it's noon, but i've been up all night and should be tired. as it is, i can't sleep.
so, i want to make some distant comments on the roman-britney-fousey triangle, if you want to call it that. i don't know the precise details, other than that it's obvious at this point that britney & fousey are openly fucking & roman is basically in shock as to how to deal with it.
i know these are real people. vlogging this kind of thing in real time must be horrific. but, they've chosen this lifestyle and the trauma that comes with it. and, from my perspective it's actually hard to even see them as real people, even though i'm aware that this is exactly what they are. i have to interpret them as characters...
certain details are important if you want to get into the granular details. like i say: i don't know what happened. did an initial threesome lead to roman watching his girlfriend orgasm for the first time in her life, and then that lead to repeat encounters without him? did behind-his-back frolicking get to the point where everybody knew except him? did anybody bother to actually tell him? these are all gutwrenching scenarios for the guy, and if you have any empathy at all you should recoil. but, watch the last week's worth of vlogs from fousey and the last week of vlogs from roman - where they weren't aborted. there should be little doubt about the basic narrative. the mysteries are in the precise details.
but, those precise details don't matter for what i'm about to say.
the obvious takeaway is that:
1) fousey is a piece of shit.
2) britney is a slut.
3) roman is a moron.
the point that i want to make is that this is a backwards analysis. i don't want to attack our nature as deprived. i want to suggest that we're unrealistic about who and what we are.
how did the three of them find themselves in a situation in the first place where two of them wanted to fuck and the third is somehow an interested party? see, that is the problem, here. it's not that a relationship was broken, it's that a relationship existed. what is the use in erecting these arbitrary concepts of monogamy, glorifying them as desirable ends and then attacking each other for failing to live up to them? in a real sense, it's a tempest in a teapot.
i know that doesn't make the situation any easier to watch. roman is a likeable guy. he only has himself to blame, here. how many times did she broadcast to him that he needs to take better care of himself, only for him to ignore it over and over? and, if you watch the vlogs, you can see that he has control issues. he routinely uploads footage of his girlfriend rejecting his advances. why does he need to put him hitting on her on youtube in the first place? the reason is to broadcast that control. so, he has nobody to blame but himself when she makes a scene about undoing it.
i don't know how much of this will end up on the internet. fousey doesn't seem to want to date her - he just wants to fuck her. she may have been misled, intentionally or not. roman may be fool enough to look the other way. if that happens, it will manifest itself elsewhere. they're done.
but, if this does explode as it is and you take the time to analyze the situation carefully rather than through kneejerk emotional responses, i think there's a lot to learn from the situation as a microcosm of human behaviour. i don't have interest in their vlogs, but the dynamics of this is a long-running plot line going back a good ways and it has captured me. so, just try to approach what unfolds through the lens of cause and effect rather than pass judgement based on arbitrary and largely deprecated concepts of morals.
Friday, August 19, 2016
j reacts to an example of how trudeau is opening a clean system to rampant corruption
but, this is exactly what i was saying about these "independent, non-partisan" bodies.
as usual, the tories are clueless, or at least pretending to be. the issue here isn't the independence of the board. that's just typical right-wing bloviating. the problem here is the independence of the board. if we had less independence, we would have more oversight, and what's happening would be essentially impossible.
the whole point of setting up an independent advisory board like this is so that you can put a lobbyist on it. if you left the process inside of government, you'd have to put a public servant in charge that is either elected or promoted. "independence" means removing oversight and making corruption easier.
it's not even the money that's the problem, it's the fact that they're selling off the seat at the table. what concerns me is the consequences of that influence peddling. when you put a lawyer on an environmental board, they themselves are doing the work of their clients. and, you don't have to read the article to know who that would be.
you can argue this is how government works, and i'm actually going to agree with you to an extent. but, there's lines. they're doing this for the fucking supreme court. and, that must be fought against.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environmental-assessment-panel-liberal-donors-1.3726695
in order to minimize corruption, the board should be run by career civil servants. says who? pierre elliot trudeau.
that was the major thrust of his government, and it's been undone in months by his idiot son.
you cannot blame a fool for being a fool. i again call on the party to send him on vacation...
the system of government that pierre trudeau set up in canada was designed explicitly to prevent this from happening. it was a kind of a twist on the marxist concept of the state withering away. and, so when justin trudeau talks about removing the partisanship from government, there is some ideological continuity - in theory. it's just that in the name of non-partisanship, justin trudeau is doing exactly what his father tried to prevent from happening.
think about it for a second. what is less partisan: the civil service, which exists independent of parliament, or an "independent advisory board" that is picked by the prime minister?
but, again, i don't want to throw orwell at you. i really don't. ok - maybe somewhere in his staff of advisers, there's somebody with a warped sense of humour and a lot of bad intentions. but, i think his intentions are actually extremely pure. i really don't think he's corrupt. i just think he's really fucking stupid.
what pierre trudeau imagined was that by this point in time we would have a civil service that was dominant in society and operated largely independently from parliamentary oversight, with it's primary check on power coming from the judiciary. that would reduce the parliament to a kind of minarchist distraction, responsible for setting the direction of policy but not the policy itself.
he wanted a government run by social scientists, not politicians. again: it's basically marxist in concept. and, ironically, what we're seeing from his son is exactly the reason why...
if you listen to justin, you can hear that he sat at the dinner table and listened to his dad talk quite a bit. the same broad themes are present. it's just that he demonstrates essentially no understanding of what he's saying - and his policies uphold the accusation.
tersely: if you set up an "independent body" to overrule the civil service, which is actually already independent of parliament by design, then what you are doing is abolishing the independence of the decision making process and concentrating power in the pmo.
what "independent" means in context is "independent of the independent body", which by definition means dependent on the party.
it's literally a direct undoing of his father's legacy. but, i really think it's legitimately unintentional.
what he knows are the buzz words. he doesn't know the details. and, apparently, neither do his advisers.
that's not justin, it's his little brother michel.
http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/margaret-trudeau-fidel-castro.jpg?quality=65&strip=all
that's the elder trudeau.
it's not hyperbole. trudeauism is legitimately a branch of marxism. it's a mixed economy. and, it seeks to have the state wither away on the path to communism.
it was very popular, here. and i'm an advocate of it as an excellent compromise.
it's sad to see what's happening. but, there's no reason to think it's irreversible.
https://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/pierre-trudeau-fidel-castro.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=940&h=705
as usual, the tories are clueless, or at least pretending to be. the issue here isn't the independence of the board. that's just typical right-wing bloviating. the problem here is the independence of the board. if we had less independence, we would have more oversight, and what's happening would be essentially impossible.
the whole point of setting up an independent advisory board like this is so that you can put a lobbyist on it. if you left the process inside of government, you'd have to put a public servant in charge that is either elected or promoted. "independence" means removing oversight and making corruption easier.
it's not even the money that's the problem, it's the fact that they're selling off the seat at the table. what concerns me is the consequences of that influence peddling. when you put a lawyer on an environmental board, they themselves are doing the work of their clients. and, you don't have to read the article to know who that would be.
you can argue this is how government works, and i'm actually going to agree with you to an extent. but, there's lines. they're doing this for the fucking supreme court. and, that must be fought against.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environmental-assessment-panel-liberal-donors-1.3726695
in order to minimize corruption, the board should be run by career civil servants. says who? pierre elliot trudeau.
that was the major thrust of his government, and it's been undone in months by his idiot son.
you cannot blame a fool for being a fool. i again call on the party to send him on vacation...
the system of government that pierre trudeau set up in canada was designed explicitly to prevent this from happening. it was a kind of a twist on the marxist concept of the state withering away. and, so when justin trudeau talks about removing the partisanship from government, there is some ideological continuity - in theory. it's just that in the name of non-partisanship, justin trudeau is doing exactly what his father tried to prevent from happening.
think about it for a second. what is less partisan: the civil service, which exists independent of parliament, or an "independent advisory board" that is picked by the prime minister?
but, again, i don't want to throw orwell at you. i really don't. ok - maybe somewhere in his staff of advisers, there's somebody with a warped sense of humour and a lot of bad intentions. but, i think his intentions are actually extremely pure. i really don't think he's corrupt. i just think he's really fucking stupid.
what pierre trudeau imagined was that by this point in time we would have a civil service that was dominant in society and operated largely independently from parliamentary oversight, with it's primary check on power coming from the judiciary. that would reduce the parliament to a kind of minarchist distraction, responsible for setting the direction of policy but not the policy itself.
he wanted a government run by social scientists, not politicians. again: it's basically marxist in concept. and, ironically, what we're seeing from his son is exactly the reason why...
if you listen to justin, you can hear that he sat at the dinner table and listened to his dad talk quite a bit. the same broad themes are present. it's just that he demonstrates essentially no understanding of what he's saying - and his policies uphold the accusation.
tersely: if you set up an "independent body" to overrule the civil service, which is actually already independent of parliament by design, then what you are doing is abolishing the independence of the decision making process and concentrating power in the pmo.
what "independent" means in context is "independent of the independent body", which by definition means dependent on the party.
it's literally a direct undoing of his father's legacy. but, i really think it's legitimately unintentional.
what he knows are the buzz words. he doesn't know the details. and, apparently, neither do his advisers.
that's not justin, it's his little brother michel.
http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/margaret-trudeau-fidel-castro.jpg?quality=65&strip=all
that's the elder trudeau.
it's not hyperbole. trudeauism is legitimately a branch of marxism. it's a mixed economy. and, it seeks to have the state wither away on the path to communism.
it was very popular, here. and i'm an advocate of it as an excellent compromise.
it's sad to see what's happening. but, there's no reason to think it's irreversible.
https://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/pierre-trudeau-fidel-castro.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=940&h=705
well, ok. i'm actually a fan of ralph goodale. and, this is more along the lines of the kind of thing i actually expected.
now, let's hope the pmo stays out of the way. we don't need any "independent advisory committees" staffed by conservatives, here. the liberal party is more than capable of governing on it's own.
https://ipolitics.ca/2016/08/16/c-51-review-expected-to-launch-before-parliament-resumes/
they should send justin out surfing and just tell him to sign what ralph brings to the table.
now, let's hope the pmo stays out of the way. we don't need any "independent advisory committees" staffed by conservatives, here. the liberal party is more than capable of governing on it's own.
https://ipolitics.ca/2016/08/16/c-51-review-expected-to-launch-before-parliament-resumes/
they should send justin out surfing and just tell him to sign what ralph brings to the table.
alter-reality update
august 19, 1996
that was a lot longer between updates than expected, but i have good news - the room is finished and i've largely taken it over. i've been trying to find some friends to come down and jam but have been completely unsuccessful in convincing anybody. well, the truth is that there are at most three people on the planet that would admit to being a friend of mine, and none of them seriously want to play music. one of them is a skateboarder kid that i've known since the third grade and just listens to trendy hip-hop. we don't have much in common except that we went to a small school and have just kind of clung together as a consequence of it. there's some concept of trust there, at least, and sometimes that can be mutually reassuring. the other is a bmx kid that's into punk rock (sort of - i question his authenticity), but he has the attention span of a gnat and just could not make it through anything. i'm only really friends with him because of the assigned seating at school and, ironically, because i'm old friends with the other kid. they have a lot more in common with each other and get along better with each other. i'm kind of more of a conduit. i don't begrudge them - good for them. i'm happy i helped them find each other. it's more that i don't really know why i stick around with them, except that there's safety in some numbers. the other option is to turn myself into a sitting duck for bullies. again: at least there's some concept of trust with these two. but, they're the kind of teenagers that want to play outside on their boards/bikes or stay in and play video games. there's just no interest in any kind of art. i did ask the bmx kid already to try out the drums, and he just kind of laughed at me, as though he was obviously incapable. he said he didn't want me to yell at him for sucking. to be honest, i think he's right to react that way!
that's not to say that they don't respect my craft on some level. you have to remember that, while i'm only 15, i've been playing guitar for a long time, already. i can pick up just about anything in the style i like, which is broadly categorized as alternative/grunge. i'm truly pretty impressive for my age. but, for them, that's more intimidating than reassuring, especially considering that they can't put it into context. further, i don't have a reputation for patience. so, they can tell ahead of time what this is going to be like - i'm going to yell at them for not being able to keep up, and they're going to get frustrated and give up. then, i'm going to pout. again: they're right. that's exactly what would happen...
the third kid is a little more promising. he's a big marilyn manson fan and seems to legitimately want to start a punk band. i don't really like marilyn manson, but i am a really big nine inch nails fan and i like punk, too, so surely we can find some common ground. the problem is that he's kind of flaky. he wants to play bass, but he's more concerned about the image involved in getting a "goth guitar" than he is in getting something that sounds good. he's also stood me up a few times, already. so, i don't know if i can really rely on him. he seems like the type that would get bored and give up really easily if it doesn't immediately work out. i don't think he really wants to just jam...
i'm kind of thinking that it might be a better idea to just start recording on my own. i mean, none of these kids can play anything. at all. i can probably play drums better than the bmx kid, anyways. i'm sure i can play bass better than the goth kid - that's not even a serious question. i have this room here, and i'm in it quite a bit. why am i waiting for other people? why don't i just record the parts myself? if trent reznor and billy corgan can do it, why can't i?
speaking of the room, perhaps i should describe it. i wish i had a camera, but i wouldn't know how to get it on the internet, anyways. dad says you need a 'scanner', but i don't know what that is.
i've had a subscription to guitar world for a few years, now. it was a christmas present. well, she offered me national geographic - and i do legitimately like to read up on science - but i requested the guitar world because i thought i'd get more out of it. so, i had about fifty magazines to cut & paste into a collage to spread across the wall, which is now full of alternative rock icons.
in one corner of the room, there's a table with a luxman receiver connected to a tascam four-track that was borrowed from my dad's friend, larry. the tascam connects to a mixdown tape deck through the luxman. larry also left an acoustic guitar and an mxr phaser down here. he said he doesn't play van halen any more and the phaser is cheesy, otherwise. personally, i can't tell the difference between his phaser and the flanger in my multi-effects unit but i'm told there's an engineering difference in the effects.
as for my guitar setup, i really have everything i need to record in a small space. i'm on my second guitar, now, which is an entry level ibanez with a locking bridge. i moved up a little while back from your standard piece of shit hondo. the ibanez has a three-way selector switch and a very clean signal, which are things that i like, but there's also a knot in the neck that was lacquered over at the store and has become somewhat of a splinter hazard. there's some fret wear, too. believe it or not, sometimes the problems with the guitar make me miss my old hondo! but, the important thing is that it sounds good through the signal path, which is into a zoom 1010 multieffects unit and out into a cheri practice amplifier. the amp came with my first guitar, whereas i purchased the multieffects unit in 1995 with combined christmas money.
there is an electric bass on the table behind the recording devices. there are no speakers in the room, but there is a pair of sennheiser 440-II headphones. dad said they're awesome headphones and i should 'baby' them so they last. there are two microphones in this room, connected to sponges to deaden the sound. and, there is for real a drum kit in the other corner of the room along with a selection of sticks and a pair of brushes. the space in between is very cramped - we could fit at most two adults in here, and at most four kids. nor is there any ventilation (as it was designed to be sound proof), so it gets very hot with the equipment, very fast. i'll admit that i've overheated and had to leave the room a couple of times...
so, i've been down here all night playing guitar for most of the month. sometimes i'm practicing other people's music, and sometimes i'm playing my own. while i haven't started to do any recording yet, because i want to wait to find people to play with, i've been mapping out a number of songs using a combination of tablature and notation on some left over loose leaf from last year. i have a lot of music already written, some of it going back to 1994. i even have some notes that i wrote back in 1994. it's all carefully organized in a binder, waiting to be actualized.
but, am i ever going to find anybody to jam with? what if i don't? i'm really seriously considering just starting to record by myself. then, maybe, i can teach the parts to other people, after. do you think that's a good idea?
i also picked up the new white zombie record, which is a remix record. i'm not a really big white zombie fan, but i do enjoy their other records and i reasoned that experimental remixes of white zombie songs would have to be really amazing to hear. so, i was hoping it would be a little more abstract, like those crazy nine inch nails remix records that i really like. on first listen, i found it to be too techno for me but it's grown on me a little and i think that it's really flat out demented qualities may prove it to be somewhat of a keeper, in the long run. what do you think?
http://therealinri.blogspot.ca/1996/08/the-logistics-around-finding-ways-to.html
the logistics around finding ways to create some supersexy swingin' sounds of my own
that was a lot longer between updates than expected, but i have good news - the room is finished and i've largely taken it over. i've been trying to find some friends to come down and jam but have been completely unsuccessful in convincing anybody. well, the truth is that there are at most three people on the planet that would admit to being a friend of mine, and none of them seriously want to play music. one of them is a skateboarder kid that i've known since the third grade and just listens to trendy hip-hop. we don't have much in common except that we went to a small school and have just kind of clung together as a consequence of it. there's some concept of trust there, at least, and sometimes that can be mutually reassuring. the other is a bmx kid that's into punk rock (sort of - i question his authenticity), but he has the attention span of a gnat and just could not make it through anything. i'm only really friends with him because of the assigned seating at school and, ironically, because i'm old friends with the other kid. they have a lot more in common with each other and get along better with each other. i'm kind of more of a conduit. i don't begrudge them - good for them. i'm happy i helped them find each other. it's more that i don't really know why i stick around with them, except that there's safety in some numbers. the other option is to turn myself into a sitting duck for bullies. again: at least there's some concept of trust with these two. but, they're the kind of teenagers that want to play outside on their boards/bikes or stay in and play video games. there's just no interest in any kind of art. i did ask the bmx kid already to try out the drums, and he just kind of laughed at me, as though he was obviously incapable. he said he didn't want me to yell at him for sucking. to be honest, i think he's right to react that way!
that's not to say that they don't respect my craft on some level. you have to remember that, while i'm only 15, i've been playing guitar for a long time, already. i can pick up just about anything in the style i like, which is broadly categorized as alternative/grunge. i'm truly pretty impressive for my age. but, for them, that's more intimidating than reassuring, especially considering that they can't put it into context. further, i don't have a reputation for patience. so, they can tell ahead of time what this is going to be like - i'm going to yell at them for not being able to keep up, and they're going to get frustrated and give up. then, i'm going to pout. again: they're right. that's exactly what would happen...
the third kid is a little more promising. he's a big marilyn manson fan and seems to legitimately want to start a punk band. i don't really like marilyn manson, but i am a really big nine inch nails fan and i like punk, too, so surely we can find some common ground. the problem is that he's kind of flaky. he wants to play bass, but he's more concerned about the image involved in getting a "goth guitar" than he is in getting something that sounds good. he's also stood me up a few times, already. so, i don't know if i can really rely on him. he seems like the type that would get bored and give up really easily if it doesn't immediately work out. i don't think he really wants to just jam...
i'm kind of thinking that it might be a better idea to just start recording on my own. i mean, none of these kids can play anything. at all. i can probably play drums better than the bmx kid, anyways. i'm sure i can play bass better than the goth kid - that's not even a serious question. i have this room here, and i'm in it quite a bit. why am i waiting for other people? why don't i just record the parts myself? if trent reznor and billy corgan can do it, why can't i?
speaking of the room, perhaps i should describe it. i wish i had a camera, but i wouldn't know how to get it on the internet, anyways. dad says you need a 'scanner', but i don't know what that is.
i've had a subscription to guitar world for a few years, now. it was a christmas present. well, she offered me national geographic - and i do legitimately like to read up on science - but i requested the guitar world because i thought i'd get more out of it. so, i had about fifty magazines to cut & paste into a collage to spread across the wall, which is now full of alternative rock icons.
in one corner of the room, there's a table with a luxman receiver connected to a tascam four-track that was borrowed from my dad's friend, larry. the tascam connects to a mixdown tape deck through the luxman. larry also left an acoustic guitar and an mxr phaser down here. he said he doesn't play van halen any more and the phaser is cheesy, otherwise. personally, i can't tell the difference between his phaser and the flanger in my multi-effects unit but i'm told there's an engineering difference in the effects.
as for my guitar setup, i really have everything i need to record in a small space. i'm on my second guitar, now, which is an entry level ibanez with a locking bridge. i moved up a little while back from your standard piece of shit hondo. the ibanez has a three-way selector switch and a very clean signal, which are things that i like, but there's also a knot in the neck that was lacquered over at the store and has become somewhat of a splinter hazard. there's some fret wear, too. believe it or not, sometimes the problems with the guitar make me miss my old hondo! but, the important thing is that it sounds good through the signal path, which is into a zoom 1010 multieffects unit and out into a cheri practice amplifier. the amp came with my first guitar, whereas i purchased the multieffects unit in 1995 with combined christmas money.
there is an electric bass on the table behind the recording devices. there are no speakers in the room, but there is a pair of sennheiser 440-II headphones. dad said they're awesome headphones and i should 'baby' them so they last. there are two microphones in this room, connected to sponges to deaden the sound. and, there is for real a drum kit in the other corner of the room along with a selection of sticks and a pair of brushes. the space in between is very cramped - we could fit at most two adults in here, and at most four kids. nor is there any ventilation (as it was designed to be sound proof), so it gets very hot with the equipment, very fast. i'll admit that i've overheated and had to leave the room a couple of times...
so, i've been down here all night playing guitar for most of the month. sometimes i'm practicing other people's music, and sometimes i'm playing my own. while i haven't started to do any recording yet, because i want to wait to find people to play with, i've been mapping out a number of songs using a combination of tablature and notation on some left over loose leaf from last year. i have a lot of music already written, some of it going back to 1994. i even have some notes that i wrote back in 1994. it's all carefully organized in a binder, waiting to be actualized.
but, am i ever going to find anybody to jam with? what if i don't? i'm really seriously considering just starting to record by myself. then, maybe, i can teach the parts to other people, after. do you think that's a good idea?
i also picked up the new white zombie record, which is a remix record. i'm not a really big white zombie fan, but i do enjoy their other records and i reasoned that experimental remixes of white zombie songs would have to be really amazing to hear. so, i was hoping it would be a little more abstract, like those crazy nine inch nails remix records that i really like. on first listen, i found it to be too techno for me but it's grown on me a little and i think that it's really flat out demented qualities may prove it to be somewhat of a keeper, in the long run. what do you think?
http://therealinri.blogspot.ca/1996/08/the-logistics-around-finding-ways-to.html
Thursday, August 18, 2016
we're simply not post-racial, yet. and, i'll be the first to push back against the idea that we're post-gender. but, we've certainly made enough process that i'm going to get flat out hostile with anybody that starts throwing around appeals to gender in this election cycle.
i'm talking about things like "women need to stick together". fuck off. leave your knitting club in the nineteenth century. fuck the groupthink: assert your individuality. use your own brain. don't let others think for you.
it hasn't been bad, yet. i'm seeing signs. stop. and, i'd actually like to hear some leadership from the candidate on this point.
i'm talking about things like "women need to stick together". fuck off. leave your knitting club in the nineteenth century. fuck the groupthink: assert your individuality. use your own brain. don't let others think for you.
it hasn't been bad, yet. i'm seeing signs. stop. and, i'd actually like to hear some leadership from the candidate on this point.
j reacts to the rare election poll from pew
pew research is not an unbiased source - their international polling is often done on behalf of intelligence interests - but they are a bit of a special case in the sense that they have a specialized audience.
when a media institution does a poll, it's intended audience is it's readers and so you need to mentally adjust for the various biases. when pew does a poll, the intended audience is....how to say this...washington. "serious people". they consequently have a heightened level of importance.
that doesn't mean they're more right. it just means that the results reflect what a component of the inside wants another component of the inside to think.
trump at 37 is not particular impressive. but, clinton at 41 is surprisingly low.
it's curious to me that pew's results are quite similar to breitbart's, given that this was the poll that breitbart apparently commissioned to "correct the skew".
when a media institution does a poll, it's intended audience is it's readers and so you need to mentally adjust for the various biases. when pew does a poll, the intended audience is....how to say this...washington. "serious people". they consequently have a heightened level of importance.
that doesn't mean they're more right. it just means that the results reflect what a component of the inside wants another component of the inside to think.
trump at 37 is not particular impressive. but, clinton at 41 is surprisingly low.
it's curious to me that pew's results are quite similar to breitbart's, given that this was the poll that breitbart apparently commissioned to "correct the skew".
do we still seriously doubt that anything besides flooding was the dominant factor?
well, first of all let's take a moment to reflect that almost nobody knows that st. louis was conquered and renamed rather than settled.
but, i think we have enough background now to realize that this is going to be a challenging region to settle, long term. floods. tornadoes. kind of makes migrating seem rational, huh?
i don't mean to trivialize what's happening in the delta. but, if you live there, you might want to get out before you drown. this is now a persistent problem that is not going to get better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
well, first of all let's take a moment to reflect that almost nobody knows that st. louis was conquered and renamed rather than settled.
but, i think we have enough background now to realize that this is going to be a challenging region to settle, long term. floods. tornadoes. kind of makes migrating seem rational, huh?
i don't mean to trivialize what's happening in the delta. but, if you live there, you might want to get out before you drown. this is now a persistent problem that is not going to get better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
most police officers i've met should consider it an honour to be elevated to the role of social worker.
we need less thugs on patrol and more social programs that get at root causes. what a frustrating headline.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-dallas-poverty-idUSKCN10Q0VE?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=morefromreuters
we need less thugs on patrol and more social programs that get at root causes. what a frustrating headline.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-dallas-poverty-idUSKCN10Q0VE?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=morefromreuters
my perspective - and i've actually stated this repeatedly - is that open racism is actually trump's best, only chance. he had a decent tactic with libertarians at one point, but the window is long closed.
i've said this about hillary a bunch of times, too. i don't like what he's doing. but, it's actually his best move - so long as he's setting the audience up for something. all the hate and crazy on it's own will sputter out to nowhere. it needs the visual.
keep an eye out for it, and...
see, the best way to stop it from working is to plant the seed. now who's the conspiracy theorist?
madness. but, with these candidates, it could be nothing else.
i've said this about hillary a bunch of times, too. i don't like what he's doing. but, it's actually his best move - so long as he's setting the audience up for something. all the hate and crazy on it's own will sputter out to nowhere. it needs the visual.
keep an eye out for it, and...
see, the best way to stop it from working is to plant the seed. now who's the conspiracy theorist?
madness. but, with these candidates, it could be nothing else.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
neo-conservatism.
discuss.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-case-for-elizabeth-may-as-the-next-ndp-leader/article31411637/
there's been talk of the ndp changing their name. i've got a great idea: the new conservative party.
....but c is always bad news in any acronym, due to the existence of the word clown. and they have to win before they can start removing things from the dictionary. foiled...
she can't run the ndp. she's pro-life. it's a non-starter. i've been over this. she'll never win the nomination, she'll just create a movement against her.
this is actually a really good record.
"if you hate america so much, why don't you leave?"
this guy took 'em up on it and went backpacking through asia. landed in borneo, and hitchhiked to turkey. he wrote a concept record about it...
you may remember him from the band cop shoot cop, which showed up at the tail end of the no wave moment. or maybe not. it's more of a psychedelic pop record, with a big world music feel. well, he was backpacking through asia...
discuss.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-case-for-elizabeth-may-as-the-next-ndp-leader/article31411637/
there's been talk of the ndp changing their name. i've got a great idea: the new conservative party.
....but c is always bad news in any acronym, due to the existence of the word clown. and they have to win before they can start removing things from the dictionary. foiled...
she can't run the ndp. she's pro-life. it's a non-starter. i've been over this. she'll never win the nomination, she'll just create a movement against her.
this is actually a really good record.
"if you hate america so much, why don't you leave?"
this guy took 'em up on it and went backpacking through asia. landed in borneo, and hitchhiked to turkey. he wrote a concept record about it...
you may remember him from the band cop shoot cop, which showed up at the tail end of the no wave moment. or maybe not. it's more of a psychedelic pop record, with a big world music feel. well, he was backpacking through asia...
it was always intended to be a way to get people back and forth from the hockey arena, and little else.
https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2016/01/18/lets-be-honest-detroits-m-1-rail-is-shaping-up-to-be-a-streetcar-that-leaves-much-to-be-desired
https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2016/01/18/lets-be-honest-detroits-m-1-rail-is-shaping-up-to-be-a-streetcar-that-leaves-much-to-be-desired
j reacts to trump's likely reaction to his wife's immigration status being a liability
if donald trump thinks his wife is a liability, he'll just get a new wife.
i'm not really trying to draw a contrast or pass a judgement. i'm just saying.
"get her out of here!"
i'm not really trying to draw a contrast or pass a judgement. i'm just saying.
"get her out of here!"
fuse situation less urgent (still would be nice to fix soon...)
hi.
it turns out the outlets around the stove are on the stove breaker. so, i dragged the fridge across the kitchen and also moved the internet into the kitchen. i guess i'll want to avoid making eggs until it's back up. but, that means that the immediate concern is not pressing and i can wait it out. although, i mean....it's out everywhere except those two outlets around the stove. it's not a good situation. it's just not urgent anymore.
i'm assuming it''s the fuse. i don't know, really. i know i heard something pop when the microwave was at 0:01, and then everything was out.
j
it turns out the outlets around the stove are on the stove breaker. so, i dragged the fridge across the kitchen and also moved the internet into the kitchen. i guess i'll want to avoid making eggs until it's back up. but, that means that the immediate concern is not pressing and i can wait it out. although, i mean....it's out everywhere except those two outlets around the stove. it's not a good situation. it's just not urgent anymore.
i'm assuming it''s the fuse. i don't know, really. i know i heard something pop when the microwave was at 0:01, and then everything was out.
j
i think i blew a fuse down here this evening. around 7ish. i thought i was done for the night. but, it turns out that the breaker around the stove is still up. i only have one way on to the internet down here...
i could live for a few hours without the internet. i mean, i've chosen not to. but i'd be ok. i'm more relived by getting the fridge plugged back in (by dragging it across the kitchen...).
that just means that i'm that much further behind. but it's a minor annoyance, really, in the bigger scheme.
i'm hoping to get most of the sansa listening done tonight, so i can finish it up tomorrow.
i could live for a few hours without the internet. i mean, i've chosen not to. but i'd be ok. i'm more relived by getting the fridge plugged back in (by dragging it across the kitchen...).
that just means that i'm that much further behind. but it's a minor annoyance, really, in the bigger scheme.
i'm hoping to get most of the sansa listening done tonight, so i can finish it up tomorrow.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
j reacts to trudeau not picking his battles well and wasting everybody's time
i'm confused. what does this "terrorist attack" have to do with the constitutionality of the legislation?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-c51-terrorism-balance-rights-security-1.3723167
if it was unconstitutional last year, surely it remains unconstitutional today.
??
i mean, unless the constitution was changed at some point when we weren't paying attention.....!?
forget the ndp. the only way anything gets done in this country is through the courts. let's get a constitutional challenge, please.
i need to be clear: current events don't affect the constitutionality of the legislation.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/c-51-sees-charter-challenge-from-civil-liberties-press-freedom-advocates-1.3161435
"The lawsuit is now on hold in court pending a response from the government."
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/cjfe/2016/07/one-year-after-initiating-charter-challenge-cjfe-renews-campaign-to-revi
the last government didn't want to follow the constitution, and got gutted by the courts over and over.
it seems like this government doesn't want to follow the constitution and will get gutted by the courts over and over.
hopefully, the next government will have more respect for the constitution. if not...
you don't overrule the constitution with identity politics and appeals to authority. the prime minister is neither king nor president. the office is not above the rule of law. nor does canada have any legal concept of an "executive order".
there is no choice in the matter. if he does not want to follow the rule of law, he must resign or be removed.
we don't need to change the way the senate operates, or the way the supreme court is chosen. but, i would support legislation to reduce the power of the prime minister's office and essentially abolish the application of executive power.
good.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/toronto-lawyer-watching-trudeaus-supreme-court-pick-closely/article31440520/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-c51-terrorism-balance-rights-security-1.3723167
if it was unconstitutional last year, surely it remains unconstitutional today.
??
i mean, unless the constitution was changed at some point when we weren't paying attention.....!?
forget the ndp. the only way anything gets done in this country is through the courts. let's get a constitutional challenge, please.
i need to be clear: current events don't affect the constitutionality of the legislation.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/c-51-sees-charter-challenge-from-civil-liberties-press-freedom-advocates-1.3161435
"The lawsuit is now on hold in court pending a response from the government."
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/cjfe/2016/07/one-year-after-initiating-charter-challenge-cjfe-renews-campaign-to-revi
the last government didn't want to follow the constitution, and got gutted by the courts over and over.
it seems like this government doesn't want to follow the constitution and will get gutted by the courts over and over.
hopefully, the next government will have more respect for the constitution. if not...
you don't overrule the constitution with identity politics and appeals to authority. the prime minister is neither king nor president. the office is not above the rule of law. nor does canada have any legal concept of an "executive order".
there is no choice in the matter. if he does not want to follow the rule of law, he must resign or be removed.
we don't need to change the way the senate operates, or the way the supreme court is chosen. but, i would support legislation to reduce the power of the prime minister's office and essentially abolish the application of executive power.
good.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/toronto-lawyer-watching-trudeaus-supreme-court-pick-closely/article31440520/
Aetna says it lost money in the Obamacare marketplaces because the people who signed up were sicker than expected. And while most insurers did expect sicker patients to sign up early — those who needed care the most would likely be Obamacare’s most enthusiastic customers — Aetna’s struggles haven’t improved. The insurer says its membership population actually got sicker in 2016.
--
you have no idea how absurd this entire conversation is to anybody outside the united states.
gingrichcare was never a good idea. it didn't matter who the spokesperson was, or how it was tweaked. it was always just a fundamentally incoherent way to provide health care.
i don't like market theory in it's most neutral applications. but, the right way to understand markets in the context of health care is that the product undermines the market. it's simply never going to make sense to have a market in health care....
it's single payer or barbarism. it really is.
--
you have no idea how absurd this entire conversation is to anybody outside the united states.
gingrichcare was never a good idea. it didn't matter who the spokesperson was, or how it was tweaked. it was always just a fundamentally incoherent way to provide health care.
i don't like market theory in it's most neutral applications. but, the right way to understand markets in the context of health care is that the product undermines the market. it's simply never going to make sense to have a market in health care....
it's single payer or barbarism. it really is.
j reacts to twitter use as trump's tragic flaw (and if he's right about being defamed)
this article is a lot of words to miss the basic point trump was getting across. it's focusing on the question of whether the lie was intentional, as though the crime is in the dishonesty. the crime of course is in the malice. you have to intentionally misconstrue in order to be malicious. but, it's the malice that is the crime - and the existence of harm that is the test.
our legal system is not a sunday school. you are not punished for doing wrong. rather, you are required to compensate those whom you do financial harm to. there's no moral question, here. it's dollars and cents.
the actual problem here is the character limit that twitter pushes down, which is forcing trump to truncate his arguments in such a way that they can be misinterpreted essentially at will. one of the best things he can do for himself at this point is to move to a platform that doesn't have character limits. this should be a lesson for future candidates, as well. it's practically an algorithm to be taken out of context.
had trump said "It is not ‘freedom of the press’ when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want with the intent to harm me, in contempt of the truth !"
...then he would be right. which is of course what he means to say. nobody thinks the media is neutral.
the bottom line is that i've seen quite a few stories that he would be right to launch legal action against, and would probably win compensation regarding if he did. this is not in the realm of discourse, and does not provide a reason to vote for him. but, he is raising a very valid concern about the level of discourse and the role that an incompetent media can play in the election cycle.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/
fwiw, this is the exact, precise reason that i have refused to use twitter from day one. this is the only twitter profile i've ever created.
https://twitter.com/dgkfgjklgjkgjka
our legal system is not a sunday school. you are not punished for doing wrong. rather, you are required to compensate those whom you do financial harm to. there's no moral question, here. it's dollars and cents.
the actual problem here is the character limit that twitter pushes down, which is forcing trump to truncate his arguments in such a way that they can be misinterpreted essentially at will. one of the best things he can do for himself at this point is to move to a platform that doesn't have character limits. this should be a lesson for future candidates, as well. it's practically an algorithm to be taken out of context.
had trump said "It is not ‘freedom of the press’ when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want with the intent to harm me, in contempt of the truth !"
...then he would be right. which is of course what he means to say. nobody thinks the media is neutral.
the bottom line is that i've seen quite a few stories that he would be right to launch legal action against, and would probably win compensation regarding if he did. this is not in the realm of discourse, and does not provide a reason to vote for him. but, he is raising a very valid concern about the level of discourse and the role that an incompetent media can play in the election cycle.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/
fwiw, this is the exact, precise reason that i have refused to use twitter from day one. this is the only twitter profile i've ever created.
https://twitter.com/dgkfgjklgjkgjka
j reacts to the tactic of calling hillary clinton a liar
this angle may be more legally successful, but it won't have any voter effect, i don't think. the reason is that everybody already know she's a liar. i mean, it's like trying a lion for killing gazelle. everybody knows that lions are assholes. yet, we somehow continue to have this strange attachment to them. you can show the lionphiles hours of footage of lions being assholes, and all you're likely to get out of them in the end is some kind of twisted admiration.
here is the surreal truth: every single clinton voter, if pressed, will acknowledge they are voting for a liar. nobody is going to defend her. they'll just rationalize it.
the reason the email angle was threatening to her had to do with how it made her seem on national security. the pay-to-play thing remains possibly damaging, but it's the kind of thing that you have to slowly explain to people and nail for weeks and then patiently wait out. and, trump isn't exactly inspiring, either.
this, on the other hand, strikes me as a waste of time.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/291494-gop-lays-out-case-for-charging-clinton-with-perjury
here is the surreal truth: every single clinton voter, if pressed, will acknowledge they are voting for a liar. nobody is going to defend her. they'll just rationalize it.
the reason the email angle was threatening to her had to do with how it made her seem on national security. the pay-to-play thing remains possibly damaging, but it's the kind of thing that you have to slowly explain to people and nail for weeks and then patiently wait out. and, trump isn't exactly inspiring, either.
this, on the other hand, strikes me as a waste of time.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/291494-gop-lays-out-case-for-charging-clinton-with-perjury
Monday, August 15, 2016
frankly, i don't think the prime minister actually has a choice, here. a pattern is developing of contempt for the constitution, and for constitutional norms, that can't be tolerated. so, i hope that somebody challenges the nomination.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-supreme-court-judge-atlantic-canada-1.3721255
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-supreme-court-judge-atlantic-canada-1.3721255
j reacts to the effects of terrorism on trump's polling numbers
this is characteristically hokey hogwash from vox. no historical context. but, it gets the right idea. and, if you're going to pay attention to the polls over the next few months, this is what you should be looking at.
first, it's not like you can separate the population into "authoritarians" and "non-authoritarians". like every other measurable trait, everybody has some kind of authoritarian streak and it can be turned up or down depending on reactions to events.
second, it's not like trump is some kind of new phenomenon. canadians will recognize that this is the same voting base that brought us stephen harper and his "strong leadership" propaganda.
third, it's not like conservatism is historically divorced from authoritarianism. not even recently. have we forgotten george w. bush so quickly?
fourth, this isn't obscure, either. it's called neo-conservatism. it's neo-hobbesianism. it's leo strauss. it's michael ignatieff. it's all over the fucking place.
fifth, it's not like the democrats don't use this tactic, either. in fact, if this election were between clinton and jeb bush, she'd probably be the one pushing the neo-con "activation" jargon. in fact, she's tried a few times already, and may try again before november.
i do not believe that either candidate got bumps from their respective conventions. i believe that trump got a bump from the spate of terrorist attacks last month but that it faded quickly - and that any such bump will follow a similar pattern because it is emotional rather than intellectual. and, i believe that this is the factor that will "activate" potential trump voters.
those charts about terrorism, iran, russia - that was what clinton wanted to run on. but, the situation got flipped over.
there is only one scenario in which donald trump wins the election: a serious terrorist attack at exactly the right moment. and, it will not simply be people labelled "authoritarians" that vote for him. it will be an expression of mass temporary insanity brought on by the trauma of extreme rage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YU9djt_CQM
first, it's not like you can separate the population into "authoritarians" and "non-authoritarians". like every other measurable trait, everybody has some kind of authoritarian streak and it can be turned up or down depending on reactions to events.
second, it's not like trump is some kind of new phenomenon. canadians will recognize that this is the same voting base that brought us stephen harper and his "strong leadership" propaganda.
third, it's not like conservatism is historically divorced from authoritarianism. not even recently. have we forgotten george w. bush so quickly?
fourth, this isn't obscure, either. it's called neo-conservatism. it's neo-hobbesianism. it's leo strauss. it's michael ignatieff. it's all over the fucking place.
fifth, it's not like the democrats don't use this tactic, either. in fact, if this election were between clinton and jeb bush, she'd probably be the one pushing the neo-con "activation" jargon. in fact, she's tried a few times already, and may try again before november.
i do not believe that either candidate got bumps from their respective conventions. i believe that trump got a bump from the spate of terrorist attacks last month but that it faded quickly - and that any such bump will follow a similar pattern because it is emotional rather than intellectual. and, i believe that this is the factor that will "activate" potential trump voters.
those charts about terrorism, iran, russia - that was what clinton wanted to run on. but, the situation got flipped over.
there is only one scenario in which donald trump wins the election: a serious terrorist attack at exactly the right moment. and, it will not simply be people labelled "authoritarians" that vote for him. it will be an expression of mass temporary insanity brought on by the trauma of extreme rage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YU9djt_CQM
j reacts to malia obama not knowing how to hold a j
seems like malia needs an intervention.
"no, sweetie, you hold it like this."
didn't they teach her anything? if i had a daughter, i'd never let her be photographed holding a j like that. it's embarrassing.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/08/11/19/371F38DE00000578-3733490-image-a-1_1470939229783.jpg
"no, sweetie, you hold it like this."
didn't they teach her anything? if i had a daughter, i'd never let her be photographed holding a j like that. it's embarrassing.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/08/11/19/371F38DE00000578-3733490-image-a-1_1470939229783.jpg
if nobody gets to 270, shouldn't the sitting president get another term?
i'm not even a fan, really. it's clear. i'm just looking for a way out.
we need an undo button, here.
ctrl-z. ctrl-z. dammit...
i know there's an amendment. but if we can get congress to make a deal in the background, an active attempt to thwart anybody from getting to 270 is a way to keep her out without electing him.
i'm not even a fan, really. it's clear. i'm just looking for a way out.
we need an undo button, here.
ctrl-z. ctrl-z. dammit...
i know there's an amendment. but if we can get congress to make a deal in the background, an active attempt to thwart anybody from getting to 270 is a way to keep her out without electing him.
wait. when did the election get overturned? i thought we elected the liberals in a landslide in order to undo what the conservatives have done over the last ten years. where does the media get off in pretending the election never happened?
this was a populist issue. unlike what he's doing to the senate and supreme court, this is something he has a mandate for. he should stay the course.
if rona ambrose wants to govern, she's going to need to win an election, first.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-terrorism-1.3718743
this was a populist issue. unlike what he's doing to the senate and supreme court, this is something he has a mandate for. he should stay the course.
if rona ambrose wants to govern, she's going to need to win an election, first.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-trudeau-terrorism-1.3718743
Sunday, August 14, 2016
j reacts to the arguments used to claim we exist in a simulated reality
it's not even wrong.
we have several brick walls ahead of us that are going to break the premise. the immediate future is not infinite growth. it's a millennium or more of stagnation, and quite plausibly a dark age of quantum mysticism.
....and that is, of course, if we can avoid extinction or collapse in the next century.
i might suggest that an alternate theory is more plausible: in order for a species to survive the invention of technology, it's adoption rate would have to not outstrip it's ability to adapt to it. that is, a species that innovates at an exponential rate is all but certain to destroy itself.
successful adaptation to technology presupposes linearity.
we are ourselves likely the necessary counter-example to his theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KK_kzrJPS8&lc=z13aejkrhvebdb3qc04cjz3beortchnb3vs0k
"the odds of life evolving are one in billions. therefore, life doesn't exist."
derrrrrrrrrp.
in fact, the probability that life might evolve given that life did evolve is one.
rare events happen.
all the time....
the error is in interpreting probability as a physical law that exists in reality, rather than merely as a purely intellectual tool of analysis that only exists in our minds.
stated differently: it is not the case that the universe somehow obeys the laws of probability theory. it is merely the case that we've invented the laws of probability theory to help us guess how the universe might work.
we have no reason at all to be surprised when the universe tells our arbitrary ratios to fuck off, and does what it pleases, anyways.
we have several brick walls ahead of us that are going to break the premise. the immediate future is not infinite growth. it's a millennium or more of stagnation, and quite plausibly a dark age of quantum mysticism.
....and that is, of course, if we can avoid extinction or collapse in the next century.
i might suggest that an alternate theory is more plausible: in order for a species to survive the invention of technology, it's adoption rate would have to not outstrip it's ability to adapt to it. that is, a species that innovates at an exponential rate is all but certain to destroy itself.
successful adaptation to technology presupposes linearity.
we are ourselves likely the necessary counter-example to his theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KK_kzrJPS8&lc=z13aejkrhvebdb3qc04cjz3beortchnb3vs0k
"the odds of life evolving are one in billions. therefore, life doesn't exist."
derrrrrrrrrp.
in fact, the probability that life might evolve given that life did evolve is one.
rare events happen.
all the time....
the error is in interpreting probability as a physical law that exists in reality, rather than merely as a purely intellectual tool of analysis that only exists in our minds.
stated differently: it is not the case that the universe somehow obeys the laws of probability theory. it is merely the case that we've invented the laws of probability theory to help us guess how the universe might work.
we have no reason at all to be surprised when the universe tells our arbitrary ratios to fuck off, and does what it pleases, anyways.
i can't prove this, but all signs are pointing to an offensive operation against russia being launched within moments of clinton taking office. it seems like this is already being put in motion. i can't and don't want to get into her head, but it may already be too late to stop it.
i cannot in good faith suggest that anybody vote for donald trump.
rather, i need to put out a somber request that the country seriously evaluate it's other options.
i cannot in good faith suggest that anybody vote for donald trump.
rather, i need to put out a somber request that the country seriously evaluate it's other options.
because dead people give a fuck, right? i can understand the argument when he's alive. when he's dead, it's completely irrelevant. what's he going to do? turn in his grave? we need a canadian jeremy bentham....
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/james-di-fiore/rob-ford-crack-video_b_11458674.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/james-di-fiore/rob-ford-crack-video_b_11458674.html
Saturday, August 13, 2016
i agree that 75 is about right for court justices. but, i think the more important concern right now is a mandatory retirement age for the president. i frankly don't think either of these candidates should be allowed to run, at their ages. 70 sounds about right as a mandatory retirement age, meaning the functional enforcement in the primaries would be 62, to allow for two terms.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-martin/fixing-the-us-supreme-court_b_11197060.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-martin/fixing-the-us-supreme-court_b_11197060.html
it almost seems like he wants to pick a fight with the court.
i'm on the courts' side. this doofus shouldn't be fucking with things he doesn't understand.
====
Constitution of Court
4 (1) The Court shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada, and eight puisne judges.
(2) The judges shall be appointed by the Governor in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
Who may be appointed judges
5 Any person may be appointed a judge who is or has been a judge of a superior court of a province or a barrister or advocate of at least ten years standing at the bar of a province.
5.1 For greater certainty, for the purpose of section 5, a person may be appointed a judge if, at any time, they were a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years standing at the bar of a province.
he is constitutionally barred from just selling it to the highest bidder, and then using 'diversity' as the excuse for the sale.
the chief justice is calling for him to quickly pick the justice. if you read between the lines, you can see she's concerned and wants the issue dealt with in a way that minimizes delays.
this is a constitutional crisis. again. that's twice - this summer.
i know he's massively popular. that's fine. great, even. it means the party has found a way to win elections. the other option is even worse. it really is. i just want the party to be making choices. maybe i'm wrong, but i just can't interpret this as the work of the party.
to be clear: "independent, non-partisan body" doesn't mean "less corrupt". it just means "almost impossible to audit".
diversity is not an end, but a means to one. i'm still convinced he's naive and needs better advisers. some of his advisers may be a little skunky. that's right: an inside job. but, how about this, junior: instead of promoting lawyers to the top bench (that are conveniently friendly to specific interests? like oil interests?), why don't we try getting some more diversity in the lower courts first, and then promote people as they distinguish themselves? in the mean time, we can continue to focus on substantive appointments for the highest court in the land. because it is, after all, the highest court in the land.
back in the 90s, carolyn bennett led somewhat of a revolt against female representation. at the time, there were simply not a lot of women mps. what could be done? well, you start by drawing attention to the problem. a few of the good ones got promoted, and they led the way for a generational overturn. today, there's enough representation for parity in cabinet without any serious debate or push back. that's obviously not true on the bench. but it might be twenty years from now, if you make the right choices at the lower courts.
and, apparently there's plenty of openings, too.
i'm on the courts' side. this doofus shouldn't be fucking with things he doesn't understand.
====
Constitution of Court
4 (1) The Court shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada, and eight puisne judges.
(2) The judges shall be appointed by the Governor in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
Who may be appointed judges
5 Any person may be appointed a judge who is or has been a judge of a superior court of a province or a barrister or advocate of at least ten years standing at the bar of a province.
5.1 For greater certainty, for the purpose of section 5, a person may be appointed a judge if, at any time, they were a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years standing at the bar of a province.
he is constitutionally barred from just selling it to the highest bidder, and then using 'diversity' as the excuse for the sale.
the chief justice is calling for him to quickly pick the justice. if you read between the lines, you can see she's concerned and wants the issue dealt with in a way that minimizes delays.
this is a constitutional crisis. again. that's twice - this summer.
i know he's massively popular. that's fine. great, even. it means the party has found a way to win elections. the other option is even worse. it really is. i just want the party to be making choices. maybe i'm wrong, but i just can't interpret this as the work of the party.
to be clear: "independent, non-partisan body" doesn't mean "less corrupt". it just means "almost impossible to audit".
diversity is not an end, but a means to one. i'm still convinced he's naive and needs better advisers. some of his advisers may be a little skunky. that's right: an inside job. but, how about this, junior: instead of promoting lawyers to the top bench (that are conveniently friendly to specific interests? like oil interests?), why don't we try getting some more diversity in the lower courts first, and then promote people as they distinguish themselves? in the mean time, we can continue to focus on substantive appointments for the highest court in the land. because it is, after all, the highest court in the land.
back in the 90s, carolyn bennett led somewhat of a revolt against female representation. at the time, there were simply not a lot of women mps. what could be done? well, you start by drawing attention to the problem. a few of the good ones got promoted, and they led the way for a generational overturn. today, there's enough representation for parity in cabinet without any serious debate or push back. that's obviously not true on the bench. but it might be twenty years from now, if you make the right choices at the lower courts.
and, apparently there's plenty of openings, too.
Friday, August 12, 2016
j reacts to the dangers of modelling with uniform swings while ignoring geography
this is exactly the kind of uniform swing distribution that i spent months yelling about last fall and in the end failed horribly. clinton's theoretical advantage in red states around the mississippi suggests that she should gain voters there much, much faster than she would in the western part of the red state block (rockies/prairies). so, a ten point lead nationally should give her a 15 point boost in mississippi (numbers are pulled from ass), enough to make it close, and almost no boost at all in utah. it's also ignoring what could be a significant third candidate.
i think it's too early to do this seriously, but i'll say the same thing i said about canada: you're better off trying to find a historical precedent than you are trying to find an algorithm to convert 2008 into 2016. and, one does exist. it wasn't even that long ago. and, clinton has a strong connection to him.
my best guess right now is to look at 1992 or 1996. perot got almost 20% in 1992 and less than 10% in 1996, but clinton got more electoral votes in 1996 despite winning less states. he won georgia in 1992 on the split, but won arizona in 1996 on his record. as we get closer to the election, johnson's numbers will tell us which one is a better model. but, i think that trump matches up better to bush than dole. yes, dole was seen as a doddering idiot. but, it was bush that was seen as the ideologically distant northeastern liberal.
that said, you'll have to make a couple of changes, too. it looks like she's way ahead in virginia, and she's not going to win west virginia.
but, insofar as the map starts to break? i think '92 is your road map.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/
it's a complicated debate about independent variables.
but, if you ask meteorologists, they'll tell you that you're better off finding a historical precedent than building your forecast on last season.
i think it's too early to do this seriously, but i'll say the same thing i said about canada: you're better off trying to find a historical precedent than you are trying to find an algorithm to convert 2008 into 2016. and, one does exist. it wasn't even that long ago. and, clinton has a strong connection to him.
my best guess right now is to look at 1992 or 1996. perot got almost 20% in 1992 and less than 10% in 1996, but clinton got more electoral votes in 1996 despite winning less states. he won georgia in 1992 on the split, but won arizona in 1996 on his record. as we get closer to the election, johnson's numbers will tell us which one is a better model. but, i think that trump matches up better to bush than dole. yes, dole was seen as a doddering idiot. but, it was bush that was seen as the ideologically distant northeastern liberal.
that said, you'll have to make a couple of changes, too. it looks like she's way ahead in virginia, and she's not going to win west virginia.
but, insofar as the map starts to break? i think '92 is your road map.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/
it's a complicated debate about independent variables.
but, if you ask meteorologists, they'll tell you that you're better off finding a historical precedent than building your forecast on last season.
just to clarify...
my brain is ok regarding growths (for now), but there's something lodged in my ear. as time has progressed, i've become more and more frustrated with this ear doctor - who despite reading an mri report that indicated that something was found inside my ear, decided to discharge me. the mri demonstrated that i was right: there's something in my ear. the response is discharge? it seems like she runs a more profitable plastic surgery operation on the side. i've argued for years that cosmetic surgeons should not be allowed to run medical practices...
she got me the mri, anyways. i had to prod for it, but it wasn't a complete waste of time...
i have an appointment with another ear specialist in december that i have yet to cancel (i suspected i may want a second opinion...) and i may very well end up bringing him the mri scans. i don't have a lot of confidence in this doctor.
for right now, the second scan is scheduled for september and i'll just have to wait and see. it could be anything from a growth to a dead insect to ear wax. but, i need to be clear: the mri did pick something up. there is something in there. and, i did make the right choice in insisting i see an ear doctor rather than a neurologist.
my brain is ok regarding growths (for now), but there's something lodged in my ear. as time has progressed, i've become more and more frustrated with this ear doctor - who despite reading an mri report that indicated that something was found inside my ear, decided to discharge me. the mri demonstrated that i was right: there's something in my ear. the response is discharge? it seems like she runs a more profitable plastic surgery operation on the side. i've argued for years that cosmetic surgeons should not be allowed to run medical practices...
she got me the mri, anyways. i had to prod for it, but it wasn't a complete waste of time...
i have an appointment with another ear specialist in december that i have yet to cancel (i suspected i may want a second opinion...) and i may very well end up bringing him the mri scans. i don't have a lot of confidence in this doctor.
for right now, the second scan is scheduled for september and i'll just have to wait and see. it could be anything from a growth to a dead insect to ear wax. but, i need to be clear: the mri did pick something up. there is something in there. and, i did make the right choice in insisting i see an ear doctor rather than a neurologist.
j reacts to the question of whether bds is an environmentalist policy
you can't understand this in a vacuum. first, the green party in canada was up until this point a very unstable coalition of conservatives, right-libertarians, primitivists and environmentalists. may herself is a "progressive conservative", which nowadays is a junior leadership branch of the liberal party. she claims bds is a distraction without acknowledging that the fact that she's pro-life is a hugely unnecessary issue on the canadian left and is massively restricting their ability to gain voters. i'd be rich if you gave me a quarter for every leftist i've met that has pointed to her pro-life stance as a reason they can't vote for her. on top of that, they tend to run these market fundamentalists that are clueless about the green party platform and think the answer is more property rights - ideas that are strongly on the libertarian right. the party has no choice but to collapse in one direction or another to grow.
as it turns out, the canadian left is currently in extreme flux. after running a campaign on balanced budgets, and then being triangulated by the center-right liberals as a consequence of it, the dominant soft-left party (the ndp) is in a freefall that it might not recover from. a year ago, a lot of people were suggesting that the liberal party was dead. but, the ndp seems to have stepped in front of the bullet. this influx of green party members is coming from leftists that are fed up with the ndp and looking for a new left that is tied less to union activism and more to environmental sustainability.
in order for these leftists to take over the party, they will need to push the libertarians out of it. there's no other way this can work. may is not one of them, but she will have to go with them.
but, what does bds have to do with the environment? quite a bit, actually. and i'd like to see this point raised more often....
why do we have to support israel, again, despite the human rights atrocities? the reason is that we need a reliable ally in the middle east. is israel a reliable ally? probably not. but, the perception is that it is. so, as long as we need that reliable ally, we're stuck turning the other way as they commit this genocide in slow motion.
but, why do we need this military base in the middle east? the reason is the reliance on middle eastern oil. if we can remove our reliance on imported energy, we no longer need that ally in the middle east - and we can react accordingly. pushing for a green shift to renewables is consequently the most realistic thing that we can do, as citizens, to stand in solidarity and help stop the slaughter.
it follows that opposition to bds is the same thing as support for the fossil fuel industry, and that the greens should at least not be opposing it.
http://forward.com/opinion/347396/why-canadas-green-party-leader-might-resign-over-bds/
as it turns out, the canadian left is currently in extreme flux. after running a campaign on balanced budgets, and then being triangulated by the center-right liberals as a consequence of it, the dominant soft-left party (the ndp) is in a freefall that it might not recover from. a year ago, a lot of people were suggesting that the liberal party was dead. but, the ndp seems to have stepped in front of the bullet. this influx of green party members is coming from leftists that are fed up with the ndp and looking for a new left that is tied less to union activism and more to environmental sustainability.
in order for these leftists to take over the party, they will need to push the libertarians out of it. there's no other way this can work. may is not one of them, but she will have to go with them.
but, what does bds have to do with the environment? quite a bit, actually. and i'd like to see this point raised more often....
why do we have to support israel, again, despite the human rights atrocities? the reason is that we need a reliable ally in the middle east. is israel a reliable ally? probably not. but, the perception is that it is. so, as long as we need that reliable ally, we're stuck turning the other way as they commit this genocide in slow motion.
but, why do we need this military base in the middle east? the reason is the reliance on middle eastern oil. if we can remove our reliance on imported energy, we no longer need that ally in the middle east - and we can react accordingly. pushing for a green shift to renewables is consequently the most realistic thing that we can do, as citizens, to stand in solidarity and help stop the slaughter.
it follows that opposition to bds is the same thing as support for the fossil fuel industry, and that the greens should at least not be opposing it.
http://forward.com/opinion/347396/why-canadas-green-party-leader-might-resign-over-bds/
j reacts to the rob ford video (crack is *always* a bad idea, kids)
i think it's pretty obvious who was holding the video. this is not accidental footage. she's sober. and, she's goading him on, trying to get a reaction. the man was not intelligent enough to know who his friends and enemies were.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjdTi1r-yRQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjdTi1r-yRQ
wait. so, the bush housing crisis is obama's fault?
this is the same kind of argument they throw around about climate change. in order to fall for it, you'd have to be literally twelve or just mentally twelve...
but, i mean, how many republicans are mentally twelve?
i won't be bothered. but, wow.
Mak Muk Was Right
It's funny because the graph he holds up shows a housing bubble and then a recovery from the housing bubble. He is painting the recovery from Bush's housing bubble as a bad thing. Totally stupid and he simply embarrasses himself more and more every day.
jessica
this isn't stupidity, it's dishonesty.
ShadowDrift
You gotta keep in mind, that during Bill's presidency he started deregulating Wall Street in the 90's, he set the ball in motion Bush just simply carried out the Legacy
jessica
you can blame it on bill, or you can blame it on the congress, who had a supermajority. it doesn't really matter anymore or have any effect on how startlingly dishonest this is.
HEY AJ
obamas fault after he become president. not only that, he didn't do anything to fix it.
jessica
but, "fixing" it means allowing the bubble to burst. the problem was that banks were lending to people who couldn't afford to pay their mortgages off. i don't want to say that home ownership rates were too high, because then i'm buying into the dishonest presentation. but you can't just hand out mortgages like welfare checks. that's why the curve flew out of control, which is why the economy collapsed in 2008.
again - your only excuse for falling for this is if you're too young to remember what happened. the only other way you fall for this is if you just don't understand what he's saying.
i don't actually think that increasing home ownership rates is a worthwhile policy goal. but, if one wanted to do this, they would create policies to increase wages - not policies to increase lending.
let's keep in mind, as well, that trump is well-positioned to benefit from a bubble in real estate should he win, as he'll be selling off his assets soon as a part of his end-of-life preparation. he's 70 years old. he'll want to skyrocket the price of land, to sell high.
this is the same kind of argument they throw around about climate change. in order to fall for it, you'd have to be literally twelve or just mentally twelve...
but, i mean, how many republicans are mentally twelve?
i won't be bothered. but, wow.
Mak Muk Was Right
It's funny because the graph he holds up shows a housing bubble and then a recovery from the housing bubble. He is painting the recovery from Bush's housing bubble as a bad thing. Totally stupid and he simply embarrasses himself more and more every day.
jessica
this isn't stupidity, it's dishonesty.
ShadowDrift
You gotta keep in mind, that during Bill's presidency he started deregulating Wall Street in the 90's, he set the ball in motion Bush just simply carried out the Legacy
jessica
you can blame it on bill, or you can blame it on the congress, who had a supermajority. it doesn't really matter anymore or have any effect on how startlingly dishonest this is.
HEY AJ
obamas fault after he become president. not only that, he didn't do anything to fix it.
jessica
but, "fixing" it means allowing the bubble to burst. the problem was that banks were lending to people who couldn't afford to pay their mortgages off. i don't want to say that home ownership rates were too high, because then i'm buying into the dishonest presentation. but you can't just hand out mortgages like welfare checks. that's why the curve flew out of control, which is why the economy collapsed in 2008.
again - your only excuse for falling for this is if you're too young to remember what happened. the only other way you fall for this is if you just don't understand what he's saying.
i don't actually think that increasing home ownership rates is a worthwhile policy goal. but, if one wanted to do this, they would create policies to increase wages - not policies to increase lending.
let's keep in mind, as well, that trump is well-positioned to benefit from a bubble in real estate should he win, as he'll be selling off his assets soon as a part of his end-of-life preparation. he's 70 years old. he'll want to skyrocket the price of land, to sell high.
Thursday, August 11, 2016
j reacts to the right-wing media's play on the elizabeth may resignation
i just want to add that mulcair's rejection of bds was one of the reasons i lost interest in the party. if the ndp wants to be the liberals, it should merge with them. and, if they're going to present themselves as the same as the liberals anyways, why not just vote for the liberals?
trudeau's popularity right now is only partly a consequence of the anti-harper confluence. it's also a consequence of apathy on the canadian left. if we're just going to get the liberals anyways, why bother splitting the vote?
the left is looking for a new vehicle and wants to take over the green party. nor can the greens move forward with her.
she should just join the liberal party.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/elizabeth-mays-split-with-the-greens/
fwiw, i don't really think that apartheid is a good comparison, either. the south african state was a type of slavery - the blacks would do the work for the whites and live apart from them. the israelis have actually rejected calls for apartheid, which have been presented repeatedly by the americans. a commitment by israel to apartheid would be a step forwards. what the israelis want is a final solution, not slavery & apartheid. it's a full genocide that is in process. so, the south african comparison is not very good. the better comparison is to the american genocide of native americans.
i don't think bds has a high likelihood of success, but i think it's an important moral position to take.
maybe it's better to phrase it like this: i may agree that supporting bds is likely futile, but i think that rejecting it is morally reprehensible.
trudeau's popularity right now is only partly a consequence of the anti-harper confluence. it's also a consequence of apathy on the canadian left. if we're just going to get the liberals anyways, why bother splitting the vote?
the left is looking for a new vehicle and wants to take over the green party. nor can the greens move forward with her.
she should just join the liberal party.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/elizabeth-mays-split-with-the-greens/
fwiw, i don't really think that apartheid is a good comparison, either. the south african state was a type of slavery - the blacks would do the work for the whites and live apart from them. the israelis have actually rejected calls for apartheid, which have been presented repeatedly by the americans. a commitment by israel to apartheid would be a step forwards. what the israelis want is a final solution, not slavery & apartheid. it's a full genocide that is in process. so, the south african comparison is not very good. the better comparison is to the american genocide of native americans.
i don't think bds has a high likelihood of success, but i think it's an important moral position to take.
maybe it's better to phrase it like this: i may agree that supporting bds is likely futile, but i think that rejecting it is morally reprehensible.
what they're saying is that they think there is something inside my ear, rather than inside my brain.
i was thinking that something was structurally damaged - a broken bone, or perhaps a severed nerve. something lodged inside my ear is kind of half way between both theories.
i'm going in for a second mri at the beginning of september - without the ions. until then, they can't say if it's a growth or a foreign object, or if it's benign or not.
but, it seems like my brain is safe. for now, anyways. it may be one of those "caught it early enough" things. or, it may be earwax.
i was thinking that something was structurally damaged - a broken bone, or perhaps a severed nerve. something lodged inside my ear is kind of half way between both theories.
i'm going in for a second mri at the beginning of september - without the ions. until then, they can't say if it's a growth or a foreign object, or if it's benign or not.
but, it seems like my brain is safe. for now, anyways. it may be one of those "caught it early enough" things. or, it may be earwax.
j reacts to the challenge of low functional literacy rates for political campaigns
i think this is the kind of story she needs to tell if she wants to bring the middle of america back to the democrats, which is where they should be. they don't benefit from republican policies.
however....
1) they can't read. that's not hyperbole. the published literacy rates were just cold war propaganda. large percentages of americans around the mississippi delta are simply unable to read an article like this. and, they're the people the democrats need to swing the most.
2) they won't read an article in the new york times. you'd might as well have published it in the guardian.
it's reflective. i'm forgiving. but, they need to get this kind of messaging across in spoken language. this is the value of the republicans' control of the churches and of talk radio. television is declining in importance. how about pod casts? youtube personalities? you can only do so much in three months.
but, as amazing as it is, you cannot forget this truth: they can't fucking read. and, you need to convince them to vote for you before you can teach them....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-money.html?_r=0
the united states has a long history of integrating illiterate people into the political process. there's a lot to learn by dusting off some old nineteenth century textbooks.
...and a lot to learn in realizing that it's necessary to do so.
however....
1) they can't read. that's not hyperbole. the published literacy rates were just cold war propaganda. large percentages of americans around the mississippi delta are simply unable to read an article like this. and, they're the people the democrats need to swing the most.
2) they won't read an article in the new york times. you'd might as well have published it in the guardian.
it's reflective. i'm forgiving. but, they need to get this kind of messaging across in spoken language. this is the value of the republicans' control of the churches and of talk radio. television is declining in importance. how about pod casts? youtube personalities? you can only do so much in three months.
but, as amazing as it is, you cannot forget this truth: they can't fucking read. and, you need to convince them to vote for you before you can teach them....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-money.html?_r=0
the united states has a long history of integrating illiterate people into the political process. there's a lot to learn by dusting off some old nineteenth century textbooks.
...and a lot to learn in realizing that it's necessary to do so.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
j reacts to liberal egalitarianism from the left (a comment by some kennedy)
ahahahahaha.
what a fucking retard.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/08/stop-calling-trump-crazy/?postshare=691470682068065&tid=ss_fb
i spoke a little about this previously, but this is one of the key problems with liberalism, and this idea of universal equality: retarded people aren't equal to non-retarded people and it's pretty stupid to suggest they are.
how about we stop pretending everybody is equal, or that it would be good if we were, and instead adopt a simple maxim:
from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.
social assistance is built upon the idea of discrimination. disabled people would die horrible deaths if they weren't discriminated against. there is nothing inherently wrong with this; to the contrary it should be embraced.
every time you let the handicapped person park in the handicapped space, guess what? that's discrimination.
every time you modify your language so the down's syndrome kid smiles at something stupid, guess what? that's discrimination.
every time you tell somebody that suffers from depression or bipolar disorder that they don't have to go to work today, or at all, guess what? that's discrimination!
and, we should embrace this to realize that we have different needs. that we cannot build a just or fair society on the principle that one size fits all, but only on the principle that we are all entitled to what it is that we need - regardless of what we can or cannot contribute.
so, go ahead and call the retard a retard. call the crazy person crazy. but, understand that this entitles people to extra needs, not that it denies them of anything.
i hold this truth to be self-evident: that we were neither created by anything, nor that we are equal. it is self-evident that we are all unique genetic combinations.
what a fucking retard.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/08/stop-calling-trump-crazy/?postshare=691470682068065&tid=ss_fb
i spoke a little about this previously, but this is one of the key problems with liberalism, and this idea of universal equality: retarded people aren't equal to non-retarded people and it's pretty stupid to suggest they are.
how about we stop pretending everybody is equal, or that it would be good if we were, and instead adopt a simple maxim:
from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.
social assistance is built upon the idea of discrimination. disabled people would die horrible deaths if they weren't discriminated against. there is nothing inherently wrong with this; to the contrary it should be embraced.
every time you let the handicapped person park in the handicapped space, guess what? that's discrimination.
every time you modify your language so the down's syndrome kid smiles at something stupid, guess what? that's discrimination.
every time you tell somebody that suffers from depression or bipolar disorder that they don't have to go to work today, or at all, guess what? that's discrimination!
and, we should embrace this to realize that we have different needs. that we cannot build a just or fair society on the principle that one size fits all, but only on the principle that we are all entitled to what it is that we need - regardless of what we can or cannot contribute.
so, go ahead and call the retard a retard. call the crazy person crazy. but, understand that this entitles people to extra needs, not that it denies them of anything.
i hold this truth to be self-evident: that we were neither created by anything, nor that we are equal. it is self-evident that we are all unique genetic combinations.
finishing the record-keeping aspect of the write-up for inri015 was an unexpectedly tedious process, but it is now done. i have not yet started my epic listening process, and will not likely do so tonight. i'm going to do a few more record-keeping type things to prepare for it, and begin the process in earnest when i get back from my appointment tomorrow.
....presuming that i'm not devastated by the discussion.
i have no idea. really. i know that there's something very wrong with my ear. i got the mri to check for structural damage - tmj type issues. i know the radiologist insisted on redoing the mri using a process that is usually intended to search for tumours. but, i have little reason to think i have a tumour.
obviously, if i come home tomorrow with the understanding that i have brain cancer, my life is going to change quite a bit. i don't expect this. but, we'll see what happens.
for right now, i'm just focusing on getting done the things i need to get done in order to pivot to a pure listening phase that i expect to last for roughly the next week. i have two more records to formally close when that is done, inri014 and inri015. i can then move on to the singles for the second record and eventually the second record itself.
....presuming that i'm not devastated by the discussion.
i have no idea. really. i know that there's something very wrong with my ear. i got the mri to check for structural damage - tmj type issues. i know the radiologist insisted on redoing the mri using a process that is usually intended to search for tumours. but, i have little reason to think i have a tumour.
obviously, if i come home tomorrow with the understanding that i have brain cancer, my life is going to change quite a bit. i don't expect this. but, we'll see what happens.
for right now, i'm just focusing on getting done the things i need to get done in order to pivot to a pure listening phase that i expect to last for roughly the next week. i have two more records to formally close when that is done, inri014 and inri015. i can then move on to the singles for the second record and eventually the second record itself.
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
09-08-2016: lost it to trying....
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-3
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-3
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
i heard she invented the internet, too.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/hillary-clinton-chelsea-first-one-zika-serious-problem/
http://freebeacon.com/issues/hillary-clinton-chelsea-first-one-zika-serious-problem/
j reacts to elizabeth may distracting from her distracting policies
the best thing that she can do for the green party is step down. she talks about bds as distracting, without realizing that her views on abortion are killing the party.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-ponders-future-green-party-support-bds-1.3713262
the greens need a younger, more secular leader. with the apparent collapse of the ndp, there's a big space for them in the spectrum. but, may will only prevent them from moving into it.
i don't want to say 'good riddance'. she's actually a very good mp. but they need new leadership.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-ponders-future-green-party-support-bds-1.3713262
the greens need a younger, more secular leader. with the apparent collapse of the ndp, there's a big space for them in the spectrum. but, may will only prevent them from moving into it.
i don't want to say 'good riddance'. she's actually a very good mp. but they need new leadership.
j reacts to the potential of trump being recorded as the hamlet of the modern era
it was actually a pretty good punchline.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment
they say timing is everything in comedy...
no, really. excellent delivery. 10/10.
==
nonsense, and not worth deconstructing - except to point out that it was clearly a jab at gun nuts. that is, it was the gun owners that were the butt of the joke. it's the dipshit social justice types that are (once again) missing the point - this is just another excuse to push down their authoritarianism and censorship. they'll jump at the opportunity to misconstrue things to push their morals down your throats.
i mentioned it was excellent delivery, and it really was. it was the kind of line you expect to hear in a conan monologue, or a daily show take down.
...and the takeaway is that it's increasingly clear that trump actually doesn't feel comfortable representing the base. he doesn't want to go out there and work up gun nuts and religious crazies. he's getting tired of this.
so, again: excellent delivery. 10/10.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/9/12417100/donald-trump-assassinate-hillary-clinton-joke
to be crystal clear and absolutely terse: trump was stating, tongue-in-cheek, that he actually supports gun control.
what do you think that donald trump really thinks of these people? do you think he's really on their side? that he'll stand up for them?
he thinks they're a bunch of pathetic, inbred losers that fell for a lot of barely strung together nonsense.
trump has a record: he's always supported gun control in the past - like every other sane northeastern liberal. and, what he's signalling is that he doesn't like the role he's playing, right now.
so, again: great delivery. 10/10.
i hope we get more of this, as it becomes increasingly clear that he's going to lose huge.
trump doesn't have a chance of winning the presidency. but, he can go out with a bang and give us some performance art that will last for centuries.
http://ijr.com/opinion/2016/01/252311-trump-is-making-performance-art-out-of-his-fans-but-his-supporters-are-doing-the-same-to-him/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment
they say timing is everything in comedy...
no, really. excellent delivery. 10/10.
==
nonsense, and not worth deconstructing - except to point out that it was clearly a jab at gun nuts. that is, it was the gun owners that were the butt of the joke. it's the dipshit social justice types that are (once again) missing the point - this is just another excuse to push down their authoritarianism and censorship. they'll jump at the opportunity to misconstrue things to push their morals down your throats.
i mentioned it was excellent delivery, and it really was. it was the kind of line you expect to hear in a conan monologue, or a daily show take down.
...and the takeaway is that it's increasingly clear that trump actually doesn't feel comfortable representing the base. he doesn't want to go out there and work up gun nuts and religious crazies. he's getting tired of this.
so, again: excellent delivery. 10/10.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/9/12417100/donald-trump-assassinate-hillary-clinton-joke
to be crystal clear and absolutely terse: trump was stating, tongue-in-cheek, that he actually supports gun control.
what do you think that donald trump really thinks of these people? do you think he's really on their side? that he'll stand up for them?
he thinks they're a bunch of pathetic, inbred losers that fell for a lot of barely strung together nonsense.
trump has a record: he's always supported gun control in the past - like every other sane northeastern liberal. and, what he's signalling is that he doesn't like the role he's playing, right now.
so, again: great delivery. 10/10.
i hope we get more of this, as it becomes increasingly clear that he's going to lose huge.
trump doesn't have a chance of winning the presidency. but, he can go out with a bang and give us some performance art that will last for centuries.
http://ijr.com/opinion/2016/01/252311-trump-is-making-performance-art-out-of-his-fans-but-his-supporters-are-doing-the-same-to-him/
j reacts to who is at fault for vote splitting (always the major party...)
if clinton does win georgia, it should just be a reminder that vote splitting happens not as a consequence of insolent voting bases but as a consequence of poor political leadership. you should never, ever, ever, ever, ever blame voters for vote splitting.
no, that's fine. send him out to have fun. write the pot off as a public expenditure. tell him to take an extra long vacation. great. that's exactly what was expected. but, i didn't vote for gerald butts, either - the party needs to take control back from the pmo.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/shirtless-justin-trudeau-accidentally-photo-bombs-b-c-beach-wedding-1.3710479
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/shirtless-justin-trudeau-accidentally-photo-bombs-b-c-beach-wedding-1.3710479
j reacts to concerns over clinton's health (should there be a mandatory retirement age?)
there have been persistent rumours floating around for many years that she has a drinking problem.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpSkAWTWIAAbk6l.jpg
the way she squinches her eyes indicates that this was involuntary, and her quick recovery indicates it was expected. but, those that are claiming this was not a seizure are also correct. it almost looks more like a cocaine tremor. i suspect her chai is a little special.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lrMjAB3MzA&lc=z133gndoqtaws3iq204cjz3beortchnb3vs0k
i wonder if she coughed through her speeches to goldman sachs.
how much per cough?
is this what her multi-million dollar speech for goldman sachs was like?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C12ZvOJNfs
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpSkAWTWIAAbk6l.jpg
the way she squinches her eyes indicates that this was involuntary, and her quick recovery indicates it was expected. but, those that are claiming this was not a seizure are also correct. it almost looks more like a cocaine tremor. i suspect her chai is a little special.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lrMjAB3MzA&lc=z133gndoqtaws3iq204cjz3beortchnb3vs0k
i wonder if she coughed through her speeches to goldman sachs.
how much per cough?
is this what her multi-million dollar speech for goldman sachs was like?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C12ZvOJNfs
see, i don't think they should be tax-exempt in the first place...
i don't like laws that restrict speech.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/black-pastors-pulpit-hillary-clinton/494876/
i don't like laws that restrict speech.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/black-pastors-pulpit-hillary-clinton/494876/
Monday, August 8, 2016
i've always thought this was fundamentally an anti-war song.
you could say it's about the "unknown soldier".
but, i think it's actually about the glorification of the military.
Spectacularity
Think it's more about twisting a person's image from being a hero in death to a secretive monster in life.
jessica
i think that's a kind of a generalization of what i'm proposing - the idea that the soldier is not a hero, but in fact a monster. but, there's a lot of very specific references to military protocol. i mean, you could apply that broad idea to lots of different things. i've just always gotten the feeling that the military context is what he actually intended....
you could say it's about the "unknown soldier".
but, i think it's actually about the glorification of the military.
Spectacularity
Think it's more about twisting a person's image from being a hero in death to a secretive monster in life.
jessica
i think that's a kind of a generalization of what i'm proposing - the idea that the soldier is not a hero, but in fact a monster. but, there's a lot of very specific references to military protocol. i mean, you could apply that broad idea to lots of different things. i've just always gotten the feeling that the military context is what he actually intended....
j tries to react to trump's tax/spend ideas but gets stuck in the ultraparadoxical phase
see, what i'd like is for the democratic candidate to spin this around on him and claim she's going to increase taxes on the wealthy - and also on corporations. i know better. i wouldn't believe it, anyways. but the last thing the country needs right now is lower taxes at the top rate. it needs to be taking in higher income tax levels to spend on crumbling infrastructure and convert the economy away from fossil fuels. the problem with the stimulus plan was that it was too small. they need more of this, on a deeper level - and they need to generate the revenue to do it.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/08/restrained-trump-goes-at-clinton-for-tax-plan.html
a strong candidate would annihilate him on his tax policy, which is clearly disastrous and flat out stupid. it's 2016, and dipshit donald still thinks tax cuts create jobs? of course he doesn't. he just wants a tax cut for himself. if i was the nominee, i wouldn't talk about anything else.
i don't always agree with krugman, but he's kind of an expert on keynesian policies. and, if we're going to implement keynesian policies, he's not just a good explainer but arguably the best currently alive. we're lucky that he spends as much time writing in newspapers as he does.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimulus-was-too-small/?_r=0
ok. fine. so, do it right, this time. i mean, the other option is recession. look at europe. you have to find a way to win this debate on the facts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/opinion/krugman-the-stimulus-tragedy.html
see, this is just like the tpp. they both want infrastructure spending. they're both technically right. but, i don't believe either of them - i rather think that they'll both push tax cuts and austerity.
i don't know how i'm going to get through this mess with my sanity. i need to just disengage. i keep saying that...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/politics/trump-clinton-infrastructure.html
what a fucking disaster. wow. really.
i ought to be pointing out that it's good that they're both taking the right approach to stimulus. instead, i'm convinced they're both lying, and they'll both do the wrong thing.
and, the evidence is really, truly on my side.
i'm in the fucking ultraparadoxical phase, again. great.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmarginal_inhibition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG_iD8epJag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOLC9gELguQ
he's basically right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/time-to-borrow.html
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/08/restrained-trump-goes-at-clinton-for-tax-plan.html
a strong candidate would annihilate him on his tax policy, which is clearly disastrous and flat out stupid. it's 2016, and dipshit donald still thinks tax cuts create jobs? of course he doesn't. he just wants a tax cut for himself. if i was the nominee, i wouldn't talk about anything else.
i don't always agree with krugman, but he's kind of an expert on keynesian policies. and, if we're going to implement keynesian policies, he's not just a good explainer but arguably the best currently alive. we're lucky that he spends as much time writing in newspapers as he does.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimulus-was-too-small/?_r=0
ok. fine. so, do it right, this time. i mean, the other option is recession. look at europe. you have to find a way to win this debate on the facts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/opinion/krugman-the-stimulus-tragedy.html
see, this is just like the tpp. they both want infrastructure spending. they're both technically right. but, i don't believe either of them - i rather think that they'll both push tax cuts and austerity.
i don't know how i'm going to get through this mess with my sanity. i need to just disengage. i keep saying that...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/politics/trump-clinton-infrastructure.html
what a fucking disaster. wow. really.
i ought to be pointing out that it's good that they're both taking the right approach to stimulus. instead, i'm convinced they're both lying, and they'll both do the wrong thing.
and, the evidence is really, truly on my side.
i'm in the fucking ultraparadoxical phase, again. great.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmarginal_inhibition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG_iD8epJag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOLC9gELguQ
he's basically right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/time-to-borrow.html
i've been very sensitive to the weather for years and years. for as long as i can remember, i've tended to get nasty stomach aches when the pressure outside changes. it's to the point that i can predict the season changes through reductio ad estomach - that is, by appeal to stomach. right now, i seem to be reacting very negatively to the reduction of humidity that came in last night. it's a really brutal sinus headache. so, loud music - and particularly absurdly loud music - is not a very good idea at the moment.
j reacts to a way to understand why the tpp is not a free trade agreement
why is switching to the metric system never an issue in us elections?
i'm serious. they sign all these trade agreements that they pretend are about breaking down tariff systems. do you know how much money they could save by getting rid of the british imperial system of measurement?
surely, they must realize they've lost this war. and, it's nothing like vietnam, either. it's far worse. the rest of the world has moved so far past them on this...
i just want to see the reaction. i want to see the accusations from fox news. i want to see live interviews with people on the ground that think they're being invaded by france. and canada.
"british imperial system? no, we kicked them limeys out. i speak american, and i measure things in american."
"and they can take their statues and their fries with them!"
but, seriously. they'd save at least billions, overall, by not having to label and measure things differently for the us market. trillions, even - depending on your time scale.
"All countries except Burma (Myanmar), Liberia, and the United States of America have officially adopted the metric system, although Liberia has seen some introduction of metric units, and in 2013 Burma formally announced the beginning of its metrication program."
http://nypost.com/2015/06/04/presidential-hopeful-wants-to-put-us-on-metric-system/
i suspect americans don't really realize how expensive (and annoying...) it is for the rest of the world to convert things into eighteenth century units in order to sell things there, or how expensive it is for american producers to need to convert things into modern units for export.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/03/presidential-candidate-lincoln-chafee-wants-the-u-s-to-adopt-the-metric-system-because-politics/
not nineteenth century, guys. fucking eighteenth century.
if they really cared about common standards....
...if the free trade rhetoric wasn't just a bunch of propaganda...
what the fuck is a quart?
....and the only thing i've ever seen measured in ounces in my life is marijuana.
i'm serious. they sign all these trade agreements that they pretend are about breaking down tariff systems. do you know how much money they could save by getting rid of the british imperial system of measurement?
surely, they must realize they've lost this war. and, it's nothing like vietnam, either. it's far worse. the rest of the world has moved so far past them on this...
i just want to see the reaction. i want to see the accusations from fox news. i want to see live interviews with people on the ground that think they're being invaded by france. and canada.
"british imperial system? no, we kicked them limeys out. i speak american, and i measure things in american."
"and they can take their statues and their fries with them!"
but, seriously. they'd save at least billions, overall, by not having to label and measure things differently for the us market. trillions, even - depending on your time scale.
"All countries except Burma (Myanmar), Liberia, and the United States of America have officially adopted the metric system, although Liberia has seen some introduction of metric units, and in 2013 Burma formally announced the beginning of its metrication program."
http://nypost.com/2015/06/04/presidential-hopeful-wants-to-put-us-on-metric-system/
i suspect americans don't really realize how expensive (and annoying...) it is for the rest of the world to convert things into eighteenth century units in order to sell things there, or how expensive it is for american producers to need to convert things into modern units for export.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/03/presidential-candidate-lincoln-chafee-wants-the-u-s-to-adopt-the-metric-system-because-politics/
not nineteenth century, guys. fucking eighteenth century.
if they really cared about common standards....
...if the free trade rhetoric wasn't just a bunch of propaganda...
what the fuck is a quart?
....and the only thing i've ever seen measured in ounces in my life is marijuana.
Sunday, August 7, 2016
this is shocking - the clinton's usually wait until after the election before they start killing people.
stop. don't. it's a trail of coincidences forty years long, with a death toll that is probabilistically impossible.
if there was ever a serious trial, they'd be exposed not as murderers but as serial killers.
http://www.inquisitr.com/3389465/was-shawn-lucas-murdered-after-death-of-lawyer-who-served-dnc-with-election-fraud-lawsuit-conspiracy-theories-abound/
stop. don't. it's a trail of coincidences forty years long, with a death toll that is probabilistically impossible.
if there was ever a serious trial, they'd be exposed not as murderers but as serial killers.
http://www.inquisitr.com/3389465/was-shawn-lucas-murdered-after-death-of-lawyer-who-served-dnc-with-election-fraud-lawsuit-conspiracy-theories-abound/
j reacts to the mess that the pmo is making of the supreme court selection process
i'm still trying to process how and why the prime minister's office (i'm not sure he even signed anything...) thought it was a good idea to put kim fucking campbell in charge of anything, let alone in charge of a process to determine the next supreme court justice. i think she needs to immediately address the question that is on all of our minds: is a court room a proper venue to discuss serious issues?
we'll have to see what the results are.
but, what terrible judgement.
the prime minister's office recently appointed the person that approved this ad to pick the next supreme court justice of canada.
the actual truth is that the selection was probably calculated to appeal to female identity voters - ignoring the fact that she's a monster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PikszBkfTHM
it would be really great if they'd stop electioneering and start governing.
it's not just bad judgement, it's also a real slap in the face.
remember: canada has a recall process. sort of. we can remove sitting prime ministers through a vote of non-confidence. we don't directly elect them, and the election is not in any way interpreted as a vote for prime minister, either formally or informally. the liberals could remove trudeau at any given point.
i think the most recent example of this was in australia.
the court nomination process is not minor. we'll see what comes out of it. but, if he appoints some "bipartisan" judge, i'd expect to hear a mutiny rumbling.
if i was there, i'd be leading the charge.
canada's greatest strength up to now has been it's court. we have very liberal courts, because we are able to appoint the judges more or less at whim. nowhere did he campaign on making it harder for liberal prime ministers to continue to appoint liberal judges. in fact, he won in a landslide.
not only is there no mandate for this, but it's directly opposite to his mandate - and entirely out of right field.
if you're on the political left, it is of the utmost importance that we retain control of the courts. i don't know where this idea of giving the courts away to a "non-partisan process" (read: corporate stacking) comes from, but it really has to be stopped.
i voted for the liberals and i want the liberals to appoint a very, very, very liberal judge. this is not complicated.
the existing selection process is not a problem, and it doesn't require a fix.
thankfully, i don't believe that what they're setting up is constitutional. ironically, the court itself will strike it down - should somebody challenge it. but, there's a lot of red flags going off regarding the amount of flat out fuckery this guy wants to push through. i don't know what it is...
his father was a law professor, a constitutional expert - perhaps not a gentleman, but certainly a scholar. justin trudeau has no meaningful academic background. and, he simply shouldn't be fucking with the way that government operates, like this.
i really think that the party has an obligation to step in.
i mean, my vote was premised upon two things that i thought would be obvious:
(1) he knew his role was to campaign, not to govern.
(2) the party was in charge.
i'm not sure either are panning out, right now.
the idea that the liberal party would have any reason to fuck with the court selection process is incoherent. he wants to one-up his father. and, he can't be allowed to fail.
if he wants to one-up his father, he should step down immediately, go back to school and run again in ten-twenty years.
as of right now, the premise is preposterous and the party cannot sit back and continue to entertain his absurd whims.
i just want to...
it's not like hw and w bush. the biggest problem is trying to compare the elder bush to the elder trudeau.
it's more like john adams and john quincy adams, in the sense that pierre trudeau was so important in drafting the country's constitution. but, john quincy adams was actually consdered a good statesman. i'm left kind of wishing that monroe or madison or even jefferson had a well-meaning but ill-equipped son. that is the right level of relative importance!
don't make the comparison, though. the elder trudeau was far too important in canadian history to compare him to a one-term president. you can't get a proper understanding of the trudeau name, that way.
let me be more explicit, but terse: if you set up an "independent, non-partisan" body then what is going to happen within minutes is that it is going to get captured by financial interests. this has been studied to death. you only do this if you're ignorant or you're corrupt - you're either not well enough read on the topic, or you actually want the body to get captured. i suspect the former.
there is no debate on the outcome. all independent bodies get captured. there are no exceptions. this is a failed policy approach.
so, when applied to a court selection process, the so-called independent body that he's setting up to prevent back room deals (a problem that doesn't exist...) can be nothing more or less than opening up the process to an open lobbying procedure in a way that is at arms-length from any accountable process. i almost want to throw orwell at you yet again, but i really do think that this is less corruption and more incompetence.
regardless, what he's done here - whether he realizes it or not - is put the seat up for sale.
his father would have rejected anything of the sort, which is just my point. it's not that he had some magical properties that the son could have inherited. he was just very educated on the topic and had the experience to see how things would logically unfold. he would not have bought into such nonsense.
again: i think most people assumed the party was in charge. very few people would have voted for a 40 year-old drama teacher, otherwise - even considering how unpopular the incumbent was. and, this is not what anybody voted for.
broadly speaking, every time you hear the terms "bipartisan" or "non-partisan", that is newspeak for "unaccountability" and "corporate oligarchy". it means that the government is relinquishing control to capital.
we'll have to see what the results are.
but, what terrible judgement.
the prime minister's office recently appointed the person that approved this ad to pick the next supreme court justice of canada.
the actual truth is that the selection was probably calculated to appeal to female identity voters - ignoring the fact that she's a monster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PikszBkfTHM
it would be really great if they'd stop electioneering and start governing.
it's not just bad judgement, it's also a real slap in the face.
remember: canada has a recall process. sort of. we can remove sitting prime ministers through a vote of non-confidence. we don't directly elect them, and the election is not in any way interpreted as a vote for prime minister, either formally or informally. the liberals could remove trudeau at any given point.
i think the most recent example of this was in australia.
the court nomination process is not minor. we'll see what comes out of it. but, if he appoints some "bipartisan" judge, i'd expect to hear a mutiny rumbling.
if i was there, i'd be leading the charge.
canada's greatest strength up to now has been it's court. we have very liberal courts, because we are able to appoint the judges more or less at whim. nowhere did he campaign on making it harder for liberal prime ministers to continue to appoint liberal judges. in fact, he won in a landslide.
not only is there no mandate for this, but it's directly opposite to his mandate - and entirely out of right field.
if you're on the political left, it is of the utmost importance that we retain control of the courts. i don't know where this idea of giving the courts away to a "non-partisan process" (read: corporate stacking) comes from, but it really has to be stopped.
i voted for the liberals and i want the liberals to appoint a very, very, very liberal judge. this is not complicated.
the existing selection process is not a problem, and it doesn't require a fix.
thankfully, i don't believe that what they're setting up is constitutional. ironically, the court itself will strike it down - should somebody challenge it. but, there's a lot of red flags going off regarding the amount of flat out fuckery this guy wants to push through. i don't know what it is...
his father was a law professor, a constitutional expert - perhaps not a gentleman, but certainly a scholar. justin trudeau has no meaningful academic background. and, he simply shouldn't be fucking with the way that government operates, like this.
i really think that the party has an obligation to step in.
i mean, my vote was premised upon two things that i thought would be obvious:
(1) he knew his role was to campaign, not to govern.
(2) the party was in charge.
i'm not sure either are panning out, right now.
the idea that the liberal party would have any reason to fuck with the court selection process is incoherent. he wants to one-up his father. and, he can't be allowed to fail.
if he wants to one-up his father, he should step down immediately, go back to school and run again in ten-twenty years.
as of right now, the premise is preposterous and the party cannot sit back and continue to entertain his absurd whims.
i just want to...
it's not like hw and w bush. the biggest problem is trying to compare the elder bush to the elder trudeau.
it's more like john adams and john quincy adams, in the sense that pierre trudeau was so important in drafting the country's constitution. but, john quincy adams was actually consdered a good statesman. i'm left kind of wishing that monroe or madison or even jefferson had a well-meaning but ill-equipped son. that is the right level of relative importance!
don't make the comparison, though. the elder trudeau was far too important in canadian history to compare him to a one-term president. you can't get a proper understanding of the trudeau name, that way.
let me be more explicit, but terse: if you set up an "independent, non-partisan" body then what is going to happen within minutes is that it is going to get captured by financial interests. this has been studied to death. you only do this if you're ignorant or you're corrupt - you're either not well enough read on the topic, or you actually want the body to get captured. i suspect the former.
there is no debate on the outcome. all independent bodies get captured. there are no exceptions. this is a failed policy approach.
so, when applied to a court selection process, the so-called independent body that he's setting up to prevent back room deals (a problem that doesn't exist...) can be nothing more or less than opening up the process to an open lobbying procedure in a way that is at arms-length from any accountable process. i almost want to throw orwell at you yet again, but i really do think that this is less corruption and more incompetence.
regardless, what he's done here - whether he realizes it or not - is put the seat up for sale.
his father would have rejected anything of the sort, which is just my point. it's not that he had some magical properties that the son could have inherited. he was just very educated on the topic and had the experience to see how things would logically unfold. he would not have bought into such nonsense.
again: i think most people assumed the party was in charge. very few people would have voted for a 40 year-old drama teacher, otherwise - even considering how unpopular the incumbent was. and, this is not what anybody voted for.
broadly speaking, every time you hear the terms "bipartisan" or "non-partisan", that is newspeak for "unaccountability" and "corporate oligarchy". it means that the government is relinquishing control to capital.
j reacts to a dream about being ostracized in response to my own rejection of society
of course you uphold the system and are angry at me for rejecting it. that's how you were programmed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)