? a demarcation zone? a line of control? a korean peninsula? see, it's not a peninsula. and, the situation is too complex to enforce.
i'm all for alleviating tensions and everything, but one needs to pick their battles. this isn't going to end any time soon, and there's not anything we can do about it. so, considering that we don't truly care about anything besides the humanitarian aspect of the conflict - and should not, as we have no national interest tied into one side or the other - our reaction should reflect that: we should not care about anything besides preventing an article 5. our position should be less neutral, and more non-interventionist.
and, of course, we should do what we can to help the victims of pointless imperialist conflicts.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/24/prime-minister-trudeau-says-canada-will-help-de-escalate-tensions-between-russia-turkey_n_8642134.html
you don't really think that turkey would shoot down a russian plane without asking the pentagon for permission first, do you?
i know it's hard to get your head around what just happened here.
but, you have to understand that the russians were bombing american assets. the border likely had almost nothing to do with this.
we're going to get a nice theatrical presentation, here. everybody will blame the other. we're terrorists. they're nazis. it's all really just absurd rhetoric.
the facts on the ground are that the russians are propping up a state that nato is trying to tear down. they're trying to control the border between syria and turkey because that's how everything gets into the country. in the process, they're bombing people and supply routes and other things that nato is spending a lot of money on and has a lot invested into. the russians could not have been so naive as to think that the border of a failed state was going to immunize them from retaliation.
we've been told the cold war is over and we're in an era of globalized capital and blah blah blah. the reality is that syria is now a classic cold war proxy conflict, and has been for...since the start. but, the other dynamics have largely faded.
i don't know how the russians will react. i've seen some suggestions about cutting off natural gas to turkey, which would probably hurt russia more than turkey. i think that's probably at the extreme end of the spectrum.
the russians are playing with fire. they got burned. they had to expect it.
in the long run, either the russians drive the americans out or the americans drive the russians out. or, if sanity prevails after the next election, some kind of deal is worked out. that's the truth in syria.
this will happen again. it may even become normal.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/turkey-military-plane-1.3332171
Justin Different
How can Russians on his site support Putin when he is sending Russians to die in a foreign land? You will see him soon on a tank bare chested with crossed arms.
jessica murray
i do not advise trying to get your head into the russian public opinion.
but, he's doing ok in the polls.
(deleted post)
jessica murray
well, that's what the aim of the sanctions was, but it doesn't seem to be working very well.
russians are an intensely nationalistic people. when you do things like place economic sanctions on them that threaten to harm them, they don't react by attacking their government. rather, they double down and rally around each other.
americans can't understand this concept of *solidarity* because we're raised to think it's evil. but, it's the culture in russia.
he'll say some contrived things about being strong, and they'll eat it up. if it hurts, they'll make sacrifices for the common good. if the war gets too close, they'll form militias and volunteer to fight.
as trump might say, that's what it's like to "have a country".
you also have to keep in mind that the sanctions are not global. russia is maintaining healthy bilateral trade with china and india and europe is being dragged along unwillingly - that can't last forever. there's certain sectors it's hurting, and it may eat into russia's rather large currency reserves, but the potential to cripple the country simply isn't there.
Sal_The_Instigator
a very interesting perspective! I think Turkey had enough and Russia thought that Turks have the same attitude as Ukraine or us of talking and waiting for Putin to behave while Russians forgot that Turkey actually is a remnant of one of the old Empire in Europe and has to take matters in its hand from time to time. It was a miscalculation from Putin and he simply paid for it. If anything History will tell you that it's better to have Turkey as an alley than not!
jessica murray
so, i'm just curious.
how long would you expect nato to allow russia to bomb their assets for, before retaliating?
it's already been a few months.
until they manage to secure the border?
Seer
many think the Athman empire is only evident Turks; there are other Turkic peoples you have missed identifying.
jessica murray
the ottoman empire never saw itself as a pan-turkic confederation. there have been such broad tribal alliances throughout history, but they existed during the period where turks were nomadic steppe peoples. they played important roles in the byzantine-persian wars, and were often useful tools for imperial "barbarian management". but, this doesn't translate into anything at all in the modern era.
rather, the ottoman empire saw itself mostly as the lineal descendant of the arabic caliphate and sometimes as the successor state to the eastern roman empire.
some kind of concept of turkish leadership across the steppes and into central asia may be useful propaganda. and, i won't be surprised if the pentagon tries it. but, there's literally zero historical basis for it.
turkey, as we know it, is a syncretic society that speaks turkish, follows a jewish-arab religion in theory (but is mostly secular in practice) and has mostly greek/byzantine ethnic ancestry and day-to-day customs. it's connection to central asia is entirely lost to history. archaeologists can't even establish an agreed upon migration path or even settle on the dates well.
---
ulkas
Why is Turkey even a member of NATO. No one likes them. No one is going to fight for them if they get attacked. Turkey supports terrorism. They buy ISIS oil and yet where are all the Turkish planes bombing ISIS. They are disgusting hypocrites in every account. The claim that the Su-24 invaded Turkish airspace is flimsy atat best. Russia is the good guy in all of this. The only one seeking to destroy ISIS and bring stability to Syria.
jessica murray
british control over the dardanelles was a very important strategic objective in the era of naval warfare. the russians have had designs on turkey since the day that constantinople fell to the turks. they consider themselves the rightful heirs of the byzantine empire. as such, turkey felt the need to put itself in an alliance against the soviets.
there's huge amounts of history, there. but the most immediate issue at the time was russian involvement in greece. the battle between the soviets and the british over the straits in the late 40s is as close as we've ever come to a direct war against russia.
there's difficulties here. but the truth is that turkey is a more reliable nato ally than most other countries in the alliance, including france.
the alliance has held for very good reasons. if there's been any concern recently, it's been in turkey feeling economically excluded and looking east for trade.
the turks did not shoot this plane down without consultation, and in fact probably direction, from the pentagon.
i know it's hard to get your head around what just happened here.
but, you have to understand that the russians were bombing american assets. the border likely had almost nothing to do with this.
we're going to get a nice theatrical presentation, here. everybody will blame the other. we're terrorists. they're nazis. it's all really just absurd rhetoric.
the facts on the ground are that the russians are propping up a state that nato is trying to tear down. they're trying to control the border between syria and turkey because that's how everything gets into the country. in the process, they're bombing people and supply routes and other things that nato is spending a lot of money on and has a lot invested into. the russians could not have been so naive as to think that the border of a failed state was going to immunize them from retaliation.
we've been told the cold war is over and we're in an era of globalized capital and blah blah blah. the reality is that syria is now a classic cold war proxy conflict, and has been for...since the start. but, the other dynamics have largely faded.
i don't know how the russians will react. i've seen some suggestions about cutting off natural gas to turkey, which would probably hurt russia more than turkey. i think that's probably at the extreme end of the spectrum.
the russians are playing with fire. they got burned. they had to expect it.
in the long run, either the russians drive the americans out or the americans drive the russians out. or, if sanity prevails after the next election, some kind of deal is worked out. that's the truth in syria.
this will happen again. it may even become normal.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/turkey-military-plane-1.3332171
Justin Different
How can Russians on his site support Putin when he is sending Russians to die in a foreign land? You will see him soon on a tank bare chested with crossed arms.
jessica murray
i do not advise trying to get your head into the russian public opinion.
but, he's doing ok in the polls.
(deleted post)
jessica murray
well, that's what the aim of the sanctions was, but it doesn't seem to be working very well.
russians are an intensely nationalistic people. when you do things like place economic sanctions on them that threaten to harm them, they don't react by attacking their government. rather, they double down and rally around each other.
americans can't understand this concept of *solidarity* because we're raised to think it's evil. but, it's the culture in russia.
he'll say some contrived things about being strong, and they'll eat it up. if it hurts, they'll make sacrifices for the common good. if the war gets too close, they'll form militias and volunteer to fight.
as trump might say, that's what it's like to "have a country".
you also have to keep in mind that the sanctions are not global. russia is maintaining healthy bilateral trade with china and india and europe is being dragged along unwillingly - that can't last forever. there's certain sectors it's hurting, and it may eat into russia's rather large currency reserves, but the potential to cripple the country simply isn't there.
Sal_The_Instigator
a very interesting perspective! I think Turkey had enough and Russia thought that Turks have the same attitude as Ukraine or us of talking and waiting for Putin to behave while Russians forgot that Turkey actually is a remnant of one of the old Empire in Europe and has to take matters in its hand from time to time. It was a miscalculation from Putin and he simply paid for it. If anything History will tell you that it's better to have Turkey as an alley than not!
jessica murray
so, i'm just curious.
how long would you expect nato to allow russia to bomb their assets for, before retaliating?
it's already been a few months.
until they manage to secure the border?
Seer
many think the Athman empire is only evident Turks; there are other Turkic peoples you have missed identifying.
jessica murray
the ottoman empire never saw itself as a pan-turkic confederation. there have been such broad tribal alliances throughout history, but they existed during the period where turks were nomadic steppe peoples. they played important roles in the byzantine-persian wars, and were often useful tools for imperial "barbarian management". but, this doesn't translate into anything at all in the modern era.
rather, the ottoman empire saw itself mostly as the lineal descendant of the arabic caliphate and sometimes as the successor state to the eastern roman empire.
some kind of concept of turkish leadership across the steppes and into central asia may be useful propaganda. and, i won't be surprised if the pentagon tries it. but, there's literally zero historical basis for it.
turkey, as we know it, is a syncretic society that speaks turkish, follows a jewish-arab religion in theory (but is mostly secular in practice) and has mostly greek/byzantine ethnic ancestry and day-to-day customs. it's connection to central asia is entirely lost to history. archaeologists can't even establish an agreed upon migration path or even settle on the dates well.
---
ulkas
Why is Turkey even a member of NATO. No one likes them. No one is going to fight for them if they get attacked. Turkey supports terrorism. They buy ISIS oil and yet where are all the Turkish planes bombing ISIS. They are disgusting hypocrites in every account. The claim that the Su-24 invaded Turkish airspace is flimsy atat best. Russia is the good guy in all of this. The only one seeking to destroy ISIS and bring stability to Syria.
jessica murray
british control over the dardanelles was a very important strategic objective in the era of naval warfare. the russians have had designs on turkey since the day that constantinople fell to the turks. they consider themselves the rightful heirs of the byzantine empire. as such, turkey felt the need to put itself in an alliance against the soviets.
there's huge amounts of history, there. but the most immediate issue at the time was russian involvement in greece. the battle between the soviets and the british over the straits in the late 40s is as close as we've ever come to a direct war against russia.
there's difficulties here. but the truth is that turkey is a more reliable nato ally than most other countries in the alliance, including france.
the alliance has held for very good reasons. if there's been any concern recently, it's been in turkey feeling economically excluded and looking east for trade.
the turks did not shoot this plane down without consultation, and in fact probably direction, from the pentagon.
so, this is very bad.
turkey is a nato member state. that means that any russian retaliation is a formal declaration of war against the united states.
you'd have to think the russians will not be so stupid.
but, you'd have to think the turks would not be so stupid as to shoot down a russian jet, too.
i wouldn't freak out just quite yet. i doubt this amounts to anything. but it demonstrates the possible ramifications of what's happening in syria, right now.
one drunk russian general overreacting is all it would take to start world war three.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/turkey-shoots-down-russian-jet-near-syrian-border-and-video-shows-plane-coming-down-a6746206.html
the turks are claiming they broke airspace. that's unlikely, but who the fuck knows. the truth is it probably doesn't have anything to do with it.
to understand this, you have to understand what the russians are doing. stated simply, they're propping up the government in syria. they intend to win back all the area that has been lost to the various factions, reassert syrian sovereignty and then figure out what to do with assad afterwards.
there's a lot of different groups fighting on the ground. but, you can split the opposition into two major groups. the first is saudi-backed rebels (including isis and al-nusra). the second is turkish-backed rebels (including what's left of the free syrian army). the turkish and saudi groups are fighting with each other as much as they are fighting against the syrian government.
the russians seem to be disproportionately targeting the turkish-backed groups, probably simply because it's strategically easier to deal with. if they can control the northern border, it will be easier to control the southern and eastern borders.
so, when you see the turks shoot down a russian plane that was no doubt targeting groups that the turks are backing, it's hard to take their claims of breaking air space seriously, or even to think it has anything to do with it. chances are higher that they were trying to stop a particular air strike.
of course, the russians no doubt understand this and it's the reason why you shouldn't expect a stupid response from them. but, it's starkly reckless from the turks.
what the russians - and everybody else - needs to know is whether this was a snap turkish decision done without consultation or whether the take down came with american knowledge.
if anybody gets hurt here, i suspect it's erdogan. if this is rogue, that's grounds for something serious.
======
they've been setting this up for weeks...russians had to have seen it coming...
https://euobserver.com/foreign/130566
still bad news, though.
turkey is a nato member state. that means that any russian retaliation is a formal declaration of war against the united states.
you'd have to think the russians will not be so stupid.
but, you'd have to think the turks would not be so stupid as to shoot down a russian jet, too.
i wouldn't freak out just quite yet. i doubt this amounts to anything. but it demonstrates the possible ramifications of what's happening in syria, right now.
one drunk russian general overreacting is all it would take to start world war three.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/turkey-shoots-down-russian-jet-near-syrian-border-and-video-shows-plane-coming-down-a6746206.html
the turks are claiming they broke airspace. that's unlikely, but who the fuck knows. the truth is it probably doesn't have anything to do with it.
to understand this, you have to understand what the russians are doing. stated simply, they're propping up the government in syria. they intend to win back all the area that has been lost to the various factions, reassert syrian sovereignty and then figure out what to do with assad afterwards.
there's a lot of different groups fighting on the ground. but, you can split the opposition into two major groups. the first is saudi-backed rebels (including isis and al-nusra). the second is turkish-backed rebels (including what's left of the free syrian army). the turkish and saudi groups are fighting with each other as much as they are fighting against the syrian government.
the russians seem to be disproportionately targeting the turkish-backed groups, probably simply because it's strategically easier to deal with. if they can control the northern border, it will be easier to control the southern and eastern borders.
so, when you see the turks shoot down a russian plane that was no doubt targeting groups that the turks are backing, it's hard to take their claims of breaking air space seriously, or even to think it has anything to do with it. chances are higher that they were trying to stop a particular air strike.
of course, the russians no doubt understand this and it's the reason why you shouldn't expect a stupid response from them. but, it's starkly reckless from the turks.
what the russians - and everybody else - needs to know is whether this was a snap turkish decision done without consultation or whether the take down came with american knowledge.
if anybody gets hurt here, i suspect it's erdogan. if this is rogue, that's grounds for something serious.
======
they've been setting this up for weeks...russians had to have seen it coming...
https://euobserver.com/foreign/130566
still bad news, though.
going after the mra vote is the next logical step for the ndp.
bravo.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-premiers-refugees-1.3331047
--
one voice
Mr. Mulcair is smart enough to know that if Trudeau added single Muslim men to the refugee mix those Canadians who are already very fearful people would go nuts.
I'm sure he would enjoy that.
There are millions of refugees globally and we can only do so much. Young single men have a much greater chance of looking after themselves and Trudeau is correct in focusing on women and children.
Stop to think
What gender have you seen ISIS executing on mass? Was it a bunch of women being decapitated, burnt alive or slowly drown in cages?
jessica murray
that's not how they deal with women.
if it's an older woman, she's dead on the spot. they'd consider older women to be useless eaters. older is about 35+.
younger women are separated into virgins and non-virgins. they can get a better price for virgins. so long as they're deemed sufficiently young and attractive, they're sold on the market (which is apparently saturated, so they can go for as low as $20) as sex slaves and locked away to be raped repeatedly. if they don't sell quickly, they're executed - they're bad merch.
the virgins can be used as baby factories to create more fighters. and, that's the right way to conceive of it, too. they're basically treated as livestock. and, when they're not useful anymore? executed. useless eaters...
if you're a single dude in the region, you could very well be executed for other reasons. and, there's certainly quite a few. but, homosexuality is a risk in the region at the best of times. it's also a lot easier to sneak around in the shadows in order to try and get out when you're by yourself. there's simply not the same kind of systemic oppression.
we're talking about mass airlifts, here. it makes sense to focus on the groups with the least amount of mobility.
bravo.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-premiers-refugees-1.3331047
--
one voice
Mr. Mulcair is smart enough to know that if Trudeau added single Muslim men to the refugee mix those Canadians who are already very fearful people would go nuts.
I'm sure he would enjoy that.
There are millions of refugees globally and we can only do so much. Young single men have a much greater chance of looking after themselves and Trudeau is correct in focusing on women and children.
Stop to think
What gender have you seen ISIS executing on mass? Was it a bunch of women being decapitated, burnt alive or slowly drown in cages?
jessica murray
that's not how they deal with women.
if it's an older woman, she's dead on the spot. they'd consider older women to be useless eaters. older is about 35+.
younger women are separated into virgins and non-virgins. they can get a better price for virgins. so long as they're deemed sufficiently young and attractive, they're sold on the market (which is apparently saturated, so they can go for as low as $20) as sex slaves and locked away to be raped repeatedly. if they don't sell quickly, they're executed - they're bad merch.
the virgins can be used as baby factories to create more fighters. and, that's the right way to conceive of it, too. they're basically treated as livestock. and, when they're not useful anymore? executed. useless eaters...
if you're a single dude in the region, you could very well be executed for other reasons. and, there's certainly quite a few. but, homosexuality is a risk in the region at the best of times. it's also a lot easier to sneak around in the shadows in order to try and get out when you're by yourself. there's simply not the same kind of systemic oppression.
we're talking about mass airlifts, here. it makes sense to focus on the groups with the least amount of mobility.
if 2% of jobs require a phd, and 3% of people have a phd, basic market logic suggests this would lead to lower salaries.
this logic applies to all levels of higher education nowadays. i've seen jobs that require masters degrees in biology (plus experience) advertised at $13/hr.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/jobs/earning-a-phd-in-canada-probably-not-worth-the-time-or-money-study/article27445026/
mcscotty
Try applying your logic to the educators themselves, specifically Ontario teachers.
deathtokoalas
because high school teachers hand out phds.
the disdain for education is really just comical, guys. but, even the most liberal of classical economists will agree that the only way to get wages up in a situation where supply outstrips demand is by unionization.
--
j-j
Would like to see a breakdown by areas of specialty. I would think that the job opportunities for a doctorate in some technical or scientific fields would be better than for a fine arts or musicology graduate.
deathtokoalas
the stats actually suggest that stem majors have higher unemployment rates. but, i'm going to take the initiative in explaining why.
see, about 20 years ago we went through this grand social phase where everybody told all the young people to study stem courses. so, everybody got a stem degree.
but, while that was happening, automation began to encroach in traditional stem employment spaces. on top of that, we had the onset of globalization. the result was that the number of stem jobs actually decreased, while the number of stem majors drastically increased.
the result, today, is that the supply of stem majors drastically outpaces the demand for stem majors. this has the effect of depressing wages.
the experts will tell you that the way to get a high-paying job in today's economy is to study financial services. it's the only industry that has positive growth rates.
this logic applies to all levels of higher education nowadays. i've seen jobs that require masters degrees in biology (plus experience) advertised at $13/hr.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/jobs/earning-a-phd-in-canada-probably-not-worth-the-time-or-money-study/article27445026/
mcscotty
Try applying your logic to the educators themselves, specifically Ontario teachers.
deathtokoalas
because high school teachers hand out phds.
the disdain for education is really just comical, guys. but, even the most liberal of classical economists will agree that the only way to get wages up in a situation where supply outstrips demand is by unionization.
--
j-j
Would like to see a breakdown by areas of specialty. I would think that the job opportunities for a doctorate in some technical or scientific fields would be better than for a fine arts or musicology graduate.
deathtokoalas
the stats actually suggest that stem majors have higher unemployment rates. but, i'm going to take the initiative in explaining why.
see, about 20 years ago we went through this grand social phase where everybody told all the young people to study stem courses. so, everybody got a stem degree.
but, while that was happening, automation began to encroach in traditional stem employment spaces. on top of that, we had the onset of globalization. the result was that the number of stem jobs actually decreased, while the number of stem majors drastically increased.
the result, today, is that the supply of stem majors drastically outpaces the demand for stem majors. this has the effect of depressing wages.
the experts will tell you that the way to get a high-paying job in today's economy is to study financial services. it's the only industry that has positive growth rates.
Monday, November 23, 2015
21/22-11-2015: daydreaming...
tracks worked on in this vlog:
1) https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/aliens-are-more-likely-than-god
1) https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/aliens-are-more-likely-than-god
so, when some dumb blonde claims that the only thing important in life is being attractive and nerds are therefore worthless, the response from the geeks is that they can be attractive too, and are therefore not worthless.
this is why i hate geeks. they're just failed jocks.
a nerd would argue that your worth is not determined by your appearance.
this is why i hate geeks. they're just failed jocks.
a nerd would argue that your worth is not determined by your appearance.
this guy is worse than fucking summers. where do you find these guys? the dolph lundgren school for useful idiots?
you don't even get a crocodile tear when he enthusiastically announces that anything resembling a fiscal union is an impossibility in the medium term. he can only barely hide his glee when he announces that, instead of democratic oversight over the monetary supply, we're to have an unelected central banking oligopoly that is entirely shielded from any sort of accountability.
"it's ok, europe. you didn't want political oversight over the banking sector, anyways. you wanted cultural autonomy. how about that local sports team, anyways?"
then, after boldly declaring that the new europe is to be run by an unaccountable system of centralized bankers, thereby confirming every conspiracy theorists' rambling ever, he transitions by claiming that this can't all be about banking regulations. they need some space to breathe, too. and launder.
the nerve of this guy! the fucking nerve!
and you wonder why half the eurozone is on the brink of anarchism?
these guys don't even pretend to give a fuck.
you don't even get a crocodile tear when he enthusiastically announces that anything resembling a fiscal union is an impossibility in the medium term. he can only barely hide his glee when he announces that, instead of democratic oversight over the monetary supply, we're to have an unelected central banking oligopoly that is entirely shielded from any sort of accountability.
"it's ok, europe. you didn't want political oversight over the banking sector, anyways. you wanted cultural autonomy. how about that local sports team, anyways?"
then, after boldly declaring that the new europe is to be run by an unaccountable system of centralized bankers, thereby confirming every conspiracy theorists' rambling ever, he transitions by claiming that this can't all be about banking regulations. they need some space to breathe, too. and launder.
the nerve of this guy! the fucking nerve!
and you wonder why half the eurozone is on the brink of anarchism?
these guys don't even pretend to give a fuck.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
"According to government statistics, 30% of women who are murdered are killed by their spouses."
google's not helping me on this. i'd be very surprised if nobody's written any papers on this, even if it's sort of taboo - and is going to especially be taboo amongst the kind of people who are going to study this.
http://brandongaille.com/27-intriguing-crimes-of-passion-statistics/
--
"According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 30 percent of all female murder victims were killed by their spouses. Another 18.3 percent were killed by ex-spouses."
that's nearly half...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/why-do-we-kill2.htm
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2002/4/23/study-us-female-murder-rate-high/
--
from this page, i can calculate that the murder rate for women in the united states was about 1.02/100000 in 2011.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863
---
google tells me directly that the population of the united states was 312 million in 2011.
that suggests that there were around 3182 female homicides in the united states in 2011; the math works out to 1537 being killed by a partner or ex-partner, and while it may be a leap of logic to suggest that most were equivalent to "honour killings" it's a reasonable one.
so, let's go with 1500 honour killings in the united states in 2011. this calculation has nothing to do with ethnicity.
--
the population of MENA is 381 million - roughly comparable. this excludes pakistan and india, where the population both gets much bigger and the problem is much worse. but, let's try and compare like with like as best we can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MENA
--
"(In the mena region) With the exception of Iran, laws which allow for ‘honour’ killing are not derived from Islamic precepts, but from the penal codes of the Napoleonic Empire which legislated for crimes of ‘passion.’"
intriguing. no numbers, though.
http://hbv-awareness.com/regions/
--
i can't find a number for mena, specifically, and i don't think that bringing india into the discussion is conceptually fair (especially considering that a lot of them occur in india by non-muslims).
truth is i'm hungry.
but, most people wouldn't have pulled out a number like 1500, which is no doubt an underestimate - it doesn't include daughters killed by their fathers or other relatives. that's just women killed by partners and ex-partners.
google's not helping me on this. i'd be very surprised if nobody's written any papers on this, even if it's sort of taboo - and is going to especially be taboo amongst the kind of people who are going to study this.
http://brandongaille.com/27-intriguing-crimes-of-passion-statistics/
--
"According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 30 percent of all female murder victims were killed by their spouses. Another 18.3 percent were killed by ex-spouses."
that's nearly half...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/why-do-we-kill2.htm
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2002/4/23/study-us-female-murder-rate-high/
--
from this page, i can calculate that the murder rate for women in the united states was about 1.02/100000 in 2011.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863
---
google tells me directly that the population of the united states was 312 million in 2011.
that suggests that there were around 3182 female homicides in the united states in 2011; the math works out to 1537 being killed by a partner or ex-partner, and while it may be a leap of logic to suggest that most were equivalent to "honour killings" it's a reasonable one.
so, let's go with 1500 honour killings in the united states in 2011. this calculation has nothing to do with ethnicity.
--
the population of MENA is 381 million - roughly comparable. this excludes pakistan and india, where the population both gets much bigger and the problem is much worse. but, let's try and compare like with like as best we can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MENA
--
"(In the mena region) With the exception of Iran, laws which allow for ‘honour’ killing are not derived from Islamic precepts, but from the penal codes of the Napoleonic Empire which legislated for crimes of ‘passion.’"
intriguing. no numbers, though.
http://hbv-awareness.com/regions/
--
i can't find a number for mena, specifically, and i don't think that bringing india into the discussion is conceptually fair (especially considering that a lot of them occur in india by non-muslims).
truth is i'm hungry.
but, most people wouldn't have pulled out a number like 1500, which is no doubt an underestimate - it doesn't include daughters killed by their fathers or other relatives. that's just women killed by partners and ex-partners.
how many christians support abortion clinic bombings, capital punishment, border fences, forced conversion of homosexuals...
you think it's less than 8%, bill? really?
so, which is it then: are americans stupid or not?
this is the point that maher gets wrong over and over and over again. there's not a liberal on the planet that "supports islam". we just won't stand for giving christians a free pass, or setting up an us-vs-them double standard. that is what is bullshit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7OsQRI-LBU
also, fwiw, syria was a secularist quasi-stalinist state up until a few years ago, and would like to return to that. that's the whole russia-syria thing. they were a proxy. like north korea...
you were more likely to get persecuted for being religious than not being religious. that's why these guys hate assad so much, and why they hate the population so much. it's why the population is fleeing slaughter. that's what's happening: religious extremists are slaughtering functional atheists.
the reality is that whether they identify as christian or muslim or something else, the vast majority of these refugees are actually not religious at all - because syria is not a religious society.
i have another point as well about the honour killings. i could go on about this for a while, but i'll spare you; if you break it down carefully, you need to ask yourself if accepting capital punishment for one type of crime is really different than accepting capital punishment for another type of crime on a concept-of-justice level or if it reflects a different set of ideas about what criminality is. i mean, we can certainly agree that we can find some problems with american executions if we look carefully, can't we? there is a difference - i'm not saying there isn't. but the difference is what is determined to be worthy of a death sentence, not the act of carrying the death sentence out. or at least it is relative to the united states. we don't do that up here.
but, for the honour killings specifically...
it is true that murdering your partner is legal in much of the islamic world if you catch them in the act of adultery red-handed, and at the time of catching them. i apologize for the language, but it's necessary in context. so, because that is legal, you would expect responses on surveys that reflect that it is legal.
i of course disagree with that law. but, i also disagree with capital punishment laws in the united states. there's a difference. but, i went through that.
it is not legal here, so we would expect survey responses to reflect that, as well. but it is also perhaps worth pointing out that it did used to be legal here, too. this is a recently won battle.
but, certainly we all know that this is something that happens here with a relatively high level of frequency. "crimes of passion" are statistically one of the most frequent types of violent crimes. we should readily agree that white men, christian or not, kill their girlfriends or wives for cheating on them all the time - often not caught red-handed, and a good deal of time after the fact.
so, putting the legalities and social conventions aside, it would be interesting to ask the question of how frequently these honour killings occur across countries, and if there is any statistical reason to think they actually happen in greater frequencies in islamic countries.
i'll be blunt: i think you'll find that they do not. i think you'll find that white christian men kill their partners for cheating at a higher frequency than islamic men do.
and, we can talk about reasons for this. it may actually have something to do with the religion - which is the wrong reason, but perhaps true nonetheless.
but, i think i'd really like to see this question of empirical fact established. i'm taking a lot of guesses, sure. but, i do think my hunch is likely correct.
you think it's less than 8%, bill? really?
so, which is it then: are americans stupid or not?
this is the point that maher gets wrong over and over and over again. there's not a liberal on the planet that "supports islam". we just won't stand for giving christians a free pass, or setting up an us-vs-them double standard. that is what is bullshit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7OsQRI-LBU
also, fwiw, syria was a secularist quasi-stalinist state up until a few years ago, and would like to return to that. that's the whole russia-syria thing. they were a proxy. like north korea...
you were more likely to get persecuted for being religious than not being religious. that's why these guys hate assad so much, and why they hate the population so much. it's why the population is fleeing slaughter. that's what's happening: religious extremists are slaughtering functional atheists.
the reality is that whether they identify as christian or muslim or something else, the vast majority of these refugees are actually not religious at all - because syria is not a religious society.
i have another point as well about the honour killings. i could go on about this for a while, but i'll spare you; if you break it down carefully, you need to ask yourself if accepting capital punishment for one type of crime is really different than accepting capital punishment for another type of crime on a concept-of-justice level or if it reflects a different set of ideas about what criminality is. i mean, we can certainly agree that we can find some problems with american executions if we look carefully, can't we? there is a difference - i'm not saying there isn't. but the difference is what is determined to be worthy of a death sentence, not the act of carrying the death sentence out. or at least it is relative to the united states. we don't do that up here.
but, for the honour killings specifically...
it is true that murdering your partner is legal in much of the islamic world if you catch them in the act of adultery red-handed, and at the time of catching them. i apologize for the language, but it's necessary in context. so, because that is legal, you would expect responses on surveys that reflect that it is legal.
i of course disagree with that law. but, i also disagree with capital punishment laws in the united states. there's a difference. but, i went through that.
it is not legal here, so we would expect survey responses to reflect that, as well. but it is also perhaps worth pointing out that it did used to be legal here, too. this is a recently won battle.
but, certainly we all know that this is something that happens here with a relatively high level of frequency. "crimes of passion" are statistically one of the most frequent types of violent crimes. we should readily agree that white men, christian or not, kill their girlfriends or wives for cheating on them all the time - often not caught red-handed, and a good deal of time after the fact.
so, putting the legalities and social conventions aside, it would be interesting to ask the question of how frequently these honour killings occur across countries, and if there is any statistical reason to think they actually happen in greater frequencies in islamic countries.
i'll be blunt: i think you'll find that they do not. i think you'll find that white christian men kill their partners for cheating at a higher frequency than islamic men do.
and, we can talk about reasons for this. it may actually have something to do with the religion - which is the wrong reason, but perhaps true nonetheless.
but, i think i'd really like to see this question of empirical fact established. i'm taking a lot of guesses, sure. but, i do think my hunch is likely correct.
Saturday, November 21, 2015
this won't help the average citizen of mexico much.
but, it should accelerate inflation, which should put upward pressure on wages. this will make mexico less competitive as a labour source, and that should be good for the other two nafta partners.
it's not the best way to create upward pressure on wages in mexico, but the labour movement there doesn't seem to want to fight.
but, it should accelerate inflation, which should put upward pressure on wages. this will make mexico less competitive as a labour source, and that should be good for the other two nafta partners.
it's not the best way to create upward pressure on wages in mexico, but the labour movement there doesn't seem to want to fight.
reaction to the new bowie single, pt 2
Brooklyn Allman
Bowie always tends to reflect the world around him. I think this video is a metaphor for the darkside of religion. The book he holds up. The scarecrows in crucifix formation (scarecrows symbolic of fear which is a key element of organized religion). The blindfolds. The people who seem to be possessed by something. Somehow he ties Major Tom into all of this as his skull is treated like a sacred artifact perhaps meaning that anything can be turned into god and spun out of control. I think "Blackstar" might be like a faux-prophet or fervent disciple going around convincing people god is speaking through them. I think it definitely reflects what's going on in the world right now. I'm sure there are many ways to interpret this though, it's very abstract.
deathtokoalas
+Brooklyn Allman
the kind of ritual you're seeing in the video is something that "kids nowadays" actually seriously do. there's a pretty sizable movement built up around this amongst women that are roughly university aged. they get together in forested spaces and perform magical rites to what they perceive of as pagan spirits.
if you want to get into it, it's likely a reaction to the upbringing brought on by the previous generation - a kind of rebellion against the value system enforced by the "moral majority" in the reagan revolution. the women i've spoken to about this speak in these terms. they talk of how their christian upbringing created a lot of repressed desires. they talk of catholic guilt. yet, as the rituals become so massively enforced and engrained, they create a sense of safety, as well. so, they realize there's something oppressive about the ritual, but can't quite discard the sense of peace that the oppression provides. the result is rebellion on the terms of praying to a false deity, rather than simply discarding it. on that level, it's blowback.
on another level, the ideas are all around us in our culture. there was a movie released in the 90s called the craft that is very popular in these circles, and there have been a number of similar films released since then. it comes out musically in a couple of styles, like witch house. there's a band called esben and the witch that is kind of seminal (even if all the ideas trace back to the 70s, through artists like coil, who were themselves drawing on existing themes). and, remember: this is a generation raised on magic, from disney through to lord of the rings. magic is no longer seen as an archaic relic of the past to be shunned as a process of ignorance. rather, it's become quite normalized.
i think bowie is reflecting on something here, but it's the youth culture. this is, in fact, what he's always done. what i'm getting is that he's both amused by this (it is really quite ridiculous) and somewhat disturbed by it.
the key shot in the video is at the very end, when he's dramatically recoiling from the images being presented on the screen.
"on the day of execution,
only women kneel and smile."
it's the secular society being executed. but, from the inside out.
Bowie always tends to reflect the world around him. I think this video is a metaphor for the darkside of religion. The book he holds up. The scarecrows in crucifix formation (scarecrows symbolic of fear which is a key element of organized religion). The blindfolds. The people who seem to be possessed by something. Somehow he ties Major Tom into all of this as his skull is treated like a sacred artifact perhaps meaning that anything can be turned into god and spun out of control. I think "Blackstar" might be like a faux-prophet or fervent disciple going around convincing people god is speaking through them. I think it definitely reflects what's going on in the world right now. I'm sure there are many ways to interpret this though, it's very abstract.
deathtokoalas
+Brooklyn Allman
the kind of ritual you're seeing in the video is something that "kids nowadays" actually seriously do. there's a pretty sizable movement built up around this amongst women that are roughly university aged. they get together in forested spaces and perform magical rites to what they perceive of as pagan spirits.
if you want to get into it, it's likely a reaction to the upbringing brought on by the previous generation - a kind of rebellion against the value system enforced by the "moral majority" in the reagan revolution. the women i've spoken to about this speak in these terms. they talk of how their christian upbringing created a lot of repressed desires. they talk of catholic guilt. yet, as the rituals become so massively enforced and engrained, they create a sense of safety, as well. so, they realize there's something oppressive about the ritual, but can't quite discard the sense of peace that the oppression provides. the result is rebellion on the terms of praying to a false deity, rather than simply discarding it. on that level, it's blowback.
on another level, the ideas are all around us in our culture. there was a movie released in the 90s called the craft that is very popular in these circles, and there have been a number of similar films released since then. it comes out musically in a couple of styles, like witch house. there's a band called esben and the witch that is kind of seminal (even if all the ideas trace back to the 70s, through artists like coil, who were themselves drawing on existing themes). and, remember: this is a generation raised on magic, from disney through to lord of the rings. magic is no longer seen as an archaic relic of the past to be shunned as a process of ignorance. rather, it's become quite normalized.
i think bowie is reflecting on something here, but it's the youth culture. this is, in fact, what he's always done. what i'm getting is that he's both amused by this (it is really quite ridiculous) and somewhat disturbed by it.
the key shot in the video is at the very end, when he's dramatically recoiling from the images being presented on the screen.
"on the day of execution,
only women kneel and smile."
it's the secular society being executed. but, from the inside out.
reaction to the new bowie single, pt 1
see, i think the key to understanding this is having a clue about contemporary youth culture.
the images in the video are what the contemporary musical underground looks like. the exaggeration is only very slight. true to form, bowie is merely reacting to the underground. and, my interpretation is that he's both legitimately amused and seriously disturbed by it.
musically, i'm glad we're getting another "serious" bowie disc and am quite excited about that. i was a little worried he was going to leave us with that last one.
but, only a fool claims to be able to understand the scope of a bowie record via the lead single.
the images in the video are what the contemporary musical underground looks like. the exaggeration is only very slight. true to form, bowie is merely reacting to the underground. and, my interpretation is that he's both legitimately amused and seriously disturbed by it.
musically, i'm glad we're getting another "serious" bowie disc and am quite excited about that. i was a little worried he was going to leave us with that last one.
but, only a fool claims to be able to understand the scope of a bowie record via the lead single.
the choice really will be up to him. mostly. things happen, but this strikes me as mostly ideological.
the chart is largely a measure of whether the liberals can gain the approval of liberal-ndp swing voters, and they're (we're...) very much policy oriented. you put through the right policies, you keep them happy. there's a significant potential of trudeau pulling into the 40s (as chretien did), if he can hold that swing a little bit more strongly - he could increase his seat count in four years if he can pull that off. the ndp polled very poorly through the 90s, which was partly a resolve to keep the conservatives out but also partly a reflection on chretien's ability to hold the swing through policy decisions. trudeau is in a strong position to emulate this.
the media is going to focus on the liberal-conservative swing like it always does. and it is true that following through on his campaign promises (which are things that will upset the right-wing minority in the country) may intensify the strength of the disapproval ratings. but they won't change the overall proportion of it.
so, for example, consider the decision to pull back on the bombing in syria. yeah, that's going to upset conservatives, who will trot out their various arguments. but, if he can hold to the kind of foreign policy that was set down by pearson and adhered to across the spectrum until 2006, it will help him hold those ndp-leaning voters - and not just come out in the wash but potentially increase his vote share. similarly, he doesn't want to go slashing programs (we reacted badly to martin because of that). the media, focusing on the right swing, will key on this. conservatives will yell and scream. but, his approval ratings will stay high.
it depends on policy. but, expect it to last.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-trudeau-honeymoon-1.3324631
inuk of the north
That sure never happened in 2006, 2008 and 2011.
jessica murray
no. but, that's sort of my point. the liberals saw shrinking numbers over this period, but harper couldn't break out of his base. during this period, the liberals were seen as leaning too far to the right. ndp support increased as a consequence.
keeping those liberal numbers high is dependent on them not being seen as right-leaning. it's the ndp's task to convince us they are right-leaning, of course, but they've got two problems: a credibility problem after their policies in the last election (and their leader....) and possibly running up against the facts of a return to a left-leaning liberal party.
you can almost suggest it's inversely proportional: the more angry conservatives get, the higher his approval ratings will climb (to a max, of course, which is going to be in the high 60s).
don't expect the media to clue in to this.
inuk of the north
You're right is some ways, but ultimately the biggest factor in 2015 was fatigue with Harper. Second was how far right the NDP swung trying to sound like a government in waiting. Ultimately, more by accident than design, the Liberals happened to be in the right place at the right time.
jessica murray
that's often how the liberals get back in: by default. that's why we call them the natural governing party.
i had a conservative friend years ago that told me "the problem with the liberals isn't exactly the liberals. it's that once they get in, you just can't get them out. they deflect scandals like teflon. there's just no tactic. you're stuck with them."
it's only a half-truth. there's an easy way to get them out: convince people they're campaigning on the left, but governing on the right. but, that's not what he wanted to hear.
the chart is largely a measure of whether the liberals can gain the approval of liberal-ndp swing voters, and they're (we're...) very much policy oriented. you put through the right policies, you keep them happy. there's a significant potential of trudeau pulling into the 40s (as chretien did), if he can hold that swing a little bit more strongly - he could increase his seat count in four years if he can pull that off. the ndp polled very poorly through the 90s, which was partly a resolve to keep the conservatives out but also partly a reflection on chretien's ability to hold the swing through policy decisions. trudeau is in a strong position to emulate this.
the media is going to focus on the liberal-conservative swing like it always does. and it is true that following through on his campaign promises (which are things that will upset the right-wing minority in the country) may intensify the strength of the disapproval ratings. but they won't change the overall proportion of it.
so, for example, consider the decision to pull back on the bombing in syria. yeah, that's going to upset conservatives, who will trot out their various arguments. but, if he can hold to the kind of foreign policy that was set down by pearson and adhered to across the spectrum until 2006, it will help him hold those ndp-leaning voters - and not just come out in the wash but potentially increase his vote share. similarly, he doesn't want to go slashing programs (we reacted badly to martin because of that). the media, focusing on the right swing, will key on this. conservatives will yell and scream. but, his approval ratings will stay high.
it depends on policy. but, expect it to last.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-trudeau-honeymoon-1.3324631
inuk of the north
That sure never happened in 2006, 2008 and 2011.
jessica murray
no. but, that's sort of my point. the liberals saw shrinking numbers over this period, but harper couldn't break out of his base. during this period, the liberals were seen as leaning too far to the right. ndp support increased as a consequence.
keeping those liberal numbers high is dependent on them not being seen as right-leaning. it's the ndp's task to convince us they are right-leaning, of course, but they've got two problems: a credibility problem after their policies in the last election (and their leader....) and possibly running up against the facts of a return to a left-leaning liberal party.
you can almost suggest it's inversely proportional: the more angry conservatives get, the higher his approval ratings will climb (to a max, of course, which is going to be in the high 60s).
don't expect the media to clue in to this.
inuk of the north
You're right is some ways, but ultimately the biggest factor in 2015 was fatigue with Harper. Second was how far right the NDP swung trying to sound like a government in waiting. Ultimately, more by accident than design, the Liberals happened to be in the right place at the right time.
jessica murray
that's often how the liberals get back in: by default. that's why we call them the natural governing party.
i had a conservative friend years ago that told me "the problem with the liberals isn't exactly the liberals. it's that once they get in, you just can't get them out. they deflect scandals like teflon. there's just no tactic. you're stuck with them."
it's only a half-truth. there's an easy way to get them out: convince people they're campaigning on the left, but governing on the right. but, that's not what he wanted to hear.
20-11-2015: why the detroit/windsor area needs a pedestrian crossing option
concert footage:
river spirit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btunBJsfq38
the creepers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZforNU_VKY (old footage)
nudie suits (none taken)
valley hush: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmU8iOhObz8
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2015/11/20.html
river spirit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btunBJsfq38
the creepers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZforNU_VKY (old footage)
nudie suits (none taken)
valley hush: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmU8iOhObz8
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2015/11/20.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)