i seem to have lost it somewhere in my cheek.
john who, though?
i really am only dancing. and i think that should be obvious to experienced onlookers.
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Monday, May 28, 2018
but, to be clear. a few points.
1) i don't think the pcs are collapsing. i've been arguing for months that they were never running that high in the first place, but that the inflated numbers are a relic of the process, given that the conservatives have the most dedicated base; i told you from the start that the numbers would come down as the numbers fill in. all of the polling everywhere says that conservatives of all types in canada have almost no potential to swing anybody. so, when you see these between election polls that have the conservatives at 45%, all it really means is that everybody else actually looks at evidence before they make a voting decision, rather than decide what brand they want to vote for two or three years away from making the actual choice.
the conservatives were running in the mid-30s the whole time.
2) millennial voters may have been unreliable voters when they were younger, as gen x voters and baby boomer voters were when they were younger, too. but, understand that if you were born in 1980 then you're 38 years old, now. this year should be the first batch of voters born in the twenty-first century. millennials aren't the youth vote anymore. you should expect them to start voting more reliably, now - and focus your scorn on the younger generation. but, what that means is that we may be seeing the creation of a rigid ndp base and, if that is true, the same processes would apply to the ndp that do to the conservatives, and their vote would also be inflated.
i believe that the ndp numbers are currently being inflated and that they are running in the high 20s.
3) liberals are just feeling frustrated & disenfranchised. the factors that are inflating the totals of conservatives & dippers must also be under-estimating the totals of liberals. that's zero-sum.
i think the liberals are currently running in the mid 20s.
this is about what we've got right now, then:
conservatives: 33
ndp: 29
liberals: 25
undecided: 9
greens: 4
1) i don't think the pcs are collapsing. i've been arguing for months that they were never running that high in the first place, but that the inflated numbers are a relic of the process, given that the conservatives have the most dedicated base; i told you from the start that the numbers would come down as the numbers fill in. all of the polling everywhere says that conservatives of all types in canada have almost no potential to swing anybody. so, when you see these between election polls that have the conservatives at 45%, all it really means is that everybody else actually looks at evidence before they make a voting decision, rather than decide what brand they want to vote for two or three years away from making the actual choice.
the conservatives were running in the mid-30s the whole time.
2) millennial voters may have been unreliable voters when they were younger, as gen x voters and baby boomer voters were when they were younger, too. but, understand that if you were born in 1980 then you're 38 years old, now. this year should be the first batch of voters born in the twenty-first century. millennials aren't the youth vote anymore. you should expect them to start voting more reliably, now - and focus your scorn on the younger generation. but, what that means is that we may be seeing the creation of a rigid ndp base and, if that is true, the same processes would apply to the ndp that do to the conservatives, and their vote would also be inflated.
i believe that the ndp numbers are currently being inflated and that they are running in the high 20s.
3) liberals are just feeling frustrated & disenfranchised. the factors that are inflating the totals of conservatives & dippers must also be under-estimating the totals of liberals. that's zero-sum.
i think the liberals are currently running in the mid 20s.
this is about what we've got right now, then:
conservatives: 33
ndp: 29
liberals: 25
undecided: 9
greens: 4
last night is absolutely clear. no blurry moments. well paced.
although, i enjoyed the reaction from the bartender when i went to get a last beer at the very end of the night.
"yeah. right."
she just wanted to go home. understandable.
i think it was more about how well i was standing after drinking & dancing all night than anything else, it was an expression of disbelief, but you have to understand how much exercise i get anyways - i'm just kind of healthy at a sort of bionic level. if my bac spikes, it spikes. but it's a separate process than my actual ability to really effortlessly push myself all night, on pretty much any night. i can dance or bike or walk essentially at will. if i have to stop, it's going to be because my feet get sore, not because of exhaustion.
but, for the record: i had two shots of jager about 10:30, a tall can of mike's at about 11:30 and then slowly drank seven beers (by my best count) over what was in total about a 12 hour party. that's 11 drinks in 12 hours, although the drinking took part mostly over the first 9. that's not excessive by any definition, it's just a long night.
i picked the texture after party because the line-up was stacked; if you have tastes similar to mine, that was the line-up of the weekend kind of thing. i don't follow djs the way i follow rock musicians, or even electronic composers, so i'm not going to pretend i have a deeper understanding of things than i do, but the sets last night were dark and minimal and a little bit noisy - they were the proper crossover for somebody into old industrial music and the dirtier side of hardcore, trying to find an appropriate party at a house festival. the floor was a little packed at first but started to clear out nicely for the last two sets. so, the dancing was good for the last half of the night.
i stayed at the bar late to catch the billed artists, but the party largely moved to the park a little after four. i made it there eventually, and spent a few hours there before i went home. it was gospel when i left...
a fun night...
i made it home about noon, and i've been up and down, sleeping without sleeping. it's like a sauna in here; i love it. keeping me up, though. i more listened to the debate than watched it. tomorrow is an even longer day - about 20 hours of mostly straight dancing - so i'd better get ready for it by sleeping a little bit this morning.
although, i enjoyed the reaction from the bartender when i went to get a last beer at the very end of the night.
"yeah. right."
she just wanted to go home. understandable.
i think it was more about how well i was standing after drinking & dancing all night than anything else, it was an expression of disbelief, but you have to understand how much exercise i get anyways - i'm just kind of healthy at a sort of bionic level. if my bac spikes, it spikes. but it's a separate process than my actual ability to really effortlessly push myself all night, on pretty much any night. i can dance or bike or walk essentially at will. if i have to stop, it's going to be because my feet get sore, not because of exhaustion.
but, for the record: i had two shots of jager about 10:30, a tall can of mike's at about 11:30 and then slowly drank seven beers (by my best count) over what was in total about a 12 hour party. that's 11 drinks in 12 hours, although the drinking took part mostly over the first 9. that's not excessive by any definition, it's just a long night.
i picked the texture after party because the line-up was stacked; if you have tastes similar to mine, that was the line-up of the weekend kind of thing. i don't follow djs the way i follow rock musicians, or even electronic composers, so i'm not going to pretend i have a deeper understanding of things than i do, but the sets last night were dark and minimal and a little bit noisy - they were the proper crossover for somebody into old industrial music and the dirtier side of hardcore, trying to find an appropriate party at a house festival. the floor was a little packed at first but started to clear out nicely for the last two sets. so, the dancing was good for the last half of the night.
i stayed at the bar late to catch the billed artists, but the party largely moved to the park a little after four. i made it there eventually, and spent a few hours there before i went home. it was gospel when i left...
a fun night...
i made it home about noon, and i've been up and down, sleeping without sleeping. it's like a sauna in here; i love it. keeping me up, though. i more listened to the debate than watched it. tomorrow is an even longer day - about 20 hours of mostly straight dancing - so i'd better get ready for it by sleeping a little bit this morning.
Sunday, May 27, 2018
i thought you were supposed to forfeit the argument when you bring up a frivolous hitler comparison? but, that's kind of a fascist rule, isn't it. no debate for you.
the condescension coming from ford, who is now taking advantage of poorly thought through negative trump comparisons by actually aping his whole schtick, is starting to get painful. he's using the kind of verbal sales techniques that they train people to use in pyramid schemes, which is perhaps even an apt comparison. it would be painfully transparent if you were to bump into somebody in a store trying to sell you a warranty plan on a vacuum cleaner by talking to you like that, but watching him extrapolate that unsavoury experience to a camera broadcasting in prime time was physically nauseating; i felt embarrassed for conservative supporters, embarrassed for ford nation and a little embarrassed for the province. i want to be clear that the really cringey part isn't where he's taking the level of discourse, which is down several grade points, but the dripping contempt for voters' intelligence that is exposed in the process of doing so. doug ford doesn't just think you're stupid, he thinks you're a hopeless fucking idiot that can't even figure out google; it must be hard for us to type with those knuckles dragging through the sand, but the kids use alexa instead of google nowadays anyways, right?
hey, alexa. what's a demagogue?
wynne held her own, and drew attention to some of the weird parts in the ndp platform, or just about the ndp over all. i don't think the ndp are actually going to ban back-to-work legislation. horwath's reaction was pretty terrible for a nominal socialist; she reacted to a question about class conflict with an appeal to class harmony. as though electing the ndp will finally put an end to that pesky class war with a group hug and an appeal to solidarity as humans. people are people, too. maybe somebody gave her a copy of reflections on the revolution and told her it was das kapital. the root cause of labour conflict is the accumulation of profit, andrea. i'm all for getting to that root cause, but it's an end, not a means to it. it was actually an absolutely classically conservative approach to labour. but, even so, it was disingenuous: of course the ndp is going to use back-to-work legislation at some point. where wynne came off well in this exchange is that she forced horwath to defend what is really an indefensible position that she can't go off message on.
as i've said, my understanding of the election right now is that liberal voters don't know what to do. i don't know if it works or not, but i think wynne won a few points tonight.
the condescension coming from ford, who is now taking advantage of poorly thought through negative trump comparisons by actually aping his whole schtick, is starting to get painful. he's using the kind of verbal sales techniques that they train people to use in pyramid schemes, which is perhaps even an apt comparison. it would be painfully transparent if you were to bump into somebody in a store trying to sell you a warranty plan on a vacuum cleaner by talking to you like that, but watching him extrapolate that unsavoury experience to a camera broadcasting in prime time was physically nauseating; i felt embarrassed for conservative supporters, embarrassed for ford nation and a little embarrassed for the province. i want to be clear that the really cringey part isn't where he's taking the level of discourse, which is down several grade points, but the dripping contempt for voters' intelligence that is exposed in the process of doing so. doug ford doesn't just think you're stupid, he thinks you're a hopeless fucking idiot that can't even figure out google; it must be hard for us to type with those knuckles dragging through the sand, but the kids use alexa instead of google nowadays anyways, right?
hey, alexa. what's a demagogue?
wynne held her own, and drew attention to some of the weird parts in the ndp platform, or just about the ndp over all. i don't think the ndp are actually going to ban back-to-work legislation. horwath's reaction was pretty terrible for a nominal socialist; she reacted to a question about class conflict with an appeal to class harmony. as though electing the ndp will finally put an end to that pesky class war with a group hug and an appeal to solidarity as humans. people are people, too. maybe somebody gave her a copy of reflections on the revolution and told her it was das kapital. the root cause of labour conflict is the accumulation of profit, andrea. i'm all for getting to that root cause, but it's an end, not a means to it. it was actually an absolutely classically conservative approach to labour. but, even so, it was disingenuous: of course the ndp is going to use back-to-work legislation at some point. where wynne came off well in this exchange is that she forced horwath to defend what is really an indefensible position that she can't go off message on.
as i've said, my understanding of the election right now is that liberal voters don't know what to do. i don't know if it works or not, but i think wynne won a few points tonight.
see, this is a good projection of the narrative constructed by the corporate media in canada, which has been been brutally ripping apart kathleen wynne for months.
it's the articles that summarize the points that give away that there's a storyteller. and, something similar is being constructed for justin trudeau - an orderly collapse through trips to india and equity rights, things that ought to seem like crowd pleasers, beyond their absolute irrelevance.
i'm going to say this again: the liberal party of canada has to do something about the conservative media monopoly.
http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/marin-wynne-took-herself-and-the-liberals-down
it's the articles that summarize the points that give away that there's a storyteller. and, something similar is being constructed for justin trudeau - an orderly collapse through trips to india and equity rights, things that ought to seem like crowd pleasers, beyond their absolute irrelevance.
i'm going to say this again: the liberal party of canada has to do something about the conservative media monopoly.
http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/marin-wynne-took-herself-and-the-liberals-down
Saturday, May 26, 2018
the trip-metal show last night was experiential more than anything else; i got to see drew mcdowall & martin rev on the same bill, which has a shelf-life of about five years: they'll both be dead soon. i didn't catch any of the other sets.
drew mcdowall is of course known for his work with coil. he's now 57. this is one of the best records of all time:
martin rev was half of the hyper-seminal act, suicide. he's now 70 years old. this is one of the most important records of the latter half the twentieth century:
it seemed like it should have been an industrial night, so i tried to get to city club before midnight to avoid cover and didn't get there in time. for some reason, i always spend the whole night outside whenever i'm at city club; i remember paying cover (and i had a stamp), and i remember dropping my can of beer and quickly picking it back up in the hallway on the walk to the back of the club (the truth is that i'm a klutz; that could have happened cold sober on a good day), but i couldn't have actually been in the bar for more than a few minutes, because all i really remember is talking out in the front. i think i left a full drink in there and never went back to get it. the night is pretty much there, it's just a tad blurry from about 2-4; i'm thinking i went in for a few minutes a bit before 2:00, and then went back out and pretty much stayed there. also, the bar closed at 4:00 again, after advertising sets running until 5:00. sometimes they close at 3:00. i actually meant to go back in around 4:00, but they were kicking people out. did komprezzor even spin? was he even there? so, i meant to catch some dirty techno sets, but it didn't really happen, i was just outside smoking all night.
which isn't terrible. it was a gorgeous night. the real point of last night was that it was gorgeous, so maybe it worked out better, anyways.
i did leave with a couple guys, but i'd been talking to them outside, and the idea was just to carry on the conversation. the straight guy was well behaved and sober, but the gay guy was a bit drunk and kind of grabby. i'm pretty tolerant up to a point; i don't take much offence to the odd ass grab, but i'm going to punch you in the face if you take it much further than that. i don't do the proportional reaction thing: i'm going to not react at all until a line gets crossed, and then i'm going to beat the shit out of you. a lot of it comes down to not having the same cultural associations attached to touching that your average, you know, white christian girl does. the rational fact is that having my ass grabbed by a drunk gay guy does not actually harm me in any way. it just doesn't. but, the moment i feel like i'm actually being harassed, i'm going to react like a frightened primate, because that's what i actually am.
bicycle note notwithstanding, the projection i got from these guys is that they were trying to get me off the street, and i appreciated that. we had a drink. smoked a bit. and i left.
tonight is a longer night, time to get ready.
drew mcdowall is of course known for his work with coil. he's now 57. this is one of the best records of all time:
martin rev was half of the hyper-seminal act, suicide. he's now 70 years old. this is one of the most important records of the latter half the twentieth century:
it seemed like it should have been an industrial night, so i tried to get to city club before midnight to avoid cover and didn't get there in time. for some reason, i always spend the whole night outside whenever i'm at city club; i remember paying cover (and i had a stamp), and i remember dropping my can of beer and quickly picking it back up in the hallway on the walk to the back of the club (the truth is that i'm a klutz; that could have happened cold sober on a good day), but i couldn't have actually been in the bar for more than a few minutes, because all i really remember is talking out in the front. i think i left a full drink in there and never went back to get it. the night is pretty much there, it's just a tad blurry from about 2-4; i'm thinking i went in for a few minutes a bit before 2:00, and then went back out and pretty much stayed there. also, the bar closed at 4:00 again, after advertising sets running until 5:00. sometimes they close at 3:00. i actually meant to go back in around 4:00, but they were kicking people out. did komprezzor even spin? was he even there? so, i meant to catch some dirty techno sets, but it didn't really happen, i was just outside smoking all night.
which isn't terrible. it was a gorgeous night. the real point of last night was that it was gorgeous, so maybe it worked out better, anyways.
i did leave with a couple guys, but i'd been talking to them outside, and the idea was just to carry on the conversation. the straight guy was well behaved and sober, but the gay guy was a bit drunk and kind of grabby. i'm pretty tolerant up to a point; i don't take much offence to the odd ass grab, but i'm going to punch you in the face if you take it much further than that. i don't do the proportional reaction thing: i'm going to not react at all until a line gets crossed, and then i'm going to beat the shit out of you. a lot of it comes down to not having the same cultural associations attached to touching that your average, you know, white christian girl does. the rational fact is that having my ass grabbed by a drunk gay guy does not actually harm me in any way. it just doesn't. but, the moment i feel like i'm actually being harassed, i'm going to react like a frightened primate, because that's what i actually am.
bicycle note notwithstanding, the projection i got from these guys is that they were trying to get me off the street, and i appreciated that. we had a drink. smoked a bit. and i left.
tonight is a longer night, time to get ready.
found this on my bicycle this morning.
initially thought i got ticketed.
the bar closed a bit early. so, i went around the corner and had a drink with a straight guy & a gay guy and left when the sun came up. i'm not sure i deserved the free drink, but i appreciated it.
but, it made me chuckle that somebody would do this. guess they didn't get a chance to talk to me.
of course i'm not going to call, but i might reverse directory it.
initially thought i got ticketed.
the bar closed a bit early. so, i went around the corner and had a drink with a straight guy & a gay guy and left when the sun came up. i'm not sure i deserved the free drink, but i appreciated it.
but, it made me chuckle that somebody would do this. guess they didn't get a chance to talk to me.
of course i'm not going to call, but i might reverse directory it.
Friday, May 25, 2018
ford's path to victory was always reliant on his ability to swing ethnic conservatives on social issues, without losing too much support in the more traditional tory base, which is fiscally conservative, but rather socially liberal. this is a different country; we don't have a prominent christian right, here. i mean, it exists. but it's perpetually marginalized. it's the biggest difference between the two countries, and you can see it evidenced in policy, from gay marriage to abortion rights.
it's a contradiction that the conservatives need to resolve to form a government: their future is ethnic voters that want social conservatism and big government (not dissimilar to rural whites in the united states), but their past is fiscal conservatives that want responsible spending and libertarian social policy. that's a tightrope to walk. and it required a smart leader to navigate it.
ford has managed to alienate everybody. he fired the kingmaker, tanya allen granic, who was organizing support against sex ed. the beer in the corner store thing seems stupid and trivial to white people, but it's going to be a big deal for muslims, which is who wynne was really talking to - at the expense of her own party brand. but, by talking about this stuff, he scared people. on top of that, he speaks so vaguely about spending to a base that cares deeply about it that he has projected an aura of absolutely no credibility on fiscal concerns whatsoever. i think he even promised to run deficits.
so, what he had to do was build support in ethnic communities by pushing right-wing social messaging, while holding wealthy whites by appealing to their pocket books, and he's really done the exact opposite, alienating both groups of people.
i will say that: it's really a massive accomplishment to cut the tory base up. bravo, doug. that's been solid for decades. i guess if anybody could do it, it was going to be a ford brother.
this doesn't change any of the long term demographic realities i've been talking about. but, my fears of a realigning election appear to have been misfounded; the rejection of doug ford appears to be rather total. it's a tripartisan conclusion across race and class: this guy can't be running things.
but, again, that doesn't mean these people are going to vote ndp. it's more likely that they don't vote at all.
what if we get something like 15% turnout? is there a concept of quorum in the westminster system?
it's a contradiction that the conservatives need to resolve to form a government: their future is ethnic voters that want social conservatism and big government (not dissimilar to rural whites in the united states), but their past is fiscal conservatives that want responsible spending and libertarian social policy. that's a tightrope to walk. and it required a smart leader to navigate it.
ford has managed to alienate everybody. he fired the kingmaker, tanya allen granic, who was organizing support against sex ed. the beer in the corner store thing seems stupid and trivial to white people, but it's going to be a big deal for muslims, which is who wynne was really talking to - at the expense of her own party brand. but, by talking about this stuff, he scared people. on top of that, he speaks so vaguely about spending to a base that cares deeply about it that he has projected an aura of absolutely no credibility on fiscal concerns whatsoever. i think he even promised to run deficits.
so, what he had to do was build support in ethnic communities by pushing right-wing social messaging, while holding wealthy whites by appealing to their pocket books, and he's really done the exact opposite, alienating both groups of people.
i will say that: it's really a massive accomplishment to cut the tory base up. bravo, doug. that's been solid for decades. i guess if anybody could do it, it was going to be a ford brother.
this doesn't change any of the long term demographic realities i've been talking about. but, my fears of a realigning election appear to have been misfounded; the rejection of doug ford appears to be rather total. it's a tripartisan conclusion across race and class: this guy can't be running things.
but, again, that doesn't mean these people are going to vote ndp. it's more likely that they don't vote at all.
what if we get something like 15% turnout? is there a concept of quorum in the westminster system?
the ekos numbers in the last federal election were an actual outlier, and in the end it seemed to be that his methodology had a problem with undecided voters, who really only made up their mind to vote liberal at the very last minute. i suggested to him that he should publish undecideds.
he's not publishing these numbers.
i can speculate that he's dealing with the same basic concern, which is that his system is being broken by an electorate that doesn't want to give him a straight answer - because it doesn't have one. that's consistent with the other numbers i'm seeing.
...which isn't to say that i think he's making up numbers. i don't doubt that this is what he has. but, it seems to be reflecting low engagement, rather than a surge of young people swinging ndp. if young liberals & young conservatives just refuse to vote, or are tuning out of the system altogether due to awful choices, the historically solid - but smaller - ndp base looks dominant because they're the only people that are still bothering to show up. they're the only people still excited, the only people still into this.
voter apathy usually helps the conservatives. this is is usually explained by demographics, but it might also have something to do with the conservatives having a more robust grassroots - and they do. maybe a part of the reason that conservatives have higher voting retention is that they're more involved in the selection process. but, conservatives don't like their own guy this time, either. that's unusual.
it may be the ndp that has the most engaged base this election. and, if voter engagement amongst conservatives & liberals is really falling by up to 40%, they may win accidentally due to voter suppression.
it's not hard to believe that the ndp have the most engaged and dedicated voting base amongst young activists; if they're the only young people that bother to vote this election, you get that exaggerated skew out of nowhere.
this at least makes sense to me; it would be less that horwath is swinging all of these liberals all of a sudden, and more that the ndp is the only party that hasn't cratered with it's own support base. and, that is indeed sort of what happened in 1990, right?
but, as mentioned in the analysis, and also by mainstreet, the key variable appears to be turnout modelling. if the liberal ground game in toronto holds, or the conservatives can get the old folks excited after all, the calculation changes.
i'm just trying to get the point across so this isn't misunderstood: there doesn't appear to be a surge towards the ndp so much as there seems to be an extreme level of apathy setting in with the other two parties, which could allow the ndp to double the percentage of their vote, even as they don't actually swing anybody.
but, again: that might not translate into actual seats.
i'm still waiting on the mainstreet numbers.
http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_may_25_2018.pdf
he's not publishing these numbers.
i can speculate that he's dealing with the same basic concern, which is that his system is being broken by an electorate that doesn't want to give him a straight answer - because it doesn't have one. that's consistent with the other numbers i'm seeing.
...which isn't to say that i think he's making up numbers. i don't doubt that this is what he has. but, it seems to be reflecting low engagement, rather than a surge of young people swinging ndp. if young liberals & young conservatives just refuse to vote, or are tuning out of the system altogether due to awful choices, the historically solid - but smaller - ndp base looks dominant because they're the only people that are still bothering to show up. they're the only people still excited, the only people still into this.
voter apathy usually helps the conservatives. this is is usually explained by demographics, but it might also have something to do with the conservatives having a more robust grassroots - and they do. maybe a part of the reason that conservatives have higher voting retention is that they're more involved in the selection process. but, conservatives don't like their own guy this time, either. that's unusual.
it may be the ndp that has the most engaged base this election. and, if voter engagement amongst conservatives & liberals is really falling by up to 40%, they may win accidentally due to voter suppression.
it's not hard to believe that the ndp have the most engaged and dedicated voting base amongst young activists; if they're the only young people that bother to vote this election, you get that exaggerated skew out of nowhere.
this at least makes sense to me; it would be less that horwath is swinging all of these liberals all of a sudden, and more that the ndp is the only party that hasn't cratered with it's own support base. and, that is indeed sort of what happened in 1990, right?
but, as mentioned in the analysis, and also by mainstreet, the key variable appears to be turnout modelling. if the liberal ground game in toronto holds, or the conservatives can get the old folks excited after all, the calculation changes.
i'm just trying to get the point across so this isn't misunderstood: there doesn't appear to be a surge towards the ndp so much as there seems to be an extreme level of apathy setting in with the other two parties, which could allow the ndp to double the percentage of their vote, even as they don't actually swing anybody.
but, again: that might not translate into actual seats.
i'm still waiting on the mainstreet numbers.
http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_may_25_2018.pdf
forum, living up to it's reputation.
official rebuttal: c'mon.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/05/25/ndp-surges-ahead-in-poll.html
official rebuttal: c'mon.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/05/25/ndp-surges-ahead-in-poll.html
i was initially thinking i had a good pick between two solid parties tomorrow night, and now i'm thinking neither one is really worth it, whether i can get in to the latter or not.
so, do i want to go to trip metal and go home early? that means catching the 1:00 bus, meaning i could probably catch the whole show. but, i think everybody playing is over 65.
the show starts at 4:00 pm.
i'm as picky about techno as i am about anything else, and i've learned the hard way that i'm not just going to ignore it in a blur of inebriation. there's lots of things happening tomorrow night, i'm just not particularly excited about any of it.
i am excited about staying out on a warm night. this is the first really seriously nice night of the year. but not at the expense of pissing away $100 on lacklustre sets.
the other two nights are better and will cost less.
i'm just worried that, if i go to the trip-metal thing, then i won't want to go home after.
ergh.
so, do i want to go to trip metal and go home early? that means catching the 1:00 bus, meaning i could probably catch the whole show. but, i think everybody playing is over 65.
the show starts at 4:00 pm.
i'm as picky about techno as i am about anything else, and i've learned the hard way that i'm not just going to ignore it in a blur of inebriation. there's lots of things happening tomorrow night, i'm just not particularly excited about any of it.
i am excited about staying out on a warm night. this is the first really seriously nice night of the year. but not at the expense of pissing away $100 on lacklustre sets.
the other two nights are better and will cost less.
i'm just worried that, if i go to the trip-metal thing, then i won't want to go home after.
ergh.
Thursday, May 24, 2018
think about it.
what do hardcore techno and hardcore punk have in common?
the beat.
bass-snare ------> bass-clap.
it's actually the same basic premise, the same actual formula. and, so it's easy to hear how one became the other, by changing the instrumentation.
and, the transition point was industrial music.
what do hardcore techno and hardcore punk have in common?
the beat.
bass-snare ------> bass-clap.
it's actually the same basic premise, the same actual formula. and, so it's easy to hear how one became the other, by changing the instrumentation.
and, the transition point was industrial music.
it's not that i doubt the truth of any of this, it's just that it's only one story of the origin of techno.
i could tell you the story of british rave music, the second summer of love and it's originators in what was called industrial music - the scene that developed out of throbbing gristle and psychic tv, and extrapolated itself dramatically through the early warp records catalogue. but, americans have this strange aversion to european anything. this origin story develops techno not out of detroit or berlin but as a corollary of the british punk scene. the first ravers were actually british punks!
a third origin story begins in new york and intersects through the beginnings of hip-hop and the downtown art scene, including the important work of steve reich, and falling together into experimental acts like suicide. and, martin rev is going to be in detroit this weekend.
a fourth origin story begins in japan with the yellow magic orchestra, while a fifth develops from progressive rock and jazz fusion through the vector of early video game programming.
there is no question that detroit has claim to a certain strain of electronic music, but i'm not even certain that 'techno' is really the right name for it. the electronic music from detroit is a variant of house music, and broadly lacks the symphonic or jazz-focused development that most people associate with the term 'techno'. detroit is not the home of the techno crescendo, for example, which is the obvious defining characteristic of what that word means.
but, i think the error here is trying to lay claim to something that was spontaneous and happening everywhere at the same time. fans of punk rock will understand this dilemma, as it is claimed by a number of places, including detroit - which may legitimately have the earliest claim, if it doesn't have the best one. but, everybody knows this is really just silly. punk may have been invented in new york, but it was formed in england, and done best in california.
what detroit can say about techno is that it invented detroit techno - which is tautological.
and, i will say this as plainly as i can: detroit has a reputation of being a place that is hanging on to things. it might want to let this go. the rest of the world knows the truth, detroit - you're not fooling anybody.
https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/detroit-is-techno-city-and-techno-is-black/Content?oid=12291432&utm_source=widget&utm_medium=articleblog&utm_campaign=rightrail&utm_content=TabbedPopularity
i could tell you the story of british rave music, the second summer of love and it's originators in what was called industrial music - the scene that developed out of throbbing gristle and psychic tv, and extrapolated itself dramatically through the early warp records catalogue. but, americans have this strange aversion to european anything. this origin story develops techno not out of detroit or berlin but as a corollary of the british punk scene. the first ravers were actually british punks!
a third origin story begins in new york and intersects through the beginnings of hip-hop and the downtown art scene, including the important work of steve reich, and falling together into experimental acts like suicide. and, martin rev is going to be in detroit this weekend.
a fourth origin story begins in japan with the yellow magic orchestra, while a fifth develops from progressive rock and jazz fusion through the vector of early video game programming.
there is no question that detroit has claim to a certain strain of electronic music, but i'm not even certain that 'techno' is really the right name for it. the electronic music from detroit is a variant of house music, and broadly lacks the symphonic or jazz-focused development that most people associate with the term 'techno'. detroit is not the home of the techno crescendo, for example, which is the obvious defining characteristic of what that word means.
but, i think the error here is trying to lay claim to something that was spontaneous and happening everywhere at the same time. fans of punk rock will understand this dilemma, as it is claimed by a number of places, including detroit - which may legitimately have the earliest claim, if it doesn't have the best one. but, everybody knows this is really just silly. punk may have been invented in new york, but it was formed in england, and done best in california.
what detroit can say about techno is that it invented detroit techno - which is tautological.
and, i will say this as plainly as i can: detroit has a reputation of being a place that is hanging on to things. it might want to let this go. the rest of the world knows the truth, detroit - you're not fooling anybody.
https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/detroit-is-techno-city-and-techno-is-black/Content?oid=12291432&utm_source=widget&utm_medium=articleblog&utm_campaign=rightrail&utm_content=TabbedPopularity
on third thought...
the modern cathedrals show is actually over at 4:30 - there's a "chill out" set to close it down. so, i'm really only going to get an ~4 hour set of...moderately interesting techno...if i get there a bit after midnight. the headliners are on from 1:30-4:30, so that's three hours. if we get the advertised set...
terrence dixon doesn't have an endpoint to his set, so it could in theory go to 4:00. & kenny larkin seems a bit boomy, but, i am going to be drinking and looking to dance, after all. so, if i get there a bit before midnight (it's closer), or closer to 11:00 (if i leave early for it), i'm looking at an hour or two of silly techno, and at least two hours of something more interesting. it could be three hours. if we get a longer set on the deck...
if i go to the magic stick, and it's done early, i'm sure to end up in the neighbourhood of the tangent gallery, at least. they've been clear that nobody's buying tickets at the door. but, if i show up at 3:30, and twenty people have left, what do they do?
i may have nothing better to do than try.
and, if they're running late..
hrmmn.
i'm using paypal money, which means the cover for the other two nights is unbudgeted; it's not free, but it doesn't come out of anything meant for anything else. the other parties are all free. outside of beer money, this is the only thing coming out of my pocket.
i'll see how i feel tomorrow afternoon, i guess; i could end up at the magic stick, after all.
what i want is for the line-up at the magic stick to be staggered just a tad later, and in a way that people aren't competing with each other.
the modern cathedrals show is actually over at 4:30 - there's a "chill out" set to close it down. so, i'm really only going to get an ~4 hour set of...moderately interesting techno...if i get there a bit after midnight. the headliners are on from 1:30-4:30, so that's three hours. if we get the advertised set...
terrence dixon doesn't have an endpoint to his set, so it could in theory go to 4:00. & kenny larkin seems a bit boomy, but, i am going to be drinking and looking to dance, after all. so, if i get there a bit before midnight (it's closer), or closer to 11:00 (if i leave early for it), i'm looking at an hour or two of silly techno, and at least two hours of something more interesting. it could be three hours. if we get a longer set on the deck...
if i go to the magic stick, and it's done early, i'm sure to end up in the neighbourhood of the tangent gallery, at least. they've been clear that nobody's buying tickets at the door. but, if i show up at 3:30, and twenty people have left, what do they do?
i may have nothing better to do than try.
and, if they're running late..
hrmmn.
i'm using paypal money, which means the cover for the other two nights is unbudgeted; it's not free, but it doesn't come out of anything meant for anything else. the other parties are all free. outside of beer money, this is the only thing coming out of my pocket.
i'll see how i feel tomorrow afternoon, i guess; i could end up at the magic stick, after all.
what i want is for the line-up at the magic stick to be staggered just a tad later, and in a way that people aren't competing with each other.
the conservatives won a large number of seats in toronto in the 2008 federal election by using media to run the leader of the party, stephane dion, into the ground.
very few toronto liberals voted for the conservatives or ndp, but enough avoided voting altogether that it got harper a lot closer to a majority.
if main street is right, and turnout is down by as much as 40%, that might be the right model to look at. and, if it is, and the depressed turnout is overwhelmingly liberal in past voting intentions, it might be the case that the second-place parties end up winning seats by default - because liberals have completely tuned out.
the liberals have a strong base in toronto. it might be easier and more likely to suppress than swing.
but, they also have a strong ground game and this has been underestimated before.
as i've pointed out a few times: if toronto holds liberal, we could see provincial numbers swing all over the place, and very few seats actually change hands. the vote is strongly concentrated; if they get wiped out outside toronto, and yet hold it, they could end up third in the popular vote, and still win the most seats. you'd need them running in the high 20s, minimum, though. but, if liberals don't vote, in the end, it's hard to imagine any outcome besides a tory win.
people hate this woman. i get it. but, if she has the best ground game in the most populous region, it doesn't matter.
the tories don't have a large enough swing to compete where they haven't already won. and, the ndp need a 10+% swing to be serious, not a 5% one.
we'll see what the numbers say tomorrow. but i'm still holding to a likely pc minority.
very few toronto liberals voted for the conservatives or ndp, but enough avoided voting altogether that it got harper a lot closer to a majority.
if main street is right, and turnout is down by as much as 40%, that might be the right model to look at. and, if it is, and the depressed turnout is overwhelmingly liberal in past voting intentions, it might be the case that the second-place parties end up winning seats by default - because liberals have completely tuned out.
the liberals have a strong base in toronto. it might be easier and more likely to suppress than swing.
but, they also have a strong ground game and this has been underestimated before.
as i've pointed out a few times: if toronto holds liberal, we could see provincial numbers swing all over the place, and very few seats actually change hands. the vote is strongly concentrated; if they get wiped out outside toronto, and yet hold it, they could end up third in the popular vote, and still win the most seats. you'd need them running in the high 20s, minimum, though. but, if liberals don't vote, in the end, it's hard to imagine any outcome besides a tory win.
people hate this woman. i get it. but, if she has the best ground game in the most populous region, it doesn't matter.
the tories don't have a large enough swing to compete where they haven't already won. and, the ndp need a 10+% swing to be serious, not a 5% one.
we'll see what the numbers say tomorrow. but i'm still holding to a likely pc minority.
it would be nice to get a second opinion, but he's the only scientific pollster in the field, right now.
https://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/ontario-campaign-2018-state-of-the-race/
https://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/ontario-campaign-2018-state-of-the-race/
the mainstreet poll should be out tomorrow, i think. we'll see if it picks up the same movement to the ndp or not.
if it doesn't, the media will reject it as an "outlier". wrong.
it's the only scientific poll in the field. you can't be an outlier, when the sample size is one.
rather, what it will demonstrate - again - is that the "online polling" is merely propaganda.
if it does pick up the same trend, what we'll need to look at is how it's being quantified. i would not be surprised, at this point, to see some firming of ndp support at the expense of the liberals - if for no other reason that the media is pushing it down so strongly. but, i would be very surprised to see the ndp competing with the tories for first place.
i think that what the polling is going to reveal is the following:
1) are undecideds remaining steady, or are they beginning to shift one way or another?
2) how seriously do we need to take the idea of a hung parliament?
if it doesn't, the media will reject it as an "outlier". wrong.
it's the only scientific poll in the field. you can't be an outlier, when the sample size is one.
rather, what it will demonstrate - again - is that the "online polling" is merely propaganda.
if it does pick up the same trend, what we'll need to look at is how it's being quantified. i would not be surprised, at this point, to see some firming of ndp support at the expense of the liberals - if for no other reason that the media is pushing it down so strongly. but, i would be very surprised to see the ndp competing with the tories for first place.
i think that what the polling is going to reveal is the following:
1) are undecideds remaining steady, or are they beginning to shift one way or another?
2) how seriously do we need to take the idea of a hung parliament?
hrmmn.
i might end up staying in tomorrow; the late party doesn't seem worth it, but then the early party doesn't, either.
i made a kind of a bad gamble, in thinking the line-up at the magic stick was actually better than the one at modern cathedrals, and if i was going to show up late after trip metal, anyways, i'd probably have a better time at the magic stick. the tickets were also cheaper...and there was no warning of an increase in price....
i figured if i got to the magic stick at 12:00 and stayed there until 4:00, i could get a coffee at the old diner around 4:30, leave a little after 5:00 and catch the early bus to get ready for the next day, which starts at 22:00 and runs until the next afternoon. less crazy than staying at tangent until 6:00, but tangent has been raided more than once, too - there's no guarantee they'll be open until 6:00. if tangent does get raided, i'm the one laughing at the stick right?
but, they've since doubled the price of the ticket (to the same cost as the modern cathedrals show) and put the two djs i wanted to see on at the same time. these particular djs are the most interesting ones playing anywhere on that night, they really are, but i'm not really interested in paying $30 for a two hour set and spending it bouncing between areas - and then having to find a late party somewhere else, anyways.
modern cathedrals is now sold out.
i'm wondering if my secret hideout might be open. it's not far from the modern cathedrals show. and, are they really going to turn people away once people start exiting, fucked up on whatever? i probably wouldn't get there until 1:00, anyways.
ack.
if i can't find a late party, i'll probably stay in tomorrow. that's ok, i've got two long nights planned afterwards.
i might end up staying in tomorrow; the late party doesn't seem worth it, but then the early party doesn't, either.
i made a kind of a bad gamble, in thinking the line-up at the magic stick was actually better than the one at modern cathedrals, and if i was going to show up late after trip metal, anyways, i'd probably have a better time at the magic stick. the tickets were also cheaper...and there was no warning of an increase in price....
i figured if i got to the magic stick at 12:00 and stayed there until 4:00, i could get a coffee at the old diner around 4:30, leave a little after 5:00 and catch the early bus to get ready for the next day, which starts at 22:00 and runs until the next afternoon. less crazy than staying at tangent until 6:00, but tangent has been raided more than once, too - there's no guarantee they'll be open until 6:00. if tangent does get raided, i'm the one laughing at the stick right?
but, they've since doubled the price of the ticket (to the same cost as the modern cathedrals show) and put the two djs i wanted to see on at the same time. these particular djs are the most interesting ones playing anywhere on that night, they really are, but i'm not really interested in paying $30 for a two hour set and spending it bouncing between areas - and then having to find a late party somewhere else, anyways.
modern cathedrals is now sold out.
i'm wondering if my secret hideout might be open. it's not far from the modern cathedrals show. and, are they really going to turn people away once people start exiting, fucked up on whatever? i probably wouldn't get there until 1:00, anyways.
ack.
if i can't find a late party, i'll probably stay in tomorrow. that's ok, i've got two long nights planned afterwards.
fell asleep again this morning. argh. and, i ate early, too, to prevent it. *shrug*.
the air quality is certainly suspect in these early crashes, but it's hard to tie together anything substantive. i'm happy it's nice and warm in here, anyways.
my drugs are now fully covered, which gives me an extra $85/month, which i may very well spend on rent. it expands the scope of what's available, anyways.
i got a hold of somebody about a non-smoking apartment, but it's available for june 1st. if i break the lease, i won't get my last month's back, so i'd be breaking it for july 1st, as of right now (and not paying june). and, after june 1st, it's going to be rigid for august (meaning i won't pay july). i'll need to wait until the next showing.
and, i've decided, for that reason, i should wait until next week to make any more calls. i don't want to be tempted, and after i pay june's rent there's no longer a choice.
that means i'll need to find something over the weeks of june.
still need to call a dentist...
the air quality is certainly suspect in these early crashes, but it's hard to tie together anything substantive. i'm happy it's nice and warm in here, anyways.
my drugs are now fully covered, which gives me an extra $85/month, which i may very well spend on rent. it expands the scope of what's available, anyways.
i got a hold of somebody about a non-smoking apartment, but it's available for june 1st. if i break the lease, i won't get my last month's back, so i'd be breaking it for july 1st, as of right now (and not paying june). and, after june 1st, it's going to be rigid for august (meaning i won't pay july). i'll need to wait until the next showing.
and, i've decided, for that reason, i should wait until next week to make any more calls. i don't want to be tempted, and after i pay june's rent there's no longer a choice.
that means i'll need to find something over the weeks of june.
still need to call a dentist...
also: when i was a child, i never cried.
not that i remember, it's what my mom said.
i was apparently highly non-vocal all around, but just started talking in full, flowing sentences one day, out of the blue. it was apparently concluded by some doctors that i had decided against speaking. i just didn't want to talk.
was i an existentialist as a toddler? was life already so absurd, that there wasn't any point in speaking? did i realize that nothing good comes out of arguing, so i'm better off being quiet?
in hindsight, i don't think this is far from the truth. i might suggest that what was happening was actually a lack of emotion, and reflective of a personality disorder; i was a little sociopath, really. aren't all toddlers sociopaths? not in an introverted sense, like this.
she says it was clear that i understood her, but i just refused to actually respond. until i did, one day. and instantly converted myself from a borderline autism case into a highly precocious gifted gift.
fine lines.
not that i remember, it's what my mom said.
i was apparently highly non-vocal all around, but just started talking in full, flowing sentences one day, out of the blue. it was apparently concluded by some doctors that i had decided against speaking. i just didn't want to talk.
was i an existentialist as a toddler? was life already so absurd, that there wasn't any point in speaking? did i realize that nothing good comes out of arguing, so i'm better off being quiet?
in hindsight, i don't think this is far from the truth. i might suggest that what was happening was actually a lack of emotion, and reflective of a personality disorder; i was a little sociopath, really. aren't all toddlers sociopaths? not in an introverted sense, like this.
she says it was clear that i understood her, but i just refused to actually respond. until i did, one day. and instantly converted myself from a borderline autism case into a highly precocious gifted gift.
fine lines.
what i think is that hip-hop is the absolute pinnacle of gramscian hetero-patriarchal conditioning, using quasi-scientific methods, and that the effectiveness of this strategy is clear from the empirical results: the target audience is a perfect representation of the status quo. it's not just kanye west.
your hip-hop records are just corporate brainwashing, intended to teach you to love capitalism and the systems of control that uphold it.
your hip-hop records are just corporate brainwashing, intended to teach you to love capitalism and the systems of control that uphold it.
there still hasn't been any scientific polling released since the weekend.
and, no - it's not the case that you can argue that the unscientific polls are convincing if they're consistent with themselves. fallacy.
i'm not arguing that the unscientific polling is necessarily wrong; it might be correct, by coincidence. or, it's trajectory might be continuing evidence of the argument i presented previously - that the media is trying to split the vote.
i'll need to consult some scientific polling before i can present an analysis of this.
and, no - it's not the case that you can argue that the unscientific polls are convincing if they're consistent with themselves. fallacy.
i'm not arguing that the unscientific polling is necessarily wrong; it might be correct, by coincidence. or, it's trajectory might be continuing evidence of the argument i presented previously - that the media is trying to split the vote.
i'll need to consult some scientific polling before i can present an analysis of this.
my teeth.
if you're curious.
i have never had a cavity, and rarely go to the dentist. i have all of my teeth, still. in fact, i have some crowding in the back - a few extra.
it was now quite a while ago that i went to the dentist for the first time in years, and what he did was fill in a couple of gaps with some kind of cement. i can't remember what the procedure was called, but he literally just drew it in.
since then, i've drank a lot of coffee, and picked up some stains on the cement in my mouth. it's not the prettiest thing, but it's just cosmetic.
i never made it to the follow-up, because i moved to windsor from ottawa. and i was waiting to quit smoking before i booked another appointment. and then after i quit i just never got around to it.
i'm going to have my phone open this morning. and i'm going to try and book an appointment.
i repeat: it's coffee stains. it's cosmetic. i'm going to guess they'll paint over them; my teeth are, in fact, actually flawless.
if you're curious.
i have never had a cavity, and rarely go to the dentist. i have all of my teeth, still. in fact, i have some crowding in the back - a few extra.
it was now quite a while ago that i went to the dentist for the first time in years, and what he did was fill in a couple of gaps with some kind of cement. i can't remember what the procedure was called, but he literally just drew it in.
since then, i've drank a lot of coffee, and picked up some stains on the cement in my mouth. it's not the prettiest thing, but it's just cosmetic.
i never made it to the follow-up, because i moved to windsor from ottawa. and i was waiting to quit smoking before i booked another appointment. and then after i quit i just never got around to it.
i'm going to have my phone open this morning. and i'm going to try and book an appointment.
i repeat: it's coffee stains. it's cosmetic. i'm going to guess they'll paint over them; my teeth are, in fact, actually flawless.
i want to be clear though.
when you kill a fly (and i'm actually fairly good at catching them with my bare hands), there is a fly carcass that you then need to retrieve and flush.
but, when you kill a moth, it often vanishes into some alternate dimension - because it's just water.
i've pulled two of these things out of my hair tonight and they're just water. no carcass. just kersplat. but they're like two-three times the size of a house fly.
if they were may flies, i'd be getting swarmed, right? or there would be a swarm outside. there's not.
hrmmn.
when you kill a fly (and i'm actually fairly good at catching them with my bare hands), there is a fly carcass that you then need to retrieve and flush.
but, when you kill a moth, it often vanishes into some alternate dimension - because it's just water.
i've pulled two of these things out of my hair tonight and they're just water. no carcass. just kersplat. but they're like two-three times the size of a house fly.
if they were may flies, i'd be getting swarmed, right? or there would be a swarm outside. there's not.
hrmmn.
no.
wait.
that can't be right; they're aquatic in that phase.
hrmmn. not certain what these bugs are, then. they fly, land in your hair, are about 2-3 cm long and are squished into water on quite minimal force.
i haven't see any roaches in here since december, but the ones i saw were climbing species and i'm wondering if it's humid enough for them to fly....which would be creepy...
they could be very small mayflies? ugh. i've killed two tonight, but, like i say, they just squished into water on immediate contact - i'll have to see if i can get one in a good enough condition to study.
wait.
that can't be right; they're aquatic in that phase.
hrmmn. not certain what these bugs are, then. they fly, land in your hair, are about 2-3 cm long and are squished into water on quite minimal force.
i haven't see any roaches in here since december, but the ones i saw were climbing species and i'm wondering if it's humid enough for them to fly....which would be creepy...
they could be very small mayflies? ugh. i've killed two tonight, but, like i say, they just squished into water on immediate contact - i'll have to see if i can get one in a good enough condition to study.
you know, they don't have mayflies in ottawa.
that's two, tonight. i guess they came in the window...they just fall right on you...
i remember seeing them last year when i biked out to tecumseh to see a neurologist. just swarms of them all over the store....first time i'd seen one, creeped me out...
i just hate getting bugs in my hair. ick. and it's nice to knoiw what they actually are.
i think they're mayflies, anyways. the nymphs...
that's two, tonight. i guess they came in the window...they just fall right on you...
i remember seeing them last year when i biked out to tecumseh to see a neurologist. just swarms of them all over the store....first time i'd seen one, creeped me out...
i just hate getting bugs in my hair. ick. and it's nice to knoiw what they actually are.
i think they're mayflies, anyways. the nymphs...
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
collective bargaining ought to be absolute to a point, there does need to be a concept of essential services that can't be shut down, but nobody should take the ndp seriously when they claim some pure adherence to it.
every government passes back to work legislation.
it's dirty but it's necessary, sometimes.
every government passes back to work legislation.
it's dirty but it's necessary, sometimes.
my hydro bill would be about $30/month - $10 for electricity and $20 for delivery. and i don't use a/c. ever. in fact, i complain about the neighbours when they do...
i get a $70 rebate under the hydro plan.
so, i get about $35 a month, credit.
so, my credit at enwin is currently about $150. i don't know if they pay it out at the end, or not.
under horwath's plan, if taken at face value, i'd go from $0 to $20.
i'd rather pay $0 than $20.
i get a $70 rebate under the hydro plan.
so, i get about $35 a month, credit.
so, my credit at enwin is currently about $150. i don't know if they pay it out at the end, or not.
under horwath's plan, if taken at face value, i'd go from $0 to $20.
i'd rather pay $0 than $20.
to be fair, horwath is also promising to take some production offline, which would in theory reduce prices, if it weren't for the need to absorb the payouts.
the only way to reduce prices is to use more electricity. it's counter-intuitive, but it's the way the system was designed; we were supposed to have electric cars by now. things like expanded subway and rail lines, or a push for new streetlights, would actually help to lower costs. christmas lights all year? art installations? you get the point.
i benefit from wynne's plan; i get free hydro, although i'm going to be looking for something all inclusive for august, too. if ford wants to carry through with it, great. but, horwath would actually raise my electrical bill from $0 to something more than $0, and because i'm dealing with small sums it's substantive percentages of total income. if i take them at face value, i'd be better off with ford than horwath - and i'm at the absolute bottom of the income scale.
https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/8623194-hydro-sparks-election-debate-but-parties-promises-don-t-add-up/
the only way to reduce prices is to use more electricity. it's counter-intuitive, but it's the way the system was designed; we were supposed to have electric cars by now. things like expanded subway and rail lines, or a push for new streetlights, would actually help to lower costs. christmas lights all year? art installations? you get the point.
i benefit from wynne's plan; i get free hydro, although i'm going to be looking for something all inclusive for august, too. if ford wants to carry through with it, great. but, horwath would actually raise my electrical bill from $0 to something more than $0, and because i'm dealing with small sums it's substantive percentages of total income. if i take them at face value, i'd be better off with ford than horwath - and i'm at the absolute bottom of the income scale.
https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/8623194-hydro-sparks-election-debate-but-parties-promises-don-t-add-up/
i got lucky and found a good spot.
i got unlucky and had it taken over by a terrible person.
this place sucks...
i can find another good spot, i'm sure.
http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/apartment-rental-rates-in-windsor-lowest-in-nation-study-says
i got unlucky and had it taken over by a terrible person.
this place sucks...
i can find another good spot, i'm sure.
http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/apartment-rental-rates-in-windsor-lowest-in-nation-study-says
so, the same thing happened this morning that happened yesterday, although i have to point that a big part of it was that it was so cold in here...so i sat down to warm up and passed out.
*shrug*
this is the adjustment i'm going to make: i'm going to start looking early tomorrow morning, and make some calls before i eat.
i guess i'm back to rebuilding for the night.
*shrug*
this is the adjustment i'm going to make: i'm going to start looking early tomorrow morning, and make some calls before i eat.
i guess i'm back to rebuilding for the night.
if we had a right-leaning liberal government in ontario, it wouldn't matter - it couldn't get worse, right?
we don't.
the sitting liberal government in ontario is actually by far the most left-leaning in the country.
it's just not the right time to make the gamble, especially not given horwath's historical tendencies to lean to the right.
we don't.
the sitting liberal government in ontario is actually by far the most left-leaning in the country.
it's just not the right time to make the gamble, especially not given horwath's historical tendencies to lean to the right.
i don't remember bob rae either, but i'm educated enough on the history to understand what the ndp are all about: they're a controlled opposition party that campaigns on the left and governs on the right, which is where their history in fire and brimstone prairie populism is.
their founder, tommy douglas, was basically a nazi.
throughout the years, there's always been reasons to keep them out. they've held homophobic positions, racist positions, xenophobic positions, backwards positions on trade, weird positions on the constitution, bizarre positions on sovereignty, scary ideas about electoral reform - ideas that smart people have, in the end, usually rejected. sometimes, they produce good mps, and you want them on committee. but, you've generally wanted to keep the way they think - this "progressive" ideology - out of government, because it just leads to calvinism and eugenics, in the end.
the liberals have always been the more secular and more humanist party. and, they've always done the heavy lifting, in the end.
their founder, tommy douglas, was basically a nazi.
throughout the years, there's always been reasons to keep them out. they've held homophobic positions, racist positions, xenophobic positions, backwards positions on trade, weird positions on the constitution, bizarre positions on sovereignty, scary ideas about electoral reform - ideas that smart people have, in the end, usually rejected. sometimes, they produce good mps, and you want them on committee. but, you've generally wanted to keep the way they think - this "progressive" ideology - out of government, because it just leads to calvinism and eugenics, in the end.
the liberals have always been the more secular and more humanist party. and, they've always done the heavy lifting, in the end.
the ndp are famous in canada for running on great platforms, and then not carrying through with any of it - or even doing the exact opposite.
rae won primarily on universal auto insurance, which never happened.
the 2015 election aside, where the liberals and ndp switched roles, the liberals usually run less flashy and more realistic campaigns, then tend to actually follow through with it.
so, you need to be constantly weighing that out.
but, the ndp will not do anything in their platform; they never do.
rae won primarily on universal auto insurance, which never happened.
the 2015 election aside, where the liberals and ndp switched roles, the liberals usually run less flashy and more realistic campaigns, then tend to actually follow through with it.
so, you need to be constantly weighing that out.
but, the ndp will not do anything in their platform; they never do.
it's not just bob rae. i mean, if you're talking about the ontario election, you cite bob rae as the obvious betrayer.
in the end, bob rae became a liberal, but it was clear he always was; i think andrea horwath is a conservative.
but, it's not just bob rae, it's the entire party, at every level of government. the sad truth is that there is not a single example of an actual left-wing ndp government. not even one. they're batting 0.
rachel notley is a pawn of the oil industry - veritably as far right as jason kenney. thomas mulcair lost because he ran to the right of justin trudeau. roy romanow has been praised by the fraser institute (the canadian heritage foundation, for those unclear). darrell dexter, greg selinger, ujjal dosanjh - every single one of them betrays their own base and lines up behind capital, in the end.
andrea horwath herself was heavily criticized four years ago for running to the right of the liberals.
you can fool me once, and you can fool me twice. but, after the thirty-seventh time? i'm not getting fooled again.
the knowledgeable political geek should realize that this isn't as obvious as a novice mind might think. it's not at all clear if horwath or ford are going to push bigger cuts, even if it is clear that ford will run deeper deficits.
it's not just bob rae; the ndp have never been what they claimed they were.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/05/22/consigning-the-bob-rae-monster-to-the-pages-of-history.html
in the end, bob rae became a liberal, but it was clear he always was; i think andrea horwath is a conservative.
but, it's not just bob rae, it's the entire party, at every level of government. the sad truth is that there is not a single example of an actual left-wing ndp government. not even one. they're batting 0.
rachel notley is a pawn of the oil industry - veritably as far right as jason kenney. thomas mulcair lost because he ran to the right of justin trudeau. roy romanow has been praised by the fraser institute (the canadian heritage foundation, for those unclear). darrell dexter, greg selinger, ujjal dosanjh - every single one of them betrays their own base and lines up behind capital, in the end.
andrea horwath herself was heavily criticized four years ago for running to the right of the liberals.
you can fool me once, and you can fool me twice. but, after the thirty-seventh time? i'm not getting fooled again.
the knowledgeable political geek should realize that this isn't as obvious as a novice mind might think. it's not at all clear if horwath or ford are going to push bigger cuts, even if it is clear that ford will run deeper deficits.
it's not just bob rae; the ndp have never been what they claimed they were.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/05/22/consigning-the-bob-rae-monster-to-the-pages-of-history.html
and, i'm now through april, 2016.
50 days left to go. 150 pages.
i need to eat & get looking...
the stench today appears to be cigarettes, and this is something that happens periodically; i don't know exactly where it's coming from, but it's enough that i've had to use the puffer. again: it's just overwhelming.
who smokes like this in a residential space? who is that selfish and clueless?
the people in this city are just horrible assholes. they just don't have any concept of decency, or self-respect. it's absurd, really/
50 days left to go. 150 pages.
i need to eat & get looking...
the stench today appears to be cigarettes, and this is something that happens periodically; i don't know exactly where it's coming from, but it's enough that i've had to use the puffer. again: it's just overwhelming.
who smokes like this in a residential space? who is that selfish and clueless?
the people in this city are just horrible assholes. they just don't have any concept of decency, or self-respect. it's absurd, really/
i actually don't think that the causes of transsexuality - or homosexuality - are being approached from the right angles.
i don't think that the reimer study proves anything more than that identity cannot be enforced. and, there is absolutely no convincing evidence of a genetic cause for any of this at all, whatsoever. i'll acknowledge some logic in the ideas of prenatal exposure, but i would expect these to have measurable physical consequences - like hermaphrodism - rather than abstract effects on brain chemistry that are easy to imagine but difficult to actually demonstrate.
i think that the proper idea has more to do with what psychologists call conditioning, and that the orientations and identities we see in front of us are complex things that are the result of chaotic interactions - it is learned in the sense that it is not genetic, but a lot of it is learned in an unconscious manner. identity & orientation are consequently stochastic & non-linear phenomena that can't be reduced to any specific or easy to understand cause. the cause of my own dysphoria is likely entirely different than the cause of another person's, as they both come out of random conditioning processes.
but, at the end of the day, i'm an autonomous being, and i made the decision to transition. i would react pretty violently to suggestions otherwise, as it would be a denial of agency.
i think the real issue here is a kind of scam by the pseudo-left to try and work through the contradictions in dealing with equality and what religion says about equality. if you look at this carefully, these ideas are broadly legal, rather than scientific in origin (although there are some unconvincing studies that attempted to demonstrate these legal ideas). what these people want to do is bridge a gap - they're told that these are "sinful" choices, so they react by trying to argue that it isn't a choice at all.
it's a neat legal argument, granted. and, we should be grateful when it has worked to get people out of trouble for sodomy charges, for example. but, the evidence does not support this.
further, as an atheist, i don't feel any imperative to align my views with those of some church. i don't care if some imam or some pastor somewhere thinks my decisions are "sinful", or feel any need to bow down to their authority on the matter. i'm perfectly willing to look them in the eye and tell them they're wrong to question my choices, and have no right to tell me my behaviour is immoral. and, i'd really like to see the left adopt this position.
for the foreseeable future, though, this debate is likely to carry on without any meaningful resolution. so long as the money is there, scientists will keep looking for something that isn't there. at the end of it, we'll at least be able to understand that and start looking for another explanation.
but, i don't think there's a single cause; i think it's best understood using chaos theory and unintentional subconscious psychological conditioning, rather than using genetics.
i don't think that the reimer study proves anything more than that identity cannot be enforced. and, there is absolutely no convincing evidence of a genetic cause for any of this at all, whatsoever. i'll acknowledge some logic in the ideas of prenatal exposure, but i would expect these to have measurable physical consequences - like hermaphrodism - rather than abstract effects on brain chemistry that are easy to imagine but difficult to actually demonstrate.
i think that the proper idea has more to do with what psychologists call conditioning, and that the orientations and identities we see in front of us are complex things that are the result of chaotic interactions - it is learned in the sense that it is not genetic, but a lot of it is learned in an unconscious manner. identity & orientation are consequently stochastic & non-linear phenomena that can't be reduced to any specific or easy to understand cause. the cause of my own dysphoria is likely entirely different than the cause of another person's, as they both come out of random conditioning processes.
but, at the end of the day, i'm an autonomous being, and i made the decision to transition. i would react pretty violently to suggestions otherwise, as it would be a denial of agency.
i think the real issue here is a kind of scam by the pseudo-left to try and work through the contradictions in dealing with equality and what religion says about equality. if you look at this carefully, these ideas are broadly legal, rather than scientific in origin (although there are some unconvincing studies that attempted to demonstrate these legal ideas). what these people want to do is bridge a gap - they're told that these are "sinful" choices, so they react by trying to argue that it isn't a choice at all.
it's a neat legal argument, granted. and, we should be grateful when it has worked to get people out of trouble for sodomy charges, for example. but, the evidence does not support this.
further, as an atheist, i don't feel any imperative to align my views with those of some church. i don't care if some imam or some pastor somewhere thinks my decisions are "sinful", or feel any need to bow down to their authority on the matter. i'm perfectly willing to look them in the eye and tell them they're wrong to question my choices, and have no right to tell me my behaviour is immoral. and, i'd really like to see the left adopt this position.
for the foreseeable future, though, this debate is likely to carry on without any meaningful resolution. so long as the money is there, scientists will keep looking for something that isn't there. at the end of it, we'll at least be able to understand that and start looking for another explanation.
but, i don't think there's a single cause; i think it's best understood using chaos theory and unintentional subconscious psychological conditioning, rather than using genetics.
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
drugs are fun when they're used sparingly to enhance the effects of events and experiences, but being addicted to drugs is a type of self-induced slavery, a type that the people around a drug addict have no responsibility to bear the effects of.
i don't care if this woman gets the help she needs to control her addiction.
i just want her carcinogenic, nausea-inducing, rancid shit out of my face.
i don't care if this woman gets the help she needs to control her addiction.
i just want her carcinogenic, nausea-inducing, rancid shit out of my face.
it's 10:00 pm on a fucking tuesday.
people do things like shower and read at 10:00 on a tuesday.
they don't sit around and get so fucking stoned they can't see.
you fucking loser...
and, it's like....be a fucking loser...i don't care...but go be a fucking loser in a parking lot, or in a field. don't do it somewhere where everybody else has to fucking deal with it.
you self-centered, worthless piece of shit.
it just makes me so fucking angry that these people can still exist, that people are raised so fucking terribly that they lack basic concepts of decency and respect for the people around them - or the self-respect to not be responsible for stinking up the whole goddamned block.
how does somebody have such little respect for themself that they don't care if people have made multiple requests to stop fucking blazing all the time? how can people have such little regard for their own integrity that they can look somebody in the eye and say "i am a habitual marijuana smoker, and i don't care if it makes everybody else sick".
it's revolting.
repulsive.
and remarkable that anybody could sanction this kind of behaviour.
there is no excuse for this. there really isn't.
people do things like shower and read at 10:00 on a tuesday.
they don't sit around and get so fucking stoned they can't see.
you fucking loser...
and, it's like....be a fucking loser...i don't care...but go be a fucking loser in a parking lot, or in a field. don't do it somewhere where everybody else has to fucking deal with it.
you self-centered, worthless piece of shit.
it just makes me so fucking angry that these people can still exist, that people are raised so fucking terribly that they lack basic concepts of decency and respect for the people around them - or the self-respect to not be responsible for stinking up the whole goddamned block.
how does somebody have such little respect for themself that they don't care if people have made multiple requests to stop fucking blazing all the time? how can people have such little regard for their own integrity that they can look somebody in the eye and say "i am a habitual marijuana smoker, and i don't care if it makes everybody else sick".
it's revolting.
repulsive.
and remarkable that anybody could sanction this kind of behaviour.
there is no excuse for this. there really isn't.
no, this is an old argument for me, because i used to get accused of being a pessimist all of the time. it's actually not even true.
whenever pessimism vs optimism is presented to you, what is actually being presented to you is really just a false dichotomy, but it's intriguing because it obscures a more fundamental division, which is realism vs magical thinking. pessimists and optimists are really two sides of the same coin: they're both existing in the realm of fantasy, of magical thinking, of utter delusion. the real counter to both optimism and pessimism (which are the same thing...) is realism.
the volume of water in the glass is 50% of it's maximum capacity.
get it?
whenever pessimism vs optimism is presented to you, what is actually being presented to you is really just a false dichotomy, but it's intriguing because it obscures a more fundamental division, which is realism vs magical thinking. pessimists and optimists are really two sides of the same coin: they're both existing in the realm of fantasy, of magical thinking, of utter delusion. the real counter to both optimism and pessimism (which are the same thing...) is realism.
the volume of water in the glass is 50% of it's maximum capacity.
get it?
so, what do we know about doug ford so far, anyways?
- he opposes an imaginary carbon tax
- he was going to open the greenbelt to development, but then decided not to *winkwink*
- he wants to cut taxes for people that don't pay taxes
- he wants alcohol & marijuana in corner stores
- he's going to slash revenues, and has no idea how he's going to pay for it.
- he's supposedly opposed to teaching sex ed in schools
- he opposes safe injection sites & wants to spend billions of public dollars on helping addicts
i thought "strong economic leadership" didn't make any sense. how do you campaign against this? how do you campaign for this?
have you seen idiocracy?
i'm not really in support of carbon taxes, but nobody is actually proposing one; i don't think poor people should pay taxes, but we already don't....and i don't have any particular aversion to beer at the corner store, but it's hardly a ballot question. nor do i really care about deficits.
the sex ed thing is a red flag, but i'm not sure how seriously i can take a guy that wants to eliminate sex ed and liberalize alcohol sales. it's a rather confused muslim that votes for that, isn't it? i'm thinking he's more likely to open a beer store across the street from your mosque than he is to protect your kids from their own sexuality.
the most contentious thing seems to be the billions wasted on trying to save addicts, which i'd argue would be better spent elsewhere - and closing these injection sites, which save taxpayers billions by stopping the spread of diseases. but, this doesn't seem to be very consistent with conservative party policy, does it?
so, the weird thing about doug ford is that he might not be that different from kathleen wynne, really. he keeps saying he'll carry through with what she's doing. the deficits might just be a little bigger. and, the policies might actually be a little more liberal.
i'm not endorsing this guy; i realize his aim is to sell off the province. but, this is the era we're in. would he move faster than the liberals or the ndp in selling off resources? who knows, really. all he really sold off in toronto was the garbage collection, right?
i'm never going to vote for the conservatives, myself; it's ideological, really. but, he seems less scary and more just kind of daft. and, i'm getting the impression that he's going to sleepwalk through a term or two and then fall asleep at the door on his way out.
- he opposes an imaginary carbon tax
- he was going to open the greenbelt to development, but then decided not to *winkwink*
- he wants to cut taxes for people that don't pay taxes
- he wants alcohol & marijuana in corner stores
- he's going to slash revenues, and has no idea how he's going to pay for it.
- he's supposedly opposed to teaching sex ed in schools
- he opposes safe injection sites & wants to spend billions of public dollars on helping addicts
i thought "strong economic leadership" didn't make any sense. how do you campaign against this? how do you campaign for this?
have you seen idiocracy?
i'm not really in support of carbon taxes, but nobody is actually proposing one; i don't think poor people should pay taxes, but we already don't....and i don't have any particular aversion to beer at the corner store, but it's hardly a ballot question. nor do i really care about deficits.
the sex ed thing is a red flag, but i'm not sure how seriously i can take a guy that wants to eliminate sex ed and liberalize alcohol sales. it's a rather confused muslim that votes for that, isn't it? i'm thinking he's more likely to open a beer store across the street from your mosque than he is to protect your kids from their own sexuality.
the most contentious thing seems to be the billions wasted on trying to save addicts, which i'd argue would be better spent elsewhere - and closing these injection sites, which save taxpayers billions by stopping the spread of diseases. but, this doesn't seem to be very consistent with conservative party policy, does it?
so, the weird thing about doug ford is that he might not be that different from kathleen wynne, really. he keeps saying he'll carry through with what she's doing. the deficits might just be a little bigger. and, the policies might actually be a little more liberal.
i'm not endorsing this guy; i realize his aim is to sell off the province. but, this is the era we're in. would he move faster than the liberals or the ndp in selling off resources? who knows, really. all he really sold off in toronto was the garbage collection, right?
i'm never going to vote for the conservatives, myself; it's ideological, really. but, he seems less scary and more just kind of daft. and, i'm getting the impression that he's going to sleepwalk through a term or two and then fall asleep at the door on his way out.
again: i don't see a reason to think that we're dealing with large shifts, just yet. i still think we have a lot of people that haven't decided, and it's producing funny polls.
but, i don't know of a scenario in ontario where the ndp finished second and the conservatives finished first.
the 2011 federal election is probably not the best predictor, because the conservatives polled relatively high and the ndp & liberals split almost cleanly. that doesn't appear to be likely this time.
i suspect the numbers may in the end look a little more like the 2008 federal election, although it's not clear which party will end up in second and which will end up in third. the numbers then were:
conservatives - 39% / 52 seats
liberals - 34% / 38 seats
ndp - 18% / 17 seats
it's dangerous to invert the liberals & ndp and conclude they'll end up with the same number of seats after the inversion; if the ndp are running at 34% and the liberals are running at 18%, you can't really conclude that the ndp will get 38 seats or the liberals will get 17 seats.
but, i think this is the type of parliament we're on the way towards - one where the conservatives have a plurality of seats, but the ndp & liberals together have a majority.
while the fake polling isn't a convincing argument, i'm beginning to concede the point that wynne is burying herself, and that an ndp shift is becoming inevitable - it's just a question of trying to accurately quantify it.
it's way too early to start modelling. but i don't see an obvious parallel, right now.
but, i don't know of a scenario in ontario where the ndp finished second and the conservatives finished first.
the 2011 federal election is probably not the best predictor, because the conservatives polled relatively high and the ndp & liberals split almost cleanly. that doesn't appear to be likely this time.
i suspect the numbers may in the end look a little more like the 2008 federal election, although it's not clear which party will end up in second and which will end up in third. the numbers then were:
conservatives - 39% / 52 seats
liberals - 34% / 38 seats
ndp - 18% / 17 seats
it's dangerous to invert the liberals & ndp and conclude they'll end up with the same number of seats after the inversion; if the ndp are running at 34% and the liberals are running at 18%, you can't really conclude that the ndp will get 38 seats or the liberals will get 17 seats.
but, i think this is the type of parliament we're on the way towards - one where the conservatives have a plurality of seats, but the ndp & liberals together have a majority.
while the fake polling isn't a convincing argument, i'm beginning to concede the point that wynne is burying herself, and that an ndp shift is becoming inevitable - it's just a question of trying to accurately quantify it.
it's way too early to start modelling. but i don't see an obvious parallel, right now.
so, this is a good demonstration of the absurdity of applying a universal swing.
even if it is true that the liberals are down 15 points and the ndp are up 15 points, it won't apply to every riding. and, i think there's reason to believe that the way it will apply will not particularly help the ndp a lot at all.
we'll see, though.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4212098/ontario-election-simulation-map/
even if it is true that the liberals are down 15 points and the ndp are up 15 points, it won't apply to every riding. and, i think there's reason to believe that the way it will apply will not particularly help the ndp a lot at all.
we'll see, though.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4212098/ontario-election-simulation-map/
i'm just imagining the scenario of a drunk person looking for a beer at 12:30.
if they're in town, they can find a bar. do i think it makes any difference if they try to get served at a bar or a store? well, you're going to run into hardasses either way, right. some bars serve anybody. some stores are pretty strict. the rules are going to be the same in either circumstance. so, what actual difference does it make? the server is a random variable, and you're just applying a prejudice towards one type or another.
you could argue that the bartender knows now much they've had to drink - which is true until they go to another bar.
maybe the more enlightened perspective is to put responsibility for drunkeness on the drunk, and not on the servers?
now, suppose this person is not in town. there may be a store a mile away, but the nearest bar is 20 miles away. is it a better idea to tell them to drive to the bar or let them pick it up at the store?
i'm not suggesting that this is a pressing issue; i'm not going to vote for or against beer in corner stores. i don't really care one way or another. but, kathleen wynne is embarrassing herself, and doing an incredible disservice to her party brand in thrusting out unfounded right-wing scare-mongering.
we need rational discourse, not the perpetuation of poorly thought through absurdities designed to act at the emotional level.
wynne isn't just running on an ndp platform, she's acting like an ndp leader. she's perpetuating all of the reasons i tend to avoid voting for this party, without really encapsulating any of the reasons i might think about it.....
even using the term "progressive" is bizarre. liberals are not "progressives", they're liberals. we fought prohibition, we didn't enact it. the ndp are progressives, in the prairie gospel sense. the conservatives are progressives in the populist farmers sense. the liberals are not and never have been nor have ever had anything to do with progressive politics.
the liberals may indeed require an extended period in the wilderness to figure out who they are. it's a shame. based purely on policy, they seemed to be doing alright. then, the writ dropped and it exposed a party that doesn't know what it is, any more.
i still don't really want to vote for the ndp. i want to vote for the liberals. but, the liberals don't seem to understand what being a liberal means any more....
i dunno what to do.
i don't think the conservatives are serious contenders in this riding, so it probably doesn't matter if i stay home.
if they're in town, they can find a bar. do i think it makes any difference if they try to get served at a bar or a store? well, you're going to run into hardasses either way, right. some bars serve anybody. some stores are pretty strict. the rules are going to be the same in either circumstance. so, what actual difference does it make? the server is a random variable, and you're just applying a prejudice towards one type or another.
you could argue that the bartender knows now much they've had to drink - which is true until they go to another bar.
maybe the more enlightened perspective is to put responsibility for drunkeness on the drunk, and not on the servers?
now, suppose this person is not in town. there may be a store a mile away, but the nearest bar is 20 miles away. is it a better idea to tell them to drive to the bar or let them pick it up at the store?
i'm not suggesting that this is a pressing issue; i'm not going to vote for or against beer in corner stores. i don't really care one way or another. but, kathleen wynne is embarrassing herself, and doing an incredible disservice to her party brand in thrusting out unfounded right-wing scare-mongering.
we need rational discourse, not the perpetuation of poorly thought through absurdities designed to act at the emotional level.
wynne isn't just running on an ndp platform, she's acting like an ndp leader. she's perpetuating all of the reasons i tend to avoid voting for this party, without really encapsulating any of the reasons i might think about it.....
even using the term "progressive" is bizarre. liberals are not "progressives", they're liberals. we fought prohibition, we didn't enact it. the ndp are progressives, in the prairie gospel sense. the conservatives are progressives in the populist farmers sense. the liberals are not and never have been nor have ever had anything to do with progressive politics.
the liberals may indeed require an extended period in the wilderness to figure out who they are. it's a shame. based purely on policy, they seemed to be doing alright. then, the writ dropped and it exposed a party that doesn't know what it is, any more.
i still don't really want to vote for the ndp. i want to vote for the liberals. but, the liberals don't seem to understand what being a liberal means any more....
i dunno what to do.
i don't think the conservatives are serious contenders in this riding, so it probably doesn't matter if i stay home.
i stopped this morning right before i got to the end of season 5.
there's now less than 2 months and less than two hundred pages before i get to the hookup with the blog, and the project flips over to archiving...
the audio closure also began in mid 2016, meaning i should be able to do some alter-reality work soon, too.
i wanted to eat and get to looking through listings this morning. instead, i crashed hard after the smoothie and feel like i should wait until tomorrow.
i wasn't as productive over the second half of the weekend as i'd have liked to have been. and all the listings i saw last week were for july...if can get a good 24 hours in, i think that's a better use of time tonight....
how's the air quality?
it's sporadic. she smoked a nasty joint last night, and it was still lingering deep into the morning. as mentioned, i slept all day - and i'm waking up feeling pretty awful. but, what i am is dehydrated, and i actually think it's partially from the air conditioner.
we're getting some nice hot & humid days this week, so i should be able to keep the windows open to fight the air. it really hasn't been warm enough out to turn the a/c on at all this spring. again: i don't understand these people. you turn the a/c on when it's 20 degrees out? what? i'd still have the heat on...20 degrees is cold...
what i'm going to say is that she's stopped smoking, except when it's raining. of course, that's the worst, because i can't always open the windows in the rain. but, you have to keep in mind that she has no legal obligation to smoke outside, either. this is a frustrating situation where nobody seems to know what the law is, and nobody seems to much care what it would be, if they did. it makes it difficult to react legally; neither the tenants nor the landlords care about the law or behave in ways consistent with it or intend to have to deal with it. anarchism isn't the idea that we don't follow laws, it's the idea that we don't need cops to force us to, and they're actually both failing that test, here - these are people that need a state to tell them what to do, because they can't figure it out on their own.
so, the landlord is illegally asking her to smoke outside, and she's mostly doing it, but it's not any kind of real solution. when she does decide to smoke inside, it lingers for days and makes me sick. the landlord is refusing to implement a real solution, which would be patching up the holes in the floor. he's really behaving illegally towards both of us, creating this false scenario of imaginary compromise. and, i think he's clueless enough to show up in court and say "i asked her to smoke outside...." and think that absolves him of liability. it doesn't. if he's not going to fix the floors, he needs to pay me out.
so, i'm going to work until i'm so hungry i have to stop.
there's now less than 2 months and less than two hundred pages before i get to the hookup with the blog, and the project flips over to archiving...
the audio closure also began in mid 2016, meaning i should be able to do some alter-reality work soon, too.
i wanted to eat and get to looking through listings this morning. instead, i crashed hard after the smoothie and feel like i should wait until tomorrow.
i wasn't as productive over the second half of the weekend as i'd have liked to have been. and all the listings i saw last week were for july...if can get a good 24 hours in, i think that's a better use of time tonight....
how's the air quality?
it's sporadic. she smoked a nasty joint last night, and it was still lingering deep into the morning. as mentioned, i slept all day - and i'm waking up feeling pretty awful. but, what i am is dehydrated, and i actually think it's partially from the air conditioner.
we're getting some nice hot & humid days this week, so i should be able to keep the windows open to fight the air. it really hasn't been warm enough out to turn the a/c on at all this spring. again: i don't understand these people. you turn the a/c on when it's 20 degrees out? what? i'd still have the heat on...20 degrees is cold...
what i'm going to say is that she's stopped smoking, except when it's raining. of course, that's the worst, because i can't always open the windows in the rain. but, you have to keep in mind that she has no legal obligation to smoke outside, either. this is a frustrating situation where nobody seems to know what the law is, and nobody seems to much care what it would be, if they did. it makes it difficult to react legally; neither the tenants nor the landlords care about the law or behave in ways consistent with it or intend to have to deal with it. anarchism isn't the idea that we don't follow laws, it's the idea that we don't need cops to force us to, and they're actually both failing that test, here - these are people that need a state to tell them what to do, because they can't figure it out on their own.
so, the landlord is illegally asking her to smoke outside, and she's mostly doing it, but it's not any kind of real solution. when she does decide to smoke inside, it lingers for days and makes me sick. the landlord is refusing to implement a real solution, which would be patching up the holes in the floor. he's really behaving illegally towards both of us, creating this false scenario of imaginary compromise. and, i think he's clueless enough to show up in court and say "i asked her to smoke outside...." and think that absolves him of liability. it doesn't. if he's not going to fix the floors, he needs to pay me out.
so, i'm going to work until i'm so hungry i have to stop.
Monday, May 21, 2018
two sentences in the platform on the gai.
but, what we've seen from the ndp is better encapsulated in the following part of the platform:
"The focus of the social assistance system should be helping people overcome barriers, get out of poverty and participate in society. "
that is what you're going to actually get from them. and, as such, i don't really trust them to follow through on a ubi; it's not really consistent with their ideological positions.
the tendency of "progressive" parties to push producerist policy is just typical calvinist bullshit: what they support is using the government's resources to send people to work, which in the end is just a process of trying to maximize profit for investors. it's this idea that the government is a human resources department for capital, and that, ultimately, it is work that sets us free. perfectly backwards. perfectly orwellian. you might naively point to religion as some kind of force of purity, but it was marx himself that made the point that religion is the tool that capital uses to brainwash workers with, and this is the analysis that any leftist would utilize - but progressives have never been leftists, they've always been conservatives.
i happen to seek freedom from labour, i don't need or want the government to help me to find a job, i want to abolish wage slavery. as the liberals are a bourgeois party, the focus on calvinism or producerism is less, and so they do seem to appeal more to the interests of artists.
i flipped through this, and my immediate take is that most of this just isn't going to happen, or is being presented sort of bizarrely. for example, they do state in the platform that their pharmacare plan only covers 125 drugs, but then they repeatedly refer to it as "universal pharmacare", which isn't really true. the liberal plan covers less people, but offers coverage for thousands of drugs for the people it's covering.
i sent my ndp mpp an email about getting estrogen covered under odsp once and he didn't reply. it's nice to see the promise, but i wouldn't bet on it. and, i'd be better off with the gai, if i have to choose.
i also don't think their claim that the liberals have pushed through deep cuts to health care is factually accurate; they actually brought in a special health tax. i spend a lot of time in the health system, and my only complaint is that the doctors seem to be too socially conservative. i've never faced unreasonable delays or experienced any of the things that the ndp are talking about.
at the end of the day, these are specific changes that will benefit specific people, so it's less about whether one health care plan is better than the other, and more about whether you're in a specific target group. if you're in the group that the liberals are targetting, you're obviously better off with a drug plan that covers thousands of medications; if you're not, the very limited coverage being offered by the ndp is better than nothing. it's something similar with the child care. so, it's a weird election on that level - there isn't really an objectively correct choice, not even over traditionally determined demographic groups.
nobody is offering universal plans, so it comes down to who you're being targeted by. and, that's a prescription to split the vote....
i don't get the same kind of personal commitment from horwath that i get from wynne; this is almost the exact opposite of what she told us four years ago, so it's feeling like she's just making shit up to get elected. it comes off as shady, slimy & opportunistic. i'm more inclined to believe that the 2014 version was the real andrea horwath, and so i'm left to conclude that you should be expecting her to govern on her right. at least the liberals have a record you can consult to understand where they sit: horwath just tells you what she thinks you want to hear, and changes her views as quickly as she realizes it isn't.
again: i don't want a change of government right now, and i'm uneasy about believing what the ndp is telling me. i don't think that voting ndp right now is a good idea. and, i think you should read this a bit more carefully, and compare it carefully to the 2014 platform, if you're convinced that it is.
https://www.ontariondp.ca/sites/default/files/Change-for-the-better.pdf
but, what we've seen from the ndp is better encapsulated in the following part of the platform:
"The focus of the social assistance system should be helping people overcome barriers, get out of poverty and participate in society. "
that is what you're going to actually get from them. and, as such, i don't really trust them to follow through on a ubi; it's not really consistent with their ideological positions.
the tendency of "progressive" parties to push producerist policy is just typical calvinist bullshit: what they support is using the government's resources to send people to work, which in the end is just a process of trying to maximize profit for investors. it's this idea that the government is a human resources department for capital, and that, ultimately, it is work that sets us free. perfectly backwards. perfectly orwellian. you might naively point to religion as some kind of force of purity, but it was marx himself that made the point that religion is the tool that capital uses to brainwash workers with, and this is the analysis that any leftist would utilize - but progressives have never been leftists, they've always been conservatives.
i happen to seek freedom from labour, i don't need or want the government to help me to find a job, i want to abolish wage slavery. as the liberals are a bourgeois party, the focus on calvinism or producerism is less, and so they do seem to appeal more to the interests of artists.
i flipped through this, and my immediate take is that most of this just isn't going to happen, or is being presented sort of bizarrely. for example, they do state in the platform that their pharmacare plan only covers 125 drugs, but then they repeatedly refer to it as "universal pharmacare", which isn't really true. the liberal plan covers less people, but offers coverage for thousands of drugs for the people it's covering.
i sent my ndp mpp an email about getting estrogen covered under odsp once and he didn't reply. it's nice to see the promise, but i wouldn't bet on it. and, i'd be better off with the gai, if i have to choose.
i also don't think their claim that the liberals have pushed through deep cuts to health care is factually accurate; they actually brought in a special health tax. i spend a lot of time in the health system, and my only complaint is that the doctors seem to be too socially conservative. i've never faced unreasonable delays or experienced any of the things that the ndp are talking about.
at the end of the day, these are specific changes that will benefit specific people, so it's less about whether one health care plan is better than the other, and more about whether you're in a specific target group. if you're in the group that the liberals are targetting, you're obviously better off with a drug plan that covers thousands of medications; if you're not, the very limited coverage being offered by the ndp is better than nothing. it's something similar with the child care. so, it's a weird election on that level - there isn't really an objectively correct choice, not even over traditionally determined demographic groups.
nobody is offering universal plans, so it comes down to who you're being targeted by. and, that's a prescription to split the vote....
i don't get the same kind of personal commitment from horwath that i get from wynne; this is almost the exact opposite of what she told us four years ago, so it's feeling like she's just making shit up to get elected. it comes off as shady, slimy & opportunistic. i'm more inclined to believe that the 2014 version was the real andrea horwath, and so i'm left to conclude that you should be expecting her to govern on her right. at least the liberals have a record you can consult to understand where they sit: horwath just tells you what she thinks you want to hear, and changes her views as quickly as she realizes it isn't.
again: i don't want a change of government right now, and i'm uneasy about believing what the ndp is telling me. i don't think that voting ndp right now is a good idea. and, i think you should read this a bit more carefully, and compare it carefully to the 2014 platform, if you're convinced that it is.
https://www.ontariondp.ca/sites/default/files/Change-for-the-better.pdf
the liberals need to be defending their own record, and putting forth their own proposals, not playing gotcha politics over trivialities.
i actually want to vote for what the liberals have put in motion. the ndp doesn't care about the environment, and it's stuck in a producerist attitude towards labour. the ndp haven't said anything about the gai, from what i can tell. but, these constant absurd meltdowns are making it almost impossible to hold to their own vision, which they're not even trying to project any more - they're just taking ideas from the ndp and watering them down, then selling it back as ndp-lite....and then criticizing them over trivial nonsense. who the fuck thought that would work?
it's almost like they're trying to lose this election.
i actually want to vote for what the liberals have put in motion. the ndp doesn't care about the environment, and it's stuck in a producerist attitude towards labour. the ndp haven't said anything about the gai, from what i can tell. but, these constant absurd meltdowns are making it almost impossible to hold to their own vision, which they're not even trying to project any more - they're just taking ideas from the ndp and watering them down, then selling it back as ndp-lite....and then criticizing them over trivial nonsense. who the fuck thought that would work?
it's almost like they're trying to lose this election.
it just exposes that the liberals have kind of lost the plot on their own governing proposals; it's a triviality, and about the only people that are going to give it a second thought are in the conservative party base. so, are they trying to stop conservatives from voting for the ndp?
it's just tactically incoherent.
it's just tactically incoherent.
during world war one, in the british empire, only people that owned property could vote. the mass of dead conscripted soldiers lacked the most basic concepts of freedom, as we understand them today - they were impoverished cannon fodder with almost no rights, that were sent to die for no discernible reason at all.
the poppy was meant to commemorate the senselessness of this slaughter by reminding us of how so many young men became fertilizer for these flowers that grow in the cemeteries of belgium, not uphold this revisionist nonsense that anybody "died for your freedom".
the poppy was meant to commemorate the senselessness of this slaughter by reminding us of how so many young men became fertilizer for these flowers that grow in the cemeteries of belgium, not uphold this revisionist nonsense that anybody "died for your freedom".
the poppy thing is complicated.
it's not supposed to be a glorification of war; it's supposed to be a symbol of mourning. but, in practice it's absolutely a glorification of war. so, i find myself largely in agreement with the statement, with the caveat that the thing has been badly co-opted.
i don't wear them, and i strenuously avoid the people handing them out.
it's not supposed to be a glorification of war; it's supposed to be a symbol of mourning. but, in practice it's absolutely a glorification of war. so, i find myself largely in agreement with the statement, with the caveat that the thing has been badly co-opted.
i don't wear them, and i strenuously avoid the people handing them out.
this tired old media narrative from the 1970s is coming back up: that the ndp are "fiscally irresponsible". that's propaganda from like three generations ago...
the facts in canada are that the ndp tends to be the party with the strongest fiscal discipline, as demonstrated by it's strong endorsement from the fraser institute (for roy romanow). bob rae is famous for his "rae days", which were a straight out attack on workers to try and cut the deficit.
on the other hand, the conservatives are known for running the largest deficits, due to their insistence on tax cuts that create structural deficits. they get into office by bribing people with tax cuts, but then they realize nothing can be cut after all, so they just let the deficits pile up.
these are just the facts: the ndp balances budgets by cutting programs, and the conservatives run huge deficits by decreasing taxes.
the liberals tend to exist in the middle, which is really the worst if you're an ideological small-c conservative: they run deficits, because they don't cut programs. they tend to privatize, instead, when they ought to raise corporate taxes, or ask the feds to print more money.
but, the narrative the media is going to present - that the conservatives are fiscally responsible and the ndp are not - is simply a fantasy reality. it may have been true before you were born, granted. but, it hasn't been true in forty years. in the modern era, it's the exact opposite: the conservatives run the biggest deficits, and the ndp run the smallest ones.
that's just the facts. just empirical observation.
the facts in canada are that the ndp tends to be the party with the strongest fiscal discipline, as demonstrated by it's strong endorsement from the fraser institute (for roy romanow). bob rae is famous for his "rae days", which were a straight out attack on workers to try and cut the deficit.
on the other hand, the conservatives are known for running the largest deficits, due to their insistence on tax cuts that create structural deficits. they get into office by bribing people with tax cuts, but then they realize nothing can be cut after all, so they just let the deficits pile up.
these are just the facts: the ndp balances budgets by cutting programs, and the conservatives run huge deficits by decreasing taxes.
the liberals tend to exist in the middle, which is really the worst if you're an ideological small-c conservative: they run deficits, because they don't cut programs. they tend to privatize, instead, when they ought to raise corporate taxes, or ask the feds to print more money.
but, the narrative the media is going to present - that the conservatives are fiscally responsible and the ndp are not - is simply a fantasy reality. it may have been true before you were born, granted. but, it hasn't been true in forty years. in the modern era, it's the exact opposite: the conservatives run the biggest deficits, and the ndp run the smallest ones.
that's just the facts. just empirical observation.
and, of course.
victoria day is, of course, about queen victoria, the previous long-lived queen, who resided over the decay of british society into rigid, puritanical absurdity. it's not exactly her fault, but she seems to have been on board with it - as weird and hypocritical as the period was. a lot of the social norms we take for granted - and that leftists have been fighting so hard to destroy - come out of this period of resurgent conservatism.
we'd be better off forgetting about it than upholding it - and, by co-opting the weekend for feats of drinking bombast, perhaps we are on the path there.
i'd be happy to see the name of the holiday changed.
speaking of which, i had to sleep most of the day. i was home around 9:30, but didn't really get to sleep until about 17:00. i am going to spend monday rebuilding, and then get back to looking on tuesday.
victoria day is, of course, about queen victoria, the previous long-lived queen, who resided over the decay of british society into rigid, puritanical absurdity. it's not exactly her fault, but she seems to have been on board with it - as weird and hypocritical as the period was. a lot of the social norms we take for granted - and that leftists have been fighting so hard to destroy - come out of this period of resurgent conservatism.
we'd be better off forgetting about it than upholding it - and, by co-opting the weekend for feats of drinking bombast, perhaps we are on the path there.
i'd be happy to see the name of the holiday changed.
speaking of which, i had to sleep most of the day. i was home around 9:30, but didn't really get to sleep until about 17:00. i am going to spend monday rebuilding, and then get back to looking on tuesday.
i spend a lot of time in detroit, and you can get booze in the corner stores, there. they're called "party stores", rather than convenience stores - there's a specific market for it. i kid you not. given the way i transit through detroit, this is useful to me. if i get out of a concert at 12:15 and want to get to a late night destination that's a 20-30 minute bike ride away, it makes sense to grab a drink for the ride.
i know that a lot of people will frown on this, and i ended that paragraph where i did to produce a shocked reaction, but i haven't lost any limbs yet and don't intend to any time soon. my example isn't exactly widely emulated.
that said, let's address the actual point here, which is the hours that the stores are open. the reason people get frustrated is that they have to go to a bar to get a drink if they can't get to the store before 22:00, or if they just happen to run out early. is 22:00 really a reasonable closing time in 2018? could it not be extended until 2:00?
but, this is just another example of where these parties are on the spectrum: the conservatives are promising to extend the hours available for purchase, while the socialists are in favour of continuing restricted access. then, they wonder why their bases are upside down - why the socialists do better with lawyers, and the conservatives do better with workers.
i don't personally find the status quo to be particularly restrictive, because i just buy more than i need ahead of time and then drink too much.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/05/19/andrea-horwath-says-ndp-would-not-allow-beer-wine-sales-at-corner-stores.html
i know that a lot of people will frown on this, and i ended that paragraph where i did to produce a shocked reaction, but i haven't lost any limbs yet and don't intend to any time soon. my example isn't exactly widely emulated.
that said, let's address the actual point here, which is the hours that the stores are open. the reason people get frustrated is that they have to go to a bar to get a drink if they can't get to the store before 22:00, or if they just happen to run out early. is 22:00 really a reasonable closing time in 2018? could it not be extended until 2:00?
but, this is just another example of where these parties are on the spectrum: the conservatives are promising to extend the hours available for purchase, while the socialists are in favour of continuing restricted access. then, they wonder why their bases are upside down - why the socialists do better with lawyers, and the conservatives do better with workers.
i don't personally find the status quo to be particularly restrictive, because i just buy more than i need ahead of time and then drink too much.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/05/19/andrea-horwath-says-ndp-would-not-allow-beer-wine-sales-at-corner-stores.html
toronto probably needs emergency shelter to house it's native-born homeless population, anyways.
if this is an excuse to get more money into the system, that's great. and, shame on everybody for needing a refugee crisis to do it.
i mean, john tory wasn't somewhere i was expecting to find an inversion of naomi klein's logic on disaster capitalism, but ill take it: let's take advantage of this crisis to get the funds flowing where they should have been flowing years ago.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/05/18/toronto-may-need-emergency-centres-to-house-refugees-says-mayor-tory.html
if this is an excuse to get more money into the system, that's great. and, shame on everybody for needing a refugee crisis to do it.
i mean, john tory wasn't somewhere i was expecting to find an inversion of naomi klein's logic on disaster capitalism, but ill take it: let's take advantage of this crisis to get the funds flowing where they should have been flowing years ago.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/05/18/toronto-may-need-emergency-centres-to-house-refugees-says-mayor-tory.html
again: i've been pointing out for a long time that i don't want to have these arguments. i have better things to do.
really.
it would be easier if practising muslims stayed in muslim countries, and we just focused on admitting apostates and atheists by screening them for high educational standards.
but, the reality is that this has been thrust upon us, and we have no choice but to fight this out in court - because i'm not about to let my rights be trampled over out of some bullshit appeal to relativism.
this is the future. it was predictable. and, only fools couldn't see it coming.
really.
it would be easier if practising muslims stayed in muslim countries, and we just focused on admitting apostates and atheists by screening them for high educational standards.
but, the reality is that this has been thrust upon us, and we have no choice but to fight this out in court - because i'm not about to let my rights be trampled over out of some bullshit appeal to relativism.
this is the future. it was predictable. and, only fools couldn't see it coming.
what we need to do is shift the narrative.
currently, we take this position that religious diversity should be respected,and we're all entitled to our beliefs. this is often confused for a liberal perspective, but is in truth incredibly right-wing.
what we need to shift the narrative to is the idea that it is in fact true that religion often teaches discrimination, and when it does so then the specific religion is wrong to do it. that is an actual liberal perspective on the topic: it seeks out an empirical truth, and interprets it relative to egalitarian principles.
we don't have an obligation to tolerate intolerance. when religion is intolerant, it needs to be called out for it. and, when religious beliefs lead people to break the law, they need to be held accountable for it, too.
it is ok to tell somebody that their religion is wrong.
currently, we take this position that religious diversity should be respected,and we're all entitled to our beliefs. this is often confused for a liberal perspective, but is in truth incredibly right-wing.
what we need to shift the narrative to is the idea that it is in fact true that religion often teaches discrimination, and when it does so then the specific religion is wrong to do it. that is an actual liberal perspective on the topic: it seeks out an empirical truth, and interprets it relative to egalitarian principles.
we don't have an obligation to tolerate intolerance. when religion is intolerant, it needs to be called out for it. and, when religious beliefs lead people to break the law, they need to be held accountable for it, too.
it is ok to tell somebody that their religion is wrong.
when you're being accused of discrimination, and your response is "but, religion.", you're not actually presenting a defence - you're just explaining why you're guilty of discrimination.
and, i consequently think the correct thing for a judge to do is be explicit about it, in identifying the religion as the source of discrimination, and causally deducing the reality of discrimination from the religious principle, itself; if the judge wanted to really do this right, it would find the precise place that the discrimination is written into the muslim scriptures, and begin the argument from that point.
the correct answer is that islam is an inherently discriminatory system of thought, and muslims need to be held accountable for it when they follow through with it.
i've been clear about this: i think that s. 2a of the charter was a mistake. it's not going to be easy to strike it out. but, for right now, anyways, judges have a responsibility to ensure that it isn't used a tool to circumvent the charter, altogether - which is what a judge would be doing in ruling that muslims have the right to discriminate against trans people, via conscience of religion. i just can't accept that argument; it's the religion that needs to be put on trial here, not the complainant.
and, i consequently think the correct thing for a judge to do is be explicit about it, in identifying the religion as the source of discrimination, and causally deducing the reality of discrimination from the religious principle, itself; if the judge wanted to really do this right, it would find the precise place that the discrimination is written into the muslim scriptures, and begin the argument from that point.
the correct answer is that islam is an inherently discriminatory system of thought, and muslims need to be held accountable for it when they follow through with it.
i've been clear about this: i think that s. 2a of the charter was a mistake. it's not going to be easy to strike it out. but, for right now, anyways, judges have a responsibility to ensure that it isn't used a tool to circumvent the charter, altogether - which is what a judge would be doing in ruling that muslims have the right to discriminate against trans people, via conscience of religion. i just can't accept that argument; it's the religion that needs to be put on trial here, not the complainant.
this sounds like a complicated case, and the facts are also in dispute. it's not going to be clear what the right answer is until the facts come out in a trial. but, my understanding of the general legal question is this:
is waxing a "general service" or a "specific service"? it might seem like it's a specific service, but there's some ambiguity if it's a general package.
a general service is something like picking something off of a menu. so, if you go into a restaurant and order the #2 special, denial of service on enumerated and analogous grounds would be a rights violation. but, if you order a #2 special with a list of specific modifications, that is a specialized service, and the owner has the right to refuse.
if the facts in the end demonstrate that this woman walked in and requested a wax job off of a menu, i would uphold the idea that this is discrimination - and i would not take the religious defense seriously. i don't think that citing religious observance is an excuse to deny service that is advertised; religion is the reason we have human rights in the first place. if the owner wins this case by citing "religious freedom", then that is just some kind of orwellian destruction of the concept of human rights - that would be upholding the right to discriminate, which is upholding the right to ignore human rights.
but, given that waxing services are widespread, i have a hard time understanding the claim to a $50,000 payment as a consequence of that discrimination. i would think that the complainant would have to demonstrate more concrete fiscal costs to be awarded a claim of this sort, or tie it to some kind of lost revenue. she's basically asking for $50,000 because somebody hurt her feelings.
it's going to come down to a bias in the judicial process, as these things generally do. but, even if she wins the argument, i don't think she wins the claims. and, it's consequently one of those weird scenarios where the judge would be justified in granting her the point - but forcing her to pay costs, anyways.
https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/human-rights-application-launched-against-windsor-body-waxing-business-by-transgender-woman-1.3925911
is waxing a "general service" or a "specific service"? it might seem like it's a specific service, but there's some ambiguity if it's a general package.
a general service is something like picking something off of a menu. so, if you go into a restaurant and order the #2 special, denial of service on enumerated and analogous grounds would be a rights violation. but, if you order a #2 special with a list of specific modifications, that is a specialized service, and the owner has the right to refuse.
if the facts in the end demonstrate that this woman walked in and requested a wax job off of a menu, i would uphold the idea that this is discrimination - and i would not take the religious defense seriously. i don't think that citing religious observance is an excuse to deny service that is advertised; religion is the reason we have human rights in the first place. if the owner wins this case by citing "religious freedom", then that is just some kind of orwellian destruction of the concept of human rights - that would be upholding the right to discriminate, which is upholding the right to ignore human rights.
but, given that waxing services are widespread, i have a hard time understanding the claim to a $50,000 payment as a consequence of that discrimination. i would think that the complainant would have to demonstrate more concrete fiscal costs to be awarded a claim of this sort, or tie it to some kind of lost revenue. she's basically asking for $50,000 because somebody hurt her feelings.
it's going to come down to a bias in the judicial process, as these things generally do. but, even if she wins the argument, i don't think she wins the claims. and, it's consequently one of those weird scenarios where the judge would be justified in granting her the point - but forcing her to pay costs, anyways.
https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/human-rights-application-launched-against-windsor-body-waxing-business-by-transgender-woman-1.3925911
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)