you go with ranked ballots if you're trying to minimize extremist voices and pull the spectrum into the centre. you go with proportional models if you want to give a platform to any nut that can elbow their way into the conversation, or yell loud enough to generate attention. there's no objective concept of "fairness". it's just a question of what kind of spectrum you want to engineer.
i'd prefer the ranked ballot approach because i think the major issue in the country is the majority constantly having the knife of conservative governance dangling over their head, which is preventing them from really voting with their hearts.
--
canada actually has a great case study against proportional representation that actually happened in real life. the 1979 election produced a minority government, with the conservatives controlling a small plurality. a now obscure party called social credit held the balance of power.
the social credit party was widely viewed as dangerously anti-semitic. yet, this was the situation canada found itself in: clark had to make a deal with what was essentially a nazi party in order to pass a budget.
that deal did not happen. there was an election very quickly. and the socreds were all but annihilated.
but, this is the situation we will no doubt see ourselves in if we go to proportional representation. conservatives will be force to cut deals with the chp in order to govern. the liberals will be stuck trying to cobble together legislation with the ndp and the mlms.
except, it won't be - what will actually happen is that the liberals and conservatives will functionally merge. and, you'll get the same system that exists in russia: perpetual one-party rule by a moderate lesser evil, to prevent extremists on both sides.
it's a bad idea. and, it's failed everywhere it's been implemented. look at israel for another horrendous example.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ranked-ballots-ontario-toronto-fair-democracy-1.3520703
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Monday, April 4, 2016
04-04-2016: son lux - undone (audio only) (detroit)
their music:
http://music.sonluxmusic.com/
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/04/04.html
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGdHa67mw-0
my music:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com
==
i'm trying to find the way to say this: i'm too shy to be a cameraperson. i would have had to lift the camera into the air and make a scene, and it's just not who i am. so, we got the floor, instead
http://music.sonluxmusic.com/
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/04/04.html
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGdHa67mw-0
my music:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com
==
i'm trying to find the way to say this: i'm too shy to be a cameraperson. i would have had to lift the camera into the air and make a scene, and it's just not who i am. so, we got the floor, instead
at
23:32
Location:
Detroit, MI, USA
perhaps the fact that it isn't in the budget suggests that there's less support for the tpp than some people might think?
the liberals were never excited about nafta, they just calculated that the costs of bailing were worse than the costs of complying. they were in a lose-lose situation, so they picked what they thought was the least bad option. their position on trade has always been too subtle for most people to get - they support the principle of free trade, but reject a very large number of the measures in these "free trade" agreements. so, while they may end up ratifying it, it will only be under the same least-bad kind of calculation. and, it is probably the right calculation, too - as bad as the deal may be.
the best case scenario is that it gets rejected in the united states. and, there's a very real possibility that the issue in 2017 is going to be renegotiating nafta, rather than ratifying the tpp. so, i think the tactical thing to do is remain absolutely silent until the election in the united states finishes.
*that* may be why there's nothing in the budget this year.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tpp-ceta-supply-management-package-1.3514990
the liberals were never excited about nafta, they just calculated that the costs of bailing were worse than the costs of complying. they were in a lose-lose situation, so they picked what they thought was the least bad option. their position on trade has always been too subtle for most people to get - they support the principle of free trade, but reject a very large number of the measures in these "free trade" agreements. so, while they may end up ratifying it, it will only be under the same least-bad kind of calculation. and, it is probably the right calculation, too - as bad as the deal may be.
the best case scenario is that it gets rejected in the united states. and, there's a very real possibility that the issue in 2017 is going to be renegotiating nafta, rather than ratifying the tpp. so, i think the tactical thing to do is remain absolutely silent until the election in the united states finishes.
*that* may be why there's nothing in the budget this year.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tpp-ceta-supply-management-package-1.3514990
at
11:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
please don't waste money on hydrogen. it's an energy-carrier, meaning it's just a waste of money in the face of the coming ubiquity of electric cars. it would be like investing in beta max, or hd dvd.
i'd like to see a pedestrian walking bridge directly over the detroit-windsor tunnel. but, i realize it's a little selfish, too.
to be clear.
an electric car runs on electricity. you charge it. you know how this works, if you have a phone.
a hydrogen car also runs on electricity. but, you encode that electricity into the hydrogen atom. then, you transfer it to the car. and, where does the electricity come from? the same place that the electricity for your electric car comes from.
so, all you're doing with hydrogen is introducing a pointless intermediary, which will necessarily increase the cost because there's an extra set of hands involved. given that this is unnecessary in the face of canada's massive electricity generation surplus, it's just about the worst idea imaginable, here.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/infrastructure-fiscal-budget-harebrained-1.3516369
GaryN
maybe they will let you use the train tunnel, why not just walk across the bridge? maybe a sky train. nothing wrong with ideas and wishes. just have to start with practicile and needed first
jessica murray
there's currently two ways to get across: the tunnel and the bridge. the tunnel authority claims the tunnel is too narrow for pedestrians or bicyclists (and is probably right). if they ever renovate, hopefully they prioritize this. they won't let you bring your bike on the bus, either, as it's a "security concern". i think this is rather paranoid...
the bridge is privately owned and it's owners have banned pedestrian and bicycle traffic because they were sued by people that jumped off of it in the 70s. that's just an awful scenario all around. but, the bridge owner doesn't want to be held liable.
they are building a new bridge and it will be open within a few years. we are expecting that it will have bicycle access, finally. that's positive. but, it's also a 45 minute detour from downtown.
i take the bus when i go, but the bus only runs until 1:00 am. in general, i'd prefer to come home much later than that. it means i need to wait until the morning bus.
it would be nice if i could just walk. it would be even nicer if i could bring a bike back and forth.
House Williams
But much cleaner than disposing of the electric car battery, eh.
jessica murray
that's a red herring built on top of a strawman.
i'd like to see a pedestrian walking bridge directly over the detroit-windsor tunnel. but, i realize it's a little selfish, too.
to be clear.
an electric car runs on electricity. you charge it. you know how this works, if you have a phone.
a hydrogen car also runs on electricity. but, you encode that electricity into the hydrogen atom. then, you transfer it to the car. and, where does the electricity come from? the same place that the electricity for your electric car comes from.
so, all you're doing with hydrogen is introducing a pointless intermediary, which will necessarily increase the cost because there's an extra set of hands involved. given that this is unnecessary in the face of canada's massive electricity generation surplus, it's just about the worst idea imaginable, here.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/infrastructure-fiscal-budget-harebrained-1.3516369
GaryN
maybe they will let you use the train tunnel, why not just walk across the bridge? maybe a sky train. nothing wrong with ideas and wishes. just have to start with practicile and needed first
jessica murray
there's currently two ways to get across: the tunnel and the bridge. the tunnel authority claims the tunnel is too narrow for pedestrians or bicyclists (and is probably right). if they ever renovate, hopefully they prioritize this. they won't let you bring your bike on the bus, either, as it's a "security concern". i think this is rather paranoid...
the bridge is privately owned and it's owners have banned pedestrian and bicycle traffic because they were sued by people that jumped off of it in the 70s. that's just an awful scenario all around. but, the bridge owner doesn't want to be held liable.
they are building a new bridge and it will be open within a few years. we are expecting that it will have bicycle access, finally. that's positive. but, it's also a 45 minute detour from downtown.
i take the bus when i go, but the bus only runs until 1:00 am. in general, i'd prefer to come home much later than that. it means i need to wait until the morning bus.
it would be nice if i could just walk. it would be even nicer if i could bring a bike back and forth.
House Williams
But much cleaner than disposing of the electric car battery, eh.
jessica murray
that's a red herring built on top of a strawman.
at
10:23
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the mixed signals leading into wisconsin
this is likely the final wisconsin update...
we've had plenty of polls, now. but i need to admit that i was reading some of them wrong. i had assumed that they were polling democrats, and i should make a mental adjustment for independents. but, it seems as though some of the polling firms made those mental adjustments themselves, and that i was adjusting it twice.
now, they really shouldn't do that. that's making stuff up. i can do that, because i'm a random person on the internet. but, a polling firm should really just put the data down.
regardless, i should have checked that, rather than assumed it. apologies. i'll acknowledge this is a little half-assed right now, though, too - on account of being a canadian, and not really seriously thinking that bernie has a real chance (it's rigged!).
regardless, the correct understanding of the situation is actually as follows:
1) clinton is actually maintaining a consistent lead amongst democrats of about 5 points. this is not that different than the pre-polling in illinois.
2) sanders has a larger lead of over ten points amongst independents.
the adjustment that the polling companies are doing is then actually maybe a bit more generous than i'd do. if he was winning by 5 amongst democrats, i'd argue the polls say he should win by 10. the polls actually say he's losing by five amongst democrats; i'd argue the polls suggest it should be about a split. but, they're giving him an extra five points.
this is similar to what they were doing in other states, like ohio and illinois. they're setting up higher expectations. then, when he doesn't meet those expectations, a sense of disappointment will set in.
with everything lined up (the polls suggest a split on voting day - then you have "early ballots" and voter suppression), i don't think you should be excited about the results.
the results that are officially recorded will likely be very close to a clean split. she may win by 1%, or he may win by 1%. you're being set up for a fall.
presuming he picks up ten delegates in wyoming, that's going to put him about 20 delegates behind where i suggested he needs to be. which is just all the more reason that he needs a big win in new york. that's right: even if he loses by a hair, the math will still not have really changed.
if he can't win new york - huge - it will be finally time to declare the race a long shot.
we've had plenty of polls, now. but i need to admit that i was reading some of them wrong. i had assumed that they were polling democrats, and i should make a mental adjustment for independents. but, it seems as though some of the polling firms made those mental adjustments themselves, and that i was adjusting it twice.
now, they really shouldn't do that. that's making stuff up. i can do that, because i'm a random person on the internet. but, a polling firm should really just put the data down.
regardless, i should have checked that, rather than assumed it. apologies. i'll acknowledge this is a little half-assed right now, though, too - on account of being a canadian, and not really seriously thinking that bernie has a real chance (it's rigged!).
regardless, the correct understanding of the situation is actually as follows:
1) clinton is actually maintaining a consistent lead amongst democrats of about 5 points. this is not that different than the pre-polling in illinois.
2) sanders has a larger lead of over ten points amongst independents.
the adjustment that the polling companies are doing is then actually maybe a bit more generous than i'd do. if he was winning by 5 amongst democrats, i'd argue the polls say he should win by 10. the polls actually say he's losing by five amongst democrats; i'd argue the polls suggest it should be about a split. but, they're giving him an extra five points.
this is similar to what they were doing in other states, like ohio and illinois. they're setting up higher expectations. then, when he doesn't meet those expectations, a sense of disappointment will set in.
with everything lined up (the polls suggest a split on voting day - then you have "early ballots" and voter suppression), i don't think you should be excited about the results.
the results that are officially recorded will likely be very close to a clean split. she may win by 1%, or he may win by 1%. you're being set up for a fall.
presuming he picks up ten delegates in wyoming, that's going to put him about 20 delegates behind where i suggested he needs to be. which is just all the more reason that he needs a big win in new york. that's right: even if he loses by a hair, the math will still not have really changed.
if he can't win new york - huge - it will be finally time to declare the race a long shot.
at
06:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
shit hillary said vol 19
"We came, we saw, he died", followed by an evil villain laugh.
at
03:43
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
shit hillary said vol 18
"I am proud to stand here on the soil of a free Tripoli and on behalf of the American people I congratulate Libya. This is Libya's moment, this is Libya's victory, the future belongs to you."
at
03:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Sunday, April 3, 2016
02-04-2016: half-day of rants & archiving (couldn't stand the weather...)
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
at
07:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to minimum wage legislation as election interference
what would the minimum wage be now if it had been indexed to inflation in 1965? and was there mass unemployment in the 60s?
prices are not set by some physical law that entitles the capitalist class to a specific cut. we have some monopolies. like bananas. and gas. but, broadly speaking, they're set by market forces. they will charge you what you're willing to pay. and, if you won't pay what they're charging, the prices will come down.
so, you can't work this out using some simplistic linear model. producers will take any opportunity they can to maximize profit. sure. but, it's up to you whether you want to pay for it or not. and, it's up to business owners to set a fair profit margin, too.
some people will get greedy. they won't be able to compete. so sad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmrTrVA6jrA
se
minimum wage would be about 25 dollars per hour - workers in USA are being screwed big time
jessica
the system is reacting to some activism. that's a positive step. i mean, it's been a few decades since the union movement collapsed. there's a vacuum there on both sides of the class divide.
but, you need to be careful in preventing the systen from turning it into a wedge issue, like gay marriage or abortion rights. you can imagine this nightmare scenario where the democrats dangle $0.25/yr increases as a foil to scaremongering over the republicans turning it back by ten years.
in 2014, the liberal party up in ontario (canada) just out of the blue took the best position you can on the issue. there wasn't even any activist pressure. the pressure, rather, seems to have come from the party's economic advisers, who decided that the government needed to take steps to stimulate spending amongst low income workers. there was also talk about it eliminating uncertainty for business owners. but it was primarily a stimulus policy that came out of think tanks. this is what they did:
(1) boost the minimum wage to it's highest level, historically, relative to inflation.
(2) tie it to the cpi, to be recalculated on a yearly basis.
so, if there is 2% inflation in ontario over 2016 then the minimum wage for 2017 will increase by 2%. workers aren't losing out.
prices are not set by some physical law that entitles the capitalist class to a specific cut. we have some monopolies. like bananas. and gas. but, broadly speaking, they're set by market forces. they will charge you what you're willing to pay. and, if you won't pay what they're charging, the prices will come down.
so, you can't work this out using some simplistic linear model. producers will take any opportunity they can to maximize profit. sure. but, it's up to you whether you want to pay for it or not. and, it's up to business owners to set a fair profit margin, too.
some people will get greedy. they won't be able to compete. so sad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmrTrVA6jrA
se
minimum wage would be about 25 dollars per hour - workers in USA are being screwed big time
jessica
the system is reacting to some activism. that's a positive step. i mean, it's been a few decades since the union movement collapsed. there's a vacuum there on both sides of the class divide.
but, you need to be careful in preventing the systen from turning it into a wedge issue, like gay marriage or abortion rights. you can imagine this nightmare scenario where the democrats dangle $0.25/yr increases as a foil to scaremongering over the republicans turning it back by ten years.
in 2014, the liberal party up in ontario (canada) just out of the blue took the best position you can on the issue. there wasn't even any activist pressure. the pressure, rather, seems to have come from the party's economic advisers, who decided that the government needed to take steps to stimulate spending amongst low income workers. there was also talk about it eliminating uncertainty for business owners. but it was primarily a stimulus policy that came out of think tanks. this is what they did:
(1) boost the minimum wage to it's highest level, historically, relative to inflation.
(2) tie it to the cpi, to be recalculated on a yearly basis.
so, if there is 2% inflation in ontario over 2016 then the minimum wage for 2017 will increase by 2%. workers aren't losing out.
at
02:17
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
do you have an article from the 90s where you argue they'd never cut transfers to the provinces in order to save their debt rating?
i know we just got out of nine years of brutal, systemic and often deeply calculated dishonesty. it could take a while to transfer away from absolute cynicism and back to healthy skepticism. but, this is actually right up the liberals' ally.
i'd expect them to make more progress on this than they're going to make on emissions reductions, anyways.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tax-expenditures-giveaways-neil-macdonald-1.3515484
i know we just got out of nine years of brutal, systemic and often deeply calculated dishonesty. it could take a while to transfer away from absolute cynicism and back to healthy skepticism. but, this is actually right up the liberals' ally.
i'd expect them to make more progress on this than they're going to make on emissions reductions, anyways.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tax-expenditures-giveaways-neil-macdonald-1.3515484
at
00:47
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
ted cruz has no chance of winning in the northeast. it's trump or kasich. and, if trump does win, it's going to be cruz' fault for not stepping down and allowing the party to rally around an electable candidate. if the banks had backed somebody less extreme in the first place, trump wouldn't be controlling the center so effectively.
so, it doesn't matter. cruz has already lost, and he's just wasting everybody's time.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-wisconsin-1.3518026
so, it doesn't matter. cruz has already lost, and he's just wasting everybody's time.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-wisconsin-1.3518026
at
00:23
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Saturday, April 2, 2016
it's distressing that they're holding to the niqab line. unless they're trying to argue that they weren't as forceful as the liberals?
and, what's the logical conclusion? that they're being too liberal? that they should fully embrace the right?
they got beat on policy. they tried to hug the center and it backfired. i don't know if they're too white or not, but the real issue is that they've become too conservative.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-rebecca-blaikie-too-white-1.3516616
and, what's the logical conclusion? that they're being too liberal? that they should fully embrace the right?
they got beat on policy. they tried to hug the center and it backfired. i don't know if they're too white or not, but the real issue is that they've become too conservative.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-rebecca-blaikie-too-white-1.3516616
at
23:55
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
if they get her on the emails, she should consider it getting off easy. she should really be charged with war crimes for her part in the carpet bombing of libya.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-email-indictment-1.3515080
Uncommon senses
Bush and Cheney would be a lot higher on war crimes list.
What 'carpet bombing' would you be referring to?
Did she make the decision to attack? No.
jessica murray
hillary clinton was the secretary of state at the time. i certainly hope that she made that decision.
i mean, who else would have? the shadow government?
hillary clinton is a neo-con. she is of the same school of foreign policy as bush & cheney. while i'd agree that they should also be prosecuted, i do not believe that she is any less culpable or that a clinton presidency would be any less disastrous.
Uncommon senses
Those decisions never come from the State Department.
Same as Bush and Cheney?
Ridiculous. Do some real research.
jessica murray
she was endorsed by henry kissinger! she gets her policy from the same think tanks and her money from the same donors. the foreign policy that exists was put in place near the end of her husband's presidency, was continued by bush, continued again by obama and will be kept on path by clinton.
of the remaining candidates, she is the most hawkish, the most interventionist and the most likely to get us (as in nato) bogged down in more stupid wars.
you have the choice to remain blind to this. but, this is the reality: she will simply carry on the bush regime. and, she is no less culpable, and no less deserving of imprisonment.
MJM
The SecState doesn't have the authority to declare war or deploy the US Armed Forces. You could probably Google to find out who does.
As for "carpet bombing," you should probably look that one up as well. There's been nothing remotely like it done by the US since Vietnam.
jessica murray
yeah: that's the congress, right? lol. that piece of paper doesn't mean anything.
the decision to invade libya happened at the united nations, and was orchestrated almost entirely by her department. the us armed forces did not attack libya. it was a un mission. and, it came out of a misleading and dishonest un resolution designed to create a legal basis for a convenient fiction. really, it was exactly like the lies that led us into iraq - except that it was orchestrated well, so the unilateral declaration wasn't necessary. it was really a lot of jostling with the russians, who got suckered into it (which has led to deep resentment in russia). so, there's your difference: the difference between clinton and bush is that clinton is not nearly as incompetent. is that good or bad?
and, yes, the bombing was indiscriminate and destroyed large swaths of the country.
justaviewer
What carpet Bombing?
Maybe your thinking of the Russian bombing of civilians in Syria?
jessica murray
no, i'm specifically referring to the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in libya and the dramatic loss of life and infrastructure that resulted. they were bombed back to the stone age. and, she should be held accountable for that.
J.White
Hillary Clinton can travel just about anywhere without worrying about being charged with war crimes, Henry Kissinger can't. If you want to start charging Americans with war crimes better start with him.
jessica murray
he endorsed her, actually. but, let's not be swayed by comparisons. the crimes of others are not important in determining the criminality of hillary clinton. we need to stop thinking in these relativistic terms and get back to right and wrong.
there are lots of other people that should be in jail next to her. they could appear to themselves on closed circuit tv. to make sure they're still real. sure. but the crimes of bush, cheney, kissinger, genghis khan or henry VIII are not of any relevance in determining the crimes of hillary clinton.
the right wing are FASCISTS
WAR crimes, you mean real war crimes like Bush/Cheney committed, kidnapping, torture, disappearances, fall attacks on a sovereign country that has killed over one million civilians.
jessica murray
all of that stuff happened in libya under her authority as well, but with less total civilian casualties (although this measurement is complex to place in an apples-to-apples comparison).
WaterGuy303
I guess you feel Putin should be charged for his carpet bombing of Syria. Either that or you're a hypocrite.
jessica murray
frankly, i'm not aware of the accusations or their accuracy. this is the first i've heard of it. but, i tend to be highly skeptical of western accusations against russia. i would need for the accusations to be verified by an independent source that i trust. my initial reaction would be that that would not make strategic sense or be in the russian self-interest. i need more evidence before i can make a decision, but i highly doubt the accusations are accurate.
JPalmer
It was Canadian jets that bore the brunt of the bombing missions in Libya, far more than any other nation. Six jets flew over 600 official bombing runs, and there were many more unofficial.
jessica murray
yes, our participation in this debacle is shameful. and, stephen harper should have his day in court, as well.
Cloakuncloak
except for obama is still the commander in chief and it was totally up to him to give said orders
jessica murray
it's like blaming the prorogation of parliament on the governor-general.
it is widely, and in fact universally, acknowledged that clinton was responsible for the invasion in libya. it is something that is not disputed in the literature. and, in fact, she has broadly gone out of her way to take credit for it, too. i'm not presenting an obscure perspective, here - or even something the candidate would dispute.
hillary clinton is not a peace candidate. she will never present herself in those terms. rather, she's a very open and very hard-nosed imperialist. the projection she desires in regards to libya is that she made a hard choice that proves she is a strong leader. she wants credit for the removal of a dictator and the addition of a new province to the empire. she believes in a strongly hegemonic empire that is deeply involved in global conflicts. she actively promotes the idea of america as the policeman of the world and attacks people that would suggest otherwise as being isolationist. and, worse, she subscribes to the whole neo-hobbesian narrative of society requiring an enmy to unite behind.
so, when i claim that hillary clinton is a war criminal for her involvement in libya, realize that she would not dispute the facts on the ground. rather, she would argue that her response was justified - and that it proves she's a strong-willed, decisive leader.
and, as critical as i am, i will concede. hillary clinton *will* make the trains run on time.
--
D @ CFB Ontario
Sanders and Warren would make the Democrats unbeatable. And restore much credibility to American political leadership.
Uncommon senses
Do you think that Congress would act to help implement Sanders' agenda or just block everything?
jessica murray
see, this is such a terrible argument. the best thing you can do is convince somebody not to vote. because, you're basically giving up before you start. if you can't win, don't try?
sanders is going to have a hard time getting good legislation through. clinton will have an easier time getting bad legislation through. if i was an american, i'd rather hold out on the fight and keep pushing for good legislation than just give up. i mean, why run at all? why not just let the republicans win and go home and watch tv?
that said. bernie has been clear that he's going to need to flip the congress. so, yes: bernie will have difficulty with the existing congress. and the solution is to fire everybody in congress. which is necessary if you want anything done, anyways.
approval ratings for congress rarely exceed 20%, fwiw. and turnout is consistently atrocious. it really shouldn't be all that hard. you just need to get people to vote. and, hillary's not your ticket if you want enthusiasm.
--
starship3
I'm wondering how Bill's comments about Obama's 'awful legacy' can help Hilary. Is this all an indication the Clinton camp is beginning to implode?
jessica murray
clinton stumbled over his tongue. he got lost in a time warp and thought it was 2008. he was referring to the bush presidency.
the problem in 2008 was the media. the reality is that obama was running as a conservative democrat from the start. he came out against single payer healthcare during the primaries. he was throwing around all kinds of imperialist rhetoric. he was insisting on "fiscal responsibility". he sounded like stephen harper's conscience - that part of himself that nobody's allowed to see. and, he won by beating her on the right, too.
but, the media built him up as some kind of liberal. and, it only worked because he was a blank slate.
they're doing the same thing this year to trump. the reality is that trump is a moderate democrat. i mean, he's spent most of his life as a moderate democrat. he's well to the left of hillary on almost every issue. but, the media is working him up as a right-winger, despite all evidence to the contrary.
if trump somehow manages to win, and then governs as a moderate, there's going to be this mass of disappointed conservatives. but, they didn't do their research. they just relied on media to tell them a lie - and then they believed it.
justaviewer
Your correct in that Obama was a media darling - the toughest question he got was to rank college basketball teams. But he did try to fundamentally change America - just not in a positive direction. Obamacare is a disaster - who can afford a deductible in the thousands? More people lost their healthcare than gained it. In the end the only winners were the ones who donated money to his campaign they got paid back 10 fold.
jessica murray
i agree that obamacare is a disaster. but, we have easily forgotten that it is virtually identical to romneycare, which was modeled on gingrichcare. it was developed by the heritage institute. it's designed to increase profits for the insurance industry, and prevent the country from moving towards a socialized health care system. remember: hillary, at the time, was proposing a canadian-style, single-payer system. so, the entire narrative - from the primary debates through to the present - is consistent with obama running to hillary's right.
today, we're in the absurd position of people voting for hillary to "save obamacare from the republicans" - when, in fact, obamacare was written by the republicans to prevent the democrats from bringing in single-payer. it's surreal. but, it demonstrates just how powerful the media is in framing things for people that have a weak understanding of the issues.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-email-indictment-1.3515080
Uncommon senses
Bush and Cheney would be a lot higher on war crimes list.
What 'carpet bombing' would you be referring to?
Did she make the decision to attack? No.
jessica murray
hillary clinton was the secretary of state at the time. i certainly hope that she made that decision.
i mean, who else would have? the shadow government?
hillary clinton is a neo-con. she is of the same school of foreign policy as bush & cheney. while i'd agree that they should also be prosecuted, i do not believe that she is any less culpable or that a clinton presidency would be any less disastrous.
Uncommon senses
Those decisions never come from the State Department.
Same as Bush and Cheney?
Ridiculous. Do some real research.
jessica murray
she was endorsed by henry kissinger! she gets her policy from the same think tanks and her money from the same donors. the foreign policy that exists was put in place near the end of her husband's presidency, was continued by bush, continued again by obama and will be kept on path by clinton.
of the remaining candidates, she is the most hawkish, the most interventionist and the most likely to get us (as in nato) bogged down in more stupid wars.
you have the choice to remain blind to this. but, this is the reality: she will simply carry on the bush regime. and, she is no less culpable, and no less deserving of imprisonment.
MJM
The SecState doesn't have the authority to declare war or deploy the US Armed Forces. You could probably Google to find out who does.
As for "carpet bombing," you should probably look that one up as well. There's been nothing remotely like it done by the US since Vietnam.
jessica murray
yeah: that's the congress, right? lol. that piece of paper doesn't mean anything.
the decision to invade libya happened at the united nations, and was orchestrated almost entirely by her department. the us armed forces did not attack libya. it was a un mission. and, it came out of a misleading and dishonest un resolution designed to create a legal basis for a convenient fiction. really, it was exactly like the lies that led us into iraq - except that it was orchestrated well, so the unilateral declaration wasn't necessary. it was really a lot of jostling with the russians, who got suckered into it (which has led to deep resentment in russia). so, there's your difference: the difference between clinton and bush is that clinton is not nearly as incompetent. is that good or bad?
and, yes, the bombing was indiscriminate and destroyed large swaths of the country.
justaviewer
What carpet Bombing?
Maybe your thinking of the Russian bombing of civilians in Syria?
jessica murray
no, i'm specifically referring to the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in libya and the dramatic loss of life and infrastructure that resulted. they were bombed back to the stone age. and, she should be held accountable for that.
J.White
Hillary Clinton can travel just about anywhere without worrying about being charged with war crimes, Henry Kissinger can't. If you want to start charging Americans with war crimes better start with him.
jessica murray
he endorsed her, actually. but, let's not be swayed by comparisons. the crimes of others are not important in determining the criminality of hillary clinton. we need to stop thinking in these relativistic terms and get back to right and wrong.
there are lots of other people that should be in jail next to her. they could appear to themselves on closed circuit tv. to make sure they're still real. sure. but the crimes of bush, cheney, kissinger, genghis khan or henry VIII are not of any relevance in determining the crimes of hillary clinton.
the right wing are FASCISTS
WAR crimes, you mean real war crimes like Bush/Cheney committed, kidnapping, torture, disappearances, fall attacks on a sovereign country that has killed over one million civilians.
jessica murray
all of that stuff happened in libya under her authority as well, but with less total civilian casualties (although this measurement is complex to place in an apples-to-apples comparison).
WaterGuy303
I guess you feel Putin should be charged for his carpet bombing of Syria. Either that or you're a hypocrite.
jessica murray
frankly, i'm not aware of the accusations or their accuracy. this is the first i've heard of it. but, i tend to be highly skeptical of western accusations against russia. i would need for the accusations to be verified by an independent source that i trust. my initial reaction would be that that would not make strategic sense or be in the russian self-interest. i need more evidence before i can make a decision, but i highly doubt the accusations are accurate.
JPalmer
It was Canadian jets that bore the brunt of the bombing missions in Libya, far more than any other nation. Six jets flew over 600 official bombing runs, and there were many more unofficial.
jessica murray
yes, our participation in this debacle is shameful. and, stephen harper should have his day in court, as well.
Cloakuncloak
except for obama is still the commander in chief and it was totally up to him to give said orders
jessica murray
it's like blaming the prorogation of parliament on the governor-general.
it is widely, and in fact universally, acknowledged that clinton was responsible for the invasion in libya. it is something that is not disputed in the literature. and, in fact, she has broadly gone out of her way to take credit for it, too. i'm not presenting an obscure perspective, here - or even something the candidate would dispute.
hillary clinton is not a peace candidate. she will never present herself in those terms. rather, she's a very open and very hard-nosed imperialist. the projection she desires in regards to libya is that she made a hard choice that proves she is a strong leader. she wants credit for the removal of a dictator and the addition of a new province to the empire. she believes in a strongly hegemonic empire that is deeply involved in global conflicts. she actively promotes the idea of america as the policeman of the world and attacks people that would suggest otherwise as being isolationist. and, worse, she subscribes to the whole neo-hobbesian narrative of society requiring an enmy to unite behind.
so, when i claim that hillary clinton is a war criminal for her involvement in libya, realize that she would not dispute the facts on the ground. rather, she would argue that her response was justified - and that it proves she's a strong-willed, decisive leader.
and, as critical as i am, i will concede. hillary clinton *will* make the trains run on time.
--
D @ CFB Ontario
Sanders and Warren would make the Democrats unbeatable. And restore much credibility to American political leadership.
Uncommon senses
Do you think that Congress would act to help implement Sanders' agenda or just block everything?
jessica murray
see, this is such a terrible argument. the best thing you can do is convince somebody not to vote. because, you're basically giving up before you start. if you can't win, don't try?
sanders is going to have a hard time getting good legislation through. clinton will have an easier time getting bad legislation through. if i was an american, i'd rather hold out on the fight and keep pushing for good legislation than just give up. i mean, why run at all? why not just let the republicans win and go home and watch tv?
that said. bernie has been clear that he's going to need to flip the congress. so, yes: bernie will have difficulty with the existing congress. and the solution is to fire everybody in congress. which is necessary if you want anything done, anyways.
approval ratings for congress rarely exceed 20%, fwiw. and turnout is consistently atrocious. it really shouldn't be all that hard. you just need to get people to vote. and, hillary's not your ticket if you want enthusiasm.
--
starship3
I'm wondering how Bill's comments about Obama's 'awful legacy' can help Hilary. Is this all an indication the Clinton camp is beginning to implode?
jessica murray
clinton stumbled over his tongue. he got lost in a time warp and thought it was 2008. he was referring to the bush presidency.
the problem in 2008 was the media. the reality is that obama was running as a conservative democrat from the start. he came out against single payer healthcare during the primaries. he was throwing around all kinds of imperialist rhetoric. he was insisting on "fiscal responsibility". he sounded like stephen harper's conscience - that part of himself that nobody's allowed to see. and, he won by beating her on the right, too.
but, the media built him up as some kind of liberal. and, it only worked because he was a blank slate.
they're doing the same thing this year to trump. the reality is that trump is a moderate democrat. i mean, he's spent most of his life as a moderate democrat. he's well to the left of hillary on almost every issue. but, the media is working him up as a right-winger, despite all evidence to the contrary.
if trump somehow manages to win, and then governs as a moderate, there's going to be this mass of disappointed conservatives. but, they didn't do their research. they just relied on media to tell them a lie - and then they believed it.
justaviewer
Your correct in that Obama was a media darling - the toughest question he got was to rank college basketball teams. But he did try to fundamentally change America - just not in a positive direction. Obamacare is a disaster - who can afford a deductible in the thousands? More people lost their healthcare than gained it. In the end the only winners were the ones who donated money to his campaign they got paid back 10 fold.
jessica murray
i agree that obamacare is a disaster. but, we have easily forgotten that it is virtually identical to romneycare, which was modeled on gingrichcare. it was developed by the heritage institute. it's designed to increase profits for the insurance industry, and prevent the country from moving towards a socialized health care system. remember: hillary, at the time, was proposing a canadian-style, single-payer system. so, the entire narrative - from the primary debates through to the present - is consistent with obama running to hillary's right.
today, we're in the absurd position of people voting for hillary to "save obamacare from the republicans" - when, in fact, obamacare was written by the republicans to prevent the democrats from bringing in single-payer. it's surreal. but, it demonstrates just how powerful the media is in framing things for people that have a weak understanding of the issues.
at
11:19
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i think that wynne is essentially confusing people, in taking a handful of very progressive positions while selling off various things to the banks. the thing is that the unpopular positions she has taken - like selling off parts of the grid to pay off debt - are really powerful, because they bring back memories of harris. so, it's this difficult situation where the broad swath of left-leaning ontarians are going to agree with 95% of what she does, and yet be strongly alienated by the few unpopular things. that's different than the last federal election, which was broadly ideological rather than focused on specific policies.
the pcs are going to get a certain amount of the vote, regardless. but, the broad narrative in ontario (outside of the tabloids) remains to keep the conservatives out. i think, at this point, the liberals could run a sock puppet and still manage to win - so long as they remain solidly in second. a more likely scenario sees liberal support move in large chunks towards the ndp.
but, the ndp are not doing the kinds of things that would be necessary to facilitate that shift. they're continuing to run to the right of the liberals. and, as such, they're really failing to take advantage of an opportunity.
so long as the ndp stick to their current strategy, i don't see the scenario shifting. people may be uncomfortable with the government, and sort of frustrated by the lack of options. but, at the end of the day, the more important task is preventing the conservatives from winning. so, all those undecideds and habitual leftists wander back, in the end.
but, the ndp could very quickly build very strong support if it would stop trying to be moderate and present the progressive option that people want.
to put it another way, if the ndp wants to beat the liberals then it needs to stop being hillary clinton and start being bernie sanders. i see absolutely no evidence that this is in any way even being contemplated. but, i do note that the liberals are making some changes to their side of the tuition puzzle.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/29/kathleen-wynne-approval-rating-poll_n_9564970.html
Ed Vella
These are interesting numbers. Andrea Horwath is the most popular, yet only 24% would vote for her, which is just confusing. The Ontario Ndp brand needs to pick up some slack. It's the same dilemma as anywhere for the Ndp; competing for media attention is the biggest hurdle IMO.
David Y. Ho
More like competing for relevancy when the Liberals are already leaning very left.
Christopher Gilmore
The Liberals are not "leaning Left," if anything Premier Wynne has enraged progressive voters with her sneaky privatisation of Hydro One, and has given Horwath a fresh cause on which to campaign.
2. It will be very difficult for Wynne to pull the same trick in 2018, pretending to be to the "Left" of the NDP after she laid off hundreds of nurses and privatised Hydro One despite not having made one scintilla of mention of it during the last campaign. Voters are pretty pissed off.
3. In 2018 the political situation will not be the same as it is now. The Trudeau honeymoon/love-in will have ended, meaning that there will be no positive rub-off vis a vis the Liberal brand for Wynne; Patrick Brown will either have defined himself to Ontarian voters or his opponents will define him as a scary social conservative; and voters will have forgotten Horwath's ill-conceived strategy from 2014.
Put together, this means that Andrea Horwath is probably in the best position moving forward. She is the most well known and trusted of the three party leaders, as the 2015 and 2011 federal elections and 2015 Alberta election proved, a party can cruise on the popularity of its leader; Patrick Brown has too many skeletons in his closet and will have a difficult time building a strong positive rapport in only two years time, and Ontarians are pretty sick of the Ontario Liberal Party.
They survived McGuinty's numerous broken promises, the Gas Plant scandal, some of the worst fiscal management in Canadian history, the ORNGE ambulance scandal, and the e-health scandal, but 2018 might just be their Waterloo.
jessica amber murray
but, it wasn't a trick. as bankster-y as wynne is, horwath is really, honestly to her right. it's not that the liberals are leaning left and crowding out the ndp; it's more that the ndp are leaning right, and forfeiting the space. it's a really stupid strategy that was pioneered by jack layton and keeps being emulated, despite awful results. but, it also really kills the credibility of the party.
i broadly agree with your analysis, but the thing that has to change for the ndp to be competitive is ndp policy. so long as the ndp are just another centre-right party, voters will flock to the liberals to keep the conservatives out under the absolutely reasonable argument that they have the better chance of winning.
and, that's not healthy - because it gives the liberals a free pass. the system needs vigorous left-wing opposition from the ndp. they have to find a way to break this cycle.
i think the immediate answer is that horwath needs to step down and make way for somebody who is more ideologically aligned with the left of the party. but, this struggle is really existential and is going to take a long time to play out. but, if the conservatives are honestly trying to reclaim that red tory space, it squeezes the ndp back the other way. i think it's a matter of time. and the left is consequently just forced to sit around and wait for her to go away, kind of thing. and that won't likely be until after the next election.
it's very early. but, i'm suggesting the liberals can hold on, for now, as the left sticks with wynne due to disinterest in horwath.
the pcs are going to get a certain amount of the vote, regardless. but, the broad narrative in ontario (outside of the tabloids) remains to keep the conservatives out. i think, at this point, the liberals could run a sock puppet and still manage to win - so long as they remain solidly in second. a more likely scenario sees liberal support move in large chunks towards the ndp.
but, the ndp are not doing the kinds of things that would be necessary to facilitate that shift. they're continuing to run to the right of the liberals. and, as such, they're really failing to take advantage of an opportunity.
so long as the ndp stick to their current strategy, i don't see the scenario shifting. people may be uncomfortable with the government, and sort of frustrated by the lack of options. but, at the end of the day, the more important task is preventing the conservatives from winning. so, all those undecideds and habitual leftists wander back, in the end.
but, the ndp could very quickly build very strong support if it would stop trying to be moderate and present the progressive option that people want.
to put it another way, if the ndp wants to beat the liberals then it needs to stop being hillary clinton and start being bernie sanders. i see absolutely no evidence that this is in any way even being contemplated. but, i do note that the liberals are making some changes to their side of the tuition puzzle.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/29/kathleen-wynne-approval-rating-poll_n_9564970.html
Ed Vella
These are interesting numbers. Andrea Horwath is the most popular, yet only 24% would vote for her, which is just confusing. The Ontario Ndp brand needs to pick up some slack. It's the same dilemma as anywhere for the Ndp; competing for media attention is the biggest hurdle IMO.
David Y. Ho
More like competing for relevancy when the Liberals are already leaning very left.
Christopher Gilmore
The Liberals are not "leaning Left," if anything Premier Wynne has enraged progressive voters with her sneaky privatisation of Hydro One, and has given Horwath a fresh cause on which to campaign.
2. It will be very difficult for Wynne to pull the same trick in 2018, pretending to be to the "Left" of the NDP after she laid off hundreds of nurses and privatised Hydro One despite not having made one scintilla of mention of it during the last campaign. Voters are pretty pissed off.
3. In 2018 the political situation will not be the same as it is now. The Trudeau honeymoon/love-in will have ended, meaning that there will be no positive rub-off vis a vis the Liberal brand for Wynne; Patrick Brown will either have defined himself to Ontarian voters or his opponents will define him as a scary social conservative; and voters will have forgotten Horwath's ill-conceived strategy from 2014.
Put together, this means that Andrea Horwath is probably in the best position moving forward. She is the most well known and trusted of the three party leaders, as the 2015 and 2011 federal elections and 2015 Alberta election proved, a party can cruise on the popularity of its leader; Patrick Brown has too many skeletons in his closet and will have a difficult time building a strong positive rapport in only two years time, and Ontarians are pretty sick of the Ontario Liberal Party.
They survived McGuinty's numerous broken promises, the Gas Plant scandal, some of the worst fiscal management in Canadian history, the ORNGE ambulance scandal, and the e-health scandal, but 2018 might just be their Waterloo.
jessica amber murray
but, it wasn't a trick. as bankster-y as wynne is, horwath is really, honestly to her right. it's not that the liberals are leaning left and crowding out the ndp; it's more that the ndp are leaning right, and forfeiting the space. it's a really stupid strategy that was pioneered by jack layton and keeps being emulated, despite awful results. but, it also really kills the credibility of the party.
i broadly agree with your analysis, but the thing that has to change for the ndp to be competitive is ndp policy. so long as the ndp are just another centre-right party, voters will flock to the liberals to keep the conservatives out under the absolutely reasonable argument that they have the better chance of winning.
and, that's not healthy - because it gives the liberals a free pass. the system needs vigorous left-wing opposition from the ndp. they have to find a way to break this cycle.
i think the immediate answer is that horwath needs to step down and make way for somebody who is more ideologically aligned with the left of the party. but, this struggle is really existential and is going to take a long time to play out. but, if the conservatives are honestly trying to reclaim that red tory space, it squeezes the ndp back the other way. i think it's a matter of time. and the left is consequently just forced to sit around and wait for her to go away, kind of thing. and that won't likely be until after the next election.
it's very early. but, i'm suggesting the liberals can hold on, for now, as the left sticks with wynne due to disinterest in horwath.
at
10:58
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'll tell you what: why don't we just annex the northern states? run a referendum. there's some benefits for us in this.
at
10:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i am stuck in a loop and not getting anything done. so, i am going to refrain from editing until i finish clearing out my laptop.
once the laptop is cleared out, i'll be able to multitask effectively and these bottlenecks should cease. there's plenty of adventures and rants and other things to check out in the mean time.
i'm hoping it's just a few days, but i'm not joking - i need to clear this out before i do any more editing.
once the laptop is cleared out, i'll be able to multitask effectively and these bottlenecks should cease. there's plenty of adventures and rants and other things to check out in the mean time.
i'm hoping it's just a few days, but i'm not joking - i need to clear this out before i do any more editing.
at
10:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
01-04-2016: a pleasant day!
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
at
04:17
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm a little skeptical about those polls in west virginia and kentucky and indiana. i mean, it would be good news. but, i'll wait for more widely reported polling.
and i have no comment on clinton's supposed collapse in the south. i'm more inclined to suggest that the north and south are dramatically culturally different than i am to suggest that sanders doing well amongst black in the north implies her support amongst blacks is failing in the south. i mean, that's the same logical error, in reverse.
but the article is broadly drawing attention to the correct things. finally.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/hillary-clintons-support-_b_9579544.html
and i have no comment on clinton's supposed collapse in the south. i'm more inclined to suggest that the north and south are dramatically culturally different than i am to suggest that sanders doing well amongst black in the north implies her support amongst blacks is failing in the south. i mean, that's the same logical error, in reverse.
but the article is broadly drawing attention to the correct things. finally.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/hillary-clintons-support-_b_9579544.html
at
03:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i need to remind you that my academic background is not in politics or philosophy or screwing around and having fun. it is in mathematics. i am interested in policy, and i don't have much interest in competition, but i find the idea of approaching the election as a math problem to be fascinating. that's why i'm bothering. i've been over this elsewhere. it's not exactly a typical approach.
the support for the idea that race is predictive just isn't there. i've railed against racist media narratives. but, it may also be a little bit of laziness all around. it may be attempting to try and reuse ideas from 2008.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/01/bernie_sanders_may_be_leading_hillary_clinton_with_black_voters_in_this_one_very_important_state/
the support for the idea that race is predictive just isn't there. i've railed against racist media narratives. but, it may also be a little bit of laziness all around. it may be attempting to try and reuse ideas from 2008.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/01/bernie_sanders_may_be_leading_hillary_clinton_with_black_voters_in_this_one_very_important_state/
at
02:19
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
shit hillary said vol 17
"The other half of community policing, of course, is the community’s role. Citizens have to be active participants in crime prevention. In Houston, nearly a thousand new officers added to the city’s police force since 1991 have been joined by thousands of citizen patrollers observing and reporting suspicious or criminal behavior in an anticrime campaign."
at
01:37
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Friday, April 1, 2016
j reacts to trump's disinterest in abortion legislation (and why it will help him)
i watched the segment. and, excuse me for being predictable in rejecting the media narrative, but what i saw was a rookie politician get spun around in circles by an experienced journalist. he simply didn't know how to answer the question in the way that would be most beneficial to him. see, he knew he was supposed to be tough on abortion, and consequently didn't want a sound clip that could be used against him. this is the bedrock of the republican party. but, trump is not a republican - he's a nihilist that is pretending to be a republican for personal gain. he's not actually pro-life. and, so he simply didn't know what the base of the party he's pretending to represent actually wants. trump's response was what he thought that republican voters wanted to hear. it is reflective of trump's perspective of what he thinks the republican party is.
here's the funny thing: his answer to the gay marriage question, right after, was the same as clinton's - it's up to the courts. and, it was presented with no hesitation.
what i got from the exchange is that donald trump is a psychopathic liar that will say whatever he thinks will get him elected. and, i don't even think that he's even pro-life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIiaoLf8XHE
here's the funny thing: his answer to the gay marriage question, right after, was the same as clinton's - it's up to the courts. and, it was presented with no hesitation.
what i got from the exchange is that donald trump is a psychopathic liar that will say whatever he thinks will get him elected. and, i don't even think that he's even pro-life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIiaoLf8XHE
at
23:37
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the need for the left to be more militant, again
i will repeat the observation that the video is based on flawed reasoning. it's wrong to judge somebody by what they look like, but that guy that hit you with a skateboard strikes me as an anarchist (and probably doesn't vote). but, what i actually want to point out is that it is nice to see that the media narrative of the spineless, pacifist liberal is finally disappearing. as an anarchist of the left, this is something that has bothered me for years - this false association of the left with peacenik hippie dipshits. we need to bring the fight back into the left. and, breaking down this vietnam war era media strawman of the left is really fundamentally important in doing so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeOkybuCXX0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeOkybuCXX0
at
21:53
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the racist models (again)
this is racist pseudo-science. file under phrenology, and racial-based intelligence testing. and the media is just cramming it down everybody's throats. if you need evidence of hierarchical, systemic racism? look no further than the clinton campaign's race relations strategy, and it's parroting in the media.
i've demonstrated repeatedly that there isn't even a really meaningful correlation. the real correlation is over age. so, the correlative basis of the logical error of saying "she wins because of black voters" isn't even true in the first place. so, it shouldn't be surprising to anybody that the models have consistently been 10-15 points off in making predictions. the racist models suggested she would do better in illinois than ohio, for example - something that was obviously absurd to anybody with a cursory understanding of the cultures of these places (ohio voted for bush!). and, it's likewise absolutely ridiculous to suggest that sanders will win west virginia, but i'll get to that in a moment.
as the data has come in, we've learned that sanders has been competitive with young blacks in less conservative states. he has not been competitive with older blacks. but, he has not been competitive with older whites, either. he has just broadly not been competitive with old people. that's the real connection. and, that's the reason florida was such a rout.
the real lesson to take away from the demographics is that young blacks are voting at a dramatically lower level, proportionally, than young whites. there is obviously a serious issue of disengagement with the traditional political system. if young blacks were voting at the same percentage as young whites, sanders would be carrying the black vote in the northern states. and, that's actually a serious issue. it's something the media should be strenuously focusing on. why aren't young blacks voting at the same levels as young whites?
but, we haven't had an opportunity, yet, to turn the models on their heads. i was hoping hawaii would be the first break, but the reality is that there wasn't any polling done there. the rust belt states should be interpreted as blurring the correlations; they haven't been interpreted as they should, but there wasn't anywhere where the predictions were dramatically wrong, either. so, the pseudo-science can maintain a line of plausibility by pointing to error.
again: i'm suggesting it's a proxy variable. so, you can accidentally get to the right answers so long as it continues to be the case that
(1) all the states with high black populations have overwhelmingly right-leaning bases of democrats.
(2) all the states with low black populations have overwhelmingly left-leaning bases of democrats.
you'd get it right every time. but by accident. you haven't even attempted to falsify it, yet. you haven't done the proper experiment. there are two types of states that have not yet voted:
(1) states with high black populations that are left-leaning. this would include maryland, dc and delaware.
(2) states with low black populations that are right-leaning. this would include kentucky and west virginia.
i need to reiterate: these tests have not been done. we do not know their outcome. but, in order to put any faith in the model, it is necessary to test them. one should not say that maryland should vote for clinton because it has a lot of blacks. one should say that we can only determine the relationship between skin colour and voting intention by controlling for ideology, and that maryland/delaware/dc are essential in building the dataset.
so, do not listen to these people. their models should not be able to predict the results in the following states:
1) new york [liberal, with blacks]
2) maryland [liberal, with blacks]
3) delaware [liberal, with blacks]
4) west viriginia [conservative, few blacks]
5) kentucky [conservative, few blacks]
6) new jersey [liberal, with blacks]
7) dc [liberal, with blacks]
however. once the new york primary is done, you will at least have some data. i am not likely to claim it will be very useful. but, the argument will at least be different.
again: you can't use what you have to predict new york. rather, the results of new york are a pre-condition to the coherency of the model.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/04/01/sanders_hopes_look_dashed_but_sanders-ism_isnt_130156.html
i've demonstrated repeatedly that there isn't even a really meaningful correlation. the real correlation is over age. so, the correlative basis of the logical error of saying "she wins because of black voters" isn't even true in the first place. so, it shouldn't be surprising to anybody that the models have consistently been 10-15 points off in making predictions. the racist models suggested she would do better in illinois than ohio, for example - something that was obviously absurd to anybody with a cursory understanding of the cultures of these places (ohio voted for bush!). and, it's likewise absolutely ridiculous to suggest that sanders will win west virginia, but i'll get to that in a moment.
as the data has come in, we've learned that sanders has been competitive with young blacks in less conservative states. he has not been competitive with older blacks. but, he has not been competitive with older whites, either. he has just broadly not been competitive with old people. that's the real connection. and, that's the reason florida was such a rout.
the real lesson to take away from the demographics is that young blacks are voting at a dramatically lower level, proportionally, than young whites. there is obviously a serious issue of disengagement with the traditional political system. if young blacks were voting at the same percentage as young whites, sanders would be carrying the black vote in the northern states. and, that's actually a serious issue. it's something the media should be strenuously focusing on. why aren't young blacks voting at the same levels as young whites?
but, we haven't had an opportunity, yet, to turn the models on their heads. i was hoping hawaii would be the first break, but the reality is that there wasn't any polling done there. the rust belt states should be interpreted as blurring the correlations; they haven't been interpreted as they should, but there wasn't anywhere where the predictions were dramatically wrong, either. so, the pseudo-science can maintain a line of plausibility by pointing to error.
again: i'm suggesting it's a proxy variable. so, you can accidentally get to the right answers so long as it continues to be the case that
(1) all the states with high black populations have overwhelmingly right-leaning bases of democrats.
(2) all the states with low black populations have overwhelmingly left-leaning bases of democrats.
you'd get it right every time. but by accident. you haven't even attempted to falsify it, yet. you haven't done the proper experiment. there are two types of states that have not yet voted:
(1) states with high black populations that are left-leaning. this would include maryland, dc and delaware.
(2) states with low black populations that are right-leaning. this would include kentucky and west virginia.
i need to reiterate: these tests have not been done. we do not know their outcome. but, in order to put any faith in the model, it is necessary to test them. one should not say that maryland should vote for clinton because it has a lot of blacks. one should say that we can only determine the relationship between skin colour and voting intention by controlling for ideology, and that maryland/delaware/dc are essential in building the dataset.
so, do not listen to these people. their models should not be able to predict the results in the following states:
1) new york [liberal, with blacks]
2) maryland [liberal, with blacks]
3) delaware [liberal, with blacks]
4) west viriginia [conservative, few blacks]
5) kentucky [conservative, few blacks]
6) new jersey [liberal, with blacks]
7) dc [liberal, with blacks]
however. once the new york primary is done, you will at least have some data. i am not likely to claim it will be very useful. but, the argument will at least be different.
again: you can't use what you have to predict new york. rather, the results of new york are a pre-condition to the coherency of the model.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/04/01/sanders_hopes_look_dashed_but_sanders-ism_isnt_130156.html
at
21:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
31-03-2016: out dancing all night...
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/03/31.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/03/31.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
at
07:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Thursday, March 31, 2016
j reacts to wisconsin pre-polling
if you're still not following my reading of things, i'll reiterate.
that's two polls, now, with sanders up by 5 amongst democrats. wisconsin is an open primary. so, that would indicate he should win by about 10 points, if his support actually shows up to vote.
but, there are going to be dead people voting in the primary, and there are going to be suppression tactics for living people. that means you should see her start off with a big lead, and it should come down a little. or a lot - if turnout is high enough.
if you are in wisconsin, you'd better get out and vote. i believe that michigan demonstrated that you can overwhelm the process, if you do. but i think that ohio demonstrated that the party is just going to take it that extra mile if they think they're threatened.
given that the polling results are now clearly in sanders' favour, the lead that clinton takes in "initial results" should be absolutely obscene.
it may even be hard to deny.
see, they may also see this coming and blow the state. but, that's dangerous, going into new york, for her. if i was her? i may advise going ahead and rigging it and taking the chance on getting caught - because the truth is that everybody that cares already realizes it, anyways. and, so long as the media plays along, anybody that points out the inconsistencies is just going to get called a conspiracy theorist.
the pre-polling results suggested a virtual tie in both illinois & missouri simply amongst democrats. the results seem to suggest that independents in the open primary didn't affect the outcome. it's highly suspicious. but it may be the model that's repeated.
that's two polls, now, with sanders up by 5 amongst democrats. wisconsin is an open primary. so, that would indicate he should win by about 10 points, if his support actually shows up to vote.
but, there are going to be dead people voting in the primary, and there are going to be suppression tactics for living people. that means you should see her start off with a big lead, and it should come down a little. or a lot - if turnout is high enough.
if you are in wisconsin, you'd better get out and vote. i believe that michigan demonstrated that you can overwhelm the process, if you do. but i think that ohio demonstrated that the party is just going to take it that extra mile if they think they're threatened.
given that the polling results are now clearly in sanders' favour, the lead that clinton takes in "initial results" should be absolutely obscene.
it may even be hard to deny.
see, they may also see this coming and blow the state. but, that's dangerous, going into new york, for her. if i was her? i may advise going ahead and rigging it and taking the chance on getting caught - because the truth is that everybody that cares already realizes it, anyways. and, so long as the media plays along, anybody that points out the inconsistencies is just going to get called a conspiracy theorist.
the pre-polling results suggested a virtual tie in both illinois & missouri simply amongst democrats. the results seem to suggest that independents in the open primary didn't affect the outcome. it's highly suspicious. but it may be the model that's repeated.
at
18:19
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
shit hillary said vol 15
"I'm a heart liberal, but a mind conservative."
at
01:04
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
shit hillary said vol 14
"I have said many times that I am a praying person, and if I hadn't been, during the time I was in the White House, I would have become one, because it's very hard to imagine living under that kind of pressure without being able to fall back on prayer and on my faith."
at
01:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to whether the "cultural appropriation" critique makes any sense from the left
indeed. to the young activist mindset, miscegenation is forbidden - we are to be kept separate, but treated equally. please understand your opponent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDlQ4H0Kdg8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDlQ4H0Kdg8
at
00:43
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the failure of television to define the narrative this cycle
as incompetent as trump will probably be, the status quo establishment is not doing a good job in differentiating itself. if trump wins, people are going to look back and blame it on the media for transparent hit job after transparent hit job. and, you know what? maybe, it's just the internet. maybe this would have worked twenty years ago, when we are at the whim of network television. and, maybe this inability for the establishment to get out of old media is the broader narrative for the election. it killed jeb. it might kill clinton, in the end. and, all the fox news style take downs of trump are blowing up in their faces, too. i had a similar analysis of the last election in canada, where the conservatives relied entirely on tv advertising and ended up unable to even get through to the old folks, in the end.
i need to be clear. i do not get cable. i don't watch network television at all. so, i have not seen a single report on this from cnn, nbc, cbs or whomever else. my coverage of this story has come to me exclusively via the internet. and, as such, it has been framed to me entirely in terms of it being a manufactured tempest in a teapot.
it's not even a question of the internet undoing the brainwashing. i literally have absolutely zero contact with the network tv narrative. and, all i'm seeing - as a consequence - is an entirely transparently bungled attempt at a smear job.
if even half of the under 40 demographic is equivalent, and i believe that's a conservative estimate, then it's only the networks that lose credibility here.
and, once again - that is dangerous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGz5DPqU-p0
i need to be clear. i do not get cable. i don't watch network television at all. so, i have not seen a single report on this from cnn, nbc, cbs or whomever else. my coverage of this story has come to me exclusively via the internet. and, as such, it has been framed to me entirely in terms of it being a manufactured tempest in a teapot.
it's not even a question of the internet undoing the brainwashing. i literally have absolutely zero contact with the network tv narrative. and, all i'm seeing - as a consequence - is an entirely transparently bungled attempt at a smear job.
if even half of the under 40 demographic is equivalent, and i believe that's a conservative estimate, then it's only the networks that lose credibility here.
and, once again - that is dangerous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGz5DPqU-p0
at
00:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
but, if tom goes, who is going to credibly rail on the government for not balancing the budget? the conservatives have no credibility on this.
here's the thing: he purged the party of anybody that might challenge him. the ndp used to be the party of hard working mps that had to fight long odds to win their seats. today, it's tom the great leader and his faceless minions of seat-warming backbenchers. they've got bigger problems than finding a new leader. but, they'd better figure out a way to get him to listen to their party's constitution, too.
even if he wins, a review will be good for the party because it will help bring some stronger voices to the forefront.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-mulcair-approval-ndp-1.3510744
Resource Nation
What's your evidence that Mulcair is not a corporate stooge.
His record of near silence on the Chinese Foreign Investor Protection Agreement, and minimal effort to oppose TPP and CETA is evidence that Mulcair is a corporate stooge.
jessica murray
what was the term he used for the tpp? enthusiastically in favour?
i'd normally be expected to vote for the ndp. but i basically voted against mulcair back in october. i'm not sure i'd say he's a corporate stooge, though, as much as i'd say he's an *aspiring* corporate stooge.
you can imagine him showing up at the bankers meeting and being all like "hey guys!", while they slam the door in his face kind of thing. then, you'd see him peering in the window and pouting about not getting in.
kind of like hillary clinton...
--
noname2004
Mulcair is the wrong person for the NDP future, end of story.
BluesBerry
It's easy to say that someone is unsuited for a particular job.
It difficult to say why you feel that is so, and the characteristics you feel the next NDP leader should have.
Jessica Murray
being ideologically aligned with the ndp would be a good first start.
here's the thing: he purged the party of anybody that might challenge him. the ndp used to be the party of hard working mps that had to fight long odds to win their seats. today, it's tom the great leader and his faceless minions of seat-warming backbenchers. they've got bigger problems than finding a new leader. but, they'd better figure out a way to get him to listen to their party's constitution, too.
even if he wins, a review will be good for the party because it will help bring some stronger voices to the forefront.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-mulcair-approval-ndp-1.3510744
Resource Nation
What's your evidence that Mulcair is not a corporate stooge.
His record of near silence on the Chinese Foreign Investor Protection Agreement, and minimal effort to oppose TPP and CETA is evidence that Mulcair is a corporate stooge.
jessica murray
what was the term he used for the tpp? enthusiastically in favour?
i'd normally be expected to vote for the ndp. but i basically voted against mulcair back in october. i'm not sure i'd say he's a corporate stooge, though, as much as i'd say he's an *aspiring* corporate stooge.
you can imagine him showing up at the bankers meeting and being all like "hey guys!", while they slam the door in his face kind of thing. then, you'd see him peering in the window and pouting about not getting in.
kind of like hillary clinton...
--
noname2004
Mulcair is the wrong person for the NDP future, end of story.
BluesBerry
It's easy to say that someone is unsuited for a particular job.
It difficult to say why you feel that is so, and the characteristics you feel the next NDP leader should have.
Jessica Murray
being ideologically aligned with the ndp would be a good first start.
at
23:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the danger in perpetuating insulting anti-trump media
i'm shocked. they sound like every other aging boomer couple i've ever heard. this is pathetic. it's the kind of hit piece you expect fox news to throw at hillary clinton.
trump is not somebody that's likely to gain my sympathies naturally. but, if you turn him into the underdog, people will become more receptive to what he's saying.
the left has a fundamentally different psychology. we don't pile on the persecuted; we don't take pleasure in kicking people when they're down. we're stuck with this weak human emotion called empathy. we align with the downtrodden. we want your huddled masses. we claim the meek shall inherit the earth.
stop attacking him personally. go after his policies. the more you attack him as a person, the more you victimize him, and the more we seek to identify with his perspectives.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/28/donald-trump-ivana-oprah_n_9558642.html
Maryanne Slater
Not every aging boomer. Just the ones down at the coffee shop who blame teenagers, minorities and women's lib for everything wrong with the world today.
jessica amber murray
actually, it sounds a lot like a tongue-in-cheek exchange between my pot-smoking, liberal father and his much higher-earning corporate executive wife.
in fact, there's probably copious similar footage out there of the clintons ribbing each other, although the roles may be reversed more often than not.
trump is not somebody that's likely to gain my sympathies naturally. but, if you turn him into the underdog, people will become more receptive to what he's saying.
the left has a fundamentally different psychology. we don't pile on the persecuted; we don't take pleasure in kicking people when they're down. we're stuck with this weak human emotion called empathy. we align with the downtrodden. we want your huddled masses. we claim the meek shall inherit the earth.
stop attacking him personally. go after his policies. the more you attack him as a person, the more you victimize him, and the more we seek to identify with his perspectives.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/28/donald-trump-ivana-oprah_n_9558642.html
Maryanne Slater
Not every aging boomer. Just the ones down at the coffee shop who blame teenagers, minorities and women's lib for everything wrong with the world today.
jessica amber murray
actually, it sounds a lot like a tongue-in-cheek exchange between my pot-smoking, liberal father and his much higher-earning corporate executive wife.
in fact, there's probably copious similar footage out there of the clintons ribbing each other, although the roles may be reversed more often than not.
at
12:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
i'm not about to endorse trump or anything. but the media narrative across the spectrum - from the young turks through to john oliver and cnn and all the way to charles krauthammer - has been nothing short of preposterous. the over-the-topic rhetoric, the specious logic, the flat-out smearing - none of this could exist on the other side of karl rove. the american political discourse has entered a period where the tactics of fox news and the bush regime have been adopted by the entire spectrum. it is a society where truth is no longer even an old-fashioned virtue, but merely an annoyance. mr. colbert, come forward and accept your award for prophesying the future.
the actual truth is that donald trump is a moderate democrat.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/why-jewish-groups-embrace-of-trump-is-more-than-a-little-ironic/article29420759/
the actual truth is that donald trump is a moderate democrat.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/why-jewish-groups-embrace-of-trump-is-more-than-a-little-ironic/article29420759/
at
23:37
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to susan sarandon & bernie or bust logic
actually, she's absolutely right. and, if he can tear up a few trade agreements while he's inciting some riots, that's a positive. i haven't worn a shirt with a slogan in twenty years, but i'd be tempted to wear one that says this: if you think that it's pragmatic to shore up the status quo right now, you're not in touch with the status quo. and, fwiw, he's more pro-choice than her, too.
but, listen. the bernie or bust crowd is aware that trump is going to be a disaster. the point is that you vote for him because he's going to be a disaster. because people are fed up, and want the country to burn down and the society to start over again. the choice is between somebody who can ably steer the ship and somebody who is going to crash it in five minutes. yes. clearly. but, we don't want to sheer the ship. we want to crash it! so, can we realize that's the position, here, before we debate it further?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6L4NOVNoNU
BB
So basically if we can't get captain sanders who could sail this busted up ship outta the rocky waters and repair it. only other choice would be to have captain trump quickly crash the busted up ship and build a new one.
jessica
i don't like the way that's framed, though. let's begin by understanding the metaphor properly: the ship is capitalism. or existing capitalism. or whatever. it's in bad need of repairs, because it's been sailing around for years under a self-regulating regime of repairs. inspectors estimate it's on the brink of sinking.
like fdr before him, we think bernie can probably not just fix the ship's problems but also make it a little nicer. so, we're still on the ship. we're still sailing. the aim is sticking with this ship, still. let's realize that, too.
hillary is going to take this beat to shit ship and sail it around in circles for a few years. we can trust her to navigate it. but, it may flood in the process, too. we can expect that when she's done, the ship will be in worse shape than when she inherited it, simply through that many more years of use without repairs.
and, trump is going to sail right into the rocks, likely within a few minutes of taking over.
so, you're talking in fatalistic terms. i would reject that. there's not any reason why i couldn't be arguing for sailing the ship around in circles for a while and trying to fix it later, other than that i'm sick and fucking tired of sailing around on a sinking ship.
so, yes: it's reckless. it's not prudent: not moderate, not middle of the road.
not at all conservative.
kind of rash, maybe? revolutionary, perhaps? risky? a gamble?
yeah. sure.
but, i never claimed to be a prudent, middle-of-the-road, moderate conservative, either. if i was, i'd probably be ok with voting for the status quo. right?
but, listen. the bernie or bust crowd is aware that trump is going to be a disaster. the point is that you vote for him because he's going to be a disaster. because people are fed up, and want the country to burn down and the society to start over again. the choice is between somebody who can ably steer the ship and somebody who is going to crash it in five minutes. yes. clearly. but, we don't want to sheer the ship. we want to crash it! so, can we realize that's the position, here, before we debate it further?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6L4NOVNoNU
BB
So basically if we can't get captain sanders who could sail this busted up ship outta the rocky waters and repair it. only other choice would be to have captain trump quickly crash the busted up ship and build a new one.
jessica
i don't like the way that's framed, though. let's begin by understanding the metaphor properly: the ship is capitalism. or existing capitalism. or whatever. it's in bad need of repairs, because it's been sailing around for years under a self-regulating regime of repairs. inspectors estimate it's on the brink of sinking.
like fdr before him, we think bernie can probably not just fix the ship's problems but also make it a little nicer. so, we're still on the ship. we're still sailing. the aim is sticking with this ship, still. let's realize that, too.
hillary is going to take this beat to shit ship and sail it around in circles for a few years. we can trust her to navigate it. but, it may flood in the process, too. we can expect that when she's done, the ship will be in worse shape than when she inherited it, simply through that many more years of use without repairs.
and, trump is going to sail right into the rocks, likely within a few minutes of taking over.
so, you're talking in fatalistic terms. i would reject that. there's not any reason why i couldn't be arguing for sailing the ship around in circles for a while and trying to fix it later, other than that i'm sick and fucking tired of sailing around on a sinking ship.
so, yes: it's reckless. it's not prudent: not moderate, not middle of the road.
not at all conservative.
kind of rash, maybe? revolutionary, perhaps? risky? a gamble?
yeah. sure.
but, i never claimed to be a prudent, middle-of-the-road, moderate conservative, either. if i was, i'd probably be ok with voting for the status quo. right?
at
17:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
shit hillary said vol 13
"The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not."
at
16:23
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to cruz' remaining role as a vote-splitter in the northeast
i had initially argued that if you give trump supporters a clear option to defeat cruz then they will take it. kasich needed a little bump to convince people that he can actually beat cruz. the polling released this week may provide that. and, you may finally see that movement towards the center.
remember: trump is not winning because he's crazy and people like it. he's winning because he was controlling the center of the republican spectrum. he was the buffer against the crazies. and the more advertising was thrown into cruz, the better trump looked.
when the field was split a dozen ways, it was rational to support trump if your goal was solely to defeat cruz because he was the only candidate that seemed like he had a real shot of doing it. but, now that there is only one serious option (kasich), there is a possibility that the support will coalesce. i had initially bet on this happening around bush, and a little earlier, but he spliced and ran before the fight even started.
kasich just needed a trickle to form, in order for it to build into a stream.
kasich should be favoured in virtually every remaining state. he could conceivably run the table. it's not cruz v trump, with kasich splitting. it's trump v kasich, with cruz splitting - but beneficially.
put another way: cruz won't be able to cut into centrist support for trump. but, kasich will be able to peel it off quite easily, if it looks like he can actually win.
in fact, i'm going to call it right now (i'm allowed to change my mind): kasich sweeps the northeast on april 26th.
--
but, the point is that none of the candidates were reflective of the voters' will. so, do a country-wide IRV with the three remaining candidates.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/john_kasich_is_trying_to_destroy_the_gop_primary_process.html
remember: trump is not winning because he's crazy and people like it. he's winning because he was controlling the center of the republican spectrum. he was the buffer against the crazies. and the more advertising was thrown into cruz, the better trump looked.
when the field was split a dozen ways, it was rational to support trump if your goal was solely to defeat cruz because he was the only candidate that seemed like he had a real shot of doing it. but, now that there is only one serious option (kasich), there is a possibility that the support will coalesce. i had initially bet on this happening around bush, and a little earlier, but he spliced and ran before the fight even started.
kasich just needed a trickle to form, in order for it to build into a stream.
kasich should be favoured in virtually every remaining state. he could conceivably run the table. it's not cruz v trump, with kasich splitting. it's trump v kasich, with cruz splitting - but beneficially.
put another way: cruz won't be able to cut into centrist support for trump. but, kasich will be able to peel it off quite easily, if it looks like he can actually win.
in fact, i'm going to call it right now (i'm allowed to change my mind): kasich sweeps the northeast on april 26th.
--
but, the point is that none of the candidates were reflective of the voters' will. so, do a country-wide IRV with the three remaining candidates.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/john_kasich_is_trying_to_destroy_the_gop_primary_process.html
at
15:54
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
it appears as though a national enquirer story has destroyed cruz' campaign. he's now third in wisconsin, and third in new york.
at
14:56
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the continuing ominous signs of hillary clinton as orwellian end game
this is the kind of non-logic that follows hillary everywhere she goes.
if she's running for president, that means she should be less strenuously investigated. if she was running for a lower office, well, then you'd be justified in fully investigating.
they are purposefully messing with your head. they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
once again: all evidence suggests that hillary is taking us over the finish line and directly into the orwellian state.
big sister loves you.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/29/ron_fournier_there_should_be_a_higher_bar_of_evidence_before_indicting_hillary_because_shes_running_for_president.html
if she's running for president, that means she should be less strenuously investigated. if she was running for a lower office, well, then you'd be justified in fully investigating.
they are purposefully messing with your head. they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
once again: all evidence suggests that hillary is taking us over the finish line and directly into the orwellian state.
big sister loves you.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/29/ron_fournier_there_should_be_a_higher_bar_of_evidence_before_indicting_hillary_because_shes_running_for_president.html
at
14:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the dangers of racial divide and conquer strategies in the current economy
this is a strategy that assigns very little intelligence to voters and will almost certainly produce a backlash. if you (the media, broadly) keep running segments like this, you're going to push white voters right into his arms. the study was asking about affirmative action - and the response is tautological. the confusing part is how 58% of republicans somehow think that affirmative action helps white people.
what the trump phenomenon demonstrates is that there is a mass of uneducated, impoverished white people in america that need social programs written for them. they've been confused by decades of propaganda that scapegoats minorities instead of corporations. but, by sitting there and pointing fingers at them and belittling them, you just come off as a bunch of smug, upper class pieces of shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJufx2VEUGc
let me clear about something.
if you're going to make me do it.
the election match-up media narrative that's developing is a conflict between wealthy non-whites supporting clinton and poor whites supporting trump. that's an over-simplification, as are all media narratives. and i'm more likely to attack the narrative than fall into it.
and, of course, i'm a leftist. i understand what's happening. i'm inoculated from the group think.
but, at the end of the day, i am not a wealthy non-white. i am a poor white. and, i can tell you that the media will get what it wants, if it decides to frame the issue the way it's framing it.
"I don't want to send them to jail. I want to send them to school." - Adlai E. Stevenson
what the trump phenomenon demonstrates is that there is a mass of uneducated, impoverished white people in america that need social programs written for them. they've been confused by decades of propaganda that scapegoats minorities instead of corporations. but, by sitting there and pointing fingers at them and belittling them, you just come off as a bunch of smug, upper class pieces of shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJufx2VEUGc
let me clear about something.
if you're going to make me do it.
the election match-up media narrative that's developing is a conflict between wealthy non-whites supporting clinton and poor whites supporting trump. that's an over-simplification, as are all media narratives. and i'm more likely to attack the narrative than fall into it.
and, of course, i'm a leftist. i understand what's happening. i'm inoculated from the group think.
but, at the end of the day, i am not a wealthy non-white. i am a poor white. and, i can tell you that the media will get what it wants, if it decides to frame the issue the way it's framing it.
"I don't want to send them to jail. I want to send them to school." - Adlai E. Stevenson
at
11:19
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Monday, March 28, 2016
hrmmn. perhaps hawaii actually did just vote against the asian pivot.
an anti-war message is always meaningful. but, should a war erupt in the pacific, hawaii is right in the crosshairs. and, clinton's policies in the region are reason for hawaiians to pause.
an anti-war message is always meaningful. but, should a war erupt in the pacific, hawaii is right in the crosshairs. and, clinton's policies in the region are reason for hawaiians to pause.
at
15:55
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
shit hillary said vol 12
"Creating a free trade zone in North America—the largest free trade zone in the world—would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal."
at
15:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to what the wisconsin results can tell us about the fairness of the election
so, wisconsin. open primary. double-checked.
i had said before that washington would prove it's rigged, but i thought it was a ballot vote and it wasn't. so, that was a rational deduction brought on by faulty initial conditions (i don't want to call it an assumption). we could have a talk about the limits of logic. this is tangential.
what i had said was that he should win washington by a huge amount, but it will be balanced out by the dead people vote in seattle. she'd definitely get jimi. but kurt is white. the value of caucuses is that dead people can't vote in them. i don't want to discriminate against zombies, but i do think that the party should be looking to bring in more caucuses and phase out the primaries.
he won't do nearly as well in wisconsin as he did in washington, zombie vote or not. so, it won't be as clear - i can't say the result will prove tampering with the kind of clarity that a rigged washington primary would have given us. but, you should temper your enthusiasm.
i haven't seen any recent polls. but, if you think he can do as well as he did in minnesota, then you should expect results closer to illinois.
i had said before that washington would prove it's rigged, but i thought it was a ballot vote and it wasn't. so, that was a rational deduction brought on by faulty initial conditions (i don't want to call it an assumption). we could have a talk about the limits of logic. this is tangential.
what i had said was that he should win washington by a huge amount, but it will be balanced out by the dead people vote in seattle. she'd definitely get jimi. but kurt is white. the value of caucuses is that dead people can't vote in them. i don't want to discriminate against zombies, but i do think that the party should be looking to bring in more caucuses and phase out the primaries.
he won't do nearly as well in wisconsin as he did in washington, zombie vote or not. so, it won't be as clear - i can't say the result will prove tampering with the kind of clarity that a rigged washington primary would have given us. but, you should temper your enthusiasm.
i haven't seen any recent polls. but, if you think he can do as well as he did in minnesota, then you should expect results closer to illinois.
at
14:43
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
you'd never measure something like this if you weren't vlogging...
but, the consequence of my cycling and ~30 hour days is that i live, on average, about 6 days a week. it's not exact, it's like 6.3 days/week if you divide it out.
of course, i'm using the same amount of time. i'm not dr. who. nor am i a tralfamadorian. i'm not even mick jagger. it's just that i'm splitting those 168 hours into roughly 6 periods rather than roughly 7. and, it turns out it's pretty consistent.
that means i live about 50 less days a year. and about 500 less days a decade. that's more than a year.
if i suppose that i live until i'm 70, i'll have only lived a little more than 60 actual years, if measured in days. so, might i live to be very old?
i'm not convinced that's how it actually works. but, who knows, really.
but, the consequence of my cycling and ~30 hour days is that i live, on average, about 6 days a week. it's not exact, it's like 6.3 days/week if you divide it out.
of course, i'm using the same amount of time. i'm not dr. who. nor am i a tralfamadorian. i'm not even mick jagger. it's just that i'm splitting those 168 hours into roughly 6 periods rather than roughly 7. and, it turns out it's pretty consistent.
that means i live about 50 less days a year. and about 500 less days a decade. that's more than a year.
if i suppose that i live until i'm 70, i'll have only lived a little more than 60 actual years, if measured in days. so, might i live to be very old?
i'm not convinced that's how it actually works. but, who knows, really.
at
13:39
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
the dominant factor is the sun. the vortex shrinks in the summer and expands in the winter, reacting to the amount of sunlight hitting the earth. if we were to turn the sun off, the polar vortex would sweep over the earth, and we'd be plunged into a snowball earth scenario. and, if we were to turn the sun up enough then the vortex would disappear altogether. the expansion and contraction of the vortex is strongly correlated with the solar cycles. we're currently in a period of decreased solar activity. this is being counter-acted, however, by warming oceans due to global warming.
(the idea that this is being caused by warming is grasping at straws, and really rather outrageous given how entrenched the understanding of the vortex is. see mike lockwood, and in fact michael mann, for a better explanation of the solar effects.)
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/polar-vortex-explainer/63115/
(the idea that this is being caused by warming is grasping at straws, and really rather outrageous given how entrenched the understanding of the vortex is. see mike lockwood, and in fact michael mann, for a better explanation of the solar effects.)
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/polar-vortex-explainer/63115/
at
11:13
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Sunday, March 27, 2016
hopefully, the cuts never get restored at all. and that really would look a lot better!
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-budget-defence-milewski-1.3506670
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-budget-defence-milewski-1.3506670
at
19:16
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
strangely, i now want to go buy some tannerite. which, it turns out, is a brand name rather than a scientific compound. no mention of their competitors, usa today? what's the profit in a stealth ad like this? excellent marketing, though. have to hand it to the company. great way to get a leg up on their competition.
tannerite: it'll blow your socks off.
tannerite: it'll blow your socks off.
at
16:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
you're making an incredible error in your perception that non-voting implies passivity, as though the idea is that trump wins and everybody goes home for four years. bernie or bust is a movement to reject the ballot box as ineffectual and move strictly to civil disobedience. what it is saying is that bernie is the system's last chance to listen, before the plug gets pulled. that doesn't mean apathy. it doesn't mean go home and get drunk. it means general strikes. it means million person marches, it means total war against the state. and, frankly, if you're taking this kind of entirely antagonistic approach, it doesn't matter if it's hillary or trump. in fact, there's not even a contradiction in voting for hillary and then going out and organizing the general strike.
at
16:23
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
it's been converted into a fashion trend, which will be it's own death knell once a new fashion trend appears. in the meantime, the kids are just looking for an excuse to copy the new trend. this is this year's party. next year, it will be some other thing.
it's frustrating that you still have all these people that think they can co-opt the media using it's own methods, only to repeatedly come face-to-face with movement collapse precisely *because* they tried to use those methods. by now, you'd think these lessons would be learned. but, leftists are not good at learning lessons. far too many of us seek our answers in a theory and are unwilling to adjust to evidence as it comes in.
they're not ideologues. they're not zealots. in fact, if you talk to them, you'll find out that a lot of them are centrist conservatives (although they may not realize it). they're just sheep following the latest fashion trend.
so, the facts in the case don't actually matter. what matters is being in the right place and having the right slogan on your tshirt.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/black-lives-matter-toronto-loku-1.3508462
it's frustrating that you still have all these people that think they can co-opt the media using it's own methods, only to repeatedly come face-to-face with movement collapse precisely *because* they tried to use those methods. by now, you'd think these lessons would be learned. but, leftists are not good at learning lessons. far too many of us seek our answers in a theory and are unwilling to adjust to evidence as it comes in.
they're not ideologues. they're not zealots. in fact, if you talk to them, you'll find out that a lot of them are centrist conservatives (although they may not realize it). they're just sheep following the latest fashion trend.
so, the facts in the case don't actually matter. what matters is being in the right place and having the right slogan on your tshirt.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/black-lives-matter-toronto-loku-1.3508462
at
15:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
furnace is leaking... (update)
the drip seems to be around the seal, rather than in the plastic - it was just accumulating on the plastic.
i have taped over the area. i know that this defeats the purpose of the drainage, but my prerogative is in keeping the water off of the floor. and, i suspect that the issue is upstairs, anyways.
i'm going to guess that the seal probably needs to be recaulked. but that the issue is probably really in the furnace.
j
i have taped over the area. i know that this defeats the purpose of the drainage, but my prerogative is in keeping the water off of the floor. and, i suspect that the issue is upstairs, anyways.
i'm going to guess that the seal probably needs to be recaulked. but that the issue is probably really in the furnace.
j
at
09:18
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the racist primary modeling, again
i already debunked this kind of thinking. but, i'll do it again: specifically as it applies to west virginia and kentucky. this is a racist analysis, by npr. and it should be challenged. strenuously.
these are conservative, deep southeastern states. the white population in these states (and also in indiana, which was ignored) should be expected to behave the same way as the white populations in the similar states around them. tennessee. virginia. southern ohio, too. and, clinton carried the white population in these states by very large margins.
these are results from march 1.
arkansas: 80% white. 66% clinton.
tennessee: 67% white. 66% clinton.
texas: 46% white. 66% clinton.
virginia: 61% white. 64% clinton.
what you see when you look at those results is that support for clinton remains stable, while race fluctuates. what that means is that race is not a predictor variable. and that's a proof!
again: the media will not cease, nor will they desist. the media is racist. it is a part of their job to be racist. but they must be called out on it at every opportunity.
voters make decisions based on the content of their characters, not on the colour of their skins.
and, clinton should be expected to carry the white vote in kentucky, west virginia and indiana by significant to overwhelming margins.
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/27/472056754/despite-the-math-bernie-sanders-has-already-won
these are conservative, deep southeastern states. the white population in these states (and also in indiana, which was ignored) should be expected to behave the same way as the white populations in the similar states around them. tennessee. virginia. southern ohio, too. and, clinton carried the white population in these states by very large margins.
these are results from march 1.
arkansas: 80% white. 66% clinton.
tennessee: 67% white. 66% clinton.
texas: 46% white. 66% clinton.
virginia: 61% white. 64% clinton.
what you see when you look at those results is that support for clinton remains stable, while race fluctuates. what that means is that race is not a predictor variable. and that's a proof!
again: the media will not cease, nor will they desist. the media is racist. it is a part of their job to be racist. but they must be called out on it at every opportunity.
voters make decisions based on the content of their characters, not on the colour of their skins.
and, clinton should be expected to carry the white vote in kentucky, west virginia and indiana by significant to overwhelming margins.
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/27/472056754/despite-the-math-bernie-sanders-has-already-won
at
07:17
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
shit hillary said vol 11
"History shows us that a strong regional architecture can bring to bear incentives for cooperation and disincentives for provocation and problematic behaviors. But this kind of architecture does not just spring up on its own, just as NATO and other aspects of the post-World War II architecture didn’t just happen. It takes consistent effort, strong partnerships, and crucially, American leadership. And that is, at core, what our strategy in the Asia Pacific is all about. All of our actions – diplomatic, economic, and military – are designed to advance this goal. Let me offer three examples about how it works."
...
"Here’s a second example, which demonstrates how strong rules and norms matter in people’s lives. As part of that same trip last November, the President built momentum for a new far-reaching trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership that we are negotiating with eight other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. This agreement is not just about eliminating barriers to trade, although that is crucial for boosting U.S. exports and creating jobs here at home. It’s also about agreeing on the rules of the road for an integrated Pacific economy that is open, free, transparent, and fair. It will put in place strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and innovation – all key American values. And it will cover emerging issues such as the connectivity of regional supply chains, the competitive impact of state-owned enterprises, and create trade opportunities for more small-and-medium-sized businesses."
...
"Here’s a second example, which demonstrates how strong rules and norms matter in people’s lives. As part of that same trip last November, the President built momentum for a new far-reaching trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership that we are negotiating with eight other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. This agreement is not just about eliminating barriers to trade, although that is crucial for boosting U.S. exports and creating jobs here at home. It’s also about agreeing on the rules of the road for an integrated Pacific economy that is open, free, transparent, and fair. It will put in place strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and innovation – all key American values. And it will cover emerging issues such as the connectivity of regional supply chains, the competitive impact of state-owned enterprises, and create trade opportunities for more small-and-medium-sized businesses."
at
06:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the mar 26 primary results
my hawaii argument was based on the idea that hawaii would vote similarly to other pacific island states, but it was never presented with much confidence. there wasn't any polling done, and the demographic modelling is anti-scientific and should be rejected. i always said that this idea was preliminary and subject to modification by incoming data. all anybody could have given you was an inference (that is, a guess). one could have argued that sanders should have won because it was a caucus, but hawaii had a secret ballot so the logic of peer pressure is kind of funny. nor is hawaii a white state. i think the better analysis is likely to invert my argument. i had essentially suggested that clinton should be favoured because of greater name recognition, in what is really a distant colony (and that was the pattern in the other pacific island states). what was probably true in the end was that the name recognition worked against her - which is to say it was probably less about a vote for sanders and more about a vote against clinton. turnout does not seem to have been low, either. for substantive policy: how about the asia pivot, and concern about clinton starting a war in the pacific? there's no polling, so all one can do is make stuff up.
either way, that buffers the loss in arizona a little. even still, it looks like he's about 25 delegates behind where i said he should be. but, i also suggested that he only really needs to split wisconsin. he now needs to have wisconsin act more like minnesota than illinois in order to make up the difference. he should still be aiming for 200 going into new york. and, he absolutely must win new york.
i would not advise taking early polls seriously. but, it is a closed primary. and, the results in massachusetts and illinois would suggest a split is more likely than a win.
either way, that buffers the loss in arizona a little. even still, it looks like he's about 25 delegates behind where i said he should be. but, i also suggested that he only really needs to split wisconsin. he now needs to have wisconsin act more like minnesota than illinois in order to make up the difference. he should still be aiming for 200 going into new york. and, he absolutely must win new york.
i would not advise taking early polls seriously. but, it is a closed primary. and, the results in massachusetts and illinois would suggest a split is more likely than a win.
at
05:32
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Saturday, March 26, 2016
26-03-2016: finally starting to wipe down the cbc profile (distracted by washington primary)
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
at
23:59
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the lack of mar 26 pre-polling
i could've sworn the wiki page said last week that washington was an open primary.
it now says it is an open caucus. and, that is confirmed by multiple media reports.
so, my previous claims that washington would prove the rigged system need to be revoked. that was based on the state being a ballot vote. oops.
i've been consistent: you can't rig a caucus at the level she'd need to win. so, we should finally get the blowout in a big state that we've been waiting for....
-
so.
hawaii - clinton will probably win, if hawaii fits the profile of the other pacific island territories.
washington - now that i see that it's a caucus rather than a primary, i would expect sanders to win decisively. idaho or utah numbers are reasonable.
alaska - there's no data to draw conclusions from.
it now says it is an open caucus. and, that is confirmed by multiple media reports.
so, my previous claims that washington would prove the rigged system need to be revoked. that was based on the state being a ballot vote. oops.
i've been consistent: you can't rig a caucus at the level she'd need to win. so, we should finally get the blowout in a big state that we've been waiting for....
-
so.
hawaii - clinton will probably win, if hawaii fits the profile of the other pacific island territories.
washington - now that i see that it's a caucus rather than a primary, i would expect sanders to win decisively. idaho or utah numbers are reasonable.
alaska - there's no data to draw conclusions from.
at
10:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
shit hillary said vol 10
"I don't believe [adolescents] are ready for sex or its potential consequences—parenthood, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases—and I think we need to do everything in our power to discourage sexual activity and encourage abstinence."
at
06:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Friday, March 25, 2016
25-03-2016: every time i tried to get back to archiving, i found something else to rant about
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
at
23:59
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to (specious) accusations of nihilism
and, i
want to be clear about something: i am not a nihilist. i am an atheist
and a secular humanist. i believe i've actually argued very strenuously against
moral relativism and very strenuously against subjectivity in art. i
believe in the objective reality of a world determined via scientific inquiry.
there is no god in this world, but there are plenty of things that are true. in
fact, i would argue that the truth value of the statement there is no god
is true. that is, itself, a truth. i am a positivist. i believe truth is
obtainable - and that one of those truths is that there is no guiding force in
the universe.
but, i haven't been through this here. not exactly. bits and pieces.
the problem is the way the discussion is framed, to assume various things for granted. i am an anarchist; i reject hobbes. i do not believe that people need the threat of god, or the threat of some sovereign, to fall in line and behave. rather, i think that religion and authoritarianism are corrupting forces. we are not evil in despite of the state but because of it. the collapse of the state would bring us back to a "natural condition" of mutual aid and reciprocal altruism. this is not because we have a selfless nature, it is because altruism and rational self-interest are equivalent, when fully understood.
watch this, it's in the name of general education:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kWuR9Rzzlo
what that actually means is that i think that nietzsche is just a tempest in a teapot, because i reject the assumptions he was working under in the first place. understanding the obvious truth that there is no god will not collapse society, but allow it to reach it's next stage of development. nihilists should consequently be seen as reactionaries that seek to uphold the status quo - at best. at worst, they end up as straussian neocons like hillary clinton and want to take us back into the dark ages.
there is a certain line of thinking that ends with nietzsche, but it was a stupid line of reasoning that was in opposition to the real movements of enlightened thinking, anyways. his supposed crisis was resolved by aquinas, who was himself just quoting aristotle. what you see in his writings is a fool coming to terms with the idiocy of his systems of thought. but, only fools would have ever walked down that path in the first place. this is centuries after galileo!
so, i don't think that nihilism presents us with any sort of a real problem. but, if we want to be stuck in this foolish historical narrative? a very obvious and completely satisfactory solution immediately presents itself in secular humanism. and, there is consequently really no reason to take note of the man or his writings at all. he should be forgotten. instead, we should remember the line of thinking that takes us from aristotle, through aquinas and ends with comte.
but, i haven't been through this here. not exactly. bits and pieces.
the problem is the way the discussion is framed, to assume various things for granted. i am an anarchist; i reject hobbes. i do not believe that people need the threat of god, or the threat of some sovereign, to fall in line and behave. rather, i think that religion and authoritarianism are corrupting forces. we are not evil in despite of the state but because of it. the collapse of the state would bring us back to a "natural condition" of mutual aid and reciprocal altruism. this is not because we have a selfless nature, it is because altruism and rational self-interest are equivalent, when fully understood.
watch this, it's in the name of general education:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kWuR9Rzzlo
what that actually means is that i think that nietzsche is just a tempest in a teapot, because i reject the assumptions he was working under in the first place. understanding the obvious truth that there is no god will not collapse society, but allow it to reach it's next stage of development. nihilists should consequently be seen as reactionaries that seek to uphold the status quo - at best. at worst, they end up as straussian neocons like hillary clinton and want to take us back into the dark ages.
there is a certain line of thinking that ends with nietzsche, but it was a stupid line of reasoning that was in opposition to the real movements of enlightened thinking, anyways. his supposed crisis was resolved by aquinas, who was himself just quoting aristotle. what you see in his writings is a fool coming to terms with the idiocy of his systems of thought. but, only fools would have ever walked down that path in the first place. this is centuries after galileo!
so, i don't think that nihilism presents us with any sort of a real problem. but, if we want to be stuck in this foolish historical narrative? a very obvious and completely satisfactory solution immediately presents itself in secular humanism. and, there is consequently really no reason to take note of the man or his writings at all. he should be forgotten. instead, we should remember the line of thinking that takes us from aristotle, through aquinas and ends with comte.
at
20:19
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
ok, i need to back off. i keep saying that. i do. i've wasted way too much time.
i tend to get obsessive. it's a personality issue. it's ubiquitous across issues. but, this isn't worth my time.
i tend to get obsessive. it's a personality issue. it's ubiquitous across issues. but, this isn't worth my time.
at
14:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the inevitability of a third party force on the left in the 2016 election
i want to reiterate that my position in a trump/clinton election is strategic non-voting followed by mass civil disobedience. what i'm suggesting is that hillary is not a lesser evil. that does not somehow imply support for trump.
the spanish anarchists were faced with a choice between hitler and stalin, and they picked stalin. stalin then killed them by the thousands. all objective evidence would have suggested that stalin was the lesser evil, here.
what i'm arguing is that we're in a situation where the logic of a lesser evil collapses, and we're stuck with two equally sized and equally unacceptable evils - both of which necessitate immediate revolutionary action. if you're arguing you should vote for clinton to stop trump, you're back to trying to argue that stalin is preferable to hitler.
sanders is actually right. it's not just empty rhetoric. the spectre of a clinton presidency is no more acceptable than that of a trump presidency. there needs to be a stronger reaction than just voting for clinton and going home.
this is the breaking point.
-
if it's trump v clinton, i vote for a general strike.
polling for general election matchups right now is very preliminary. my questions remain hypothetical.
but, i'd be interested to see some polling of a three-way race: sanders, trump, clinton. if we consider that sanders is beating trump by 20 points, in multiple key swing states, how much of that goes to clinton if she runs? that language was chosen consciously.
i'm just wondering if something like this is reasonable, somewhere like michigan:
- sanders: 40
- trump: 35
- clinton: 25
the flip of that is that clinton could beat trump with evangelicals, opening up weird results like the following, somewhere like missouri, where clinton/sanders and trump/cruz both split. as missouri tends to split general elections, let's give them each 25%.
clinton: 25 (base) + 15 (cruz) = 40
trump: 25 (base) + 10 (cruz) = 35
sanders: 25
i would not advise taking any of this seriously until at least labour day. but a little bit of introductory polling may be useful for everybody.
-
it's just hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube, with sanders. and that's a good thing. but it means some polling on the hypothetical is useful.
-
and....clinton has already tried to appeal to the christian conservative vote, which there is quite a bit of in the democratic party base. she's a politician. she'll do what she thinks she needs to do to win. if trump is the nominee (and he is) then it opens up a vacuum on the christian right that she will pounce on. and, the gays will be thrown under the bus - the christian right is a far larger and far more stable voting block to integrate into her base of southern conservative minorities.
-
i know that what i'm saying is going to upset or confuse some people. but, you simply haven't been paying attention. this is precisely why she creates such a horrible reaction in the left-wing grassroots - she'd sell her own husband down the creek for the right endorsement, and all the smart people fully grasp that.
-
so, this logic that you're voting for her to stop the christian right?
hillary clinton is the christian right.
-
and, if trump wins (and he will), that's going to be a big aspect of the election. she won't beat him with working class whites. her best strategy is to beat him on the right.
the spanish anarchists were faced with a choice between hitler and stalin, and they picked stalin. stalin then killed them by the thousands. all objective evidence would have suggested that stalin was the lesser evil, here.
what i'm arguing is that we're in a situation where the logic of a lesser evil collapses, and we're stuck with two equally sized and equally unacceptable evils - both of which necessitate immediate revolutionary action. if you're arguing you should vote for clinton to stop trump, you're back to trying to argue that stalin is preferable to hitler.
sanders is actually right. it's not just empty rhetoric. the spectre of a clinton presidency is no more acceptable than that of a trump presidency. there needs to be a stronger reaction than just voting for clinton and going home.
this is the breaking point.
-
if it's trump v clinton, i vote for a general strike.
polling for general election matchups right now is very preliminary. my questions remain hypothetical.
but, i'd be interested to see some polling of a three-way race: sanders, trump, clinton. if we consider that sanders is beating trump by 20 points, in multiple key swing states, how much of that goes to clinton if she runs? that language was chosen consciously.
i'm just wondering if something like this is reasonable, somewhere like michigan:
- sanders: 40
- trump: 35
- clinton: 25
the flip of that is that clinton could beat trump with evangelicals, opening up weird results like the following, somewhere like missouri, where clinton/sanders and trump/cruz both split. as missouri tends to split general elections, let's give them each 25%.
clinton: 25 (base) + 15 (cruz) = 40
trump: 25 (base) + 10 (cruz) = 35
sanders: 25
i would not advise taking any of this seriously until at least labour day. but a little bit of introductory polling may be useful for everybody.
-
it's just hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube, with sanders. and that's a good thing. but it means some polling on the hypothetical is useful.
-
and....clinton has already tried to appeal to the christian conservative vote, which there is quite a bit of in the democratic party base. she's a politician. she'll do what she thinks she needs to do to win. if trump is the nominee (and he is) then it opens up a vacuum on the christian right that she will pounce on. and, the gays will be thrown under the bus - the christian right is a far larger and far more stable voting block to integrate into her base of southern conservative minorities.
-
i know that what i'm saying is going to upset or confuse some people. but, you simply haven't been paying attention. this is precisely why she creates such a horrible reaction in the left-wing grassroots - she'd sell her own husband down the creek for the right endorsement, and all the smart people fully grasp that.
-
so, this logic that you're voting for her to stop the christian right?
hillary clinton is the christian right.
-
and, if trump wins (and he will), that's going to be a big aspect of the election. she won't beat him with working class whites. her best strategy is to beat him on the right.
at
14:22
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
setting the bar for accusations of racism this low is extremely dangerous, as it sets up a cries wolf scenario. and, in fact, trump's likely opponent has not just supported but was integral in the development of some of the most racist legislation of the past fifty years.
at
13:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the idea that cuba is poor due to not being a market economy
let's be dialectical. well, ok.
but, this is a crazy argument, this idea that america is wealthy because of markets and cuba is poor because of no markets.
1) does america really have markets? it has lots of cartels. study the price of bananas - it changes everywhere at the same time, all the time. it has lots of corporate welfare. i'm not so sure about this.
2) america is the global empire. it's extracted massive wealth through theft, slavery and imperialist exploitation. meanwhile, cuba was a forgotten backwater in a collapsed empire. markets? hmmm.
3) there were these sanctions that were put on cuba. i think the president knows a thing or two about them.
i don't want to argue against his point too much. i think he's making an error in looking at capitalism and communism as competing systems rather than as expressions of the same system. what we need is not really a dialectic, but a reapproach to a different organization of society brought on by deindustrialization. but, in the end that could very well approximate a dialectic, because the deindustrialization does, in some ways, bring back aspects of the preconditions of liberalism. i don't know how you approach automation without social ownership, but that's just the initial conditions - the point is to open up greater freedom in social interaction by eliminating want.
but, you can't just stand there and say america is rich because of capitalism and cuba is poor because of communism and expect people to take you seriously because you're the president. it's crazy, no matter who you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BadFTesAPzY
but, this is a crazy argument, this idea that america is wealthy because of markets and cuba is poor because of no markets.
1) does america really have markets? it has lots of cartels. study the price of bananas - it changes everywhere at the same time, all the time. it has lots of corporate welfare. i'm not so sure about this.
2) america is the global empire. it's extracted massive wealth through theft, slavery and imperialist exploitation. meanwhile, cuba was a forgotten backwater in a collapsed empire. markets? hmmm.
3) there were these sanctions that were put on cuba. i think the president knows a thing or two about them.
i don't want to argue against his point too much. i think he's making an error in looking at capitalism and communism as competing systems rather than as expressions of the same system. what we need is not really a dialectic, but a reapproach to a different organization of society brought on by deindustrialization. but, in the end that could very well approximate a dialectic, because the deindustrialization does, in some ways, bring back aspects of the preconditions of liberalism. i don't know how you approach automation without social ownership, but that's just the initial conditions - the point is to open up greater freedom in social interaction by eliminating want.
but, you can't just stand there and say america is rich because of capitalism and cuba is poor because of communism and expect people to take you seriously because you're the president. it's crazy, no matter who you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BadFTesAPzY
at
12:59
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to being misinterpreted as a millenial (and not liking it)
i just want to remind people that i identify as gen x, i've always identified as gen x and i've never claimed otherwise. in fact, what i have claimed on multiple occasions is that i feel a very large generational gap with millennials, and have always had a very hard time understanding them.
i've pointed out repeatedly that i'm on the cusp. which means i don't actually have a generation. i'm too old to be a millennial, and they've always seemed weird and distant to me. gen x has always made more sense, and so i've always identified that way, but i do realize that i'm too young to really be gen x.
the point is that i want to be clear about what my audience is: both for my music and for my vlogs. i'm not quite middle-aged, but i nearly am. i'm not making any particular attempt to appeal to young people. i would expect that both my music and it's marketing will appeal to an above 30 audience, and not an under 30 audience. it's about a 30-50 demographic that is most likely to find the various things i do interesting. this is the cusp, plus the latter half of gen x.
so, if you're a younger person and you think i'm out of touch, that's ok. i would agree that you're probably right. and, i'm not particularly upset by it; i wasn't interested in being the cool kid when i was your age, and i'm not interested in being the cool kid now, either. older people don't need your approval to exist. and, realize i was on usenet before you could walk...
i've pointed out repeatedly that i'm on the cusp. which means i don't actually have a generation. i'm too old to be a millennial, and they've always seemed weird and distant to me. gen x has always made more sense, and so i've always identified that way, but i do realize that i'm too young to really be gen x.
the point is that i want to be clear about what my audience is: both for my music and for my vlogs. i'm not quite middle-aged, but i nearly am. i'm not making any particular attempt to appeal to young people. i would expect that both my music and it's marketing will appeal to an above 30 audience, and not an under 30 audience. it's about a 30-50 demographic that is most likely to find the various things i do interesting. this is the cusp, plus the latter half of gen x.
so, if you're a younger person and you think i'm out of touch, that's ok. i would agree that you're probably right. and, i'm not particularly upset by it; i wasn't interested in being the cool kid when i was your age, and i'm not interested in being the cool kid now, either. older people don't need your approval to exist. and, realize i was on usenet before you could walk...
at
12:32
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
shit hillary said vol 9
"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship."
at
12:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
furnace is leaking...
hi.
the drip was forming at the corner. i've just taped it over. hopefully that's good enough. i don't know if the drip was coming out of the corner or just rolling down towards it. my concern is just keeping the water off the floor, so if that doesn't work then i'll tape the connector over. but i think i have the responsibility to inform you.
i still don't have a phone. i've lived long enough without one that i've learned how to exist without one, and decided it's more of a luxury than a necessity. and given that it is essentially a government spying device, i've actually decided that i even actively don't want one.
so, i know you're transferring ownership. let me know if there's a better email address to use.
but, yeah. it's dripping. slowly. it seems like the plastic cracked. but it may be the seal, too.
j
the drip was forming at the corner. i've just taped it over. hopefully that's good enough. i don't know if the drip was coming out of the corner or just rolling down towards it. my concern is just keeping the water off the floor, so if that doesn't work then i'll tape the connector over. but i think i have the responsibility to inform you.
i still don't have a phone. i've lived long enough without one that i've learned how to exist without one, and decided it's more of a luxury than a necessity. and given that it is essentially a government spying device, i've actually decided that i even actively don't want one.
so, i know you're transferring ownership. let me know if there's a better email address to use.
but, yeah. it's dripping. slowly. it seems like the plastic cracked. but it may be the seal, too.
j
at
08:12
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
24-03-2016: fighting the weather, obnoxious jocks & the police state to catch the stargazer lilies in detroit
concert footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihjxbf0htWo
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/03/24.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihjxbf0htWo
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/03/24.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
at
02:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)