j reacts to yet more scary, dystopian language suppression from the clinton campaign

hillary clinton performs political tasks in exchange for money. i believe that fits the literal definition of a corporate whore. and, no amount of hurt feelings - feigned or real - will change that.

stating the truth is more important than protecting feelings. and, the more offensive the truth is, the more important it is to state it.

please do not be silenced by the language police.

i mean, you can try and reclaim the term, if you want. is it truly so terrible to be a corporate whore? i mean, that's basically what her candidacy reduces to, right?

but don't pretend like it's inaccurate, or, worse, like it's ok to silence true words because they hurt your feelings.

to put it another way: the truth hurts, sometimes.

shit hillary said vol 29

"You know, I agree that we should be testing new teachers. I believe that we ought to have pay for performance where we evaluate teachers. I think we ought to streamline the due process standards so that teachers that don’t measure up would no longer be in the classroom."

j reacts to the truncated spectrum

see, this is another example of the warped spectrum: the idea that equality of opportunity is an idea on the left, and the only other option is to reject equality and align with the right. this is the truncated spectrum:

a) you believe in equality of opportunity (and are a leftist: a liberal, a democrat), or
b) you do not believe in equality at all (and are a right-winger: a conservative, a republican).

the idea of equality of outcome does not exist in the discourse. if it is mentioned at all, it is immediately rejected as extreme.

and, what that does is entrench a class hierarchy as beyond any kind of debate. we can talk about making it easier for people of colour to climb into the hierarchy - and then we label that "left-wing". but, we cannot talk about tearing the class hierarchy down.

so, when i show up and say "actually, this equality of opportunity stuff is a bunch of right-wing bullshit", it is immediately assumed that i do not believe in equality at all - because equality of outcome is not a feasible position.

there is no left in our society. there is merely degrees of the right.

13-04-2016: death and ... archiving?

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

shit hillary said vol 28

"I worked with the 100 Black Men in New York to help create the Eagle Academy, a high school for young African-American and Latino men. "

12-04-2016: a trip to the doctor

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

j reacts to the moral panic over canadian arms sales to the saudis

if you think that not selling arms to the saudis is going to save any lives in yemen...

i mean, they can always call the president and ask for another drone strike, right?

the saudi government is full of bad guys. sure. but the policy that needs to change is at a much higher level. the opposition to the arms deal is consequently really just a lot of empty moralizing.

which isn't to say that i think it should go through, so much as to say that i realize that it doesn't make any difference if it does or not.

the liberals will usually prefer to take the position of engagement over the position of boycott. and, it's probably legitimately the better starting point if you want to actually make some progress.

but, if you truly just want to pat yourself on the back without actually accomplishing anything substantive then by all means keep screaming and yelling.

j reacts to the polling in new york (and fact that it is a closed primary)

re: new york.

he wants to be seeing it a little tighter than this, right now. but, it's not particularly surprising, either. i think the larger ramification out of new york may be a push for a more transparent primary process. it's simply undemocratic to cut off registration so far in advance.

but, there's still a week. anything could happen.

j reacts to false accusations of sympathies with the tea party

fwiw, i am 100% supportive of fiat currency relations and i believe that a strong central bank is a necessity to prevent currency speculation by the wealthy. i would prefer to abolish currency and property altogether. but, so long as we are stuck with currency, i do believe that the fractional reserve banking is a superior system to any kind of fixed system of exchange, like the gold standard. i am a socialist. i understand that this is a socialist concept of currency. i support it because it is a socialist concept of currency.

i support a lender of last resort. i understand that the bailouts were loans. i believe that money can and should be printed at whatever volume is necessary to bring the economy to full employment. further, i realize that there is no such thing as debt.

so, i don't have any of these right-wing economic ideas. and, as such, i have little point of identification with the economic programme on the right.

i am a classical liberal on social issues, and i understand that i may be confusing to a lot of the modern left as a result of that. but, i am closer to a traditional concept of leftism than the modern left is. and, when i attack the left as authoritarian, i tend to do it from the left. that is, i tend to go after what passes as "liberalism" nowadays (from elizabeth warren through to the tumblr types) as a lot of confused conservatives. there's nothing liberal about the social justice warriors. it's just a post-modern spin on religion, and dangerous for all the same reasons.

we live in a reality where a defined left does not really exist. rather, we are presented with various strains of conservatism and told that they are liberalism and socialism, respectively. i reject all of this. so, you cannot place me on your spectrum, as you understand it.

but, i am clear where i stand in a broader spectrum. i am an anarchist/communist in the tradition of bakunin, kropotkin, wilde, malatesta and chomsky. i tend to lean marxist (mostly from engels, actually) on economic matters and liberal (mill, largely) on social matters. these are old fashioned perspectives that most people have jettisoned in favour of some concept of authoritarianism, to the point that i'm  broadly misunderstood most of the time.

but, i am a leftist - a very pure one that refuses to be corrupted by conservative concepts of human nature, even when it takes me out into left field. that's fine. i'll set up camp. you'll leave me there. that's ok. but, make no mistake of this - a leftist, i am.

...even if i ultimately defer to science, whenever i can.

shit hillary said vol 27

"As president, I will work to raise the federal minimum wage back to the highest level it’s ever been — $12 an hour in today’s dollars — and support state and local efforts to go even further."

11-04-2016: hard archiving push (huffpost archival finished)

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

j reacts to the possibility of naomi klein running for the leadership of the ndp

it says avi lewis.

i'd rather see naomi klein run, myself. and, frankly, i'd say she's probably the smart money at this point. it's in 2018.

still want to move to canada?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/potential-ndp-leaders/article29582403/

see, here's the thing: naomi klein is a partisan hack. well, at least she is in canada, anyways. she's married to the scion of the ndp ruling class. she is the hatfield to trudeau's mccoy.

but, she makes some good points, too.

i've posted enough here over the last few days to get my point across: trudeau is, in truth, a very pretty spokesperson. in that sense, he's more like reagan than he is like kennedy. he knows enough about what is happening to avoid looking foolish (most of the time). and, he'll pass any beer test you throw at him. but, he's a front for a party establishment with very deep roots in this country. and, no - he's not as liberal as you'd like to think.

but, as far as lesser evils go, the liberals (broadly, not just trudeau) are head and shoulders above anything else on offer. they are a lesser evil. unambiguously. they work for the banks. but..

here's one example: health care. the history is complicated, of course. but, if you ask the liberals, they'll tell you that they continue to support public healthcare because they see it as providing the country with a competitive advantage in labour costs. the end result is universal healthcare, and we're all very attached to it. but, if you listen to them carefully, it comes down to a pro-business policy. it's the same thing with the indexing of the minimum wage. it's very progressive and everything, but if you listen to them talk what they will tell you is that it's meant to drive aggregate demand. so, yes: they will consistently come down on the progressive side of things, but it's more because they're driven by numbers than anything else. except when they don't (pipelines, for example). so, it's always a lesser evil.

but, despite being a lesser evil, the reality is that, in practice, they're more comparable to the green party than the democrats. so, you need to pull her back a little.

but, this may be a launching speech. and, this may be the next election: trudeau v klein.

(and some conservative will no doubt also run)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/24/trudeau-is-less-liberal-than-you-think.html

mellow out, or you will pay.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/elementary-students-meditation-1.3526011

"yeah, i have a very strong crossover appeal: cia/fbi/nsa."

"the only audience i'm building is in the secret service."

"when i say my audience is listening...."

"i think i'm bigger than allen dulles."

shit hillary said vol 26

"I would hope that, given the extraordinary capacities that the tech community has and the legitimate needs and questions from law enforcement, that there could be a Manhattan-like project, something that would bring the government and the tech communities together to see they're not adversaries, they've got to be partners. It doesn't do anybody any good if terrorists can move toward encrypted communication that no law enforcement agency can break into before or after. There must be some way. I don't know enough about the technology, Martha, to be able to say what it is, but I have a lot of confidence in our tech experts."

10-04-2016: stuck inside due to the weather (more huffpost archiving)

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

i have not bought a pack of cigarettes in three months.

1) as a former smoker, i am now officially old.
2) i think i got this.

but i spent the last week dealing with migraines, so i'm going to give myself a few more days. friday is a hard stop.

when she was done her speech, rachel went into a greatest hits set, which included such canadian standards as run to you, summer of '69 and everything i do (i did it for you).

i don't really care. really. but, pick a side of the spectrum. if you want to be the new tories, go be the new tories. if you want to merge with the greens, merge with the greens. just stop trying to represent 90% of the spectrum. the lack of clear messaging got some of your best mps clobbered.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-convention-saturday-wherry-1.3528881

shit hillary said vol 25

"The last time I actually drove a car myself was 1996," Clinton said Monday in remarks to the National Automobile Dealers Association in New Orleans. "I remember it very well. Unfortunately, so does the Secret Service, which is why I haven't driven since then."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/01/27/hillary-clinton-car-auto-drive-nada/4942881/

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/01/hillary-clinton-hasnt-driven-a-car-since-1996/283375/

09-04-2016: clearing my head (archiving the huffington post)

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

j reacts to krugman's critique of sanders (he's right, but nobody should care)

krugman is right, but who cares?

what's the differences in health care plans? in foreign policy? on climate change?

if you break the banks up, they get captured. regulation doesn't work. we tried this. it failed.

so, personally? you give me a referendum on a bank, i stay home. it's boring. and it has no effect on my life. i do not think this is what is driving the popularity of his campaign. and i think he needs to fight the perception that it is.

let's get less teddy roosevelt, and more franklin roosevelt.

the banks are important because that is where he gets the money to do the things he wants to do.

that is all.

the way to fix the financial system is to educate people about where they're putting their money. it doesn't matter if it's big or small, or private or public or anything else - so long as people remain clueless, they will be taken advantage of. you can't protect the ignorant. what we need is financial literacy.

shit hillary said vol 24

"I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better — better than anybody had run it in a long time. So I have an idea of what it’s going to take to make our government work more efficiently."

if you had a modern constitution, the cop wouldn't just be facing dismissal but plausibly jail time. and, he's going right to the raffle fundraiser at the child abuse unit, too, right?

just nuke them. fuck it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cuq3KJC7cc

listen to the sneer on this one. egads...

but, it's reflective. hillary represents the latte-drinking, upper-middle class. this anchor is an excellent proxy.

i'm always perplexed by the mindset that wants to keep kids sheltered and ignorant. it seems to me like they really want to, and maybe ought to, be playing with dolls.

the liberal legal academic system just spent the last thirty years putting in place an academic programme that teaches students that an entrenched, universal racial hierarchy exists - and that there is nothing that can be done to abolish it. we must adjust to it. and, then you wonder why the kids are fucked up? hey, guess what: maybe it has to do with what you've taught them. oops...

the reason they know that the system is racist, through and through, is because the system taught them it. did you expect them to shrug it off, or what?

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/04/01/black-lives-matter-protests-at-premier-kathleen-wynne-s-toronto-home_n_9592650.html

07/08-04-2016: the saga of the detector dogs (of migraines & bed bugs - and cbc profile wiped)

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

shit hillary said vol 23

"The Free Trade Agreements passed by Congress tonight will make it easier for American companies to sell their products to South Korea, Colombia and Panama, which will create jobs here at home. The Obama Administration is constantly working to deepen our economic engagement throughout the world and these agreements are an example of that commitment.

The stakes are not just economic. South Korea, Colombia and Panama are three important partners in strategically vital regions. With the passage of these agreements, America has delivered for our friends and allies. I want to thank Presidents Lee, Santos and Martinelli for their patience and willingness to partner with the Obama Administration as these agreements moved through Congress.

But our work is not yet done. We will not be content until these agreements are fully implemented so that American exporters can reap the benefits as soon as possible."

this is the actual, flat truth: i don't care. i expected the government would be corrupt. i was not naive. i did not think they would be different. and, they can steal as much money as they care about, i'll still vote for them if they make some progress on reducing emissions, on poverty reduction, on legal liberalization (marijuana, assisted-suicide, etc), on feeding the beast and and on some of other things i actually care about.

let the conservatives yell and scream about finance. i don't care. i care about social issues.

apologies for the bad grammar. i'm still amazed that the cbc does not allow editing. it's the way people write nowadays.

but, this narrative expired about 1995. the thing is that the media is driven by an old tory guard that is completely out of touch with people under 50. it's this cycle of information going around in the heads of old folks, and that almost nobody else cares at all about.

let the right yell itself into irrelevance. just focus on what people actually care about.

(link lost)

i have to admit that i'm not really sure what the benefit of building public transportation through the collection of very small towns on the windsor side would be. i mean, it makes sense on the detroit side, where you have a large collection of medium sized cities. but, when you get outside of windsor, it's just a lot of small towns. villages, even. maybe there's some demand i'm unaware of, but it's kind of head-scratching.

the better way to get people into windsor would be to make it easier to get across the border. a pedestrian foot bridge over the tunnel would be ideal.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/city-vs-county-regional-transit-could-be-back-on-the-table-1.3523457

shit hillary said vol 22

"Mandatory sentences for certain violent crimes may be appropriate"

of unwanted dogs and media-fueled paranoia

jessica
it seems as though i've been able to avoid the dogs in the apartment for the night. to be clear: my opposition is that i don't want strange animals parading through here. i would not oppose a human inspector.

that said, i understand that i cannot stall forever. so, i will have to allow the inspection, should cooler heads not prevail. just allow me to quickly make the following points, both to attempt to persuade you to halt and to make clear where i stand should the dog track anything in.

1. there are no bed bugs in the unit.
2. bed bugs are not like roaches or air-borne pathogens. they must be carried from place to place.
3. a detector dog is a perfect transmission vehicle. it actively seeks them out, thereby volunteering itself as a ship from them to sail on.
4. it is consequently dangerous and irrational to allow a detector dog to move through the unit. there are no bugs in the unit now. there may be by the time it's done.

so, if you insist, i cannot stop you - i can only stall the process, in hopes that whatever media-fueled hysteria behind this comes to pass. but, should the dog "find" anything, i will legally argue to the maximum extent of my ability that it was the dog, itself, that brought them in.

there are no bed bugs in this unit.

the landlord
Jessica, I have become aware of the situation and I know my brother does not have good judgment or thinks things through. I will be around as soon as I can. Please wait till I get there. I have told my brother to find a bug for proof and not be so stupid to believe a bug smelling dog! I believe there are no bed bugs at this point.

05/06-04-2016: wisconsin analysis & scary neurological moment

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

this is how government works. i knew i was voting for bay street; unfortunately, the socialist party was shilling for big oil and pushing for "balanced budgets".

i don't share the view that these events are nefarious by default. they might be. they might not be. i think, with this firm, the most concerning thing is that they represent a lot of wealthy tax cheats. allegedly. sorry.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justice-minister-private-fundraiser-1.3521731

the president doesn't *actually* make these decisions, though.

look at the list of presidents over the last 50 years.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/alex-salmond-donald-trump-1.3522337

j reacts to the wisconsin results (and analyses moving forwards) (pt 4)

yeah. the media never updated the washington numbers. sneaky.

by my count, the current breakdown of pledged delegates is:

clinton : 1303
sanders: 1087

there's some error involved. but that means the difference is around 216. if he can get at least six in wyoming, that's under 210 going into new york. which is close enough to be on target.

but i need to reiterate: the path i've presented indicates he needs to win at least +50 in new york.  that means he's looking at 60% as a minimum target. although the sky won't fall if it's 57, either. it just means he needs to win even bigger in california. you get why this doesn't end before june 7, i gather?

but, he needs to win, and by more than 55%. he needs to be aiming for 60%. i went down this path for the following reasons:

(1) it's about the only way he's going to get the bump he needs to win the rest of the calendar by the margins he needs. he had to win in massachusetts and didn't. he had to win illinois big and didn't. he had to split in arizona and didn't. and etc. so, now he has to win in new york - and convincingly.
(2) it's really not impossible.

i've pointed out repeatedly that i reject racial-based demographic modeling as racist. and, i don't think clinton has any kind of a meaningful home state advantage in new york, either. she only picked new york because it was a safe seat. nobody voted for hillary clinton. they voted for the democrats. they could have a run a bouquet of flowers and it would have won. and, what did she do? she voted for an unpopular war and went after video games. her home state is arkansas, not new york.

conversely, new york is actually a pretty liberal place. it's somewhere that should really embrace what sanders stands for.

with a caveat. and that is money. the new york primary is going to be about class and turnout. clinton will do very well with wealthy democrats. and the deadline to register was last week. was he able to register enough voters to overwhelm the old guard?

if he can, we keep going. if he can't, it's time to start organizing the anti-war marches and labour activists against clinton.

fwiw? i don't see any reason to be particularly convinced that he can.

shit hillary said vol 21

j reacts to the wisconsin results (and analyses moving forwards) (pt 3)

it's hard to predict an unfair election, man. cut me some slack. you've gotta try and guess where they're going to cheat, and by how much. wisconsin seems to mostly be clean, but how do you guess that. and, if you just go by the numbers, you get called out when they cheat. i've at least been clear about this the whole time.

but by not cheating in wisconsin, they've given me a prop to use. the new york times has a great little graph in it's coverage called "how the vote came in". graphs are great for people that don't think in math. so, let's take a look at them.

please check the following states:

- ohio (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/ohio)
- missouri (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/missouri)
- illinois (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/illinois)

you will see something curious in these states: she starts off with huge leads and then watches it drop over the night - by 20% in ohio & missouri.

that's a very, very suspicious signal. in fact, it's the classic signal for stuffing ballots.

now, let's look at wisconsin (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wisconsin). there is some fluctuation, but only mildly. a few percentage points. this is more reflective of what you expect to see in a fair election.

i would argue that these graphs are enough, on their own, to demonstrate that the election is unfair. and, once you establish as much, trying to figure out what's going to happen gets super complicated....

the tactic we've seen is that she tends to rig the big cities. so, i would have expected her to "win" by about 50,000 votes in milwaukee. then, you expect them to "run out of ballots" and other such things in the counties, which works as voter suppression.

but, that just didn't happen in wisconsin. again: could it be the polling? i don't know. but, it might have been. so, keep doing it!

j reacts to the wisconsin results (and analyses moving forwards) (pt 2)

and, cruz' win in wisconsin is meaningless. he still has no chance in the northeast, and no serious path. i would not call on him to drop out, though, because more of his support will move to trump than to kasich.

it is only kasich that has any chance of beating trump in the northeast. but, he needs cruz to split the right for him to do it.

j reacts to the wisconsin results (and analyses moving forwards) (pt 1)

well, i suggested that when you factor in "early voters" & voter suppression, it should be a delegate tie. i also questioned whether she'd have the gall to bother in wisconsin, but concluded it probably wasn't reversible, anyways.

the numbers in milwaukee do not appear to be as suspicious as the numbers in wayne or cook county, or in downtown boston. i think people should have expected it to be close, and it is. further, whatever stories about suppression are coming out, it seems like a lot of independent voters found a way to cast a ballot. so, my corrections have proven unnecessary.

this is not the first state where pre-polling amongst blacks is inconsistent with exit polling. i think it may be worthwhile to question whether there's a bias at play. the numbers demonstrate a strange lack of variation, despite wild variation in polling.

1) the polling suggested that clinton should win blacks handily in michigan. the exit polling was 70/30.
2) the polling suggested that it should be pretty close in illinois. exit polling was 70/30.
3) some polling suggested sanders might even win blacks in wisconsin. exit polling was 70/30.

?

it takes a certain mindset to do an exit poll. i don't want to speculate too heavily, other than to suggest that the exit polling seems suspect. i mean, if the polls were consistent, fine. but they're not. and, there's no particularly logical reason for this racial split, either - if anything, there's a better argument that it's irrational to vote for clinton if you're black (given her history). the polls suggesting more variation make more sense. but, it's prudent to look for some kind of real bias before you start concluding that some centralized body refuses to let the number slip below 70.

conclusion: i was pessimistic about the process and revised the numbers down due to perceived corruption by the party. that corruption appears to have either/both not been present and/or overwhelmed by turnout. i did point out that this is the only tactic, but that the party would go out of it's way to counter it. but, it seems like it didn't. for whatever reason. this does not imply anything at all about previous or future states. the numbers may still tighten, too.

regarding the delegate math: i always assumed a virtual split in wisconsin, and given that you're looking at +/- ten delegates over a wide range of outcomes, almost any conceivable result would really be equivalent. i think they're still figuring out washington? but, i said close to 200, going into new york. if he can get 10 in wyoming and more than 10 in wisconsin, you're looking at 200-210 going into new york. that's about right...

but, he still has to win new york. and convincingly.

i also want to point out that the republicans currently have 100,000 more votes than the democrats do.

in wisconsin.

has wisconsin joined the dark side? not likely. more likely is that clinton supporters are interfering with the republican primary process, to try and stop trump.

...or even just to set up a more favourable matchup, for themselves.

i'm going to again point out, though, that there was sufficient polling done in wisconsin to have caught a funny outcome, if one was attempted.

maybe that had something to do with the apparent cleanness of the results there. or, maybe it's just wisconsin living up to it's reputation. who knows.

i know i'd like to see more polling done at the same frequency for future states, please.

03/04-04-2016: before and after son lux

concert footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JovyZbjJIlI

review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/04/04.html

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

shit hillary said vol 20

"This deal must come with vigorous enforcement, strong monitoring, clear consequences for any violations and a broader strategy to confront Iran’s aggression across the region. "

j reacts to the ramifications of a clinton presidency in terms of building global trust

if i were iran, and i calculated that the next president was almost certain to be clinton, i would deduce that the agreement would not be upheld in washington and take steps to immediately negate it.

it's not just the american people that don't trust clinton. she has her global allies, sure. but her presidency will have some pretty severe consequences in terms of relationships with a host of unfriendly nations: the russians don't trust her, the chinese think she wants to contain them, etc.

i would expect the russians to start ripping thing up soon, too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/04/04/obama-increasingly-isolated-on-iran-giveaways/

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

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

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

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.

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.

shit hillary said vol 19

"We came, we saw, he died", followed by an evil villain laugh.

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."

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

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.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/03/new-york-election-fraud-voter-registration-not-enrolled-in-a-party-dropped-sanders-clinton-democrat-what-to-do-how-vote-suppression/

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-wins-nevada-democratic-caucus/

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

01-04-2016: a pleasant day!

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

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

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/

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."

shit hillary said vol 16

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno

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

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

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

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

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.

30-03-2016: new end-of-month recipe?

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

shit hillary said vol 15

"I'm a heart liberal, but a mind conservative."

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."

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

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

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.

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.

29-03-2016: badly distracted all day [g&m account cleared]

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

j reacts to the jian ghomeshi verdict (and the normalization of vigilante justice)