i grew up in the 90s, which were a period where the gender imbalance in music started evening out, but which was still overwhelmingly skewed towards men. i don't want to apologize for listening to a skewed sample, given that the female musicians of the period were overwhelmingly commodified for their looks.
i'm not going to listen to bad music because it was made by girls, or ignore good music because it was made by boys. i'm a musician - i care about the sound art. i don't think my record collection needs an affirmative action program, or that gender parity within it is an ideal to strive for. so, yeah - my record collection in my formative years is overwhelmingly male.
not exclusively. there's lots of female voices in there. but, overwhelmingly - and that's a reflection of the culture, not of me.
if you wanted to be a girl in a band in the 80s and 90s, you had two paths: you could either date somebody in one of the bands (which is actually fairly common in underground music of the period) or you could market yourself with your body. it kind of didn't matter how talented you were or you weren't, that's just how it came out in the wash. the talent consequently existed largely on the fringes, and, even so, only managed success though sexuality. for example: tori amos is talented, but that's not why she sold records, unfortunately.
i guess it hit a breaking point in the mid-00s, and actually flipped over some time around 2010. nowadays, it's very difficult to find any interesting music made by men at all. entire genres are dominated by women. even guitar music is dominated by women. the only type of music dudes seem interested in making is bro-rock, and it's this like weird gym class culture that i've never wanted anything to do with. from psychedelic music through to industrial music, women really dominate the entire spectrum.
and, so, while my formative years were spent listening mostly to male voices (not exclusively. lots of girls in there, too.), nowadays i'd guess that women take up upwards of 75% of my listening time.
i think we all tend to default to certain periods in our lives, and that these periods tend to expand. contemporary music converts itself into memories over time, and my posts will even out in gender as that process unfolds itself.
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
i like having an appspot site, but deploying it is always something else.
i've always deployed over the gui. last time, i had to find a way to upgrade to python 2.7, because it would stop serving if i didn't. today, it was giving me ssl errors. as best as i can tell, my local ssl python libraries are out of date and i have to upgrade to a later bugfix, but the installer past 2.7.7 seems to require accessing the dot net framework in a manner that i consciously dismantled, making the install impossible.
i fixed it by using the command line.
so, i'm back to doing what i was doing, now, and should be able to push through the main facebook page before the next sleep. one of the things i'll be doing is replacing old events with links to the concert site. this is the first one...
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2013/10/24.html
i've always deployed over the gui. last time, i had to find a way to upgrade to python 2.7, because it would stop serving if i didn't. today, it was giving me ssl errors. as best as i can tell, my local ssl python libraries are out of date and i have to upgrade to a later bugfix, but the installer past 2.7.7 seems to require accessing the dot net framework in a manner that i consciously dismantled, making the install impossible.
i fixed it by using the command line.
so, i'm back to doing what i was doing, now, and should be able to push through the main facebook page before the next sleep. one of the things i'll be doing is replacing old events with links to the concert site. this is the first one...
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2013/10/24.html
i'm just a little bit worried that he's going to think that the solution is to put on a charm offensive, or that he's going to take advantage of everybody taking his side.
but, that's the point. trudeau is young and good-looking and popular; trump is a running gag on saturday night live.
the more he keeps doing what he's doing, the deeper the disdain is going to be, and the more he's going to get targeted.
there's thirty some million people here that don't need the fallout from a petty, jealous old man keying on the good-looking, well-liked world leader that he isn't, and never will be. it's not fair. at all. but, trudeau has a responsibility to get out of the spotlight.
...even if that spotlight shifts in another direction, altogether.
but, that's the point. trudeau is young and good-looking and popular; trump is a running gag on saturday night live.
the more he keeps doing what he's doing, the deeper the disdain is going to be, and the more he's going to get targeted.
there's thirty some million people here that don't need the fallout from a petty, jealous old man keying on the good-looking, well-liked world leader that he isn't, and never will be. it's not fair. at all. but, trudeau has a responsibility to get out of the spotlight.
...even if that spotlight shifts in another direction, altogether.
is trump just jealous?
well, his numbers don't add up. it's something personal, something emotional.
trudeau could maybe take a step back from doing things like accepting honorary degrees from american universities. the truth is that neither of them deserve that kind of attention. but, nobody is asking trump to do these kind of things.
being the keynote speaker at trump university obviously doesn't count.
i'm not suggesting that this is in any way fair. but, trump is a petty, shallow guy - and trudeau doesn't really have to go make speeches in the united states.
well, his numbers don't add up. it's something personal, something emotional.
trudeau could maybe take a step back from doing things like accepting honorary degrees from american universities. the truth is that neither of them deserve that kind of attention. but, nobody is asking trump to do these kind of things.
being the keynote speaker at trump university obviously doesn't count.
i'm not suggesting that this is in any way fair. but, trump is a petty, shallow guy - and trudeau doesn't really have to go make speeches in the united states.
the thing about impaired driving nowadays is how remarkably stupid it is. deportation seems a little bit harsh, but i'm not building a lot of empathy up around it, either. my brain tells me that you need to send them to school rather than jail, but there's a point where you can't fix the stupid any more, and getting behind a wheel when you're fucked up is pretty much exactly that point. how do you get to 18 without somebody telling you not to drive under the influence?
but, i want any retribution to focus more on embarrassing them than punishing them. i don't like retribution; i think vengeance is uncivilized, that deterrence doesn't work and that it's ultimately 100% about blood lust. but, sometimes a stupid act deserves a good public drubbing.
we used to tar and feather people. why don't we do that any more?
i wouldn't expect this rule to withstand a constitutional challenge. you either need to make the rule apply to all convictions, or none at all.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/06/08/tougher-impaired-driving-penalty-a-double-whammy-for-immigrants.html
but, i want any retribution to focus more on embarrassing them than punishing them. i don't like retribution; i think vengeance is uncivilized, that deterrence doesn't work and that it's ultimately 100% about blood lust. but, sometimes a stupid act deserves a good public drubbing.
we used to tar and feather people. why don't we do that any more?
i wouldn't expect this rule to withstand a constitutional challenge. you either need to make the rule apply to all convictions, or none at all.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/06/08/tougher-impaired-driving-penalty-a-double-whammy-for-immigrants.html
when you run a country like a business, or an empire, allies are not to be upheld for similar values and customs but treated as competitors that need to be absorbed through shady stock deals, or through hostile takeover bids. and, the more friendly they are, the easier they are to conquer.
meanwhile, dissimilar countries and flat out enemies are to be ignored, as they aren't invading the market share.
it's a backwards idea, all around. and, if nothing else comes from it, let us hope that the boneheadedness of trump puts an end to this "run a country like a business" thing once and for all.
"punishing canada" is not likely to go over well with anybody at all.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/06/12/we-just-shook-hands-trump-confused-by-trudeaus-pushed-around-comment-after-g7-summit.html
meanwhile, dissimilar countries and flat out enemies are to be ignored, as they aren't invading the market share.
it's a backwards idea, all around. and, if nothing else comes from it, let us hope that the boneheadedness of trump puts an end to this "run a country like a business" thing once and for all.
"punishing canada" is not likely to go over well with anybody at all.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/06/12/we-just-shook-hands-trump-confused-by-trudeaus-pushed-around-comment-after-g7-summit.html
i'm curious about the carbon tax, though.
one of the things that ford ran on was opposing the carbon tax, but there isn't actually a carbon tax in place, and nobody is actually proposing one.
the previous leader of the conservative party, patrick brown, who was taken down in an act of defamation by the core of the tory media, ctv, was proposing a carbon tax to replace the existing cap & trade system with quebec and california. a carbon tax is, after all, a right-wing approach to emissions reductions, and something that it makes sense for an ideological conservative to propose, as it is market-based, as opposed to a "statist" cap & trade system that just wants to order you around. now, i don't want to stand up for this cap & trade system too much - it's just a way for california to send money to canada in exchange for votes in san francisco. it's hard to criticize wynne for signing up for it, but it's not likely to have reduced emissions much, either.
nonetheless, it made some sense for doug ford to campaign against a carbon tax when he was campaigning against his own party - even if nobody else besides the removed former leader was proposing it. that led him to the populist schpiel. then, in the end, you expect him to align with conservative orthodoxy and support the carbon tax to replace the cap & trade, after he's tricked all the low-information voters. that's how politics works.
but, then, he kept campaigning against the carbon tax, even after he'd won the leadership - and there was no longer even the memory of the proposition to fight against. it's something i've never seen before: a campaign constructed around a straw-man argument.
it opens up the question: is this some devious ploy to get morons to vote for him, or does he really think there's actually a carbon tax?
if he really thinks there's actually a carbon tax, are we to expect the status quo when he's told there isn't? that would be maintaining cap & trade. see, but some observers have suggested that what he actually means is that he's going to abolish cap & trade - suggesting that he either doesn't know the difference, or doesn't think voters care.
so, scenario one is that we maintain the status quo, and then what? does he go back to his supporters and say he's killed the carbon tax that nobody was proposing? well, as it doesn't exist, and nobody proposed it, it's an easy win, right? and, if his voters are that fucking stupid, they'll eat it right out of his hand. maybe he'll run for re-election on killing the imaginary carbon tax, too.
scenario two is that he's actually planning on killing cap & trade, in which case we should expect the imposition of a federal carbon tax - meaning that by killing the "carbon tax", he'll be delegating responsibility to ottawa, who will impose an actual carbon tax. and, while we can expect him to fight this carbon tax, we would be right to scratch our heads and wonder why he didn't just stick with cap & trade, which is going to bring in quite a bit of easy revenue so jerry brown can buy votes in california.
and you thought donald trump was confusing. you need a fucking logician to figure out doug ford.
of course, as has been the case with trump from time-to-time, we may find out that ford is using a ternary logic system, and believes he can cancel the carbon tax and create one at the same time.
one of the things that ford ran on was opposing the carbon tax, but there isn't actually a carbon tax in place, and nobody is actually proposing one.
the previous leader of the conservative party, patrick brown, who was taken down in an act of defamation by the core of the tory media, ctv, was proposing a carbon tax to replace the existing cap & trade system with quebec and california. a carbon tax is, after all, a right-wing approach to emissions reductions, and something that it makes sense for an ideological conservative to propose, as it is market-based, as opposed to a "statist" cap & trade system that just wants to order you around. now, i don't want to stand up for this cap & trade system too much - it's just a way for california to send money to canada in exchange for votes in san francisco. it's hard to criticize wynne for signing up for it, but it's not likely to have reduced emissions much, either.
nonetheless, it made some sense for doug ford to campaign against a carbon tax when he was campaigning against his own party - even if nobody else besides the removed former leader was proposing it. that led him to the populist schpiel. then, in the end, you expect him to align with conservative orthodoxy and support the carbon tax to replace the cap & trade, after he's tricked all the low-information voters. that's how politics works.
but, then, he kept campaigning against the carbon tax, even after he'd won the leadership - and there was no longer even the memory of the proposition to fight against. it's something i've never seen before: a campaign constructed around a straw-man argument.
it opens up the question: is this some devious ploy to get morons to vote for him, or does he really think there's actually a carbon tax?
if he really thinks there's actually a carbon tax, are we to expect the status quo when he's told there isn't? that would be maintaining cap & trade. see, but some observers have suggested that what he actually means is that he's going to abolish cap & trade - suggesting that he either doesn't know the difference, or doesn't think voters care.
so, scenario one is that we maintain the status quo, and then what? does he go back to his supporters and say he's killed the carbon tax that nobody was proposing? well, as it doesn't exist, and nobody proposed it, it's an easy win, right? and, if his voters are that fucking stupid, they'll eat it right out of his hand. maybe he'll run for re-election on killing the imaginary carbon tax, too.
scenario two is that he's actually planning on killing cap & trade, in which case we should expect the imposition of a federal carbon tax - meaning that by killing the "carbon tax", he'll be delegating responsibility to ottawa, who will impose an actual carbon tax. and, while we can expect him to fight this carbon tax, we would be right to scratch our heads and wonder why he didn't just stick with cap & trade, which is going to bring in quite a bit of easy revenue so jerry brown can buy votes in california.
and you thought donald trump was confusing. you need a fucking logician to figure out doug ford.
of course, as has been the case with trump from time-to-time, we may find out that ford is using a ternary logic system, and believes he can cancel the carbon tax and create one at the same time.
ok.
i'm still embarrassed & saddened by the outcome of the election. i do not want to look at media of doug fucking retard ford right now.
"my friends..."
i'm not your fucking friend, you obese piece of shit.
what i will say is this: this is exactly the kind of fucking idiot that's likely to get some brutal rants out of me. the guy should be working in a fast food restaurant.
for right now, i don't want to hear a stupid word out of his stupid mouth.
i'm still embarrassed & saddened by the outcome of the election. i do not want to look at media of doug fucking retard ford right now.
"my friends..."
i'm not your fucking friend, you obese piece of shit.
what i will say is this: this is exactly the kind of fucking idiot that's likely to get some brutal rants out of me. the guy should be working in a fast food restaurant.
for right now, i don't want to hear a stupid word out of his stupid mouth.
the laws are a little different in ontario, but we...
well, we were moving in this direction.
for all we know, doug ford may encourage smoking hash in the laundry room.
it's a fucking laundry room, guys. why do you have to specify? but i had that problem in the last unit: somebody insisted on smoking pot in the same place i was trying to clean my towels.
i smoked for years. but, i knew where to smoke and not to smoke. i always went outside, and tried to smoke away from the building. who the fuck smokes in the laundry room? it's just hard to get yourself in the head of these people.
i had a bit of a mental collapse yesterday, and may have to deal with the consequences of it. but, my letter made the situation clear enough: any attempt to evict me will be met with a human rights complaint. and, i suspect the owner will be on the hook for it...
http://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/programs/health-data/uclasafe/Pages/Can%20You%20Be%20Sued.pdf
well, we were moving in this direction.
for all we know, doug ford may encourage smoking hash in the laundry room.
it's a fucking laundry room, guys. why do you have to specify? but i had that problem in the last unit: somebody insisted on smoking pot in the same place i was trying to clean my towels.
i smoked for years. but, i knew where to smoke and not to smoke. i always went outside, and tried to smoke away from the building. who the fuck smokes in the laundry room? it's just hard to get yourself in the head of these people.
i had a bit of a mental collapse yesterday, and may have to deal with the consequences of it. but, my letter made the situation clear enough: any attempt to evict me will be met with a human rights complaint. and, i suspect the owner will be on the hook for it...
http://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/programs/health-data/uclasafe/Pages/Can%20You%20Be%20Sued.pdf
Monday, June 11, 2018
so, the anger flows from the anxiety. i get that.
but, if your "anxiety" is rational, is it still anxiety?
the reason i'm angry is that i'm fearful of the effects of second-hand smoke, both in the long run (cancer) and in the short run (shortness of breath, coughing, tiredness). and, in fact i can demonstrate that my fears are grounded, as i've experienced these consequences.
so, when do you stop talking about anger as a consequence of anxiety, and start taking about anger as a rational reaction to objectively demonstrable fears?
however this plays out, i'm going to need to work the anxiety angle, and it's not like it's wrong - the anxiety is real. but, the consequences are real, too. so, how is that a disorder?
but, if your "anxiety" is rational, is it still anxiety?
the reason i'm angry is that i'm fearful of the effects of second-hand smoke, both in the long run (cancer) and in the short run (shortness of breath, coughing, tiredness). and, in fact i can demonstrate that my fears are grounded, as i've experienced these consequences.
so, when do you stop talking about anger as a consequence of anxiety, and start taking about anger as a rational reaction to objectively demonstrable fears?
however this plays out, i'm going to need to work the anxiety angle, and it's not like it's wrong - the anxiety is real. but, the consequences are real, too. so, how is that a disorder?
An Update on The Situation in Apartment 15
I need to begin by stating the following:
- The situation in the apartment has not changed since my previous communication.
- That is, the second-hand marijuana (and, now, tobacco) smoke coming from the downstairs tenant remains constant & oppressive, and is continuing to affect my enjoyment of the space, my quality of life & ultimately my health. This unit remains uninhabitable.
- As you have refused to make a good faith effort to address the problem, you remain negligent under the appropriate case law.
- As you remain negligent, you remain liable for property damage resulting from the tenant’s behaviour & you remain responsible for providing me with moving costs to get me out of the unit.
- Further, I still want to move out of this unit as soon as is possible.
What has changed are questions around the feasibility of a plan to move until questions are answered about the depth of the new government’s pending cuts to social assistance. I live on disability due to severe concerns around my mental health, and specifically an inability to exist in social settings without behaving erratically due to stress (“social anxiety disorder”). I simply can’t handle the stress inherent in what most people consider normal social interactions. You can make appeals to whatever ideals you want, but it won’t prevent me from becoming episodic. The working reality is that I am of little threat to myself so long as I am able to avoid situations where I’m forced to interact with the people around me, but I have a history of conflict with the people around me and of being terminated within weeks of being hired due to conflicts with employees and management - my disability is hard, and there is little chance of me ever entering the workforce again. I just need to avoid people, that’s all there is to it. I think my tenancy has reinforced the point: I can’t deal with living with another tenant that doesn’t care about the consequences that her behaviour is having on me, and thinks she has some kind of right to make me miserable and sick. My contempt for this woman is astronomical.
On June 7th, the people of Ontario elected a majority conservative government on a non-platform of undisclosed cuts to social services. As no actual plan for cuts has been released, other than a pledge to do a “line by line audit in search of ‘efficiencies’”, it is unclear how deep the cuts to my income are going to be. However, if one is to take the previous conservative government as precedent, cuts of upwards to 50% should be expected. It is impossible for me to sign a lease at this point, until exact numbers are determined.
I understand that uncertainty is a fact of life, but this is how people react to uncertainty: they have to change plans, they have to downsize, they have to make due with what they have. I desperately want out of this unit. Over the last several years, I have placed a primary importance on my health. I changed my diet in 2015 to be more healthy, I quit smoking at the beginning of 2016 and I rediscovered my bicycle in 2017. But, I am now unfortunately left in a situation where I have no choice but to compromise my physical health to maintain my mental well-being, until more information is available.
I do not have a driver’s license; I’ve never driven a car before. I decided when I was a teenager that cars were destroying the planet, and I would do my part to counteract that by relying on alternate means of transportation. In hindsight, it would have probably been unsafe to let me drive, anyways, as the social anxiety would have likely led me to road rage: I would not have been able to deal with rude drivers. Over the years, I’ve held to this moral decision as best as I can. While I don’t exactly regret that decision, it means that moving is a very expensive and difficult process, now that my father is dead (and my disability prevents me from meeting friends). The reality is that I am going to need to hire movers, so I am going to require hundreds of dollars in costs to move. The city runs a service, but I used it to move in here less than a year ago and am not likely to be approved again so quickly.
So, let us suppose that I move to another apartment on August 1st, as was my plan, and the government cuts my benefits by 50% on Oct 1st. That is almost certainly going to mean I’ll need to move a second time - or that I’ll end up homeless, altogether. It is going to be hard enough to find costs to move once, and I insist they will eventually come from you; finding moving costs a second time is an impossibility. I must wait, whether I like it or not - and whether you like it or not, as well.
I will state this yet again: I want to move out of this apartment as soon as I possibly can. Right now, “as soon as i possibly can” means “as soon as the government announces the numbers attached to it’s plan to cut disability payments”. So, I can commit to starting this process a second time within days of that announcement. But, I cannot sign a lease at this time, because I have no idea how deep the cuts are going to be.
As such, I regret to inform you that I will be suspending the application I previously filed, SWT-16361-18, to ask the court to sever the existing lease. While I will need to appear at the hearing, it will only be to explain the situation to the judge in order to cancel it. I will bring a copy of this letter to the hearing. I may or may not launch a second application once the cuts are announced, depending on whether you co-operate with me or not - I will need to determine what the best step forwards is when that happens.
The lease remains in force, and I expect to go month-to-month after that until the situation is clarified, if it takes that long for it to be clarified. This is not ideal for anybody, but it is necessary given the circumstances.
I understand that you may want to react to this letter by attempting to evict me, in which case I would request that you wait. As mentioned, I am unhappy here and want to move - but i can’t, or not yet. As i want to move, but cannot, i will have little choice to fight any eviction attempts to the full extent that i can - including launching appeals to the divisional court. When you can’t do something, that means you can’t do it - even if you really, really want to. Further, I am certain to react to an eviction attempt by launching a human rights complaint, which I am acting with restraint in not filing as it is. Attempting to evict me is going to cost you thousands of dollars that you’ll never recoup - and is likely to fail, at that. As I want to leave anyways, it is in your self-interest to co-operate with me in waiting until the cuts are announced and then settling for costs, which is what I’ve been requesting all along.
For what it’s worth, I voted for the greens.
In the meantime, I have requested repairs to the unit and received no response on it. I am re-printing that letter.
- The situation in the apartment has not changed since my previous communication.
- That is, the second-hand marijuana (and, now, tobacco) smoke coming from the downstairs tenant remains constant & oppressive, and is continuing to affect my enjoyment of the space, my quality of life & ultimately my health. This unit remains uninhabitable.
- As you have refused to make a good faith effort to address the problem, you remain negligent under the appropriate case law.
- As you remain negligent, you remain liable for property damage resulting from the tenant’s behaviour & you remain responsible for providing me with moving costs to get me out of the unit.
- Further, I still want to move out of this unit as soon as is possible.
What has changed are questions around the feasibility of a plan to move until questions are answered about the depth of the new government’s pending cuts to social assistance. I live on disability due to severe concerns around my mental health, and specifically an inability to exist in social settings without behaving erratically due to stress (“social anxiety disorder”). I simply can’t handle the stress inherent in what most people consider normal social interactions. You can make appeals to whatever ideals you want, but it won’t prevent me from becoming episodic. The working reality is that I am of little threat to myself so long as I am able to avoid situations where I’m forced to interact with the people around me, but I have a history of conflict with the people around me and of being terminated within weeks of being hired due to conflicts with employees and management - my disability is hard, and there is little chance of me ever entering the workforce again. I just need to avoid people, that’s all there is to it. I think my tenancy has reinforced the point: I can’t deal with living with another tenant that doesn’t care about the consequences that her behaviour is having on me, and thinks she has some kind of right to make me miserable and sick. My contempt for this woman is astronomical.
On June 7th, the people of Ontario elected a majority conservative government on a non-platform of undisclosed cuts to social services. As no actual plan for cuts has been released, other than a pledge to do a “line by line audit in search of ‘efficiencies’”, it is unclear how deep the cuts to my income are going to be. However, if one is to take the previous conservative government as precedent, cuts of upwards to 50% should be expected. It is impossible for me to sign a lease at this point, until exact numbers are determined.
I understand that uncertainty is a fact of life, but this is how people react to uncertainty: they have to change plans, they have to downsize, they have to make due with what they have. I desperately want out of this unit. Over the last several years, I have placed a primary importance on my health. I changed my diet in 2015 to be more healthy, I quit smoking at the beginning of 2016 and I rediscovered my bicycle in 2017. But, I am now unfortunately left in a situation where I have no choice but to compromise my physical health to maintain my mental well-being, until more information is available.
I do not have a driver’s license; I’ve never driven a car before. I decided when I was a teenager that cars were destroying the planet, and I would do my part to counteract that by relying on alternate means of transportation. In hindsight, it would have probably been unsafe to let me drive, anyways, as the social anxiety would have likely led me to road rage: I would not have been able to deal with rude drivers. Over the years, I’ve held to this moral decision as best as I can. While I don’t exactly regret that decision, it means that moving is a very expensive and difficult process, now that my father is dead (and my disability prevents me from meeting friends). The reality is that I am going to need to hire movers, so I am going to require hundreds of dollars in costs to move. The city runs a service, but I used it to move in here less than a year ago and am not likely to be approved again so quickly.
So, let us suppose that I move to another apartment on August 1st, as was my plan, and the government cuts my benefits by 50% on Oct 1st. That is almost certainly going to mean I’ll need to move a second time - or that I’ll end up homeless, altogether. It is going to be hard enough to find costs to move once, and I insist they will eventually come from you; finding moving costs a second time is an impossibility. I must wait, whether I like it or not - and whether you like it or not, as well.
I will state this yet again: I want to move out of this apartment as soon as I possibly can. Right now, “as soon as i possibly can” means “as soon as the government announces the numbers attached to it’s plan to cut disability payments”. So, I can commit to starting this process a second time within days of that announcement. But, I cannot sign a lease at this time, because I have no idea how deep the cuts are going to be.
As such, I regret to inform you that I will be suspending the application I previously filed, SWT-16361-18, to ask the court to sever the existing lease. While I will need to appear at the hearing, it will only be to explain the situation to the judge in order to cancel it. I will bring a copy of this letter to the hearing. I may or may not launch a second application once the cuts are announced, depending on whether you co-operate with me or not - I will need to determine what the best step forwards is when that happens.
The lease remains in force, and I expect to go month-to-month after that until the situation is clarified, if it takes that long for it to be clarified. This is not ideal for anybody, but it is necessary given the circumstances.
I understand that you may want to react to this letter by attempting to evict me, in which case I would request that you wait. As mentioned, I am unhappy here and want to move - but i can’t, or not yet. As i want to move, but cannot, i will have little choice to fight any eviction attempts to the full extent that i can - including launching appeals to the divisional court. When you can’t do something, that means you can’t do it - even if you really, really want to. Further, I am certain to react to an eviction attempt by launching a human rights complaint, which I am acting with restraint in not filing as it is. Attempting to evict me is going to cost you thousands of dollars that you’ll never recoup - and is likely to fail, at that. As I want to leave anyways, it is in your self-interest to co-operate with me in waiting until the cuts are announced and then settling for costs, which is what I’ve been requesting all along.
For what it’s worth, I voted for the greens.
In the meantime, I have requested repairs to the unit and received no response on it. I am re-printing that letter.
Sunday, June 10, 2018
unfortunately, it took me two tries due to word crashing, but i've got the music facebook page synced now, at least.
it's long past time to eat. & i'll take a look at the personal facebook page once i have - if i can stay awake.
the air quality in here today has been dangerous. i don't understand how a person can sit and smoke pot for twenty hours at a time, but it's repeatably demonstrable. she doesn't come home from work and smoke a joint, she comes home from work and smokes an ounce.
my tactics worked well enough today in helping me avoid passing out, but they're not sustainable.
yet, i have no answer in the short term, either.
*shrug*.
it's long past time to eat. & i'll take a look at the personal facebook page once i have - if i can stay awake.
the air quality in here today has been dangerous. i don't understand how a person can sit and smoke pot for twenty hours at a time, but it's repeatably demonstrable. she doesn't come home from work and smoke a joint, she comes home from work and smokes an ounce.
my tactics worked well enough today in helping me avoid passing out, but they're not sustainable.
yet, i have no answer in the short term, either.
*shrug*.
Saturday, June 9, 2018
so, i'm consolidating over the end of 2016 and...
.....how seriously should you take the idea that doug ford cheated to win?
i think you should take it fairly seriously. all i can do is poke holes in the data, and i'm not going to get more specific than claiming that the distribution is extremely surprising - we're supposed to believe that ford got a disproportionately huge swing in exactly the region he lost badly in the last mayoral election.
and, despite projections to the contrary, that's not something the data suggested. he was supposed to be running neck and neck with the ndp in the 905 - as weird as that is, it's what the data said. instead, we're supposed to believe that all these liberals swung to doug ford. and, we're supposed to believe that they finally beat their projections with doug ford, after decades of trying and failing with the likes of tory, hudak & harper.
...and we're supposed to believe that there was a big increase in turnout, too - in an election where polls suggested half of previous voters wouldn't vote, and the options ranged from widely despised to barely tolerable.
it smells funny.
but, that's not evidence; it's just suspicion. i think the data i presented here is strong enough to prove that clinton stole the 2016 primaries, and my actual prediction for the 2016 election was that clinton would win, but trump would steal it. that was my honest projection: trump is going to steal the election. i don't have that kind of data here, yet.
he didn't give us a platform, and they didn't give us much data, either.
but, on top of that, i'm going to draw attention to two facts: (1) ford appears to be using the same people that were involved in harper cheating his way to winning in 2011 (which has been proven, although the claim is it didn't affect the outcome), and in the same regions and (2) ford and many of his candidates are under investigation for fraud - and specifically for faking voter rolls.
the biggest argument against the idea is going to be that he doesn't have the influence. but, how clear is that, really? i dunno.
and, given that the media appeared to be in on it (as they were in the 2016 presidential election....), how far up does this actually go? who wants this stooge in power? the fucking power corp, or what?
there was a serious investigation into harper in 2011, and ford is under serious investigation for fraud, as it is. i don't have any hard evidence to put forward. but, i would encourage anybody with information to come out with it.
in the meantime, i'm going to suggest that it is likely that some evidence will eventually surface.
.....how seriously should you take the idea that doug ford cheated to win?
i think you should take it fairly seriously. all i can do is poke holes in the data, and i'm not going to get more specific than claiming that the distribution is extremely surprising - we're supposed to believe that ford got a disproportionately huge swing in exactly the region he lost badly in the last mayoral election.
and, despite projections to the contrary, that's not something the data suggested. he was supposed to be running neck and neck with the ndp in the 905 - as weird as that is, it's what the data said. instead, we're supposed to believe that all these liberals swung to doug ford. and, we're supposed to believe that they finally beat their projections with doug ford, after decades of trying and failing with the likes of tory, hudak & harper.
...and we're supposed to believe that there was a big increase in turnout, too - in an election where polls suggested half of previous voters wouldn't vote, and the options ranged from widely despised to barely tolerable.
it smells funny.
but, that's not evidence; it's just suspicion. i think the data i presented here is strong enough to prove that clinton stole the 2016 primaries, and my actual prediction for the 2016 election was that clinton would win, but trump would steal it. that was my honest projection: trump is going to steal the election. i don't have that kind of data here, yet.
he didn't give us a platform, and they didn't give us much data, either.
but, on top of that, i'm going to draw attention to two facts: (1) ford appears to be using the same people that were involved in harper cheating his way to winning in 2011 (which has been proven, although the claim is it didn't affect the outcome), and in the same regions and (2) ford and many of his candidates are under investigation for fraud - and specifically for faking voter rolls.
the biggest argument against the idea is going to be that he doesn't have the influence. but, how clear is that, really? i dunno.
and, given that the media appeared to be in on it (as they were in the 2016 presidential election....), how far up does this actually go? who wants this stooge in power? the fucking power corp, or what?
there was a serious investigation into harper in 2011, and ford is under serious investigation for fraud, as it is. i don't have any hard evidence to put forward. but, i would encourage anybody with information to come out with it.
in the meantime, i'm going to suggest that it is likely that some evidence will eventually surface.
Friday, June 8, 2018
"it was the conservatives that wanted to fund muslim schools?"
well, think about it for a minute. what, exactly. do you think is liberal about funding religious schools? i know that these words are flipped upside down in the united states - where liberals tend to support the democrats, which has always been the more conservative party - but it's kind of the most illiberal thing in the world, isn't it?
it should be expected that a modern conservatism would want to extend support for faith-based funding across the spectrum; but it also should be expected that a liberal party would oppose that, and would oppose any faith-based school funding at all.
the history here is complicated, and i'm not going to get into it, but the liberals have historically been a catholic minority party, and there's a lot of old identity politics around first french and then irish identity attached to this. i went to a catholic school high school in an italian neighbourhood that shipped a lot of irish kids in from the suburbs (st pius, in ottawa).
i don't actually know where the ndp stand on this issue.
well, think about it for a minute. what, exactly. do you think is liberal about funding religious schools? i know that these words are flipped upside down in the united states - where liberals tend to support the democrats, which has always been the more conservative party - but it's kind of the most illiberal thing in the world, isn't it?
it should be expected that a modern conservatism would want to extend support for faith-based funding across the spectrum; but it also should be expected that a liberal party would oppose that, and would oppose any faith-based school funding at all.
the history here is complicated, and i'm not going to get into it, but the liberals have historically been a catholic minority party, and there's a lot of old identity politics around first french and then irish identity attached to this. i went to a catholic school high school in an italian neighbourhood that shipped a lot of irish kids in from the suburbs (st pius, in ottawa).
i don't actually know where the ndp stand on this issue.
of course, for those that are a little slow...
john tory wanted to expand the separate school system to include pubic funding for other types of faith-based schools, most prominently funding for muslim schools. this was ripped apart mercilessly by dalton mcguinty, who may have been a hypocrite about it, but at the least took advantage of widespread opposition to public funding of the catholic school board. many people suggested at the time that he ought to take the next step, but he never did.
the green party is taking that next step by floating the idea of removing all funding for faith-based schools, which is the exact opposite of what john tory proposed - and what a large plurality of voters have wanted for decades.
we would probably end up with a small privately funded catholic school system, and we can only hope it withers away over time.
but, my position is that i support one secular public school system for everybody - which is the most popular position in this province.
john tory wanted to expand the separate school system to include pubic funding for other types of faith-based schools, most prominently funding for muslim schools. this was ripped apart mercilessly by dalton mcguinty, who may have been a hypocrite about it, but at the least took advantage of widespread opposition to public funding of the catholic school board. many people suggested at the time that he ought to take the next step, but he never did.
the green party is taking that next step by floating the idea of removing all funding for faith-based schools, which is the exact opposite of what john tory proposed - and what a large plurality of voters have wanted for decades.
we would probably end up with a small privately funded catholic school system, and we can only hope it withers away over time.
but, my position is that i support one secular public school system for everybody - which is the most popular position in this province.
i'm making progress on this.
it's been brutal in here all day, but i have no course of action at this point to resolve it besides running the hot water to try and steam the space out.
i don't understand why she won't go outside like a decent person would.
i hope that when the cancer does hit her, she has a long and painful death.
it's been brutal in here all day, but i have no course of action at this point to resolve it besides running the hot water to try and steam the space out.
i don't understand why she won't go outside like a decent person would.
i hope that when the cancer does hit her, she has a long and painful death.
i'm actually glad i didn't sign anything. i could have been in for a disaster scenario.
given that everybody knows that doug ford is going to slash disability, i'm at that much more of a disadvantage - if you're a landlord, and you know assistance is going to fall, why would you sign a lease with somebody on disability?
if he had put out a platform, we could at least plan around this. as it is, i have absolutely no idea how big my check is going to be a year from now, or what i'm going to have to do to adjust to less money.
given that everybody knows that doug ford is going to slash disability, i'm at that much more of a disadvantage - if you're a landlord, and you know assistance is going to fall, why would you sign a lease with somebody on disability?
if he had put out a platform, we could at least plan around this. as it is, i have absolutely no idea how big my check is going to be a year from now, or what i'm going to have to do to adjust to less money.
the bottom line is that i don't want to spend my last six months or my last year fighting court battles.
i'm going to focus on completing the discography, and prepare for the worst.
that likely means i'll be staying in more, too.
i'm back in a race against time: how much can i get done before doug ford signs my death sentence?
i'm going to focus on completing the discography, and prepare for the worst.
that likely means i'll be staying in more, too.
i'm back in a race against time: how much can i get done before doug ford signs my death sentence?
i'm kind of back in the mindset i was in over 2014 & 2015.
what's the use in quitting smoking if you're planning on killing yourself?
but, then i got my disability renewed...
now, i'm not sure that's going to happen, so i'm back to planning for suicide.
i don't think i'm going to pick it back up. but, i'm falling into apathy around it. so, maybe it's making me sick and ruining my quality of life? i'm going to fucking die anyways, right?
what's the use in quitting smoking if you're planning on killing yourself?
but, then i got my disability renewed...
now, i'm not sure that's going to happen, so i'm back to planning for suicide.
i don't think i'm going to pick it back up. but, i'm falling into apathy around it. so, maybe it's making me sick and ruining my quality of life? i'm going to fucking die anyways, right?
yeah....i....
i have absolutely no idea what the government is going to do for disability amounts. i suppose there's an obscure possibility that they could put through the gai - which i was kind of half planning around. they claim they'll let the experiment through, but whether what ford says means anything or not is a coin toss.
they could freeze it, which i could deal with.
or, they could slash it by 50%.
the harris government was downright savage in it's attacks on social service recipients, so there's precedent for something very damaging. and, the economy couldn't handle what that would do, either - unemployment would shoot up to 20%. we'd be dealing with an extreme homelessness problem.
but, i expect the next four years to be very dificult for poor people in this province.
it does not make sense to do anything at all until i get some idea of what they're doing. the reason he didn't release a platform was because he knew people wouldn't like what he was cutting. but, that means i'm stuck in the dark.
i need to wait.
i have absolutely no idea what the government is going to do for disability amounts. i suppose there's an obscure possibility that they could put through the gai - which i was kind of half planning around. they claim they'll let the experiment through, but whether what ford says means anything or not is a coin toss.
they could freeze it, which i could deal with.
or, they could slash it by 50%.
the harris government was downright savage in it's attacks on social service recipients, so there's precedent for something very damaging. and, the economy couldn't handle what that would do, either - unemployment would shoot up to 20%. we'd be dealing with an extreme homelessness problem.
but, i expect the next four years to be very dificult for poor people in this province.
it does not make sense to do anything at all until i get some idea of what they're doing. the reason he didn't release a platform was because he knew people wouldn't like what he was cutting. but, that means i'm stuck in the dark.
i need to wait.
so, what's going to happen if my benefits get cut?
i don't really know what the point of telling me to go work at a fast food restaurant is. there are people with kids that need the job. and, i'm not socially capable of dealing with anything more complex than that, either.
when working was a task, i could deal with it - i could go waste however many hours was necessary in order to save numbers to apply to some purpose. but, when you take away that task, and tell me it's forever, i'm left with what's essentially a death sentence - and the reality that i'd rather kill myself.
the problem is that i don't feel i'm done yet. i have a lot more work to do, before it's time to die. the question is whether i have enough time left to waste at a job or not.
i do think that it's a given that doug ford is going to cut disability rather drastically; this is going to hurt me quite a bit. and, i'm almost wondering if i want to cancel the court process in the short run.
i may have to make a call today.
i don't really know what the point of telling me to go work at a fast food restaurant is. there are people with kids that need the job. and, i'm not socially capable of dealing with anything more complex than that, either.
when working was a task, i could deal with it - i could go waste however many hours was necessary in order to save numbers to apply to some purpose. but, when you take away that task, and tell me it's forever, i'm left with what's essentially a death sentence - and the reality that i'd rather kill myself.
the problem is that i don't feel i'm done yet. i have a lot more work to do, before it's time to die. the question is whether i have enough time left to waste at a job or not.
i do think that it's a given that doug ford is going to cut disability rather drastically; this is going to hurt me quite a bit. and, i'm almost wondering if i want to cancel the court process in the short run.
i may have to make a call today.
i'll reiterate: the tories usually poll at the bottom of their error bars. this generally leads to exaggerated predictions that fail to materialize. tonight, they polled in the middle of it. this is an exception to the rule.
the tories have never won a majority government with less than 40% of the vote - and have ended up with leads in the 30s many times, always ending up with minorities. this has also repeatedly produced many exaggerated predictions. but, tonight was the exception to the rule.
while red/blue switchers were the dominant voter in the twentieth century, they have not existed in large numbers for the course of my conscious lifetime. liberal voters simply haven't voted for the conservatives in large numbers in decades. but, tonight they did.
& what the data suggested, when adjusted for all of these known historical errors and biases, was that we were looking at a small pc bump (not much more than the margin of error) that was distributed equally across the province, as well as exaggerated bumps in ndp support in urban ridings, which should have produced big ndp gains in urban seats and not much for the conservatives, who had a less concentrated vote. while we saw these big ndp bumps in the very downtown cores, we also saw large conservative bumps in suburban areas that i maintain was not something that was predictable from the data, besides through projection. but, it happened, nonetheless, whether via projection or via something else.
i'm not going to adjust my methods over this. i'm going to shrug it off as weird.
and, as mentioned repeatedly, both before and after the vote, as very fishy.
the tories have never won a majority government with less than 40% of the vote - and have ended up with leads in the 30s many times, always ending up with minorities. this has also repeatedly produced many exaggerated predictions. but, tonight was the exception to the rule.
while red/blue switchers were the dominant voter in the twentieth century, they have not existed in large numbers for the course of my conscious lifetime. liberal voters simply haven't voted for the conservatives in large numbers in decades. but, tonight they did.
& what the data suggested, when adjusted for all of these known historical errors and biases, was that we were looking at a small pc bump (not much more than the margin of error) that was distributed equally across the province, as well as exaggerated bumps in ndp support in urban ridings, which should have produced big ndp gains in urban seats and not much for the conservatives, who had a less concentrated vote. while we saw these big ndp bumps in the very downtown cores, we also saw large conservative bumps in suburban areas that i maintain was not something that was predictable from the data, besides through projection. but, it happened, nonetheless, whether via projection or via something else.
i'm not going to adjust my methods over this. i'm going to shrug it off as weird.
and, as mentioned repeatedly, both before and after the vote, as very fishy.
turnout appears to have actually been higher than last election.
so, this was an unprecedented shift: after vehemently rejecting him for mayor a few years ago, and living through what was widely seen as hell for his brother's time at city hall, liberals in toronto actually swallowed themselves whole and voted for doug ford. i find this incomprehensible, but, barring the premise of stuffed boxes, that's what happened.
it's fishy enough to be suspicious.
the ndp didn't split the vote. liberal voters made that choice. in large numbers. apparently.
i don't think i made any errors in analysis; i think my criticisms of the mainstream analysis were grounded, and that the results were very much unexpected. i did not see any convincing evidence of large scale movement from red to blue in toronto. this is the lowest popular vote for a tory majority...ever...as far as i can see: the conservatives hadn't ever won a majority with 40% before. the tory vote was not "efficient", so much as liberals voted for them in large numbers, which has never happened before, either. &etc.
this was really just an exercise in mass idiocy, the likes of which i never thought i'd see here - and which, i need to reiterate, was not suggested by historical data, at all. it really is unprecedented.
but, so be it.
now, we must fight as hard as we can to stop him from ruining the province.
so, this was an unprecedented shift: after vehemently rejecting him for mayor a few years ago, and living through what was widely seen as hell for his brother's time at city hall, liberals in toronto actually swallowed themselves whole and voted for doug ford. i find this incomprehensible, but, barring the premise of stuffed boxes, that's what happened.
it's fishy enough to be suspicious.
the ndp didn't split the vote. liberal voters made that choice. in large numbers. apparently.
i don't think i made any errors in analysis; i think my criticisms of the mainstream analysis were grounded, and that the results were very much unexpected. i did not see any convincing evidence of large scale movement from red to blue in toronto. this is the lowest popular vote for a tory majority...ever...as far as i can see: the conservatives hadn't ever won a majority with 40% before. the tory vote was not "efficient", so much as liberals voted for them in large numbers, which has never happened before, either. &etc.
this was really just an exercise in mass idiocy, the likes of which i never thought i'd see here - and which, i need to reiterate, was not suggested by historical data, at all. it really is unprecedented.
but, so be it.
now, we must fight as hard as we can to stop him from ruining the province.
Thursday, June 7, 2018
and, if you're making minimum wage and you voted conservative, you're a fucking idiot.
he's going to reduce your salary and then send you a $14 credit on your tax bill to make up for it. i might advise him to send you a shit sandwich in the mail, along with the refund.
the numbers were not there. i'm kind of shocked. but if i have to spend the next four years marching then so fucking be it.
he's going to reduce your salary and then send you a $14 credit on your tax bill to make up for it. i might advise him to send you a shit sandwich in the mail, along with the refund.
the numbers were not there. i'm kind of shocked. but if i have to spend the next four years marching then so fucking be it.
see, this is a part of why i like the liberals in power - it's relative peace, because the bourgeoisie just pays us off. call me a sellout, but i'm just as happy to take the cash.
when conservatives are in power, and they start launching battles in the class war, we have to ensure we're causing havoc. strikes. marches. whatever causes disruption, whatever hurts capital, whatever leads to mayhem and disorder.
let's strive to make the next four years as chaotic and miserable for capital as is possible.
when conservatives are in power, and they start launching battles in the class war, we have to ensure we're causing havoc. strikes. marches. whatever causes disruption, whatever hurts capital, whatever leads to mayhem and disorder.
let's strive to make the next four years as chaotic and miserable for capital as is possible.
it's a sad day for ontario.
another step in the race to the bottom.
another leap head first into the third world.
& the worst part about is that we're going to have to listen to the fucking idiot talk in public for the next four years. the guy is such a dumbass that he makes dubya sound like a genius.
i don't know what he's going to do. literally. he provided no coherent idea of what his plans are - he ran on cheap beer & cheap gas.
but, generally, these kinds of candidates slash funding for health care, slash funding for education & slash funding for welfare.
we'll have to see what he does before i can figure out how to react in terms of organizing marches & whatnot.
another step in the race to the bottom.
another leap head first into the third world.
& the worst part about is that we're going to have to listen to the fucking idiot talk in public for the next four years. the guy is such a dumbass that he makes dubya sound like a genius.
i don't know what he's going to do. literally. he provided no coherent idea of what his plans are - he ran on cheap beer & cheap gas.
but, generally, these kinds of candidates slash funding for health care, slash funding for education & slash funding for welfare.
we'll have to see what he does before i can figure out how to react in terms of organizing marches & whatnot.
so, this isn't about "voter efficiency" - i was wrong about turnout, and the point they were making about distribution ought to have been irrelevant or wrong due to the swing. when i pointed out that the pcs can't win a majority of seats with 39% of the vote, i was right to do it - assuming that liberals vote one way or the other. if liberals vote conservative, they get over 39%; if they vote ndp or liberal, that's just not enough to win. then they just didn't vote at all. & when the talking heads argued that the ndp vote was poorly distributed, they should have been misinterpreting the evidence - but happened to fluke out because liberals didn't vote at all. i mean, what happened wasn't about the ndp's vote distribution, it was about the evaporation of liberal voters altogether. if the argument was that the conservatives can win via vote suppression, i would have agreed with the point, even if i guffawed at the numbers required to do so.
and is this believable?
i have no evidence regarding voter suppression, but would encourage others to explore the situation.
and is this believable?
i have no evidence regarding voter suppression, but would encourage others to explore the situation.
i didn't vote ndp, either. but the ndp won this riding by 10,000 votes. it was maybe a little more intense than i thought, but not unexpected in the general outcome.
if i was in a swing riding?
it turns out the strategic vote was liberal after all in most of these areas. but, the ndp numbers didn't go up, or not by a lot - the vote wasn't split. that argument's not going to work, here.
it's liberals that just didn't vote, and in huge numbers.
if i was in a swing riding?
it turns out the strategic vote was liberal after all in most of these areas. but, the ndp numbers didn't go up, or not by a lot - the vote wasn't split. that argument's not going to work, here.
it's liberals that just didn't vote, and in huge numbers.
as for the outcome, i'm embarrassed. - not because i was wrong, but because of what the province just did.
we just elected an absolute buffoon who promised to do stupid things, and is going to hurt the province dramatically. i can't believe that the people of this province could be so stupid; we don't have a history of this.
but, now, it's time to organize & fight.
we just elected an absolute buffoon who promised to do stupid things, and is going to hurt the province dramatically. i can't believe that the people of this province could be so stupid; we don't have a history of this.
but, now, it's time to organize & fight.
i'm going to tell you what i'm surprised about.
the range was 34-43, so i wasn't arguing that the polling was wrong so much as i was arguing that the analysis was inaccurate. if the conservatives ended up with 36, that wouldn't mean the polling was wrong, as it was correctly in the range. and, at 39-40%, that doesn't mean the polling is more right: it's a range. i was just pointing out that the conservatives usually poll at the bottom of the range. they did federally in 2015, 2011, 2008 & 2006 - as well as in every provincial election i can remember.
if they end the night in the middle of the range, that is unusual. it's not more right, it's just not consistent with the general trend. & that's what i'm surprised about. this election is consequently an outlier in terms of how results line up with polling measurements.
i haven't seen turnout numbers yet, but what it suggests is that turnout was probably quite low. this is what the models suggested, and that's fine. but, we're used to low turnout, and it's never affected the analysis before. this must have been really low turnout - so low you might want to wonder about it.
so, that's the first thing i'm surprised about - that the conservatives polled in the middle of their range rather than at the bottom of it, like they usually do. and, that would have to be because turnout was low.
the second thing i'm surprised about is that the liberal numbers are as low as they are, and that's the other side of the equation. they could still end up a tad over 20%. but, i was expecting that this is where the error would wash out, and they'd get to 22 or 23.
the end result is the outcome i feared: liberals just didn't vote at all. mostly in the gta. so, you're going to hear people talk about the conservatives swinging liberal votes, but if you look at absolute numbers, that will come out as false: conservative numbers likely stayed flat in the gta, while liberal numbers crashed. so, the conservatives ended up winning seats as a consequence of liberals staying home, the result of voter suppression through media assassination.
my analysis was rooted in rejecting the idea of equally distributing undecideds, which were clearly disproportionately historical liberal voters, and correcting the distribution of liberal voters to account for their ideological leanings. i continually pointed out that if these voters don't vote at all, the pcs would split the vote - but i didn't think that would actually happen.
had all of those liberal voters voted...
alas.
i got my huge swings in downtown toronto, but as soon as you get out of the core, those liberal voters stay home rather than vote liberal or ndp.
so, give the election to the media: it succeeded in suppressing the vote.
...if it was the media & not the machines.
the range was 34-43, so i wasn't arguing that the polling was wrong so much as i was arguing that the analysis was inaccurate. if the conservatives ended up with 36, that wouldn't mean the polling was wrong, as it was correctly in the range. and, at 39-40%, that doesn't mean the polling is more right: it's a range. i was just pointing out that the conservatives usually poll at the bottom of the range. they did federally in 2015, 2011, 2008 & 2006 - as well as in every provincial election i can remember.
if they end the night in the middle of the range, that is unusual. it's not more right, it's just not consistent with the general trend. & that's what i'm surprised about. this election is consequently an outlier in terms of how results line up with polling measurements.
i haven't seen turnout numbers yet, but what it suggests is that turnout was probably quite low. this is what the models suggested, and that's fine. but, we're used to low turnout, and it's never affected the analysis before. this must have been really low turnout - so low you might want to wonder about it.
so, that's the first thing i'm surprised about - that the conservatives polled in the middle of their range rather than at the bottom of it, like they usually do. and, that would have to be because turnout was low.
the second thing i'm surprised about is that the liberal numbers are as low as they are, and that's the other side of the equation. they could still end up a tad over 20%. but, i was expecting that this is where the error would wash out, and they'd get to 22 or 23.
the end result is the outcome i feared: liberals just didn't vote at all. mostly in the gta. so, you're going to hear people talk about the conservatives swinging liberal votes, but if you look at absolute numbers, that will come out as false: conservative numbers likely stayed flat in the gta, while liberal numbers crashed. so, the conservatives ended up winning seats as a consequence of liberals staying home, the result of voter suppression through media assassination.
my analysis was rooted in rejecting the idea of equally distributing undecideds, which were clearly disproportionately historical liberal voters, and correcting the distribution of liberal voters to account for their ideological leanings. i continually pointed out that if these voters don't vote at all, the pcs would split the vote - but i didn't think that would actually happen.
had all of those liberal voters voted...
alas.
i got my huge swings in downtown toronto, but as soon as you get out of the core, those liberal voters stay home rather than vote liberal or ndp.
so, give the election to the media: it succeeded in suppressing the vote.
...if it was the media & not the machines.
the cbc site appears to be getting ddosed by legit users.
personally, i haven't had access to a tv to watch an election on since 2002. guess the world's catching up on me...
...but, considering that the site can't handle the traffic, please turn your tv on if you can, so people like me can access the site online.
personally, i haven't had access to a tv to watch an election on since 2002. guess the world's catching up on me...
...but, considering that the site can't handle the traffic, please turn your tv on if you can, so people like me can access the site online.
again: the conservatives, under stephen harper, managed 45% of the vote in ontario in 2011. that was enough for a majority of seats in ontario.
in 2008, however, which is a better comparison over all, the conservatives got 39% of the vote in ontario - which was only enough for a minority of seats in the province.
the data suggests that doug ford will be lucky to match the 2008 totals - and that he is not even close to the 2011 totals.
historically, bill davis also needed 44%+ to run a majority. davis ran at 36 once and at 39 once and ended up with minorities both times. mike harris ran at 45% for both of his majorities.
it is entirely unclear where the narrative of "conservative vote efficiencies" came from, if not from the ford campaign itself. that sounds like the kind of vacuous bluster that would come out of his mouth, not a reasoned deduction from seasoned pollsters who should be well aware that the conservatives need exaggerated numbers province wide to allow for boosts in urban areas.sufficient enough for them to win elections. they've always had the least efficient vote.
the conservatives are up at most 8 points and they lost dozens of urban ridings by way more than 15 last time. if i'm right and they're up more like 3 or 4 points, they're not likely to improve much on their existing seat total at all - especially considering that the liberals are bleeding so heavily to the ndp.
but, even seasoned liberal propagandists are repeating this pablum.
it shows the power of the tory media to control the narrative.
in 2008, however, which is a better comparison over all, the conservatives got 39% of the vote in ontario - which was only enough for a minority of seats in the province.
the data suggests that doug ford will be lucky to match the 2008 totals - and that he is not even close to the 2011 totals.
historically, bill davis also needed 44%+ to run a majority. davis ran at 36 once and at 39 once and ended up with minorities both times. mike harris ran at 45% for both of his majorities.
it is entirely unclear where the narrative of "conservative vote efficiencies" came from, if not from the ford campaign itself. that sounds like the kind of vacuous bluster that would come out of his mouth, not a reasoned deduction from seasoned pollsters who should be well aware that the conservatives need exaggerated numbers province wide to allow for boosts in urban areas.sufficient enough for them to win elections. they've always had the least efficient vote.
the conservatives are up at most 8 points and they lost dozens of urban ridings by way more than 15 last time. if i'm right and they're up more like 3 or 4 points, they're not likely to improve much on their existing seat total at all - especially considering that the liberals are bleeding so heavily to the ndp.
but, even seasoned liberal propagandists are repeating this pablum.
it shows the power of the tory media to control the narrative.
a lot of urban ridings looked like this:
liberal - 60%
conservative - 20%
ndp - 15%
then, they claim the conservatives have a better chance because they came in second in more ridings. right.
that riding could very well end up like this tonight:
ndp: -35%
liberal - 34%
conservative - 26%
you just want to make sure you actually vote.
liberal - 60%
conservative - 20%
ndp - 15%
then, they claim the conservatives have a better chance because they came in second in more ridings. right.
that riding could very well end up like this tonight:
ndp: -35%
liberal - 34%
conservative - 26%
you just want to make sure you actually vote.
just whatever you do, don't get overwhelmed and not vote.
to an extent, it even doesn't matter; despite the narrative, ford needs to make up so much ground that as long as turnout doesn't collapse, he doesn't really have a serious chance at a majority.
if you can't figure it out, guess. but don't give up - be confident in your guess.
to an extent, it even doesn't matter; despite the narrative, ford needs to make up so much ground that as long as turnout doesn't collapse, he doesn't really have a serious chance at a majority.
if you can't figure it out, guess. but don't give up - be confident in your guess.
this is a good example of what not to listen to today.
"but, the ndp would have to swing 40% of the vote in that riding to win! the liberals are the obvious strategic choice."
i was skeptical until i saw the data, too, but the ndp are swinging 40% of the vote.
or, at least they are in some places.
this is a hard problem; i can't solve it without a lot of data, and i don't have a lot of data. but, don't follow the kind of simplistic analysis presented here. it's just as bad as the projections coming from lispop.
the hard truth is that some of these ridings will swing 45% from liberal to ndp and some of them won't swing at all and it's up to you to guess which is which. good luck. the province depends on it.
don't look at me like that, blame the media for creating havoc.
but, remember: the tories have never won a majority at either level with less than 40% of the vote, and there's not any good reason to think they will this time, either.
https://nowtoronto.com/news/ontario-election-2018-andrea-horwath-kathleen-wynne-doug-ford/
"but, the ndp would have to swing 40% of the vote in that riding to win! the liberals are the obvious strategic choice."
i was skeptical until i saw the data, too, but the ndp are swinging 40% of the vote.
or, at least they are in some places.
this is a hard problem; i can't solve it without a lot of data, and i don't have a lot of data. but, don't follow the kind of simplistic analysis presented here. it's just as bad as the projections coming from lispop.
the hard truth is that some of these ridings will swing 45% from liberal to ndp and some of them won't swing at all and it's up to you to guess which is which. good luck. the province depends on it.
don't look at me like that, blame the media for creating havoc.
but, remember: the tories have never won a majority at either level with less than 40% of the vote, and there's not any good reason to think they will this time, either.
https://nowtoronto.com/news/ontario-election-2018-andrea-horwath-kathleen-wynne-doug-ford/
this cannot be allowed to happen.
if you are in the region, i'd encourage civil disobedience.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/lifestyle/councilman-plans-gender-segregated-beach-days-for-religious-1.3963286
if you are in the region, i'd encourage civil disobedience.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/lifestyle/councilman-plans-gender-segregated-beach-days-for-religious-1.3963286
you'd have to have lungs like michael phelps to reduce 5 grams to 4 tokes.
that's superhuman. really.
it's actually about 20 joints and 200+ tokes.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senators-marijuana-legalization-abstain-1.4695824
that's superhuman. really.
it's actually about 20 joints and 200+ tokes.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senators-marijuana-legalization-abstain-1.4695824
can you come up with a valid argument as to why people should have violent dogs?
i can't.
at least with guns, there's a human on the other side. you can make arguments about how gun control isn't the answer, so much as a change in the culture is. and, that remains true with dogs as well - the real answer is that we need a cultural shift away from the machismo that glorifies the ownership of these breeds. sure.
but, a violent dog doesn't have a safety on it. you can't lock it in a cabinet, where the kids can't get at it. it's an omnipresent danger, with it's own personality.
i don't know exactly how you do this, and i would like to ensure that the science is consulted - because i want it to be effective. if the science says it's not going to work, what's the point, right? but i would like to see stronger action taken, nonetheless.
i can't.
at least with guns, there's a human on the other side. you can make arguments about how gun control isn't the answer, so much as a change in the culture is. and, that remains true with dogs as well - the real answer is that we need a cultural shift away from the machismo that glorifies the ownership of these breeds. sure.
but, a violent dog doesn't have a safety on it. you can't lock it in a cabinet, where the kids can't get at it. it's an omnipresent danger, with it's own personality.
i don't know exactly how you do this, and i would like to ensure that the science is consulted - because i want it to be effective. if the science says it's not going to work, what's the point, right? but i would like to see stronger action taken, nonetheless.
ok, and it seems like that's what they're doing.
perhaps the laws in ontario could use a similar rewrite to increase enforcement.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/06/06/quebecs-proposed-dangerous-dog-law-ditches-breed-specific-ban_a_23452761/
perhaps the laws in ontario could use a similar rewrite to increase enforcement.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/06/06/quebecs-proposed-dangerous-dog-law-ditches-breed-specific-ban_a_23452761/
i understand the point.
but, rather than back off altogether, i was hoping to see action towards banning all large dogs altogether. i don't feel i should be afraid to walk down the street because people want to express their chauvinism through big stupid dogs, and the fact is that i often am.
pit bulls. rottweilers. german shephards. dobermans. get rid of all of them....
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/06/06/quebec-abandons-plans-for-pit-bull-ban-citing-lack-of-science-to-back-breed-specific-laws.html
but, rather than back off altogether, i was hoping to see action towards banning all large dogs altogether. i don't feel i should be afraid to walk down the street because people want to express their chauvinism through big stupid dogs, and the fact is that i often am.
pit bulls. rottweilers. german shephards. dobermans. get rid of all of them....
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/06/06/quebec-abandons-plans-for-pit-bull-ban-citing-lack-of-science-to-back-breed-specific-laws.html
"the liberals are going to end up with the balance of power!? that's terrible..."
nah.
we just came out of 15 years of liberal government. there's not a lot of evidence that the province has undergone a fundamental shift in ideology, either; the premier's policies are quite popular, voters just hate her. there's no convincing evidence that the province has developed an aversion to debt, either.
wynne's argument is really pretty consistent with the way our system works, which the ndp have never liked; it's a check on power, to allow voters to be sure they're making this choice.
we're not stuck with this for four years; the government could fall on the first budget.
so, a likely scenario is that the ndp decide they want to do something to undo the liberal legacy, and voters need to vote on it to confirm it - or return the liberals to power.
more voting is more democratic; it's a feature, it's not a bug.
nah.
we just came out of 15 years of liberal government. there's not a lot of evidence that the province has undergone a fundamental shift in ideology, either; the premier's policies are quite popular, voters just hate her. there's no convincing evidence that the province has developed an aversion to debt, either.
wynne's argument is really pretty consistent with the way our system works, which the ndp have never liked; it's a check on power, to allow voters to be sure they're making this choice.
we're not stuck with this for four years; the government could fall on the first budget.
so, a likely scenario is that the ndp decide they want to do something to undo the liberal legacy, and voters need to vote on it to confirm it - or return the liberals to power.
more voting is more democratic; it's a feature, it's not a bug.
that was a crash last night, but it was a healthy one.
i need to pivot starting today.
but, what i'm going to do over off hours is the following:
1) copy the existing music blog into the master music document.
2) copy the master music document into the complete master document
3) carry on with the same process as previously.
today, i need to vote - for the greens. get some salami. get some ventolin. & get to looking for somewhere else to live.
i need to pivot starting today.
but, what i'm going to do over off hours is the following:
1) copy the existing music blog into the master music document.
2) copy the master music document into the complete master document
3) carry on with the same process as previously.
today, i need to vote - for the greens. get some salami. get some ventolin. & get to looking for somewhere else to live.
this was a weird election.
but, it demonstrates that splitting the vote isn't necessarily catastrophic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_general_election,_1975
but, it demonstrates that splitting the vote isn't necessarily catastrophic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_general_election,_1975
again: i will be surprised if the conservatives poll above 35%. am i ignoring the data? no - i'm just reading it correctly.
the polling data does not suggest that the conservatives will poll at 38-39%. what it suggests, rather, is that there's a ninety some percent chance that they poll in the range of [34, 43]. polling is never an exact number, but always a range. but, we know from experience that the telephone polling has inherent biases that favour the conservatives. so, a prudent reading of the data suggests they should end up near the bottom of it, and that there's a higher chance of them polling polling around 34-36 than there is of them polling around 42-43.
i'll acknowledge a level of intuition in pegging them at the very bottom of this range. this election has been defined by exceedingly nasty media coverage of the ruling party, which is clearly on the opposite side of the broader electorate. further, doug ford is clearly not fit for the job. in electing doug ford, ontario would be suffering a collective experience of mass idiocy that it is not known for. i would consequently assign most of that error to the liberals out of a shy effect, rather than to the ndp.
might i be wrong, though? sure.
so, let's say i'm wrong. let's say the conservatives get 39% of the vote.
look as i may, i cannot find an example of the conservatives winning a majority government in ontario with under 40% of the vote. harris polled around 45% in both wins - numbers that nobody is talking about. bill davis had majorities at 44% and minorities at 36% and 39%. frank miller had a minority at 37%. if we trust the elections bodies to distribute the ridings fairly, we can only conclude that ontario is less rural today than it was in the late 70s, and that it would be harder to win a majority in the high 30s today than it was then.
looking at federal data, stephen harper got 44% in 2011 and 39% in 2008 - which is the difference between a majority and a minority.
so, even if i concede that the conservatives may be running in the middle of their range, i don't concede that that makes a majority government likely. i would rather argue rather forcefully that it makes a minority government likely.
you can come up with whatever theory you want, but i think it is clear that the empirical data suggests that the conservatives need to be running in the 40s to make a majority government an idea to even talk about, and should be running closer to 45 to make it likely.
again: my reading of the data is that the ndp is on the brink of a sweep in toronto. i think we're looking at an ndp majority government.
but, if i'm wrong, this legislature is more likely to end up looking something like the minority government of the 70s than it is to end up looking like the majority government of the 90s - even if we have no real idea of how doug ford would actually govern.
the polling data does not suggest that the conservatives will poll at 38-39%. what it suggests, rather, is that there's a ninety some percent chance that they poll in the range of [34, 43]. polling is never an exact number, but always a range. but, we know from experience that the telephone polling has inherent biases that favour the conservatives. so, a prudent reading of the data suggests they should end up near the bottom of it, and that there's a higher chance of them polling polling around 34-36 than there is of them polling around 42-43.
i'll acknowledge a level of intuition in pegging them at the very bottom of this range. this election has been defined by exceedingly nasty media coverage of the ruling party, which is clearly on the opposite side of the broader electorate. further, doug ford is clearly not fit for the job. in electing doug ford, ontario would be suffering a collective experience of mass idiocy that it is not known for. i would consequently assign most of that error to the liberals out of a shy effect, rather than to the ndp.
might i be wrong, though? sure.
so, let's say i'm wrong. let's say the conservatives get 39% of the vote.
look as i may, i cannot find an example of the conservatives winning a majority government in ontario with under 40% of the vote. harris polled around 45% in both wins - numbers that nobody is talking about. bill davis had majorities at 44% and minorities at 36% and 39%. frank miller had a minority at 37%. if we trust the elections bodies to distribute the ridings fairly, we can only conclude that ontario is less rural today than it was in the late 70s, and that it would be harder to win a majority in the high 30s today than it was then.
looking at federal data, stephen harper got 44% in 2011 and 39% in 2008 - which is the difference between a majority and a minority.
so, even if i concede that the conservatives may be running in the middle of their range, i don't concede that that makes a majority government likely. i would rather argue rather forcefully that it makes a minority government likely.
you can come up with whatever theory you want, but i think it is clear that the empirical data suggests that the conservatives need to be running in the 40s to make a majority government an idea to even talk about, and should be running closer to 45 to make it likely.
again: my reading of the data is that the ndp is on the brink of a sweep in toronto. i think we're looking at an ndp majority government.
but, if i'm wrong, this legislature is more likely to end up looking something like the minority government of the 70s than it is to end up looking like the majority government of the 90s - even if we have no real idea of how doug ford would actually govern.
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
so, what's with the markets? aren't they supposed to have crashed by now?
well, they've been pretty volatile...
there's a class of traders right now with no meaningful concept of reality that is playing the market like a casino and driving up costs through speculation. but, the money is drying up, nonetheless. the longer that they artificially prop these stocks up, the harder they'll crash in the end.
wait it out.
well, they've been pretty volatile...
there's a class of traders right now with no meaningful concept of reality that is playing the market like a casino and driving up costs through speculation. but, the money is drying up, nonetheless. the longer that they artificially prop these stocks up, the harder they'll crash in the end.
wait it out.
if you thought i was going to see a porn star perform at a vape lounge, you've got me very wrong.
my friends tried to take me to a strip club once around my 18th birthday by surprise, like they put me in the car and didn't tell me where we were going because they knew i wouldn't have gone, but i pretended i left my id at home and sat in the car, instead.
i'm 37 years old; i've never been in a strip club.
you'd have to drug me and drag me in unconscious.
my friends tried to take me to a strip club once around my 18th birthday by surprise, like they put me in the car and didn't tell me where we were going because they knew i wouldn't have gone, but i pretended i left my id at home and sat in the car, instead.
i'm 37 years old; i've never been in a strip club.
you'd have to drug me and drag me in unconscious.
so, how do i want to do this?
on second thought, i'm going to need to sync everything up until the end of 2016 before i can release inri000, because that's when it releases in the alter-reality. yeah. & then i'm...ack....i'm going to have to catch up to where i am after all, so i can date the 1997 alter-reality posts to current posting. yeah...
*shrug*.
i should at least be able to start writing notes in the alter-reality by the time get through 2016.
i''ll also need to start editing vlogs again once i get to mid 2017. hrmmn.
it could be a while still, after all.
on second thought, i'm going to need to sync everything up until the end of 2016 before i can release inri000, because that's when it releases in the alter-reality. yeah. & then i'm...ack....i'm going to have to catch up to where i am after all, so i can date the 1997 alter-reality posts to current posting. yeah...
*shrug*.
i should at least be able to start writing notes in the alter-reality by the time get through 2016.
i''ll also need to start editing vlogs again once i get to mid 2017. hrmmn.
it could be a while still, after all.
i have now reached the hook-up; the music blog, while incomplete, is abler to narrate back to mid-2013.
i'm going to continue to push forward with this for the rest of the night, but i must focus on apartment hunting tomorrow.
i still have two years and counting of rebuilding to do, but the focus of the process is going to shift, because i should be able to build the final liner notes for inri000, which means i should be able to get back to the alter-reality and build notes as i go for these release, as well.
so, i'm going to be rebuilding through 2016, writing alter-reality posts and closing the liner notes on discs, simultaneously. that should start within a week or two and run until i catch up on the rebuild up to where i am at the moment i catch up.
once the alter-reality is caught up, i'll try and keep on track with it in real time. &, if i'm lucky, i should be able to get started on period 3 shortly after the move.
so, this place in the end appears to be being utilized mostly as storage. i really wish the people around me weren't revoltingly disgusting, but so be it - i'm almost back on track.
the actual purpose of what i'm doing should be more apparent fairly shortly.
i'm going to continue to push forward with this for the rest of the night, but i must focus on apartment hunting tomorrow.
i still have two years and counting of rebuilding to do, but the focus of the process is going to shift, because i should be able to build the final liner notes for inri000, which means i should be able to get back to the alter-reality and build notes as i go for these release, as well.
so, i'm going to be rebuilding through 2016, writing alter-reality posts and closing the liner notes on discs, simultaneously. that should start within a week or two and run until i catch up on the rebuild up to where i am at the moment i catch up.
once the alter-reality is caught up, i'll try and keep on track with it in real time. &, if i'm lucky, i should be able to get started on period 3 shortly after the move.
so, this place in the end appears to be being utilized mostly as storage. i really wish the people around me weren't revoltingly disgusting, but so be it - i'm almost back on track.
the actual purpose of what i'm doing should be more apparent fairly shortly.
i don't understand why anybody in ottawa ever thought it was worthwhile to treat donald trump as a rational actor.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/canada/didnt-you-guys-burn-down-the-white-house-trump-uses-war-of-1812-to-justify-canada-as-security-threat/wcm/6c181ca0-c129-4a0b-9f32-38d3ff065768
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/canada/didnt-you-guys-burn-down-the-white-house-trump-uses-war-of-1812-to-justify-canada-as-security-threat/wcm/6c181ca0-c129-4a0b-9f32-38d3ff065768
i'm going to say something else though, because i think this was a big factor last time.
polling companies categorize old people as 65+. then, they claim seniors are more likely to vote. and, i don't protest.
but, how many people on the phone are 65-80 and how many are 80+? and are people 80+ more likely to vote?
i suspect that what happened last time is that the polling firms talked to a lot of 90 year old conservatives, categorized them as seniors and then concluded that the conservatives had a big advantage - only to scratch their heads when it didn't materialize.
with life expectancies in their 80s nowadays, and data being collected over multiple generational divides and disparate living realities, pollsters need to split seniors into at least two categories, moving forwards.
polling companies categorize old people as 65+. then, they claim seniors are more likely to vote. and, i don't protest.
but, how many people on the phone are 65-80 and how many are 80+? and are people 80+ more likely to vote?
i suspect that what happened last time is that the polling firms talked to a lot of 90 year old conservatives, categorized them as seniors and then concluded that the conservatives had a big advantage - only to scratch their heads when it didn't materialize.
with life expectancies in their 80s nowadays, and data being collected over multiple generational divides and disparate living realities, pollsters need to split seniors into at least two categories, moving forwards.
i can't tell you who to vote for.
as mentioned, it seems like the ndp and liberals have switched places almost everywhere, with the possible exception of a small number of areas in the 905. but, it's a small number of areas. you'll need to work that out on your own. they should do best in areas with a lot of educated workers; this is an election between demagogues on the left and right, with smart and informed people being disenfranchised - where these people cluster are the handful of seats the liberals will win. the university ridings. the high tech sectors.
i suspect there's a "shy wynne supporter" effect at play and that the liberals will do a little better than projected. but this is impossible to quantify, and impossible to predict the effects of.
you probably want to vote ndp. or, if you're in a likely safe ndp riding and you feel talked down to by andrea horwath and her fake accent, you might want to vote green out of protest.
if the vote coalesces, the ndp will win a big majority. if it doesn't, the media strategy will have been effective, and the tories will succeed in splitting the vote.
that said, 38% should not be enough for a tory majority in ontario. they need more like 42%, because their vote is inefficiently localized in rural ridings and they tend to be uncompetitive in cities. but, they always run at the bottom of their error bars, so they're probably running close to 34-35 anyways. what that means is that the pollsters need to tell you they're running closer to 45% to be seriously worried about a tory majority.
turnout is always a wildcard, but i do not expect a tory majority, even if the vote splits badly. in the scary scenario - i'm not going to say worst case - you're going to end up with a tory minority, and horwath is going to need liberal and maybe green mps to pass a budget.
but, i remain convinced that the ndp are running ahead of the tories province wide and especially in the gta, where it matters.
substituting the ndp for the liberals, the polls are almost identical to where they were four years ago. and, the predictions are almost identical, too. everybody predicted a tory majority...
...but, the liberals won a majority in the end.
it's the ndp's turn, this time, to confound the media's right-wing bias and cheerleading for the ontario tories and frustrate them with a clear majority.
...& part of me hopes they go after the bastards that accidentally elected them.
as mentioned, it seems like the ndp and liberals have switched places almost everywhere, with the possible exception of a small number of areas in the 905. but, it's a small number of areas. you'll need to work that out on your own. they should do best in areas with a lot of educated workers; this is an election between demagogues on the left and right, with smart and informed people being disenfranchised - where these people cluster are the handful of seats the liberals will win. the university ridings. the high tech sectors.
i suspect there's a "shy wynne supporter" effect at play and that the liberals will do a little better than projected. but this is impossible to quantify, and impossible to predict the effects of.
you probably want to vote ndp. or, if you're in a likely safe ndp riding and you feel talked down to by andrea horwath and her fake accent, you might want to vote green out of protest.
if the vote coalesces, the ndp will win a big majority. if it doesn't, the media strategy will have been effective, and the tories will succeed in splitting the vote.
that said, 38% should not be enough for a tory majority in ontario. they need more like 42%, because their vote is inefficiently localized in rural ridings and they tend to be uncompetitive in cities. but, they always run at the bottom of their error bars, so they're probably running close to 34-35 anyways. what that means is that the pollsters need to tell you they're running closer to 45% to be seriously worried about a tory majority.
turnout is always a wildcard, but i do not expect a tory majority, even if the vote splits badly. in the scary scenario - i'm not going to say worst case - you're going to end up with a tory minority, and horwath is going to need liberal and maybe green mps to pass a budget.
but, i remain convinced that the ndp are running ahead of the tories province wide and especially in the gta, where it matters.
substituting the ndp for the liberals, the polls are almost identical to where they were four years ago. and, the predictions are almost identical, too. everybody predicted a tory majority...
...but, the liberals won a majority in the end.
it's the ndp's turn, this time, to confound the media's right-wing bias and cheerleading for the ontario tories and frustrate them with a clear majority.
...& part of me hopes they go after the bastards that accidentally elected them.
why was he handing out flyers to kids too young to vote?
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/06/05/pc-candidate-raymond-cho-apologizes-over-physical-altercation-with-grade-7-student-outside-scarborough-school.html
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/06/05/pc-candidate-raymond-cho-apologizes-over-physical-altercation-with-grade-7-student-outside-scarborough-school.html
i've been opposed to nafta my whole life.
as a teenager, i marched with the unions against it.
it's at the core of my self-awareness, politically. it's one of the things that radicalized me.
the opposition to nafta was lead by the left, by the ndp (although i identified more with the liberal position, which supported actual reciprocity with the united states, but opposed the investors rights agreement that the fta was and any trilateral agreement with mexico) and by the unions and by the socialists. most of what we feared has come to fruition. so, it's disingenuous to suggest this is some kind of right-wing movement devised by donald trump.
i acknowledge there's not any easy way out. but, i've made my views here clear enough.
as a teenager, i marched with the unions against it.
it's at the core of my self-awareness, politically. it's one of the things that radicalized me.
the opposition to nafta was lead by the left, by the ndp (although i identified more with the liberal position, which supported actual reciprocity with the united states, but opposed the investors rights agreement that the fta was and any trilateral agreement with mexico) and by the unions and by the socialists. most of what we feared has come to fruition. so, it's disingenuous to suggest this is some kind of right-wing movement devised by donald trump.
i acknowledge there's not any easy way out. but, i've made my views here clear enough.
i don't think it should be a question of keeping mexico or ditching mexico, but a question of putting in place incentives for them to better themselves.
i'm in favour of some harsh medicine for mexico, but that doesn't have to be permanent.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-june-4-2018-1.4690285/should-canada-ditch-mexico-and-go-it-alone-with-u-s-on-new-trade-agreement-1.4690431
i'm in favour of some harsh medicine for mexico, but that doesn't have to be permanent.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-june-4-2018-1.4690285/should-canada-ditch-mexico-and-go-it-alone-with-u-s-on-new-trade-agreement-1.4690431
it seems that i would have to rely on precedent from bc if i were to go forward with this.
i do, in fact, have a puffer from exposure to second-hand smoke as a child.
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/pair-handed-8k-after-rights-denied-by-smoking-neighbours-1.809848
i do, in fact, have a puffer from exposure to second-hand smoke as a child.
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/pair-handed-8k-after-rights-denied-by-smoking-neighbours-1.809848
ok. i'm sure i'm up now.
15 hours of sleep.
you want to argue this isn't affecting my quality of life, my enjoyment of the property and, ultimately, my health? despite popular misconceptions to the contrary, the law is on my side here; i have all of the rights, all of the rules and all of the social norms on my side. smoking is not a right; that's an insult to the concept of rights.
it doesn't matter if you "believe" in rights or not. it matters what a judge rules. laws are not subject to personal beliefs, they're objective rules that everybody has to follow. and, it doesn't matter if you "believe" in the science underlying the action or not, either.
i don't believe in beliefs.
it's far easier for me to go after the property owners than it is to go after this woman, who appears to be a legit fucking dunce, but if i don't win the case against the landlord, i'm going to have to take her to the human rights board, directly. that's going to be time consuming, and it's going to drag on for a long time. but, somebody needs to compensate me for this rights infringement.
my understanding of the law is that there's two layers, here: the tenant-landlord layer & the human rights layer. i believe that the way the law is meant to operate on the tenant-landlord level is for me to sue the landlord, and for the landlord to recover costs by suing the other tenant, in turn (perhaps in small claims court, for negligence). but, if that fails, i'm absolutely planning to take her to human rights court and making her pay for her behaviour.
smoking inside an apartment building is no longer acceptable behaviour in the 21st century, and we all need to stand up for our rights to ensure people aren't getting away with it. i'd encourage everybody to utilize the tools available to them to crack down on inside smoking and get smokers out of residential areas and into the bars, where they belong.
15 hours of sleep.
you want to argue this isn't affecting my quality of life, my enjoyment of the property and, ultimately, my health? despite popular misconceptions to the contrary, the law is on my side here; i have all of the rights, all of the rules and all of the social norms on my side. smoking is not a right; that's an insult to the concept of rights.
it doesn't matter if you "believe" in rights or not. it matters what a judge rules. laws are not subject to personal beliefs, they're objective rules that everybody has to follow. and, it doesn't matter if you "believe" in the science underlying the action or not, either.
i don't believe in beliefs.
it's far easier for me to go after the property owners than it is to go after this woman, who appears to be a legit fucking dunce, but if i don't win the case against the landlord, i'm going to have to take her to the human rights board, directly. that's going to be time consuming, and it's going to drag on for a long time. but, somebody needs to compensate me for this rights infringement.
my understanding of the law is that there's two layers, here: the tenant-landlord layer & the human rights layer. i believe that the way the law is meant to operate on the tenant-landlord level is for me to sue the landlord, and for the landlord to recover costs by suing the other tenant, in turn (perhaps in small claims court, for negligence). but, if that fails, i'm absolutely planning to take her to human rights court and making her pay for her behaviour.
smoking inside an apartment building is no longer acceptable behaviour in the 21st century, and we all need to stand up for our rights to ensure people aren't getting away with it. i'd encourage everybody to utilize the tools available to them to crack down on inside smoking and get smokers out of residential areas and into the bars, where they belong.
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
the secondhand smoke knocked me out cold again this morning, this time for twelve hours; splitting headache, sore threat, no energy & hot rage - i was unable to do anything but sleep.
it still smells disgusting in here, and i still feel terrible, but i think she's gone for the night, so i need to take advantage of it to try and finish up to the hookup, between coughs and wheezes. i'll have to fill that ventolin prescription next time i'm out.
a part of the problem is the weather. despite the fact that the windows are open and the fans are running, i'm not getting any circulation. we should be back to normal temperatures again on thursday. let's hope it stays nice and hot. this cold weather is depressing...
it still smells disgusting in here, and i still feel terrible, but i think she's gone for the night, so i need to take advantage of it to try and finish up to the hookup, between coughs and wheezes. i'll have to fill that ventolin prescription next time i'm out.
a part of the problem is the weather. despite the fact that the windows are open and the fans are running, i'm not getting any circulation. we should be back to normal temperatures again on thursday. let's hope it stays nice and hot. this cold weather is depressing...
i know i sound like a broken record.
but, there's a big difference between saying the conservatives are running at 38% and saying they're running at 35% - regardless of where the ndp is.
i think the danger inherent here is actually that there's a shy liberal effect, and with the media coverage, it's not impossible. the only way that ford is going to win is if that undecided vote goes to the liberals. it's in two days. why haven't they committed to the ndp yet?
if most of that 10% goes ndp. there's an ndp majority. if most of it goes to the liberals, it's a conservative majority - unless it's distributed almost impossibly well.
so, i'm less concerned about where the tories are here and more concerned about the softness of the ndp vote.
but, there's a big difference between saying the conservatives are running at 38% and saying they're running at 35% - regardless of where the ndp is.
i think the danger inherent here is actually that there's a shy liberal effect, and with the media coverage, it's not impossible. the only way that ford is going to win is if that undecided vote goes to the liberals. it's in two days. why haven't they committed to the ndp yet?
if most of that 10% goes ndp. there's an ndp majority. if most of it goes to the liberals, it's a conservative majority - unless it's distributed almost impossibly well.
so, i'm less concerned about where the tories are here and more concerned about the softness of the ndp vote.
the liberals did not propose a proportional representation system, or an mmp system, but an av - that is, ranked ballots.
the ndp, however, has long proposed proportional representation - and lost several referenda on the topic.
sadly, many journalists in the media were unable to understand the differences in the party proposals, and this created a confused electorate that thought voting liberal would lead to pr. but, that was never actually promoted or presented in any remote way by anybody in the liberal party.
http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/proportional-representation-is-great-for-unelectable-apparatchiks-jean-chretien-says
the ndp, however, has long proposed proportional representation - and lost several referenda on the topic.
sadly, many journalists in the media were unable to understand the differences in the party proposals, and this created a confused electorate that thought voting liberal would lead to pr. but, that was never actually promoted or presented in any remote way by anybody in the liberal party.
http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/proportional-representation-is-great-for-unelectable-apparatchiks-jean-chretien-says
yeah, but that doesn't mean turnout overall is up, it means more people are voting early.
if turnout is high, it's probably going to help the ndp.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4253292/advance-voter-turnout-high/
if turnout is high, it's probably going to help the ndp.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4253292/advance-voter-turnout-high/
this is probably my final analysis of the polling in the upcoming election.
first, let us acknowledge that there has been a deficit of quality polling, and i'm less confident than i was in previous elections as a consequence of it. the aggregates are badly polluted with bad data, and the models are using poorly thought out approaches. it appears that the primary idea in this election is going to be a 20 point shift between the liberals and the ndp, and near stasis in the conservative vote. a swing model based on aggregating data is designed for small proportional changes and is going to completely fail at understanding how this is going to work with such a large shift between two parties.
what the models are going to do is apply the shift everywhere; if they're very good, they may frame a little, but they're all going to miss the point. you should not expect twenty point swings from the liberals to the ndp in every riding. there are plenty of rural ridings where the liberals were barely running at 20 in the first place. rather, what you should expect is minimal swing in rural ridings and exaggerated swings in urban ridings. so, you should expect little change where it doesn't matter - seats conservatives always win anyways - and 30+ percent shifts in downtown toronto.
if the liberals & ndp were both running in the high 20s, we'd have a nightmare scenario where liberal seats turn blue on a 15-20 point swing in the urban centres. but, the propaganda was too effective: we're rather looking at 30+ percent swings, and that should be enough to prevent the conservatives from making gains much of anywhere at all.
so, while it's dangerous to look at the data from a distance and conclude the ndp & liberals will simply switch places in the legislature, the balance of evidence suggests pretty much that. at this point, i expect the ndp to win almost all of the seats in toronto and most of the seats in the 905, as well as the urban seats in the southwest and potentially a few upsets in the rural southwest. but, exact numbers are going to depend on turnout.
the liberals appear to be polling strongly in a few unexpected places, and it may be exposing a new base. they've always done well in ottawa and will likely keep a few seats there. but, i think they're going to keep a few seats around the waterloo area, as well. these are the places where the new economy has asserted itself strongest, and the places where the liberals will need to rebuild from if they want to retake toronto.
this is my prediction:
1) conservatives: i think they'll come in under 35% of the vote, and that should be good for about 35 seats - all the seats they have right now, and a couple more around brampton, + the odd fluke.
2) ndp: i think they'll come in pushing 40% of the vote, but not quite. that should be good for at least 70 seats - all the ones they have now, and at least 50 of the ones the liberals have now.
3) liberals: they're going to beat the models, but it's not clear by how much. it would be absurdly optimistic to suggest they'll get to 25%, but i do think they'll beat 20%. and, i can come up with at least 10 seats they should be able to hang on to.
4) the greens could win a seat, too, but it doesn't look like their vote is going to hit 5% province wide. if they win the seat, they could be a factor in four years.
so, something like the following is plausible:
ndp: 38%, 76 seats
conservatives: 33%, 35 seats
liberals: 23%, 12 seats
greens: 4%, 1 seat
first, let us acknowledge that there has been a deficit of quality polling, and i'm less confident than i was in previous elections as a consequence of it. the aggregates are badly polluted with bad data, and the models are using poorly thought out approaches. it appears that the primary idea in this election is going to be a 20 point shift between the liberals and the ndp, and near stasis in the conservative vote. a swing model based on aggregating data is designed for small proportional changes and is going to completely fail at understanding how this is going to work with such a large shift between two parties.
what the models are going to do is apply the shift everywhere; if they're very good, they may frame a little, but they're all going to miss the point. you should not expect twenty point swings from the liberals to the ndp in every riding. there are plenty of rural ridings where the liberals were barely running at 20 in the first place. rather, what you should expect is minimal swing in rural ridings and exaggerated swings in urban ridings. so, you should expect little change where it doesn't matter - seats conservatives always win anyways - and 30+ percent shifts in downtown toronto.
if the liberals & ndp were both running in the high 20s, we'd have a nightmare scenario where liberal seats turn blue on a 15-20 point swing in the urban centres. but, the propaganda was too effective: we're rather looking at 30+ percent swings, and that should be enough to prevent the conservatives from making gains much of anywhere at all.
so, while it's dangerous to look at the data from a distance and conclude the ndp & liberals will simply switch places in the legislature, the balance of evidence suggests pretty much that. at this point, i expect the ndp to win almost all of the seats in toronto and most of the seats in the 905, as well as the urban seats in the southwest and potentially a few upsets in the rural southwest. but, exact numbers are going to depend on turnout.
the liberals appear to be polling strongly in a few unexpected places, and it may be exposing a new base. they've always done well in ottawa and will likely keep a few seats there. but, i think they're going to keep a few seats around the waterloo area, as well. these are the places where the new economy has asserted itself strongest, and the places where the liberals will need to rebuild from if they want to retake toronto.
this is my prediction:
1) conservatives: i think they'll come in under 35% of the vote, and that should be good for about 35 seats - all the seats they have right now, and a couple more around brampton, + the odd fluke.
2) ndp: i think they'll come in pushing 40% of the vote, but not quite. that should be good for at least 70 seats - all the ones they have now, and at least 50 of the ones the liberals have now.
3) liberals: they're going to beat the models, but it's not clear by how much. it would be absurdly optimistic to suggest they'll get to 25%, but i do think they'll beat 20%. and, i can come up with at least 10 seats they should be able to hang on to.
4) the greens could win a seat, too, but it doesn't look like their vote is going to hit 5% province wide. if they win the seat, they could be a factor in four years.
so, something like the following is plausible:
ndp: 38%, 76 seats
conservatives: 33%, 35 seats
liberals: 23%, 12 seats
greens: 4%, 1 seat
it was bad enough on the evening of the 4th that it knocked me out cold.
now, i'm going to have close the windows for the next several hours due to the rain and shiver under the influence of unnecessary air conditioning and powerful second-hand drugs.
i'm not going to sit here, shit-faced on drugs i don't want, trying to sort through data. what a sad proposition. rather, i'm going to hide under the covers until the rain passes. which means i'm going to lose another day. sadly.
i'll be glad to get the fuck out of here.
now, i'm going to have close the windows for the next several hours due to the rain and shiver under the influence of unnecessary air conditioning and powerful second-hand drugs.
i'm not going to sit here, shit-faced on drugs i don't want, trying to sort through data. what a sad proposition. rather, i'm going to hide under the covers until the rain passes. which means i'm going to lose another day. sadly.
i'll be glad to get the fuck out of here.
Monday, June 4, 2018
once again: i don't have depression.
i'm not a depressed person.
i don't need treatment for depression.
what i have is a social disorder that makes me exceedingly agitated around fucking idiots, and unable to deal with people. i get angry when i'm agitated in this way and can potentially get violent.
i just need to be left alone.
and i can't deal with this fucking pothead. i'm on the brink of going down there and beating the shit of her.
i'm not a depressed person.
i don't need treatment for depression.
what i have is a social disorder that makes me exceedingly agitated around fucking idiots, and unable to deal with people. i get angry when i'm agitated in this way and can potentially get violent.
i just need to be left alone.
and i can't deal with this fucking pothead. i'm on the brink of going down there and beating the shit of her.
i mean, this is what i had to say about the last american election: it was clear that the polling put clinton ahead, but just as clear that trump was going to steal the election. so, i predicted that clinton would win if the polls were fair, but stated clearly that trump was going to win because i knew they weren't.
it's not nearly as clear that ford has the power to do this, but there's clearly something fishy afoot.
it's not nearly as clear that ford has the power to do this, but there's clearly something fishy afoot.
there is of course also a possibility that these companies are all paid off and pushing fake numbers to split the vote.
i have to read the data as it is, i can't imagine it says something else.
but, if the liberals come back from the dead at the last minute, we should be pointing fingers at the pollsters for manipulating data to split the vote.
i have to read the data as it is, i can't imagine it says something else.
but, if the liberals come back from the dead at the last minute, we should be pointing fingers at the pollsters for manipulating data to split the vote.
so, what's the narrative here?
it seems like the tory media intended to do the following:
1) attack wynne.
2) prop up the ndp.
together, this would split the vote, and allow the conservatives to win in ridings they normally aren't competitive in.
but, what has happened instead is that this has backfired - the liberal vote has moved entirely to the ndp, and we're going to get an ndp majority.
maybe a huge one.
that said...
i've seen some articles where ford is criticizing the voting machines, and this is often done to deflect an attempt to cheat. if we start seeing the conservatives win in downtown toronto...
it seems like the tory media intended to do the following:
1) attack wynne.
2) prop up the ndp.
together, this would split the vote, and allow the conservatives to win in ridings they normally aren't competitive in.
but, what has happened instead is that this has backfired - the liberal vote has moved entirely to the ndp, and we're going to get an ndp majority.
maybe a huge one.
that said...
i've seen some articles where ford is criticizing the voting machines, and this is often done to deflect an attempt to cheat. if we start seeing the conservatives win in downtown toronto...
forum is always sketchy.
but, those numbers aren't very different than what was projected for the pcs four years ago, and in the end they only got 30 seats. due to systemic bias in telephone polling, you always need to take the pcs down to the bottom of the error bar and then some, so they're probably running around 34-35.
the big difference is movement from the liberals to the ndp, and it seems to be really monolithic. the numbers in the 905 - which is where the conservatives were supposed to win seats - are most surprising. with a decent sample size, and some consistency, it's starting to look the ndp could be making a huge breakthrough.
i understand that the firms are using likely voter data, but they're undoing their own numbers. why are so many liberals claiming they'll vote ndp if they aren't going to?
again: despite the commentary, i'm looking at this and not seeing any good reason to think the conservatives will win more than 40 seats.
the ndp could be on track to win 80 seats.
but, those numbers aren't very different than what was projected for the pcs four years ago, and in the end they only got 30 seats. due to systemic bias in telephone polling, you always need to take the pcs down to the bottom of the error bar and then some, so they're probably running around 34-35.
the big difference is movement from the liberals to the ndp, and it seems to be really monolithic. the numbers in the 905 - which is where the conservatives were supposed to win seats - are most surprising. with a decent sample size, and some consistency, it's starting to look the ndp could be making a huge breakthrough.
i understand that the firms are using likely voter data, but they're undoing their own numbers. why are so many liberals claiming they'll vote ndp if they aren't going to?
again: despite the commentary, i'm looking at this and not seeing any good reason to think the conservatives will win more than 40 seats.
the ndp could be on track to win 80 seats.
there she goes again.
9:00 am on a monday morning. high as a kite. place smells like a dead skunk's asshole. it's truly absolutely revolting. thankfully, i've got some air flow this morning.
i need to reiterate that the reason i can't just deal with this is that i need to be recording in here, eventually, and i need to be clear-headed to do it. i know there's a popular mythology that musicians do drugs in the studio, but it's just completely wrong - it's a complete myth, a complete fantasy.
the ability to ensure sobriety when recording is paramount; this place is worthless to me if i can't do that.
9:00 am on a monday morning. high as a kite. place smells like a dead skunk's asshole. it's truly absolutely revolting. thankfully, i've got some air flow this morning.
i need to reiterate that the reason i can't just deal with this is that i need to be recording in here, eventually, and i need to be clear-headed to do it. i know there's a popular mythology that musicians do drugs in the studio, but it's just completely wrong - it's a complete myth, a complete fantasy.
the ability to ensure sobriety when recording is paramount; this place is worthless to me if i can't do that.
i'm a little slow to get started today, but i'm back at it, now.
i've got a breeze blowing directly in, which is nice. this apartment only has windows on one side, so i only get a breeze when the wind blows one way. so, that's helped with ventilation. the stench has come up a few times, but i'm not feeling any effects from it just right now.
i'm going to lose the day, but hopefully i'll be past this tomorrow.
i've got a breeze blowing directly in, which is nice. this apartment only has windows on one side, so i only get a breeze when the wind blows one way. so, that's helped with ventilation. the stench has come up a few times, but i'm not feeling any effects from it just right now.
i'm going to lose the day, but hopefully i'll be past this tomorrow.
well, this is less contentious than wynne's statement, but equally less realistic, as well.
i am hoping he wins this seat, but my vote is more about helping the party with funding next time around.
i'll be clear that my riding is probably going to go ndp by a large margin. if local polling is to be believed, the greens may actually beat the liberals in this region - harsh considering they won two elections ago.
i was worried about ford controlling the muslim vote here, they are running muslims in all of the ridings around here, but there doesn't appear to be any actual evidence that this is happening. or, perhaps i overestimated the size of the muslim minority, here.
https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-news/mike-schreiner-says-best-way-to-hold-ndp-or-pcs-accountable-is-to-elect-green-mpps-942770
i am hoping he wins this seat, but my vote is more about helping the party with funding next time around.
i'll be clear that my riding is probably going to go ndp by a large margin. if local polling is to be believed, the greens may actually beat the liberals in this region - harsh considering they won two elections ago.
i was worried about ford controlling the muslim vote here, they are running muslims in all of the ridings around here, but there doesn't appear to be any actual evidence that this is happening. or, perhaps i overestimated the size of the muslim minority, here.
https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-news/mike-schreiner-says-best-way-to-hold-ndp-or-pcs-accountable-is-to-elect-green-mpps-942770
the idea is that the best thing i can do is help the greens oppose the ndp on the left. if the ndp are as.....disappointing.....as i expect, the liberals will gain a lot of support back. but, that opens up a space for the greens on the left of the ndp.
i've written this essay elsewhere; ontario is deindustrializing, and i follow malatesta in his view that workers really have the same interests as capital, which we've seen in the ndp's behaviour over and over, so we need a new concept of the left - and i think it's a libertarian left that seeks distributive justice over things like food and land, seeking to put them in common, while abolishing obsolete concepts like currency. in some ways, it's a retreat to a peasant left, but that's why it's important to ensure it's paired with support for automation and green energy production.
i don't think there's any future in workers politics, when unionized workers are such a small percentage of the population. and, as mentioned, it's hard to get excited about standing up for people that are making products that are wrecking the planet.
we'll have to see what this ndp government looks like, but i expect it to pivot to the right fairly quickly, and for it to come out of it's mandate seeming very right-wing. liberals might be scared right now; they shouldn't be, as the ndp would just be giving them their voters back. if the liberals are going to pretend to be the ndp, voters will eventually vote ndp; as we saw with mulcair, when the ndp pretends to be the liberals, voters just vote liberal. it's a nicely symmetrical truth.
don't get me started on symmetry (or the lack thereof). alas...
but i keep reminding you that i'm not a liberal. not technically, anyways. and, i want to prop up an option on the left, if the ndp insist on hugging the centre.
i've written this essay elsewhere; ontario is deindustrializing, and i follow malatesta in his view that workers really have the same interests as capital, which we've seen in the ndp's behaviour over and over, so we need a new concept of the left - and i think it's a libertarian left that seeks distributive justice over things like food and land, seeking to put them in common, while abolishing obsolete concepts like currency. in some ways, it's a retreat to a peasant left, but that's why it's important to ensure it's paired with support for automation and green energy production.
i don't think there's any future in workers politics, when unionized workers are such a small percentage of the population. and, as mentioned, it's hard to get excited about standing up for people that are making products that are wrecking the planet.
we'll have to see what this ndp government looks like, but i expect it to pivot to the right fairly quickly, and for it to come out of it's mandate seeming very right-wing. liberals might be scared right now; they shouldn't be, as the ndp would just be giving them their voters back. if the liberals are going to pretend to be the ndp, voters will eventually vote ndp; as we saw with mulcair, when the ndp pretends to be the liberals, voters just vote liberal. it's a nicely symmetrical truth.
don't get me started on symmetry (or the lack thereof). alas...
but i keep reminding you that i'm not a liberal. not technically, anyways. and, i want to prop up an option on the left, if the ndp insist on hugging the centre.
so, i've made up my mind on this.
i'm willing to accept an ndp win, but i'm not willing to vote for them because i think they're running a dishonest campaign; i'm also of the view after watching this campaign that the liberals need a time-out, and i'm not willing to vote for them, either. i still prefer the liberal platform. so, i'm left with the choice of whether i want to vote green or not.
i've decided that i do, because i expect them to play a role in the next election, and the candidate here doesn't seem to be one of those goofy libertarian green capitalism pro-market doofuses - she's the kind of green party candidate i'm willing to support.
i like the idea of abolishing catholic schools, too.
http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/jarvis-the-green-party-is-finally-invited
i'm willing to accept an ndp win, but i'm not willing to vote for them because i think they're running a dishonest campaign; i'm also of the view after watching this campaign that the liberals need a time-out, and i'm not willing to vote for them, either. i still prefer the liberal platform. so, i'm left with the choice of whether i want to vote green or not.
i've decided that i do, because i expect them to play a role in the next election, and the candidate here doesn't seem to be one of those goofy libertarian green capitalism pro-market doofuses - she's the kind of green party candidate i'm willing to support.
i like the idea of abolishing catholic schools, too.
http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/jarvis-the-green-party-is-finally-invited
racial profiling is not something that happens when you have individual police officers breaking ranks and being racist.
rather, racial profiling is something that happens when you have police departments that train police officers to treat minorities differently than the majority.
and, the solution has to go to the very core of the training.
cops aren't accidentally racist. cops are trained to be racist.
rather, racial profiling is something that happens when you have police departments that train police officers to treat minorities differently than the majority.
and, the solution has to go to the very core of the training.
cops aren't accidentally racist. cops are trained to be racist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)