it does appear to be the case that isis was essentially created by nato to justify an invasion of syria with the intent to topple assad. i've offered little dissent on the point; i haven't challenged that narrative - isis is a construction of the west.
and, with the destruction of isis (mostly by russia), it's starting to look like they're just trying the same thing again, with groups located closer to the turkish border. the turks will need to invade syria to kill al qaeda. this is your ground force to topple assad.
now, i need to point out that a turkish invasion of western syria is not the same thing as air raids in eastern syria, and supporting the latter does not imply support for the former. i don't operate on black and white moral principles; i adjust to facts on the ground, and take things on a case-by-case basis. i could support a temporary alliance with imperial forces to blow up isis; i can't support another actual nato-led invasion of a former soviet satellite. the granular details here are important.
but, there is an underlying question that really needs to be asked out loud by more people - if you understand that the islamicists are created by the same people that are bombing them, how can you support bombing them? how can you deconstruct the lie, and then still support it's purpose? doesn't deconstructing the means mean abolishing the ends? what doublethink is this?
unfortunately. this is not a logical position, and in some sense i wish that it was. i wish it was as easy as just calling out the truth of the matter and washing my hands of it. but, if you want to be logical, you need to analyze the outcomes of all possibilities and pick a least bad option, not just the outcome of intervention contrasted to a utopian vision. and, sadly, it still makes sense to attack established islamicist groups in pretty much any kind of scenario, regardless of who is funding or creating them: action more or less dominates inaction under just about all cases. and, the reason is that the islamicists are going to kill a large proportion of the people you're trying to avoid killing, anyways.
it's always dangerous to be utilitarian about war casualties. but, if your argument is that we shouldn't bomb because we're killing innocents, then this is not a rational position, in context, because the islamicist groups are going to slaughter innocents whether we bomb them or not. this is the variable that complicates the scenario, and that the pseudo-left seems so intent on ignoring: inaction will lead to a comparable level of slaughter as action. so, you can't avoid the slaughter by disengaging. it's difficult, but it is what it is: ending the killing isn't a good reason to stop bombing. if we bomb, people die. if we don't bomb, people die. so it goes.
the left used to understand the centrality of religion in all of this, and the importance of undermining faith to eliminate war. but, this has been discarded recently by a post-colonialist theory that is essentially a conservative revivalism. we've been conditioned to stop asking the right questions, and have ended up with all of the wrong answers.
stamping out the religion is a hard problem and, yes, there is a role for wealth redistribution within it. but, there is no way around the basic reality on the ground - so long as there are fundamentalists going around killing people, you have to support a resistance against them as a first step. it doesn't matter who is funding them, or why; you can't ignore them - that's just a formula for blowback.
give a hand of applause for the machiavellians in washington, if you must. but don't tell me to turn a blind eye to religious extremism....
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
it is even misleading to suggest that the elected band councils have jurisdiction over the reserve lands.
these institutions are a product of the indian act, and are strictly colonial entities. they're funded entirely by the state, so it should be of no surprise that they tend to do what the state says. and, there are in fact massive issues with corruption.
so, the way this works is that the pipeline company asks the colonial body for approval, and then receives it. it then takes that to the court and claims there was consultation. but, the body never represented the indigenous people in the first place, so it only qualifies as consultation if you never intended to consult.
the question of representation is of course difficult. but, these tribes are so small that the councils are essentially extended family meetings. it's not like you have some aloof king ruling over an oppressed mass of people - the kinship is so tight they're operating at a clan level.
if you accept that these lands are unceded, then the parliament has no authority over them, which means the indian act has no force and the band councils are themselves merely a fantastical mechanism by a foreign state to enforce it's will from a distance - they have no more jurisdiction than the courts do, and no more legitimacy than the canadian parliament does.
these institutions are a product of the indian act, and are strictly colonial entities. they're funded entirely by the state, so it should be of no surprise that they tend to do what the state says. and, there are in fact massive issues with corruption.
so, the way this works is that the pipeline company asks the colonial body for approval, and then receives it. it then takes that to the court and claims there was consultation. but, the body never represented the indigenous people in the first place, so it only qualifies as consultation if you never intended to consult.
the question of representation is of course difficult. but, these tribes are so small that the councils are essentially extended family meetings. it's not like you have some aloof king ruling over an oppressed mass of people - the kinship is so tight they're operating at a clan level.
if you accept that these lands are unceded, then the parliament has no authority over them, which means the indian act has no force and the band councils are themselves merely a fantastical mechanism by a foreign state to enforce it's will from a distance - they have no more jurisdiction than the courts do, and no more legitimacy than the canadian parliament does.
Monday, January 7, 2019
when it comes to politics, there is a difference between opposition and indifference, and i think this is sometimes lost or exaggerated in the discourse.
personally, i would be opposed to climate change, but indifferent to "religious freedom". i would be opposed to poverty, but indifferent to inequality. so, i can vote for a party that is pro-muslim (to a point), so long as it rigorously opposes climate change. and, i can vote for a party that is broadly bourgeois, so long as it puts some redistributive policies in place to address the worst kinds of poverty. conversely, i wouldn't be interested in voting for a party or candidate that demonizes the rich, but doesn't believe in wealth redistribution.
i am not an american, but i do not find myself particularly opposed to a border wall. rather, i find myself largely indifferent to it. and, i might suspect that this is the case for most voters.
it is true that there's not much of an argument in favour of the thing, but it is also true that there's not much of an argument against it, either. give it a try. try and argue against the wall, convincingly. the best thing you're going to come up with is the cost of the thing, but that's a bad argument: infrastructure projects have high multiplier effects and are good for the economy.
as there is really little reason to oppose the wall to any great extent, i don't expect that the democrats are going to be able to hold support much longer, if it isn't already starting to crumble. the initial kneejerk reaction may be to blame trump. but, the longer this goes on for, the more it hurts the democrats.
trump's base is large nihilistic and doesn't care about the government, anyways. he's not going to lose support over this. but, the democrats are risking a dangerous backlash if they wait too long to cave.
i'm not going to say to build the wall. i'm indifferent to it.
but, i am going to remind people that they need to pick their battles.
personally, i would be opposed to climate change, but indifferent to "religious freedom". i would be opposed to poverty, but indifferent to inequality. so, i can vote for a party that is pro-muslim (to a point), so long as it rigorously opposes climate change. and, i can vote for a party that is broadly bourgeois, so long as it puts some redistributive policies in place to address the worst kinds of poverty. conversely, i wouldn't be interested in voting for a party or candidate that demonizes the rich, but doesn't believe in wealth redistribution.
i am not an american, but i do not find myself particularly opposed to a border wall. rather, i find myself largely indifferent to it. and, i might suspect that this is the case for most voters.
it is true that there's not much of an argument in favour of the thing, but it is also true that there's not much of an argument against it, either. give it a try. try and argue against the wall, convincingly. the best thing you're going to come up with is the cost of the thing, but that's a bad argument: infrastructure projects have high multiplier effects and are good for the economy.
as there is really little reason to oppose the wall to any great extent, i don't expect that the democrats are going to be able to hold support much longer, if it isn't already starting to crumble. the initial kneejerk reaction may be to blame trump. but, the longer this goes on for, the more it hurts the democrats.
trump's base is large nihilistic and doesn't care about the government, anyways. he's not going to lose support over this. but, the democrats are risking a dangerous backlash if they wait too long to cave.
i'm not going to say to build the wall. i'm indifferent to it.
but, i am going to remind people that they need to pick their battles.
while it is not clear how the tribes in the interior of bc are going to react to the enforcement of the court's injunction around the pipeline being built through their sovereign territory, my legal opinion of the situation is that any movement by the police into this territory amounts to an invasion force, and subsequent illegal occupation of the region, which legally and morally justifies the use of force in reaction.
and, i would stand in solidarity with the indigenous groups against any such illegal occupation.
and, i would stand in solidarity with the indigenous groups against any such illegal occupation.
turkey is a bizarre country, because it is a historical power that is universally viewed as an occupier. it has historical power over this broad swath of land, but no historical connection to any of it. none of these areas ever really became turkish, but the turks never really assimilated to the area, either. and, all of these fragmented states around the old byzantine empire, including those that converted to islam, are united only in their opposition to turkish imperialism.
i've written this essay a few times, now. as these economic blocks build up around them, the turks are kind of at the end of their history - they can neither enter into a block, nor can they take control of one, as their geography and history would demand of them. the turks seem destined for some kind of catastrophe, one way or another.
there is an argument that the turks ought to join the eu, as the region has a deep history in europe. this would be a reunification of the empire, in some sense. but, the europeans do not seem to want them in europe, not any more than they did five hundred years ago. there is no doubt some subconscious feeling that the turks will eventually fall, that constantinople will be liberated, but the way that works itself out in actual policy is a kind of distant tolerance that never reaches acceptance. yes, the turks exist. c'est la vie.
there is likewise an argument that the turks ought to join the arab world, but the history here is truly no less hostile - the arabs never conquered the city, but were rather conquered by it in what was really a muslim phase of roman imperialism. whatever role that christian theology played in the egyptian and levantine revolts of late antiquity, it is clear enough that the arabs were eventually welcomed as liberators to end what was a long roman-persian war that had been fought on semitic lands for a thousand years. turkish expansion via the sultanate of rum (after the mongol destruction) was in a real sense the return of the romans from the inside out; in the end, it was more like a long civil war that ended with the muslim faith dominant, and the old regime back in place. and, if it weren't for the inability to convert the greeks, that turnover may have been historically total. as it is, the collapse of the ottoman state was also the most recent liberation of arabs from roman hegemony. whatever historical process exists around this in the long run, one should expect the arabs to give the turks the cold shoulder into perpetuity.
i would suggest there is a far better argument to unite istanbul with moscow, and resurrect the byzantine state. but, the peculiarity of the turkish state asserts itself once again, here: while greeks and slavs are forever historically intertwined, the fact that the turks are muslims is a difficult cultural block in reunifying the east. that said, the future of the region is no doubt in secularism, rather than in islam or christianity. and, for that reason, a new eastern empire rooted in universal secular values is perhaps the most historically correct home for turkey, in the end.
the other option is for turkey to look directly east and try and project some kind of dominance over the turkish areas of central asia. while this may seem rational to a naive observer, there is no history of a unified turkish state, and certainly no history of a turkish state centred in the bosphorus. rather, the idea being projected is of iran - this is the iranian cultural sphere, the iranian empire. and, while the geographic space we call turkey has historically existed within iranian empires, it has never been assimilated within one. there is a line through the peninsula, on the western side of which the idea ceases to make any sense.
the war in syria has maybe made the problem of turkish isolation more obvious, but it hasn't presented any meaningful solution. europe is as hostile as ever, as they carry out a proxy war against the arabs and continue this awkward frenemy dance with the iranians. but, that russo-turkish alliance is potentially the basis for a deep friendship and potential economic integration - whether the current turkish leadership realizes it or not.
for right now, the russians need to be careful not to let them occupy syria, as that's just going to set the whole thing back in motion again.
i've written this essay a few times, now. as these economic blocks build up around them, the turks are kind of at the end of their history - they can neither enter into a block, nor can they take control of one, as their geography and history would demand of them. the turks seem destined for some kind of catastrophe, one way or another.
there is an argument that the turks ought to join the eu, as the region has a deep history in europe. this would be a reunification of the empire, in some sense. but, the europeans do not seem to want them in europe, not any more than they did five hundred years ago. there is no doubt some subconscious feeling that the turks will eventually fall, that constantinople will be liberated, but the way that works itself out in actual policy is a kind of distant tolerance that never reaches acceptance. yes, the turks exist. c'est la vie.
there is likewise an argument that the turks ought to join the arab world, but the history here is truly no less hostile - the arabs never conquered the city, but were rather conquered by it in what was really a muslim phase of roman imperialism. whatever role that christian theology played in the egyptian and levantine revolts of late antiquity, it is clear enough that the arabs were eventually welcomed as liberators to end what was a long roman-persian war that had been fought on semitic lands for a thousand years. turkish expansion via the sultanate of rum (after the mongol destruction) was in a real sense the return of the romans from the inside out; in the end, it was more like a long civil war that ended with the muslim faith dominant, and the old regime back in place. and, if it weren't for the inability to convert the greeks, that turnover may have been historically total. as it is, the collapse of the ottoman state was also the most recent liberation of arabs from roman hegemony. whatever historical process exists around this in the long run, one should expect the arabs to give the turks the cold shoulder into perpetuity.
i would suggest there is a far better argument to unite istanbul with moscow, and resurrect the byzantine state. but, the peculiarity of the turkish state asserts itself once again, here: while greeks and slavs are forever historically intertwined, the fact that the turks are muslims is a difficult cultural block in reunifying the east. that said, the future of the region is no doubt in secularism, rather than in islam or christianity. and, for that reason, a new eastern empire rooted in universal secular values is perhaps the most historically correct home for turkey, in the end.
the other option is for turkey to look directly east and try and project some kind of dominance over the turkish areas of central asia. while this may seem rational to a naive observer, there is no history of a unified turkish state, and certainly no history of a turkish state centred in the bosphorus. rather, the idea being projected is of iran - this is the iranian cultural sphere, the iranian empire. and, while the geographic space we call turkey has historically existed within iranian empires, it has never been assimilated within one. there is a line through the peninsula, on the western side of which the idea ceases to make any sense.
the war in syria has maybe made the problem of turkish isolation more obvious, but it hasn't presented any meaningful solution. europe is as hostile as ever, as they carry out a proxy war against the arabs and continue this awkward frenemy dance with the iranians. but, that russo-turkish alliance is potentially the basis for a deep friendship and potential economic integration - whether the current turkish leadership realizes it or not.
for right now, the russians need to be careful not to let them occupy syria, as that's just going to set the whole thing back in motion again.
i admit that there's a lot of historical sense in the turks taking over, and they are certainly well positioned to counter saudi attempts to destabilize the region. i've pointed out repeatedly that the turkish-arab conflict is in many ways the more real conflict, compared to the arab-iranian one. this is a long war of history...
but, there is a recipe for catastrophe in allowing the turks and russians to compete for influence in the region like this, because i'm not sure that the various people that live in syria really want them there. the danger is that if the turks get too aggressive, it could actually produce a response in arab nationalism, which would no doubt be islamicist in nature due to the condition the region finds itself in. there's this idea in the west that turkish soldiers are preferable to western ones because they're muslim, but this is just another example of westerners not understanding the complexity of the history in the region. while there is historical justification for pan-arabism, the idea of some kind of muslim megastate has always been a colonial fantasy; the conflicts in this region have always been less religious and more ethnic. remember: the british were nominally initially brought in to protect the arabs from the turks in the first place.
america's geopolitical strategy is of course to divide and conquer, so these bugs are easily misunderstood as features in washington.
i would like to see the turks pull back.
but, so long as the americans are sitting in the middle of the playground, this is all just abstract discussion, anyways.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/opinion/erdogan-turkey-syria.html
but, there is a recipe for catastrophe in allowing the turks and russians to compete for influence in the region like this, because i'm not sure that the various people that live in syria really want them there. the danger is that if the turks get too aggressive, it could actually produce a response in arab nationalism, which would no doubt be islamicist in nature due to the condition the region finds itself in. there's this idea in the west that turkish soldiers are preferable to western ones because they're muslim, but this is just another example of westerners not understanding the complexity of the history in the region. while there is historical justification for pan-arabism, the idea of some kind of muslim megastate has always been a colonial fantasy; the conflicts in this region have always been less religious and more ethnic. remember: the british were nominally initially brought in to protect the arabs from the turks in the first place.
america's geopolitical strategy is of course to divide and conquer, so these bugs are easily misunderstood as features in washington.
i would like to see the turks pull back.
but, so long as the americans are sitting in the middle of the playground, this is all just abstract discussion, anyways.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/opinion/erdogan-turkey-syria.html
Sunday, January 6, 2019
so, it seems as though the syria withdrawal was some kind of political ploy, or some kind of depraved negotiating tactic or something.
but, all it's succeeded in doing is broadcasting that the americans are unreliable in their statements, and can't be treated as serious negotiating partners, if there was ever any question that they could be trusted or treated seriously.
the conditions that bolton has put down will never be met, so the so-called withdrawal is in fact a permanent, illegal occupation, and a de facto partition of the country.
the russians should just start carpet bombing the remaining isis footholds.
but, all it's succeeded in doing is broadcasting that the americans are unreliable in their statements, and can't be treated as serious negotiating partners, if there was ever any question that they could be trusted or treated seriously.
the conditions that bolton has put down will never be met, so the so-called withdrawal is in fact a permanent, illegal occupation, and a de facto partition of the country.
the russians should just start carpet bombing the remaining isis footholds.
a brief history of kim campbell, written in an appropriate tone.
http://www.thecanadaguide.com/history/prime-ministers/kim-campbell/
http://www.thecanadaguide.com/history/prime-ministers/kim-campbell/
when somebody gets beaten as badly as kim campbell did, it should come with a lifetime ban on any attempt to speak on behalf of the country, however indirectly.
you'd think that most former heads of state would know better than to risk an international incident like that.
but, this particular person has shown absolutely no inclination towards common sense, or common decency, throughout her career.
she does not speak on behalf of anybody except herself.
you'd think that most former heads of state would know better than to risk an international incident like that.
but, this particular person has shown absolutely no inclination towards common sense, or common decency, throughout her career.
she does not speak on behalf of anybody except herself.
twitter is clearly no place for a serious discussion.
she's an idiot.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/former-pm-kim-campbell-calls-trump-expletive-on-twitter-1.4241998
she's an idiot.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/former-pm-kim-campbell-calls-trump-expletive-on-twitter-1.4241998
Saturday, January 5, 2019
so, socialism didn't really happen the way it was imagined it would, but who should really be surprised by that.
but, communism is automation. and, it's closer than you think.
they're talking about slaughtering us. this is class warfare; entirely rational. the real question is why we aren't plotting a means to take control. but, what i've been saying for years - and i'm sure others have been saying it, too - is that it's the inevitable result of unemployment, which is not very marxist, granted, but literally right out of bakunin.
if you drop the classical marxist narrative around the uselessness of the lumpenproletariat and pick up the classical anarchist narrative around the lumpenproletariat as the essential revolutionary force, the road map begins to materialize more clearly, and the way it works is like this:
1. automation savages the economy, leading to massive unemployment.
2. a mass of unemployed workers finally organizes.
3. ??????
4. communism.
and, the question marks are the point, here - they're the part that is really important, the part we can't write, the part we have to figure out on the fly.
unions were necessary to get us out of the dickensian period, and are still required to help the mass of oppressed workers in asia. but, it was clear to all of the early socialists that were close to the movement that they were inherently conservative institutions, with no real revolutionary potential. i know that malatesta gets a lot of credit for pointing this out.
a real revolution is not going to happen from well fed auto workers trying to seize control of production, auto workers that are themselves the beneficiaries of supply chains using slaves in asia. all they know how to do is march and take bribes. it is going to have to come from desperate, starving people that are looking to take control of these machines to redistribute their produce as a last resort - as was the character of the revolution in france.
the capitalists could pull their heads out of their asses before that happens, and we could end up with another rooseveltian type intervention that restructures the system around a gai - we could write some kind of bill of rights to access the machines, and declare some kind of minimum standard of living. and, for a lot of people, that would no doubt be better than what we have.
or, this could be the catalyst required to overthrow the system.
that's up to us to figure it out.
but, communism is automation. and, it's closer than you think.
they're talking about slaughtering us. this is class warfare; entirely rational. the real question is why we aren't plotting a means to take control. but, what i've been saying for years - and i'm sure others have been saying it, too - is that it's the inevitable result of unemployment, which is not very marxist, granted, but literally right out of bakunin.
if you drop the classical marxist narrative around the uselessness of the lumpenproletariat and pick up the classical anarchist narrative around the lumpenproletariat as the essential revolutionary force, the road map begins to materialize more clearly, and the way it works is like this:
1. automation savages the economy, leading to massive unemployment.
2. a mass of unemployed workers finally organizes.
3. ??????
4. communism.
and, the question marks are the point, here - they're the part that is really important, the part we can't write, the part we have to figure out on the fly.
unions were necessary to get us out of the dickensian period, and are still required to help the mass of oppressed workers in asia. but, it was clear to all of the early socialists that were close to the movement that they were inherently conservative institutions, with no real revolutionary potential. i know that malatesta gets a lot of credit for pointing this out.
a real revolution is not going to happen from well fed auto workers trying to seize control of production, auto workers that are themselves the beneficiaries of supply chains using slaves in asia. all they know how to do is march and take bribes. it is going to have to come from desperate, starving people that are looking to take control of these machines to redistribute their produce as a last resort - as was the character of the revolution in france.
the capitalists could pull their heads out of their asses before that happens, and we could end up with another rooseveltian type intervention that restructures the system around a gai - we could write some kind of bill of rights to access the machines, and declare some kind of minimum standard of living. and, for a lot of people, that would no doubt be better than what we have.
or, this could be the catalyst required to overthrow the system.
that's up to us to figure it out.
see, this is where the narrative starts to experience blowback. and, i mused about this in 2016...
was clinton such an awful candidate that she was going to end any serious chance of female political aspirations for a generation or more? well, it was and remains a real fear, but dismantling it is as simple as coming to terms with the reality of it: hillary clinton did not lose because of her gender, she lost because of her politics.
let's say it again.
hillary clinton did not lose because of her gender, she lost because of her politics.
if we don't all finally accept this, we're going to be stuck in a loop - the more women point out actual legitimate problems around sexism in society or in the work place, they more they'll be offering a reason not to vote for them. all of this analysis threatens to become self-defeating. for, having loudly erected this edifice of systemic sexism, the structure now threatens to collapse on the very people who built it.
if hillary clinton did lose because of her gender, then it is a very good reason to avoid female candidates. clearly. however, as she didn't lose because of her gender, it isn't a reason to avoid female candidates at all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/us/politics/women-candidates-president-2020.html
was clinton such an awful candidate that she was going to end any serious chance of female political aspirations for a generation or more? well, it was and remains a real fear, but dismantling it is as simple as coming to terms with the reality of it: hillary clinton did not lose because of her gender, she lost because of her politics.
let's say it again.
hillary clinton did not lose because of her gender, she lost because of her politics.
if we don't all finally accept this, we're going to be stuck in a loop - the more women point out actual legitimate problems around sexism in society or in the work place, they more they'll be offering a reason not to vote for them. all of this analysis threatens to become self-defeating. for, having loudly erected this edifice of systemic sexism, the structure now threatens to collapse on the very people who built it.
if hillary clinton did lose because of her gender, then it is a very good reason to avoid female candidates. clearly. however, as she didn't lose because of her gender, it isn't a reason to avoid female candidates at all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/us/politics/women-candidates-president-2020.html
yeah, the thing i saw is here at this page:
https://www.bulkbarn.ca/en/Products/All/Organic-Sorghum-Fusilli,-GoGo-Quinoa
sorghum wheat ought to have b vitamins, though. so, i'm left to conclude that this product is probably unregulated.
it's going to need to be fettucine. i can't cook with fusilli.
https://www.bulkbarn.ca/en/Products/All/Organic-Sorghum-Fusilli,-GoGo-Quinoa
sorghum wheat ought to have b vitamins, though. so, i'm left to conclude that this product is probably unregulated.
it's going to need to be fettucine. i can't cook with fusilli.
i did some shopping today.
i was able to find some grape-blueberry concentrate and some "blueberry cocktail" that had it listed as the third ingredient, both for exorbitant prices. still no orange juice in tetrapacks. so, i went with the pure apple juice (not from concentrate) on sale, instead. i'll keep an eye out for it at the far store, and suspect there may actually be some at the italian store, as they carry weird things like that.
no plums at either store i went to today. i guess they're not in season, and the demand isn't high enough to carry them out of season. those blueberries are lasting longer than i thought, but i'll poke around a few places.
they had some sorghum fusilli at the bulk barn, but i took a look at the ingredient list and was kind of disappointed by it. i know that mass manufactured pasta has a bad reputation, but the packaging for the sorghum fusilli did not indicate the presence of any b vitamins. you'd think if they're there they'd be listed. and, i kind of assumed the sorghum pasta would be enriched. i don't want to strip my diet of b vitamins for the sake of anti-oxidants - that sounds like a bad trade-off. i would also need to change my recipe, if i were to move to fusilli from fettucine.
i'm thinking that the bagels are a better target. i used to make my eggs with rye bread, and my tomato sandwiches with bagels. over time, i ended up using bagels for eggs, and stopped buying rye - as i phased out the tomato sandwiches. that's not something i really sat down and thought about, although i was also getting a good deal on big bags of bagels, which has since disappeared. i should re-evaluate what i'm eating with my eggs, regardless, and probably go back to the rye if i can't find a sorghum option.
i did get some oregano at bulk barn for cheap, and will probably start getting celery salt there, too. let's start with that and see how it tastes before i jump to basil and/or parsley.
i was able to find some grape-blueberry concentrate and some "blueberry cocktail" that had it listed as the third ingredient, both for exorbitant prices. still no orange juice in tetrapacks. so, i went with the pure apple juice (not from concentrate) on sale, instead. i'll keep an eye out for it at the far store, and suspect there may actually be some at the italian store, as they carry weird things like that.
no plums at either store i went to today. i guess they're not in season, and the demand isn't high enough to carry them out of season. those blueberries are lasting longer than i thought, but i'll poke around a few places.
they had some sorghum fusilli at the bulk barn, but i took a look at the ingredient list and was kind of disappointed by it. i know that mass manufactured pasta has a bad reputation, but the packaging for the sorghum fusilli did not indicate the presence of any b vitamins. you'd think if they're there they'd be listed. and, i kind of assumed the sorghum pasta would be enriched. i don't want to strip my diet of b vitamins for the sake of anti-oxidants - that sounds like a bad trade-off. i would also need to change my recipe, if i were to move to fusilli from fettucine.
i'm thinking that the bagels are a better target. i used to make my eggs with rye bread, and my tomato sandwiches with bagels. over time, i ended up using bagels for eggs, and stopped buying rye - as i phased out the tomato sandwiches. that's not something i really sat down and thought about, although i was also getting a good deal on big bags of bagels, which has since disappeared. i should re-evaluate what i'm eating with my eggs, regardless, and probably go back to the rye if i can't find a sorghum option.
i did get some oregano at bulk barn for cheap, and will probably start getting celery salt there, too. let's start with that and see how it tastes before i jump to basil and/or parsley.
i can just imagine somebody trying to explain the need to protect the kurds to donald trump.
trump: the kurds. i keep hearing about these kurds and i have to say i've neva hoid of them, these kurds. but we need to protect the kurds. and, i don't...i just don't know who they are. so, somebody tell me about these kurds, and why we should protect them.
advisor: well, they're an ethnic group in the middle east...
trump: but, what does that have to do with us?
advisor: ...that are of iranian origin....
trump: great. they're iranians. why are we protecting the iranians? how'd they trick us into doing that? we're always getting tricked. i said no more of this. what else can you tell me about these kurds?
advisor: well, they're muslims.
trump: great. iranian muslims. we're protecting iranian muslims. i bet they're terrible to their own people, too.
advisor: well, a lot of them are socialists, actually.
trump: so, let me get this straight. you want me to stay in syria to protect iranian muslim socialists. is that right?
(pause)
advisor: yes, sir.
trump: you gotta be kidding me. what are you noam fucking chomsky or something? get 'em out of there.
advisor #2: well, if you don't like the kurds, there's the yazidis...
trump: nope. to hell with it. get 'em out of there.
trump: the kurds. i keep hearing about these kurds and i have to say i've neva hoid of them, these kurds. but we need to protect the kurds. and, i don't...i just don't know who they are. so, somebody tell me about these kurds, and why we should protect them.
advisor: well, they're an ethnic group in the middle east...
trump: but, what does that have to do with us?
advisor: ...that are of iranian origin....
trump: great. they're iranians. why are we protecting the iranians? how'd they trick us into doing that? we're always getting tricked. i said no more of this. what else can you tell me about these kurds?
advisor: well, they're muslims.
trump: great. iranian muslims. we're protecting iranian muslims. i bet they're terrible to their own people, too.
advisor: well, a lot of them are socialists, actually.
trump: so, let me get this straight. you want me to stay in syria to protect iranian muslim socialists. is that right?
(pause)
advisor: yes, sir.
trump: you gotta be kidding me. what are you noam fucking chomsky or something? get 'em out of there.
advisor #2: well, if you don't like the kurds, there's the yazidis...
trump: nope. to hell with it. get 'em out of there.
breaking news just in.
elizabeth warren has officially chosen tom joad as her running mate.
https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/01/04/elizabeth-warren-billionaires-not-welcome-in-2020-democratic-presidential-race/
elizabeth warren has officially chosen tom joad as her running mate.
https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/01/04/elizabeth-warren-billionaires-not-welcome-in-2020-democratic-presidential-race/
Friday, January 4, 2019
when i think of stem cell research, though, i don't think of cancer treatments, i think of organ and tissue growth. in the end, it might be easier to grow and implant new organs than to try and get the body to clear the cancer out on it's own, but even beyond that the bioengineering applications of stem cells are enormous.
as has been pointed out here on numerous occasions, i lost my dad to cancer in mid 2013. if you haven't already lost somebody to cancer, you will - that's as statistically sure a statement as there is. and, if you have, you know the desperation that sets in near the end.
for my dad, it was mushrooms. my sister had been feeding him some trash about magic mushrooms (not those kinds.) from japan that could cure cancer. he was near death; what can you lose from trying mushrooms? but i'm the more science-y one of the two of us, so he ran it by me first, and i ended up having to talk him out of eating something that was just going to put dangerous stress on his liver. first, do no harm.
so, when you see headlines that reference things like "untested stem cell therapies", you need to be careful with them on two levels. yes, it may be true that the success rate is kind of shady at this point, but that's not the same thing as writing it off as magic beans, like you would with cancer-curing mushrooms. and, i think the disconnect is in not understanding what you're doing - if you're just holding still and taking a needle, what's the difference between accepting the syringe or popping a cap?
the difference is that there is no known mechanism whereby any unknown agent could survive digestion long enough to defeat cancer cells, whereas injecting somebody with antibodies is a tried and tested method to kill all kinds of things. see, and this is the thing about immunotherapy - it is eminently plausible that it will eventually work once we finally get it right.
is it there yet? adamantly not.
but, there's a huge difference between interpreting success rates in the context of a plausible work in progress, and interpreting them in the context of some kind of sympathetic magic - namely, the science under the hood.
i understand that it doesn't always work, but you have to understand that sometimes it does work, and spectacularly well when it does. and, that means we need more research to try and get it to work more often, not less.
so, if you find yourself nearly dead, should you spend $100,000 on immunotherapy injections?
well, it's a lot better than eating magic mushrooms.
if you can, and you want to live, i'd say you should - yes.
for my dad, it was mushrooms. my sister had been feeding him some trash about magic mushrooms (not those kinds.) from japan that could cure cancer. he was near death; what can you lose from trying mushrooms? but i'm the more science-y one of the two of us, so he ran it by me first, and i ended up having to talk him out of eating something that was just going to put dangerous stress on his liver. first, do no harm.
so, when you see headlines that reference things like "untested stem cell therapies", you need to be careful with them on two levels. yes, it may be true that the success rate is kind of shady at this point, but that's not the same thing as writing it off as magic beans, like you would with cancer-curing mushrooms. and, i think the disconnect is in not understanding what you're doing - if you're just holding still and taking a needle, what's the difference between accepting the syringe or popping a cap?
the difference is that there is no known mechanism whereby any unknown agent could survive digestion long enough to defeat cancer cells, whereas injecting somebody with antibodies is a tried and tested method to kill all kinds of things. see, and this is the thing about immunotherapy - it is eminently plausible that it will eventually work once we finally get it right.
is it there yet? adamantly not.
but, there's a huge difference between interpreting success rates in the context of a plausible work in progress, and interpreting them in the context of some kind of sympathetic magic - namely, the science under the hood.
i understand that it doesn't always work, but you have to understand that sometimes it does work, and spectacularly well when it does. and, that means we need more research to try and get it to work more often, not less.
so, if you find yourself nearly dead, should you spend $100,000 on immunotherapy injections?
well, it's a lot better than eating magic mushrooms.
if you can, and you want to live, i'd say you should - yes.
so, what are they actually doing?
it seems like they're centralizing funding decisions into the minister's office. these networks had a lot of autonomy; that was kind of the point. science operates best on peer review.
by pulling funding decisions directly into the minister's office, they'll be able to approve or deny projects based on their political interests.
and, we'll see what happens to stem-cell research in the medium term.
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/government-of-canada-launches-new-research-fund-to-push-beyond-the-frontiers-of-canadian-science-702060001.html
it seems like they're centralizing funding decisions into the minister's office. these networks had a lot of autonomy; that was kind of the point. science operates best on peer review.
by pulling funding decisions directly into the minister's office, they'll be able to approve or deny projects based on their political interests.
and, we'll see what happens to stem-cell research in the medium term.
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/government-of-canada-launches-new-research-fund-to-push-beyond-the-frontiers-of-canadian-science-702060001.html
this is something that he had a strong mandate to stop. but, it's pretty abundantly clear that the government operates everything through a pr filter, and it clearly thinks science is unpopular. and, with the way the society is collapsing right now, he might be right.
i've pointed this out a few times before - there isn't an answer to this in the spectrum. the greens might be a little better one day, but they don't exist right now, and the dying ndp is probably even more focused on satisfying the religious and even less science-friendly. when we can't even count on the other parties to be less anti-science than the conservatives, we've really hit a cultural cross-roads.
the reality is that canada is in for a long period of decline.
it's best to try and get out.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-trudeau-wants-canada-to-be-a-global-leader-in-science-so-why-is-he/
i've pointed this out a few times before - there isn't an answer to this in the spectrum. the greens might be a little better one day, but they don't exist right now, and the dying ndp is probably even more focused on satisfying the religious and even less science-friendly. when we can't even count on the other parties to be less anti-science than the conservatives, we've really hit a cultural cross-roads.
the reality is that canada is in for a long period of decline.
it's best to try and get out.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-trudeau-wants-canada-to-be-a-global-leader-in-science-so-why-is-he/
i think the example i used in the past was mind-control ray guns from aliens.
let's say the president decides she wants to pass a law that says that everybody has to wear tinfoil hats, to protect us fromalien russian mind-control weapons. i think we can all intuitively understand that this ought to be unconstitutional. but, how do you win the case?
a naive response may be to argue against the premise: you're going to want to prove in court, somehow, that there aren't really russian mind-control weapons. and, you will no doubt be flabbergasted when you lose, as the court really has no ability to interpret national security documents, or otherwise create presidential policy. if the president thinks there are russian mind-control weapons and we need to be protected from them, that is his prerogative.
if you want to actually win the case, you have to start by conceding the point and rather make an argument that there is no evidence that tinfoil hats are effective in shielding against russian mind-control weapons.
it's a function of the separation of powers. and, as crazy as it seems, there's a reason that the president is the president, and the supreme court isn't. courts simply don't have executive power.
let's say the president decides she wants to pass a law that says that everybody has to wear tinfoil hats, to protect us from
a naive response may be to argue against the premise: you're going to want to prove in court, somehow, that there aren't really russian mind-control weapons. and, you will no doubt be flabbergasted when you lose, as the court really has no ability to interpret national security documents, or otherwise create presidential policy. if the president thinks there are russian mind-control weapons and we need to be protected from them, that is his prerogative.
if you want to actually win the case, you have to start by conceding the point and rather make an argument that there is no evidence that tinfoil hats are effective in shielding against russian mind-control weapons.
it's a function of the separation of powers. and, as crazy as it seems, there's a reason that the president is the president, and the supreme court isn't. courts simply don't have executive power.
i can't remember the exact argument the democrats tried to use with the travel ban, but it was instantly clear that trying to get it struck down because it was discriminatory against muslims was a bad legal argument, and wasn't going to work. i've been through this on this page a couple of times in the last few years; it's up there. was it early 2017? everything's dated.
there were two better arguments. the best argument would be to show that it wasn't a rational means to carry out the policy objective. in order to do that, you'd have to concede that the president would have the right to ban muslims if he really thought it was a national security issue (which, frankly, is not actually even controversial - of course he would), but rather show that a blanket travel ban wasn't going to actually work. broadly speaking, the president has almost no check on his authority in terms of what he decides is valid policy. the courts really have no jurisdiction in setting policy. what the courts can do is step in and declare that a specific action is or is not a rational means to actualize an actual policy. and, i'd like to see the administration argue that a blanket travel ban from iran is going to eliminate a terrorist threat that broadly doesn't even exist.
the other argument is that it was overly broad. again: you would have to concede the presidential right to ban muslims, but then argue that non-muslims would get stuck in a blanket travel ban, and the law should be struck down for that reason. and, i know that people aren't going to like it, but the actual fact is that it's the superior legal argument. that would have actually worked.
but, the reaction was never legal, it was always political; the arguments presented to the court were never serious legal arguments, and never had a serious chance. i have no training in american law, and i could very easily disassemble them as without merit. these arguments were meant to run on talk shows, and to generate rallies, not to win an actual case in an actual court.
there were two better arguments. the best argument would be to show that it wasn't a rational means to carry out the policy objective. in order to do that, you'd have to concede that the president would have the right to ban muslims if he really thought it was a national security issue (which, frankly, is not actually even controversial - of course he would), but rather show that a blanket travel ban wasn't going to actually work. broadly speaking, the president has almost no check on his authority in terms of what he decides is valid policy. the courts really have no jurisdiction in setting policy. what the courts can do is step in and declare that a specific action is or is not a rational means to actualize an actual policy. and, i'd like to see the administration argue that a blanket travel ban from iran is going to eliminate a terrorist threat that broadly doesn't even exist.
the other argument is that it was overly broad. again: you would have to concede the presidential right to ban muslims, but then argue that non-muslims would get stuck in a blanket travel ban, and the law should be struck down for that reason. and, i know that people aren't going to like it, but the actual fact is that it's the superior legal argument. that would have actually worked.
but, the reaction was never legal, it was always political; the arguments presented to the court were never serious legal arguments, and never had a serious chance. i have no training in american law, and i could very easily disassemble them as without merit. these arguments were meant to run on talk shows, and to generate rallies, not to win an actual case in an actual court.
it was the same thing with the travel ban.
it's not my country, of course. but, when trump said he was going to put a blanket ban on travel from a country like iran, i didn't say "what about about the muslims?", i pointed out that it's unfortunate that atheists and secularists are going to lose an avenue out of the country, and otherwise have their travel rights restricted.
it was overly broad alright - because there are plenty of people from these countries that aren't muslims or even religionists at all.
it's not my country, of course. but, when trump said he was going to put a blanket ban on travel from a country like iran, i didn't say "what about about the muslims?", i pointed out that it's unfortunate that atheists and secularists are going to lose an avenue out of the country, and otherwise have their travel rights restricted.
it was overly broad alright - because there are plenty of people from these countries that aren't muslims or even religionists at all.
i know it's an old argument often used disingenuously, for example frequently by the israelis, but in the precise situation of raqqa, there is no such thing as an innocent civilian, due to the support that the population was providing to isis. see, and this is actually a big part of the reason i changed my opinion about this.
i don't normally support imperialist wars, you know. i was initially opposed to this.
it's not like i didn't realize how gruesome this was going to be - and it was in fact my argument against it. religious crazies tend to regenerate, and this particular religion is tribal, and operates on revenge and blood lust. so, to win this war, you'd have to blow up entire cities - you'd have to kill sons to stop them from growing into fighters, and women to stop them from breeding. i disagreed with the experts: we could do it, but is it worth the cost? then, as more evidence mounted that isis was indiscernible from the general population, i realized that they had to be slaughtered - that the cities were going to have to crumble. this wasn't a group of extremists to contain, it was becoming a popular movement - and that's how fascist ideologies spread.
i repeat: the high civilian toll necessary to wage this war was initially the argument against it, but as the nature of the civilian population's sympathies became more readily apparent, the high civilian toll became the strategic objective. if you support fascism, you're a fascist; if you support isis, you become it. it's simply too brutal to allow for sympathies around, and any growing level of sympathy for it had to be eradicated along with it.
and, i've been absolutely clear about this - i am absolutely at war against islam, which i consider to be a fascist ideology with no redeeming qualities whatsoever; the only good fascist is a dead one. to me, the tragedy is not about dead muslims, but about the secularists and atheists that are getting caught up in it; fundamentalist muslims are valid targets here, it's the secularists that are valid civilians and valid refugees. it would be a nice to find a way to avoid killing so many of the enemy's victims.
so, this comes up against a difficult definitional problem in trying to separate between the people doing the literal fighting and a civilian population that is actively aiding and abetting it. and, so, i don't mine giving these civilians this choice: convert or die.
but, my point is that it's a tricky situation, legally. it's not clear that these are really civilian populations, or that they ought to be protected under the law - and, if they are, there is a strong argument that this ought to be an exception to it, given the support they're providing.
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/05/syria-airstrikes-isis-united-states/
i don't normally support imperialist wars, you know. i was initially opposed to this.
it's not like i didn't realize how gruesome this was going to be - and it was in fact my argument against it. religious crazies tend to regenerate, and this particular religion is tribal, and operates on revenge and blood lust. so, to win this war, you'd have to blow up entire cities - you'd have to kill sons to stop them from growing into fighters, and women to stop them from breeding. i disagreed with the experts: we could do it, but is it worth the cost? then, as more evidence mounted that isis was indiscernible from the general population, i realized that they had to be slaughtered - that the cities were going to have to crumble. this wasn't a group of extremists to contain, it was becoming a popular movement - and that's how fascist ideologies spread.
i repeat: the high civilian toll necessary to wage this war was initially the argument against it, but as the nature of the civilian population's sympathies became more readily apparent, the high civilian toll became the strategic objective. if you support fascism, you're a fascist; if you support isis, you become it. it's simply too brutal to allow for sympathies around, and any growing level of sympathy for it had to be eradicated along with it.
and, i've been absolutely clear about this - i am absolutely at war against islam, which i consider to be a fascist ideology with no redeeming qualities whatsoever; the only good fascist is a dead one. to me, the tragedy is not about dead muslims, but about the secularists and atheists that are getting caught up in it; fundamentalist muslims are valid targets here, it's the secularists that are valid civilians and valid refugees. it would be a nice to find a way to avoid killing so many of the enemy's victims.
so, this comes up against a difficult definitional problem in trying to separate between the people doing the literal fighting and a civilian population that is actively aiding and abetting it. and, so, i don't mine giving these civilians this choice: convert or die.
but, my point is that it's a tricky situation, legally. it's not clear that these are really civilian populations, or that they ought to be protected under the law - and, if they are, there is a strong argument that this ought to be an exception to it, given the support they're providing.
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/05/syria-airstrikes-isis-united-states/
Thursday, January 3, 2019
i'm using the term "detox" as a description, but i'm not concerned about my liver, i'm concerned about my brain.
i just don't want to be inebriated right now - i want to stop being tired and sluggish and scattered (which is what marijuana does to you...) and regain my caffeine-driven focus and wit.
and, it's getting better; this place isn't perfect, but it's far better.
we'll see how life turns, but i'm just not into it right now.
i just don't want to be inebriated right now - i want to stop being tired and sluggish and scattered (which is what marijuana does to you...) and regain my caffeine-driven focus and wit.
and, it's getting better; this place isn't perfect, but it's far better.
we'll see how life turns, but i'm just not into it right now.
it's really not clear to me what the appeal of apple is to investors.
they make overpriced trash with minimal market share. even the iphone is at around 15%. the profit levels for the company are a result of an absurd markup, rather than strong sales - it's not that they sell a lot of stuff, it's that they repeatedly badly rip off a small, if loyal, customer base. there's really no rational basis for their share price.
there's a theory to look at: that those commercials ten years ago (and the ones 35 years ago.) were more effective at selling stock options than they were at selling products. how true this is is a question of scale; the stock price is badly inflated.
this is important because the dow is massively skewed by the price of apple stock, and it is going to be in for a nasty tumble whenever people come to their senses about the long term viability of the company.
they make overpriced trash with minimal market share. even the iphone is at around 15%. the profit levels for the company are a result of an absurd markup, rather than strong sales - it's not that they sell a lot of stuff, it's that they repeatedly badly rip off a small, if loyal, customer base. there's really no rational basis for their share price.
there's a theory to look at: that those commercials ten years ago (and the ones 35 years ago.) were more effective at selling stock options than they were at selling products. how true this is is a question of scale; the stock price is badly inflated.
this is important because the dow is massively skewed by the price of apple stock, and it is going to be in for a nasty tumble whenever people come to their senses about the long term viability of the company.
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
this is good: halfway between obama and clinton, and nowhere near sanders.
again: obama and clinton won the primaries. repeatedly. it's not like there's not a base there. and, if you liked obama, you'll love warren.
but, the actual left needs to be pushing back hard against her, or we're going to end up in the same situation we were in in 2009: a squandered opportunity.
she is the logical successor to barack obama. if that's what you want, great. if it's not, don't be tricked.
again: obama and clinton won the primaries. repeatedly. it's not like there's not a base there. and, if you liked obama, you'll love warren.
but, the actual left needs to be pushing back hard against her, or we're going to end up in the same situation we were in in 2009: a squandered opportunity.
she is the logical successor to barack obama. if that's what you want, great. if it's not, don't be tricked.
yeah. it's clinton 2.0 - any criticism of her policies, which are broadly right out of the heritage institute, is just being sexist. and, that's not some kind of authoritarian ploy to deflect criticism, it's backed up by a freudian psychoanalysis, which is perfectly valid as science.
you have to wonder, though. 'cause that's exactly what trump wants, right?
it almost seems like they set this up years ago.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/elizabeth-warren-unpopular-it-depends-who-you-ask/579247/
you have to wonder, though. 'cause that's exactly what trump wants, right?
it almost seems like they set this up years ago.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/elizabeth-warren-unpopular-it-depends-who-you-ask/579247/
apparently, warren actually loses to both sanders and biden in massachusetts, itself.
i wonder if she'd even beat ed markey.
or if the end result of running just opens her up to the dangers of a primary challenge from the left.
she also won re-election mere weeks ago. she should have stood down if she was planning to run for president.
i wonder if she'd even beat ed markey.
or if the end result of running just opens her up to the dangers of a primary challenge from the left.
she also won re-election mere weeks ago. she should have stood down if she was planning to run for president.
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
this is actually a good demonstration of the differences.
the sympathetic liberal writer at the atlantic is presenting the situation as ridiculous.
bernie is trying to figure out the best way to win, the best way to advance the cause.
"but, what's in it for me?", asks the confounded senator for massachusetts.
exactly.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/bernie-sanders-running-against-warren-president/573529/
the sympathetic liberal writer at the atlantic is presenting the situation as ridiculous.
bernie is trying to figure out the best way to win, the best way to advance the cause.
"but, what's in it for me?", asks the confounded senator for massachusetts.
exactly.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/bernie-sanders-running-against-warren-president/573529/
"Warren’s team doesn’t like the Clinton comparisons. They see any of that talk as reeking of sexism,"
ahahahaha.
i'm sorry. that was just kind of priceless.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/elizabeth-warren-2020-campaign/579214/
ahahahaha.
i'm sorry. that was just kind of priceless.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/elizabeth-warren-2020-campaign/579214/
it's, like, right out of animal farm.
Sometime last year, the progressive group most closely aligned with the senator, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, changed its logo: “I’m from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party” became “I’m from the Elizabeth Warren wing of American politics.”
Sometime last year, the progressive group most closely aligned with the senator, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, changed its logo: “I’m from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party” became “I’m from the Elizabeth Warren wing of American politics.”
no. listen.
it was always an open question as to whether sanders' support came from his get-tough-on-the-banks spiel (which i personally largely wrote off as empty politicking) or his proposals to move towards a scandinavian welfare state model, because he presented the two ideas together. i'm sure that most people reacted to the two things in differing proportions.
so, i was basically willing to ignore bernie's sometimes very silly rants against wall street, in order to support his plans for universal health care.
warren, on the other hand, has no interest in turning the united states into denmark - she is solely about trying to save capitalism from itself, so we can more effectively compete against each other. and, when you take away the socialism, you lose me.
so, we're going to find out who really supports what.
it was always an open question as to whether sanders' support came from his get-tough-on-the-banks spiel (which i personally largely wrote off as empty politicking) or his proposals to move towards a scandinavian welfare state model, because he presented the two ideas together. i'm sure that most people reacted to the two things in differing proportions.
so, i was basically willing to ignore bernie's sometimes very silly rants against wall street, in order to support his plans for universal health care.
warren, on the other hand, has no interest in turning the united states into denmark - she is solely about trying to save capitalism from itself, so we can more effectively compete against each other. and, when you take away the socialism, you lose me.
so, we're going to find out who really supports what.
there are some southern states where you might not even need to run multiple black candidates to split the vote, but just a number of centrists.
for example, i'm sure that gore would have cut into clinton's vote in tennessee, which, iirc, was about 70-30. enough? maybe not.
but, what our currently unknown leftist champion needs here is a field with a large number of centrists in it, and if we end up going into the southern primaries with 8 centrists and one leftist, our champion could mitigate the damage well enough to win by sweeping the midwest.
for example, i'm sure that gore would have cut into clinton's vote in tennessee, which, iirc, was about 70-30. enough? maybe not.
but, what our currently unknown leftist champion needs here is a field with a large number of centrists in it, and if we end up going into the southern primaries with 8 centrists and one leftist, our champion could mitigate the damage well enough to win by sweeping the midwest.
so, how does the left defeat the black congressional caucus and win a primary?
well. that's the reality of the task ahead of it. they won't support a leftist, and they control the vote.
the first thing you have to do is stop denying it. you won't convince them; stop trying.
so, what tactics are there? well, you've gotta split the field, basically.
so, if i'm bernie sanders, i'm actually looking at the field rather favourably, despite what the media is suggesting. he has a ceiling of something like 30% in the south - and warren won't do much better. she could easily poll in the low single digits, really. but, if you get kamala harris and cory booker splitting the vote, sanders all of a sudden has a path up the middle.
if it's not sanders, maybe it's jeff merkley. nobody knows yet. but, whoever it is needs to come to grips with this: if they want to win, they have to find a beat to beat the black caucus, somehow.
well. that's the reality of the task ahead of it. they won't support a leftist, and they control the vote.
the first thing you have to do is stop denying it. you won't convince them; stop trying.
so, what tactics are there? well, you've gotta split the field, basically.
so, if i'm bernie sanders, i'm actually looking at the field rather favourably, despite what the media is suggesting. he has a ceiling of something like 30% in the south - and warren won't do much better. she could easily poll in the low single digits, really. but, if you get kamala harris and cory booker splitting the vote, sanders all of a sudden has a path up the middle.
if it's not sanders, maybe it's jeff merkley. nobody knows yet. but, whoever it is needs to come to grips with this: if they want to win, they have to find a beat to beat the black caucus, somehow.
the point i'm going to want to make is just to make it clear: warren is not on the sanders/kucinich/nader side of the american left, she's inside the obama/clinton axis of the party's centrist wing.
if you support that, so be it.
i'll just want to ensure that you understand it, before you go voting for a mirage and get burned. again.
if you support that, so be it.
i'll just want to ensure that you understand it, before you go voting for a mirage and get burned. again.
it's a bunch of republican talking points interspersed with some tepid liberal platitudes. no details. and, you'll likely be disappointed by them when you hear them - her idea of expanded opportunity for the middle class is going to be more market theory, rather than attempts to balance out the violence of markets with redistributive mechanisms.
so, she is many ways projecting what is the next logical step in realignment, after obama. fool me once...
again: i'm curious. are democrats going to get excited by this? is this where the party is in 2019? do people really understand what she's running on? but, i don't expect i'll end up too supportive of it.
so, she is many ways projecting what is the next logical step in realignment, after obama. fool me once...
again: i'm curious. are democrats going to get excited by this? is this where the party is in 2019? do people really understand what she's running on? but, i don't expect i'll end up too supportive of it.
i'm actually curious how this goes.
elizabeth warren was a republican into her late 40s. this isn't a case of somebody who was raised a democrat and switched parties as she grew into herself, it's a case of somebody that spent the majority of her adult life as a conservative. and, what was her reasoning?
"I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets." - elizabeth warren
in past years, she'd have been written off as a fringe candidate on the right of the party. but, there's been a realignment happening since 2009, if not since 1993, and in many ways a warren candidacy - let alone presidency - could really flip it over.
much of what she's saying here might sound like far-left boilerplate to a contemporary listener, but the reality is that these are actually mostly recycled talking points from the gingrich-led congressional majority of the 90s. stop for a second and realize it: she sounds like a republican.
it's because she is one.
so, i'm curious. i suspect she'll do well amongst this influx of suburban white voters, who have also been republicans for most of their lives - and that whether she wins or not depends on how many "progressives" and "socialists" she can trick into voting for her with this phony republican populist rhetoric about big banks. in the end, what many are going to project and interpret as the triumph of the left is going to be it's death.
elizabeth warren was a republican into her late 40s. this isn't a case of somebody who was raised a democrat and switched parties as she grew into herself, it's a case of somebody that spent the majority of her adult life as a conservative. and, what was her reasoning?
"I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets." - elizabeth warren
in past years, she'd have been written off as a fringe candidate on the right of the party. but, there's been a realignment happening since 2009, if not since 1993, and in many ways a warren candidacy - let alone presidency - could really flip it over.
much of what she's saying here might sound like far-left boilerplate to a contemporary listener, but the reality is that these are actually mostly recycled talking points from the gingrich-led congressional majority of the 90s. stop for a second and realize it: she sounds like a republican.
it's because she is one.
so, i'm curious. i suspect she'll do well amongst this influx of suburban white voters, who have also been republicans for most of their lives - and that whether she wins or not depends on how many "progressives" and "socialists" she can trick into voting for her with this phony republican populist rhetoric about big banks. in the end, what many are going to project and interpret as the triumph of the left is going to be it's death.
Monday, December 31, 2018
everything else aside, i don't think i've left the house on any new year's since i moved to windsor.
it's the most dangerous night of the year to drive, and it's usually too cold to transit without transportation. i would usually prefer to stay in and eat nachos.
i'm most of the way through the emails for 2014, and am about to stop to eat. i've been clear that i want to detox right now, but the fact is that i wouldn't normally go anywhere on new year's anyways....
it's the most dangerous night of the year to drive, and it's usually too cold to transit without transportation. i would usually prefer to stay in and eat nachos.
i'm most of the way through the emails for 2014, and am about to stop to eat. i've been clear that i want to detox right now, but the fact is that i wouldn't normally go anywhere on new year's anyways....
i guess the beer test is too edgy nowadays.
https://www.straight.com/news/1182011/poll-shows-canadians-would-prefer-justin-trudeau-their-kids-babysitter-over-andrew
https://www.straight.com/news/1182011/poll-shows-canadians-would-prefer-justin-trudeau-their-kids-babysitter-over-andrew
"but, if you just rely on quantitative easing, wages will stay stagnant, and all the wealth will remain at the top."
right.
because wages have risen, historically, due to market forces - rather than union movements.
a strong economy is not a sufficient condition for distributive policies, but it is a necessary one. crashing the economy doesn't help anybody. but, we've lost the plot - which is that we need to fight for our wages and benefits, not leave it to the momentum of a regression analysis, which has been moving the other direction for far too long, anyways.
if we were to snap our fingers immediately, and democratize the workplace, and eliminate management, and redistribute the wealth, we would still need to keep creating very large amounts of money in order to keep pace with that redistribution, as well as compensate for population growth.
there's really no way out of this, and it's consequently a false choice.
right.
because wages have risen, historically, due to market forces - rather than union movements.
a strong economy is not a sufficient condition for distributive policies, but it is a necessary one. crashing the economy doesn't help anybody. but, we've lost the plot - which is that we need to fight for our wages and benefits, not leave it to the momentum of a regression analysis, which has been moving the other direction for far too long, anyways.
if we were to snap our fingers immediately, and democratize the workplace, and eliminate management, and redistribute the wealth, we would still need to keep creating very large amounts of money in order to keep pace with that redistribution, as well as compensate for population growth.
there's really no way out of this, and it's consequently a false choice.
what i will acknowledge is that the orac count is only one way to measure anti-oxidant levels in foods, and that the effects of digestion are an important consideration in determining whether a food has useful levels of anti-oxidants or not. i was initially going to post a frap assay, but it wasn't ordered. note that all of the assays have some criticism of them, and the results aren't better than each other - these are just different measures. if you can find an ordered list of some other count, i'd want to take it into consideration as well, but i'd expect substantive overlap.
so, the list i posted measured how many total anti-oxidants are in a food per 100 g, raw, using one specific method of measurement. you might not be able to digest all of those. they might be modified by heat. etc.
but, the list pointed these defects out. it's right there in the introduction - clearly.
see, and this is the valid criticism that you hear about the whole thing - that people are easily duped by fancy marketing, don't understand what they're reading, etc. but, that's true about anything, and the solution isn't to attack what is in fact good science but to try and focus on the scientific literacy of consumers; if a company can easily trick people into buying carcinogenic water as a health supplement, it's not the company's fault, it's the fault of the people that are easily tricked. and, likewise, if you think that pomegranate juice is going to cure your prostate cancer, that's your fault - not theirs.
exactly what you can get out of any specific food is going to be complicated, granted. but, what that means is just that you're better off playing the averages.
so, i mean, if you want to make the argument that the orac list wasn't beamed down from the temple mount then, sure, i guess. but, who said that in the first place?
so, the list i posted measured how many total anti-oxidants are in a food per 100 g, raw, using one specific method of measurement. you might not be able to digest all of those. they might be modified by heat. etc.
but, the list pointed these defects out. it's right there in the introduction - clearly.
see, and this is the valid criticism that you hear about the whole thing - that people are easily duped by fancy marketing, don't understand what they're reading, etc. but, that's true about anything, and the solution isn't to attack what is in fact good science but to try and focus on the scientific literacy of consumers; if a company can easily trick people into buying carcinogenic water as a health supplement, it's not the company's fault, it's the fault of the people that are easily tricked. and, likewise, if you think that pomegranate juice is going to cure your prostate cancer, that's your fault - not theirs.
exactly what you can get out of any specific food is going to be complicated, granted. but, what that means is just that you're better off playing the averages.
so, i mean, if you want to make the argument that the orac list wasn't beamed down from the temple mount then, sure, i guess. but, who said that in the first place?
i just want to post something on the question of anti-oxidants, as there's as much nonsense "debunking" them as there is in support of them. and, i tend to find myself more pissed off by these "debunkers" than i do by the naive hippies, because at least the hippies don't pretend that they have some literacy in the topic. i recently went over this with the question of what effect tidal drag has on earthquakes - something the neckbeards will instantly write off as pseudoscience, without the slightest idea of what they're talking about. it just looks like astrology, right? but it's a research topic with a lot of potential. and, likewise, these same neckbeards are going to jump all over anti-oxidants as empty marketing hype, as though a few exaggerated claims are enough to throw the entire idea out of the window. like i say: it's the people that misuse science that piss me off more than the people that don't care about it.
the science underlying the issue is not controversial. free radicals are very strongly linked to cancer development, and the reaction involved is one of the most basic ideas in chemistry. i'm not aware of any research that suggests that attempting to maximize your anti-oxidant count is harmful, or even ineffective. the criticisms exist around the honesty of marketing claims, rather than the mechanism, and that is the responsibility of the consumer to work through.
but, you'll notice that i'm not advocating the use of supplements or trying to approach the situation as some kind of irradiation process. i am aware that attempts to protect against cancer growth by taking high doses of whatever vitamin cocktails have proven inconclusive - just as i am aware that tests on diets high in anti-oxidants have demonstrated themselves as having a lower cancer risk. and, there's no contradiction there, either.
the error that the neckbeards (who usually have little more than a high school education, if that) are making is in imagining that anti-oxiodants as some kind of magical potion, and then pointing out that they didn't ward off the evil spirits of cancer. "look", they'll claim, "not everybody who took these supplements of high concentrations of isolated anti-oxidants avoided getting cancer". well, ok. but, maybe that wasn't what anybody really thought in the first place.
we also know that diets that are high in anti-oxidants lead to lower risks of cancer.
i'm not telling anybody that drinking a glass of blueberry juice every day is necessarily going to ensure that they live to be 100 years old.
but, i am going to hold by the claim that there is good science that suggests that maximizing anti-oxidant counts in your diet is likely to lower your risks of cancer.
the science underlying the issue is not controversial. free radicals are very strongly linked to cancer development, and the reaction involved is one of the most basic ideas in chemistry. i'm not aware of any research that suggests that attempting to maximize your anti-oxidant count is harmful, or even ineffective. the criticisms exist around the honesty of marketing claims, rather than the mechanism, and that is the responsibility of the consumer to work through.
but, you'll notice that i'm not advocating the use of supplements or trying to approach the situation as some kind of irradiation process. i am aware that attempts to protect against cancer growth by taking high doses of whatever vitamin cocktails have proven inconclusive - just as i am aware that tests on diets high in anti-oxidants have demonstrated themselves as having a lower cancer risk. and, there's no contradiction there, either.
the error that the neckbeards (who usually have little more than a high school education, if that) are making is in imagining that anti-oxiodants as some kind of magical potion, and then pointing out that they didn't ward off the evil spirits of cancer. "look", they'll claim, "not everybody who took these supplements of high concentrations of isolated anti-oxidants avoided getting cancer". well, ok. but, maybe that wasn't what anybody really thought in the first place.
we also know that diets that are high in anti-oxidants lead to lower risks of cancer.
i'm not telling anybody that drinking a glass of blueberry juice every day is necessarily going to ensure that they live to be 100 years old.
but, i am going to hold by the claim that there is good science that suggests that maximizing anti-oxidant counts in your diet is likely to lower your risks of cancer.
and, what can i say about this year?
it has not been a good year at all, and i'm not sure i've found much of a solution. i've been optimistic about most years since 2013, at least. i'm rather pessimistic about 2019 - i don't expect it to be a good year, and i expect to waste a large amount of it on the trivialities of market capitalism.
i spent most of the last year trying to escape an uninhabitable scenario, only to end up in a place that is merely unhealthy. i don't have the same urgent need to immediately escape this place, but i'm nonetheless not planning my stay here to be lengthy, either.
i'm going to need to spend the next year continuing my attempt to find a healthier, more isolated living space, which is going to need to begin with finding some source of wealth. i'm going to need to look into my father's estate, with the intent of probably launching a lawsuit against my step-mother, and potentially also against my sister. i am going to need to sue the woman that put me in jail for discrimination in housing, and seek a settlement for trauma and emotional harm. and, i'm going to need to sue the police for false arrest. beside my continuing work on the aleph discs, these three lawsuits are going to be my primary focus, moving into 2019.
so, i think that the best i can hope out of 2019 is that it puts me in a better situation for 2020 - that it gives me an opportunity to move to somewhere that is less polluted, has less smokers and perhaps has less people, per capita. that will probably be away from windsor. and, how far away is going to be determined by how much money i can win in these lawsuits.
as such, i'm going to be focusing more on saving money than spending it, as i have been for much of 2018. my living arrangement is not stable; i don't have the luxury of being able to spend money, any more. i could lose my income source in the next 24 months, and if i can't find some way to cushion it immediately, i'm going to have to find some way to buffer it. i can currently put aside around $250-$300 a month if i stay in and don't do anything. if i can put the odsp renewal decision off until 2021, and hope that the conservatives are removed from power in 2022, i could maybe get back on disability for 2023 - and live off of savings in between. but, it's going to mean an extremely frugal lifestyle for the years in between - no partying, no concerts, no drugs or alcohol. just food & rent. that's fine; it's better than getting a job. and, if i find myself forced into working part time, i will at least have some savings to cushion it.
there's currently roughly $2000 left in there. if i can put aside $275/month for the next year, that will push it over $5000, which is enough to live on for around five months. and, the longer i can put the decision off, the more breathing room i end up with.
how about the music, which is supposed to be the point?
well, as mentioned, i'm circling around a pivot. i was hoping to be caught up by now, but have lacked energy recently. i've added 60 pages of emails to the liner notes over the last few days, which is a level of direct productivity that has been elusive of late. i should get most of that done by the end of the day, and potentially get through the filing push by the end of the week. i do expect more rapid movement forwards once i get to that hook up at the end of november, 2016 - meaning i should be able to get to actually closing discs in the alter-reality in early 2019.
but, the fact is that i have essentially nothing completed for the year. and, i can only present this journal as the explanation for it.
again: this year won't be much better, but, if i'm lucky, 2020 will be.
it has not been a good year at all, and i'm not sure i've found much of a solution. i've been optimistic about most years since 2013, at least. i'm rather pessimistic about 2019 - i don't expect it to be a good year, and i expect to waste a large amount of it on the trivialities of market capitalism.
i spent most of the last year trying to escape an uninhabitable scenario, only to end up in a place that is merely unhealthy. i don't have the same urgent need to immediately escape this place, but i'm nonetheless not planning my stay here to be lengthy, either.
i'm going to need to spend the next year continuing my attempt to find a healthier, more isolated living space, which is going to need to begin with finding some source of wealth. i'm going to need to look into my father's estate, with the intent of probably launching a lawsuit against my step-mother, and potentially also against my sister. i am going to need to sue the woman that put me in jail for discrimination in housing, and seek a settlement for trauma and emotional harm. and, i'm going to need to sue the police for false arrest. beside my continuing work on the aleph discs, these three lawsuits are going to be my primary focus, moving into 2019.
so, i think that the best i can hope out of 2019 is that it puts me in a better situation for 2020 - that it gives me an opportunity to move to somewhere that is less polluted, has less smokers and perhaps has less people, per capita. that will probably be away from windsor. and, how far away is going to be determined by how much money i can win in these lawsuits.
as such, i'm going to be focusing more on saving money than spending it, as i have been for much of 2018. my living arrangement is not stable; i don't have the luxury of being able to spend money, any more. i could lose my income source in the next 24 months, and if i can't find some way to cushion it immediately, i'm going to have to find some way to buffer it. i can currently put aside around $250-$300 a month if i stay in and don't do anything. if i can put the odsp renewal decision off until 2021, and hope that the conservatives are removed from power in 2022, i could maybe get back on disability for 2023 - and live off of savings in between. but, it's going to mean an extremely frugal lifestyle for the years in between - no partying, no concerts, no drugs or alcohol. just food & rent. that's fine; it's better than getting a job. and, if i find myself forced into working part time, i will at least have some savings to cushion it.
there's currently roughly $2000 left in there. if i can put aside $275/month for the next year, that will push it over $5000, which is enough to live on for around five months. and, the longer i can put the decision off, the more breathing room i end up with.
how about the music, which is supposed to be the point?
well, as mentioned, i'm circling around a pivot. i was hoping to be caught up by now, but have lacked energy recently. i've added 60 pages of emails to the liner notes over the last few days, which is a level of direct productivity that has been elusive of late. i should get most of that done by the end of the day, and potentially get through the filing push by the end of the week. i do expect more rapid movement forwards once i get to that hook up at the end of november, 2016 - meaning i should be able to get to actually closing discs in the alter-reality in early 2019.
but, the fact is that i have essentially nothing completed for the year. and, i can only present this journal as the explanation for it.
again: this year won't be much better, but, if i'm lucky, 2020 will be.
Sunday, December 30, 2018
all that's left to do in syria is sit there and pretend you haven't lost, and the longer you do it, the more likely you end up with a partition.
and, is that what the neo-cons want? a new south korea in syria, that's going to cost america billions of dollars, in a five hundred year occupation?
are they willing to lose the dardanelles over it?
it's just stubborn and stupid.
trump was right. and, lindsey graham should fuck off.
and, is that what the neo-cons want? a new south korea in syria, that's going to cost america billions of dollars, in a five hundred year occupation?
are they willing to lose the dardanelles over it?
it's just stubborn and stupid.
trump was right. and, lindsey graham should fuck off.
the best way to transition assad out was always to let him transition himself out, which is what he was trying to do in the first place; the thing that created this mess was an attempt at a syrian constitution, which was vehemently opposed by the saudis as an increase in democratization in the region.
that's right. that's the fucked up reality: this war was launched to prevent syria from transitioning to a democracy.
the russians don't want him there either, and will be helping him transition himself out as soon as the territorial integrity of the country is secure.
that's right. that's the fucked up reality: this war was launched to prevent syria from transitioning to a democracy.
the russians don't want him there either, and will be helping him transition himself out as soon as the territorial integrity of the country is secure.
see, this is a good idea.
this is what we want.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/damascus-iraq-hit-isil-targets-syria-state-media-181230172409718.html
this is what we want.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/damascus-iraq-hit-isil-targets-syria-state-media-181230172409718.html
at this point, if trump flops on syria, it's as good as losing the turks altogether.
"but they don't uphold human rights"
like america does, right? what is this, grade two?
if you want to talk about a victory for putin, the dardanelles would be pretty swank. they've had their eye on that one for a while.
there is a deeper lesson here: we have an emperor with no clothes. but, whatever you think of the decision (and i've been clear that i support it.), you can't reverse this sort of thing.
"but they don't uphold human rights"
like america does, right? what is this, grade two?
if you want to talk about a victory for putin, the dardanelles would be pretty swank. they've had their eye on that one for a while.
there is a deeper lesson here: we have an emperor with no clothes. but, whatever you think of the decision (and i've been clear that i support it.), you can't reverse this sort of thing.
i mean, what the fuck am i going to do in an office?
crunch numbers for the agriculture department? yeah. that sounds like it's not going to be horribly time-consuming, and numbingly boring.
solve equations for a bunch of fucking murderers at defense? yeah, that's not going to make me want to kill myself.
washing dishes is real, it's honest, it's something i can do without hating myself.
crunch numbers for the agriculture department? yeah. that sounds like it's not going to be horribly time-consuming, and numbingly boring.
solve equations for a bunch of fucking murderers at defense? yeah, that's not going to make me want to kill myself.
washing dishes is real, it's honest, it's something i can do without hating myself.
i know that people would kill to have the opportunities i've had, but it's not like i ever lied to anybody about it.
if you would have asked me at 17, i would have told you i'm never going to want to work full-time in an office, i'm never going to care about owning property, i'm never going to want a car, i'm never going to want a family - i'd rather work part-time as a dishwasher, and get more free time to work on art, or writing, or whatever my mind is interested in.
and, i heard the same stupid refrain, from everybody around me.
"but, you're young, you'll grow out of it."
"pretty sure i won't."
"you're throwing away opportunity, throwing away options."
"well, if somebody doesn't want something, and they throw that thing away, that means they're throwing away something that isn't of any value to them."
and, i'd get disappointed reactions, but what was the point of pretending otherwise? i'm not going to live somebody else's life, i'm going to live my own. and, it's up to others to move on if they don't like my choices.
but, i kept getting bribed - and i was given good offers, so i took them. and, i ended up with 13 years of schooling that i had almost no interest in.
now, here i am a few weeks shy of 38 and i'm still completely disinterested in working in an office, i still don't want to own property, i still don't want a car, and i still don't want a family; i'd still rather work part time as a dish-washer, and i'm not particularly interested in the opinions of any creditors that i never had any intention of gaining in the first place.
"but, it will hurt your credit rating."
yeah. pity. whatever.
i know - more disappointed looks. but, the root cause of the problem here is not my behaviour - i broadcast myself as clearly as a person can.
people made a choice not to listen, to project their own desires on to me rather than understand what mine were, and react.
if it comes down to it, i'm not going to end up in an office job - i'm going to end up washing dishes part-time.
if you would have asked me at 17, i would have told you i'm never going to want to work full-time in an office, i'm never going to care about owning property, i'm never going to want a car, i'm never going to want a family - i'd rather work part-time as a dishwasher, and get more free time to work on art, or writing, or whatever my mind is interested in.
and, i heard the same stupid refrain, from everybody around me.
"but, you're young, you'll grow out of it."
"pretty sure i won't."
"you're throwing away opportunity, throwing away options."
"well, if somebody doesn't want something, and they throw that thing away, that means they're throwing away something that isn't of any value to them."
and, i'd get disappointed reactions, but what was the point of pretending otherwise? i'm not going to live somebody else's life, i'm going to live my own. and, it's up to others to move on if they don't like my choices.
but, i kept getting bribed - and i was given good offers, so i took them. and, i ended up with 13 years of schooling that i had almost no interest in.
now, here i am a few weeks shy of 38 and i'm still completely disinterested in working in an office, i still don't want to own property, i still don't want a car, and i still don't want a family; i'd still rather work part time as a dish-washer, and i'm not particularly interested in the opinions of any creditors that i never had any intention of gaining in the first place.
"but, it will hurt your credit rating."
yeah. pity. whatever.
i know - more disappointed looks. but, the root cause of the problem here is not my behaviour - i broadcast myself as clearly as a person can.
people made a choice not to listen, to project their own desires on to me rather than understand what mine were, and react.
if it comes down to it, i'm not going to end up in an office job - i'm going to end up washing dishes part-time.
i have to post something like this every once in a while just to get the point across that the existing narrative is ridiculous. and, i was thinking about this the other day, when eating.
hitchens was wrong about iraq - because his assumptions were wrong. see, if saddam hussein were isis, though, he would have been right. so, the irony is that hitchens' argument for the 2003 invasion - while completely wrong, in context - is the perfect argument to use to justify the war against isis. and, it's even ironic that he didn't live to make the point. i'm sure he'd appreciate all of this.
what i'm getting at is that he didn't make an error in logic so much as he made an error in fact; if his perception of iraq under saddam hussein was rooted in reality, rather than american propaganda, he would have been absolutely correct. and, i can't know whether his arguments were just convenient or not, either - if he just thought it was a good excuse. if so, he should have known better, as it didn't take much foresight to realize that if you really did fear the rise of an isis-like group then keeping saddam in place was just about the best thing that could have been done to prevent it, and that creating all of that chaos in iraq was just about the worst thing you could imagine doing. this was certainly my argument in 2003 - that regime change via bliztkrieg from above in iraq was an insane idea. but, here is some more irony - the islamophobic and supposedly racist late hitchens may have simply given the arabs too much credit. once the bogeyman of saddam was removed, they would surely spontaneously generate into a secular pan-arabism, right? what leftist naivete is this, christopher?
in making his arguments, he often made a very salient point: that there is good reason to be afraid of islam. islam is of course a violent system of hetero-patriarchal domination, just like christianity. and, do we not all fear the christian right? so, what is islamophobia, then, if not a rational fear of totalitarianism? and, is it not every good leftist brit's responsibility to be in constant fear of a return to cromwellianism?
well?
see, and, for this reason i don't have any problem acknowledging that i am deeply fearful of islam, and would support just about anything to prevent it's continued growth. this is the fastest growing religion in the world, and thus is my most pertinent ideological foe, as a staunch atheist. it represents everything i am opposed to, and i seek to challenge it any way i possibly can. one must have a certain level of respect for their opponent, even if that respect is not particularly intellectual in nature, and with that respect is a healthy level of fear.
it would be daft to deny any of this.
but, it would be equally daft to deduce that a healthy fear of the continuing spread of islam as an ideological force implies some kind of racial bias against arabs, or turks, or iranians, or berbers, or pakistanis or any other group that professes this faith in statistically significant numbers, as bereft of any value as i claim that it is. there's simply no basis in the deduction; any such accusation is entirely baseless.
so, i will stand in support of islamophobia, even as i denounce racism against groups that statistically lean towards the religion of islam. i will stand in solidarity with the apostates, as i denounce the imams. there is no contradiction in this position - and it is even imperative that we recognize that there isn't, in order to inoculate ourselves from this religion's continuing influence and spread.
hitchens was wrong about iraq - because his assumptions were wrong. see, if saddam hussein were isis, though, he would have been right. so, the irony is that hitchens' argument for the 2003 invasion - while completely wrong, in context - is the perfect argument to use to justify the war against isis. and, it's even ironic that he didn't live to make the point. i'm sure he'd appreciate all of this.
what i'm getting at is that he didn't make an error in logic so much as he made an error in fact; if his perception of iraq under saddam hussein was rooted in reality, rather than american propaganda, he would have been absolutely correct. and, i can't know whether his arguments were just convenient or not, either - if he just thought it was a good excuse. if so, he should have known better, as it didn't take much foresight to realize that if you really did fear the rise of an isis-like group then keeping saddam in place was just about the best thing that could have been done to prevent it, and that creating all of that chaos in iraq was just about the worst thing you could imagine doing. this was certainly my argument in 2003 - that regime change via bliztkrieg from above in iraq was an insane idea. but, here is some more irony - the islamophobic and supposedly racist late hitchens may have simply given the arabs too much credit. once the bogeyman of saddam was removed, they would surely spontaneously generate into a secular pan-arabism, right? what leftist naivete is this, christopher?
in making his arguments, he often made a very salient point: that there is good reason to be afraid of islam. islam is of course a violent system of hetero-patriarchal domination, just like christianity. and, do we not all fear the christian right? so, what is islamophobia, then, if not a rational fear of totalitarianism? and, is it not every good leftist brit's responsibility to be in constant fear of a return to cromwellianism?
well?
see, and, for this reason i don't have any problem acknowledging that i am deeply fearful of islam, and would support just about anything to prevent it's continued growth. this is the fastest growing religion in the world, and thus is my most pertinent ideological foe, as a staunch atheist. it represents everything i am opposed to, and i seek to challenge it any way i possibly can. one must have a certain level of respect for their opponent, even if that respect is not particularly intellectual in nature, and with that respect is a healthy level of fear.
it would be daft to deny any of this.
but, it would be equally daft to deduce that a healthy fear of the continuing spread of islam as an ideological force implies some kind of racial bias against arabs, or turks, or iranians, or berbers, or pakistanis or any other group that professes this faith in statistically significant numbers, as bereft of any value as i claim that it is. there's simply no basis in the deduction; any such accusation is entirely baseless.
so, i will stand in support of islamophobia, even as i denounce racism against groups that statistically lean towards the religion of islam. i will stand in solidarity with the apostates, as i denounce the imams. there is no contradiction in this position - and it is even imperative that we recognize that there isn't, in order to inoculate ourselves from this religion's continuing influence and spread.
it's fitting enough, isn't it, as so many of the british forces killed in world war one to "save democracy" were legally unable to vote, due to not owning property.
https://corporatewatch.org/poppies-prison-labour-and-the-war-machine/
https://corporatewatch.org/poppies-prison-labour-and-the-war-machine/
you realize that centipedes are carnivores, right?
so, if you have a population of centipedes in your basement, that means they have a food source. if there's no food, they'll die off or otherwise leave. and, they won't eat food scraps or toothpaste or bits of hair - centipedes need to have a population of live insects to feed on.
this is even the reason that centipedes are considered "beneficial" - they eat other insects.
and, one of their favourite foods is roaches.
so, it is true that you should not kill the centipedes - but it is also true that if you see centipedes frequently, then that means you probably have roaches, too, because that's what they're eating.
the basement i'm in now is actually surprisingly bug free. i saw one of those....i can't even remember what they're called. i'd never seen one before. maple bugs. boxelder, that's right. i've seen one centipede. i've seen a couple of spiders. no roaches, no ants, no earwigs, no termites.
the previous basement had just about everything - spiders, ants, centipedes, oriental roaches, earwigs and i even think i saw a scorpion, at one point.
i'm not an entomologist, but i did take biology through high school (and both the 101/102 in university), and i'd even say i have an interest in it, as demonstrated by the posts here. and, i don't you think you need a specialized degree to identify a roach.
some people are just really dirty liars, that's all.
so, if you have a population of centipedes in your basement, that means they have a food source. if there's no food, they'll die off or otherwise leave. and, they won't eat food scraps or toothpaste or bits of hair - centipedes need to have a population of live insects to feed on.
this is even the reason that centipedes are considered "beneficial" - they eat other insects.
and, one of their favourite foods is roaches.
so, it is true that you should not kill the centipedes - but it is also true that if you see centipedes frequently, then that means you probably have roaches, too, because that's what they're eating.
the basement i'm in now is actually surprisingly bug free. i saw one of those....i can't even remember what they're called. i'd never seen one before. maple bugs. boxelder, that's right. i've seen one centipede. i've seen a couple of spiders. no roaches, no ants, no earwigs, no termites.
the previous basement had just about everything - spiders, ants, centipedes, oriental roaches, earwigs and i even think i saw a scorpion, at one point.
i'm not an entomologist, but i did take biology through high school (and both the 101/102 in university), and i'd even say i have an interest in it, as demonstrated by the posts here. and, i don't you think you need a specialized degree to identify a roach.
some people are just really dirty liars, that's all.
Saturday, December 29, 2018
it's not believable, though.
harper was a kind of ruthless nerd, a policy wonk that may have often been wrong but would be wrong with charts and figures; scheer is more of a return to the airheaded fundamentalism of a stockwell day, kind of a reform party throwback, and if you're going to rerun an election, it makes sense for that to be the one you try to rerun.
the problem is that the more you point out that andrew scheer is kind of like stockwell day, the more you draw attention to the reality that trudeau also has surface similarities. trudeau is not the right guy to run a campaign centred around the premise that the opposition is too intellectually feeble to govern.
but, scheer does not project the competence that harper did, and is consequently not scary in the same way. people don't seem to fear incompetence, so much as they fear competence - they seem to want to ridicule incompetence.
the truth is that this is a field of intellectual lightweights. i would not expect the same kind of modular, issues-driven campaign that you got out of a mulcair v harper; this is going to be an election about feelings, perceptions and other trivialities that mostly come out in the wash - and the dour leftists are going to be standing on the side, pointing out that they're basically the same.
i would like to see the liberals knocked down to a minority, which is what i wanted in the first place. so, they should be careful about my advice, this cycle. but, i'm not sure how well the ghost of harper is going to stick to scheer.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-says-it-s-worth-pointing-out-similarities-between-scheer-and-harper-1.4233769
harper was a kind of ruthless nerd, a policy wonk that may have often been wrong but would be wrong with charts and figures; scheer is more of a return to the airheaded fundamentalism of a stockwell day, kind of a reform party throwback, and if you're going to rerun an election, it makes sense for that to be the one you try to rerun.
the problem is that the more you point out that andrew scheer is kind of like stockwell day, the more you draw attention to the reality that trudeau also has surface similarities. trudeau is not the right guy to run a campaign centred around the premise that the opposition is too intellectually feeble to govern.
but, scheer does not project the competence that harper did, and is consequently not scary in the same way. people don't seem to fear incompetence, so much as they fear competence - they seem to want to ridicule incompetence.
the truth is that this is a field of intellectual lightweights. i would not expect the same kind of modular, issues-driven campaign that you got out of a mulcair v harper; this is going to be an election about feelings, perceptions and other trivialities that mostly come out in the wash - and the dour leftists are going to be standing on the side, pointing out that they're basically the same.
i would like to see the liberals knocked down to a minority, which is what i wanted in the first place. so, they should be careful about my advice, this cycle. but, i'm not sure how well the ghost of harper is going to stick to scheer.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-says-it-s-worth-pointing-out-similarities-between-scheer-and-harper-1.4233769
i'm still oozy and still hacking but i'm wide awake, so i can either stare at the ceiling or try and do something.
and, what have i been doing?
well, i got some emails posted - it's of varying relevance, and i may revisit some of it. it's about half done.
the next step - and i didn't initially want to do this, but i'm not making much progress anyways so i'd might as well - is to sort through and organize my hard drive. i've had a brand new hard drive to install in this thing since the summer of 2017, i've just been putting it off until i get through what i'm doing. i think it's close enough to at least start preparing.
the drive i'm using in what was my backup laptop was initially in what was my main laptop; so, i took the drive from the newer laptop and put it into the older one. i did that when the newer laptop stopped booting (processor-related beeps, still not dealt with). i think that was in october of 2017? i can't remember. what happened is that i got a big order in, and had to put off the rebuild until i finished remastering everything. then, the rebuild got slowed down due to the marijuana, and now i'm behind an extra year.
i think i had decided that i would swap the new drive into the newer laptop when i had it ready to convert into a vlog editing machine, partly because i was intending to use the old recording pc as the new access point. that's right. and, this older laptop that i'm using now was going to be an effects processor, once i got a little recording interface for it. but, then the screen on this laptop collapsed, and i went from having three rooms to two, so i didn't need a third system, and the logic around the whole thing completely shifted - i decided i would use this laptop as an access point (until it dies.) because the lack of a screen makes t useless for anything else, and i'd set up the three pcs in the other room, all for recording - which i haven't done yet, at all.
and, i was just waiting for the rebuild to finish until i did...
i'm in mid-september. the hook-up is the end of november. so, i'm pretty close. and, i think it's getting close to time.
this is not a fast machine by modern standards - it takes a max of 4 gb of ram, with a weak dual core. it was a 2006 model that i got for cheap in 2010 on a refurbish. but, swapping the drive out will probably...
actually, you know what?
why don't i just reinstall?
yeah.
i'm just thinking...why waste the drive, really? the new drive is faster on paper, but if i think the machine is a little laggy, a reinstall could very well be just as good as a new drive. i mean, i guess we'll find out.
there's two of them sitting, that are much faster drives. but, what exactly does that mean on an older machine like this? i'm not sure it means much.
ok.
so, i'm going to file this information with the intent to push through the whole thing on final time. that's right - back to 2013 one last time. what's going to be coming up this time is stiff like pictures, word documents, etc that is dated from after july, 2013. and, in the process, i'll be able to file the information i need to get back to the alter-realty, from 1997-1999.
e-mail first.
and, when does this get done?
i don't know. i know i have to do it, and that when it's done, it's done.
and, what have i been doing?
well, i got some emails posted - it's of varying relevance, and i may revisit some of it. it's about half done.
the next step - and i didn't initially want to do this, but i'm not making much progress anyways so i'd might as well - is to sort through and organize my hard drive. i've had a brand new hard drive to install in this thing since the summer of 2017, i've just been putting it off until i get through what i'm doing. i think it's close enough to at least start preparing.
the drive i'm using in what was my backup laptop was initially in what was my main laptop; so, i took the drive from the newer laptop and put it into the older one. i did that when the newer laptop stopped booting (processor-related beeps, still not dealt with). i think that was in october of 2017? i can't remember. what happened is that i got a big order in, and had to put off the rebuild until i finished remastering everything. then, the rebuild got slowed down due to the marijuana, and now i'm behind an extra year.
i think i had decided that i would swap the new drive into the newer laptop when i had it ready to convert into a vlog editing machine, partly because i was intending to use the old recording pc as the new access point. that's right. and, this older laptop that i'm using now was going to be an effects processor, once i got a little recording interface for it. but, then the screen on this laptop collapsed, and i went from having three rooms to two, so i didn't need a third system, and the logic around the whole thing completely shifted - i decided i would use this laptop as an access point (until it dies.) because the lack of a screen makes t useless for anything else, and i'd set up the three pcs in the other room, all for recording - which i haven't done yet, at all.
and, i was just waiting for the rebuild to finish until i did...
i'm in mid-september. the hook-up is the end of november. so, i'm pretty close. and, i think it's getting close to time.
this is not a fast machine by modern standards - it takes a max of 4 gb of ram, with a weak dual core. it was a 2006 model that i got for cheap in 2010 on a refurbish. but, swapping the drive out will probably...
actually, you know what?
why don't i just reinstall?
yeah.
i'm just thinking...why waste the drive, really? the new drive is faster on paper, but if i think the machine is a little laggy, a reinstall could very well be just as good as a new drive. i mean, i guess we'll find out.
there's two of them sitting, that are much faster drives. but, what exactly does that mean on an older machine like this? i'm not sure it means much.
ok.
so, i'm going to file this information with the intent to push through the whole thing on final time. that's right - back to 2013 one last time. what's going to be coming up this time is stiff like pictures, word documents, etc that is dated from after july, 2013. and, in the process, i'll be able to file the information i need to get back to the alter-realty, from 1997-1999.
e-mail first.
and, when does this get done?
i don't know. i know i have to do it, and that when it's done, it's done.
i was experiencing nausea more or less all day yesterday, but it got really bad in the evening, and i ended up falling asleep. i've been in bed more or less ever since.
nausea could be caused by anything, but what i'm experiencing is consistent with the effects of second-hand smoke, as i've experienced them in the past.
i thought it was better, but it's not, and it seems like i'm going back to sleep.
nausea could be caused by anything, but what i'm experiencing is consistent with the effects of second-hand smoke, as i've experienced them in the past.
i thought it was better, but it's not, and it seems like i'm going back to sleep.
Friday, December 28, 2018
there really is a lot of confidence in the market, and i've been pointing it out for months - people want to believe that the economy can ride without training wheels, that a free market economy is more than a naive abstraction, that government intervention is at the root of all problems, etc. and, of course, they want to believe that they can put money into a market and profit from it, regardless of what the fed is doing.
and, yes - democracy is a powerful force. if people could vote their portfolios up, you can be sure they would.
so, how do you explain to people that have shown up, cash in hand, that this is simply a bad time to invest? they want to invest, dammit!
they should invest in a local charity, instead - if they're insistent on throwing their money away.
these swings are happening because the bubble is so deep that there's no concept of reality in sight. you can throw an anchor out from this market, and you won't hit anything. there's no reference point. it's lost in space.
and, i'm as interested as anybody else in the question of how long the power of delusional thinking can offset the empirical and quantitative reality of a shrinking money supply.
and, yes - democracy is a powerful force. if people could vote their portfolios up, you can be sure they would.
so, how do you explain to people that have shown up, cash in hand, that this is simply a bad time to invest? they want to invest, dammit!
they should invest in a local charity, instead - if they're insistent on throwing their money away.
these swings are happening because the bubble is so deep that there's no concept of reality in sight. you can throw an anchor out from this market, and you won't hit anything. there's no reference point. it's lost in space.
and, i'm as interested as anybody else in the question of how long the power of delusional thinking can offset the empirical and quantitative reality of a shrinking money supply.
it might not be harmful, but i don't think that earth metals deserve the presumption of innocence. sorry.
it's better to err on the side of caution. and, what we know at this stage is that the assumption that your liver would be able to deal with it is wrong - you can't eject this, it builds up...
that said, the issue needs to be about harm reduction, not ban hammering. if you think or know you have a serious tumour, you need to weigh the risks - the tumour will almost certainly kill you, whereas the gadolinium is just an unknown. you're weighing a known known v a known unknown. i had the presence of mind to realize what was happening and stop and question it; what i found disturbing was the lack of interest in providing enough information to me to allow me to make a choice.
for me, i had little reason to think i had cancer, and consequently avoided a cat scan. what i was looking for was signs of broken or demented bones, not signs of tumour growth. the injection struck me as insane and irresponsible.
i haven't called a dentist yet, but that was the end conclusion, after seeing a neurologist in mid 2017.
i'm not saying you should reject this, necessarily. i'm saying you should think carefully about what you're doing before you do it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28361260
it's better to err on the side of caution. and, what we know at this stage is that the assumption that your liver would be able to deal with it is wrong - you can't eject this, it builds up...
that said, the issue needs to be about harm reduction, not ban hammering. if you think or know you have a serious tumour, you need to weigh the risks - the tumour will almost certainly kill you, whereas the gadolinium is just an unknown. you're weighing a known known v a known unknown. i had the presence of mind to realize what was happening and stop and question it; what i found disturbing was the lack of interest in providing enough information to me to allow me to make a choice.
for me, i had little reason to think i had cancer, and consequently avoided a cat scan. what i was looking for was signs of broken or demented bones, not signs of tumour growth. the injection struck me as insane and irresponsible.
i haven't called a dentist yet, but that was the end conclusion, after seeing a neurologist in mid 2017.
i'm not saying you should reject this, necessarily. i'm saying you should think carefully about what you're doing before you do it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28361260
Thursday, December 27, 2018
this is the ideal first step - the russians and turks need to talk this out without the americans wasting their time and interrupting them.
for all of the propaganda about putin & erdogan, the reality is that they are both rational actors and should be able to work out a compromise that does the following things:
1. recreates the internationally recognized syrian borders, which is what the russians want - a return to normalcy.
2. find some way to do something with what are, in fact, kurdish militant groups camped on the turkish border and that will certainly eventually threaten the turks if left to incubate. these groups are going to need to be given safe passage somewhere: to iraq, to iran or to...russia.
i'll throw a wild card out there: the jews never warmed to the idea of a homeland in russia, but they've long been convinced they're semitic and belong in the middle east (whether it's really true or not). the kurds are a caucasian-iranian group that has lived in the zagros mountains as refugees for centuries, with meaningful ethno-linguistic roots in largely uninhabited areas of russia. at some point in the distant past, the kurds migrated in from the steppes, and then, centuries later, found themselves in perpetual isolation when the iranians were expelled from mesopotamia by the arabs, eventually adopting their religion but never being fully accepted into the new culture. this area is historically not iranian, but where armenians and semites, and then great empires, fought wars against each other; it follows that the best that the kurds can really hope for is to be a part of an iranian province, as an independent kurdistan could never be more than a minor iran - a "west iran", if you will, but the arabs in iraq aren't inviting the ayatollah in, either, nor are the turks looking for partition. i don't think i've ever heard anybody say it, but it's not a crazy idea; an autonomous oblast in the urals is more sovereignty than they're ever likely to get in an area of the world that they're really not indigenous to.
so, as an independent kurdistan isn't a sustainable idea in the long run (it would just be a temporarily existent "west iran" - even if it lasted 100 years), there's really two serious outcomes here: a reconstruction of greater iran (including northern iraq and eastern turkey) or for the kurds to accept minority status within the countries of the region. neither option is anything close to kurdish sovereignty, which is really geopolitically impossible in this exact location.
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-to-dispatch-high-level-team-to-russia-for-syria-talks-140046
for all of the propaganda about putin & erdogan, the reality is that they are both rational actors and should be able to work out a compromise that does the following things:
1. recreates the internationally recognized syrian borders, which is what the russians want - a return to normalcy.
2. find some way to do something with what are, in fact, kurdish militant groups camped on the turkish border and that will certainly eventually threaten the turks if left to incubate. these groups are going to need to be given safe passage somewhere: to iraq, to iran or to...russia.
i'll throw a wild card out there: the jews never warmed to the idea of a homeland in russia, but they've long been convinced they're semitic and belong in the middle east (whether it's really true or not). the kurds are a caucasian-iranian group that has lived in the zagros mountains as refugees for centuries, with meaningful ethno-linguistic roots in largely uninhabited areas of russia. at some point in the distant past, the kurds migrated in from the steppes, and then, centuries later, found themselves in perpetual isolation when the iranians were expelled from mesopotamia by the arabs, eventually adopting their religion but never being fully accepted into the new culture. this area is historically not iranian, but where armenians and semites, and then great empires, fought wars against each other; it follows that the best that the kurds can really hope for is to be a part of an iranian province, as an independent kurdistan could never be more than a minor iran - a "west iran", if you will, but the arabs in iraq aren't inviting the ayatollah in, either, nor are the turks looking for partition. i don't think i've ever heard anybody say it, but it's not a crazy idea; an autonomous oblast in the urals is more sovereignty than they're ever likely to get in an area of the world that they're really not indigenous to.
so, as an independent kurdistan isn't a sustainable idea in the long run (it would just be a temporarily existent "west iran" - even if it lasted 100 years), there's really two serious outcomes here: a reconstruction of greater iran (including northern iraq and eastern turkey) or for the kurds to accept minority status within the countries of the region. neither option is anything close to kurdish sovereignty, which is really geopolitically impossible in this exact location.
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-to-dispatch-high-level-team-to-russia-for-syria-talks-140046
it's really amazing how people won't get their head around it - total denial, but it's really because we're so hopelessly colonized by christianity.
"santa isn't a german god. no. it's saint nicolaus."
right.
listen - you don't need to get into this argument about whether it's saturnalia or yule, because they're actually the same thing. the romans are thought to have separated from the celts around the la tene period, and moved south from switzerland into italy. that's right - the romans had a german ancestry, and were ultimately created in the same way they were destroyed. like a snake swallowing itself whole? i dunno. but, i know that it's very well understood that the indo-european religions were all essentially the same, so when we see romans and germans doing essentially the same ritual at essentially the same astrological event, deep into antiquity, the conclusion one ought to draw is that the traditions had a common origin.
and, this tradition is not historically related to christianity, to judaism or islam - but it is related to the eastern religions, one example being hinduism. and, to understand santa claus, this is the tradition we need to look most directly at - not christianity, but hinduism.
for, everybody knows that shiva enjoys a nice glass of milk, when presented.
think about what your kids are doing for a second when they leave out milk and cookies for santa. what they are doing is offering a gift to the german god odin at the solstice, in hopes of receiving something in return. and, it wasn't that long ago that this was done by adults, who took the whole thing very seriously - as hundreds of millions of hindus in india do, still, today.
a christian holiday? hardly. that's as pagan as pagan gets.
so, how did we get from a sombre gemanic ritual, which certainly included blood sacrifices, to an infantilized, benign action involving flying reindeer and cookies?
the christian colonization of northern europe.
"santa isn't a german god. no. it's saint nicolaus."
right.
listen - you don't need to get into this argument about whether it's saturnalia or yule, because they're actually the same thing. the romans are thought to have separated from the celts around the la tene period, and moved south from switzerland into italy. that's right - the romans had a german ancestry, and were ultimately created in the same way they were destroyed. like a snake swallowing itself whole? i dunno. but, i know that it's very well understood that the indo-european religions were all essentially the same, so when we see romans and germans doing essentially the same ritual at essentially the same astrological event, deep into antiquity, the conclusion one ought to draw is that the traditions had a common origin.
and, this tradition is not historically related to christianity, to judaism or islam - but it is related to the eastern religions, one example being hinduism. and, to understand santa claus, this is the tradition we need to look most directly at - not christianity, but hinduism.
for, everybody knows that shiva enjoys a nice glass of milk, when presented.
think about what your kids are doing for a second when they leave out milk and cookies for santa. what they are doing is offering a gift to the german god odin at the solstice, in hopes of receiving something in return. and, it wasn't that long ago that this was done by adults, who took the whole thing very seriously - as hundreds of millions of hindus in india do, still, today.
a christian holiday? hardly. that's as pagan as pagan gets.
so, how did we get from a sombre gemanic ritual, which certainly included blood sacrifices, to an infantilized, benign action involving flying reindeer and cookies?
the christian colonization of northern europe.
i just want to address what might be a misperception about the amount of time i spend by myself. some people may point out that i don't have a family or friends to spend time with, and argue that this is some kind of bad thing. but, as is the case with most components of the society we live in, i'm actually largely in disagreement with the premise.
but, it's not just my politics, it's my personality, although the politics no doubt derive from the personality. introverts are not figments of the psychologist's imagination; we do exist. i will remind you that the reason i live on disability is due to social anxiety, meaning i'm even clinically diagnosed with preferring to avoid people, to the point that i'm being excused from having to work (for the time being). so, how would one really expect a heavily introverted anarchist with extreme social anxiety to spend the holidays?
i'm not interested in having a family, and i've never enjoyed spending time with friends. but, isn't that just something that losers say as an excuse? it really isn't.
of course, i grew up in a family, and it is true that my father is now dead, but everybody else is still alive - if hundreds of kilometres away. what you might not realize is that i wouldn't have spent the holidays with my family even when my father was alive, and they were right in front of me. when i lived on my own, i would routinely reject family get-togethers, because i didn't want to spend my leisure time with my family - i'd rather spend it reading, or listening to and/or writing music. there were some years where i was working 50 hour weeks, or deeply invested in school. to me, the holidays were a way to immerse myself in my own interests, not a way to get to know my family. i needed the alone time. my dad could get usually get me out for a few hours on one day, but i made sure they knew that was going to be the extent of it; i would be completely absent from any family life for 20 out of 21 days, and fully on my own prerogative. even when i lived at home, i was the kind of teenager and twenty-something that spent the holidays in my room with the door closed. parades of family members and family friends would come through without me opening the door for more than a few seconds to acknowledge them. or, often, i would come out of the bedroom only to eat, and go back in the moment my last bite was finished, probably even taking coffee or even dessert with me. in some cases, i may not have liked the specific individuals involved, but i was broadly simply more interested in pursuing my own individualistic interests than taking part in a family.
today, i look at the idea of starting my own family as a danger to avoid, rather than a future to plan for. even if i were to accidentally find a partner, i wouldn't want to be around their family. and, i have simply never enjoyed being around children. i would be as terribly disinterested as i've always been - i may even find myself needing to get out of the house to relieve the stress from dealing with so many people at once. it's not outside of the realm of possibility to imagine me taking off to go for a bike ride, or even have a beer, while my partner is stuck preparing food and dealing with kids that i don't have any interest in. the simple reality is that i'm honestly much happier reading by myself.
but, what about friends? if you hate family, don't you at least want friends?
you should probably think that through, as it doesn't make as much sense as you think it does, but, sure - i've had friends. i've been to christmas parties. and, it's actually always been the same thing - people bunched together talking about video games or tv shows that i don't know anything about, leaving me horribly bored and nursing my beer. so, you go through the motions of going to the party because you're supposed to, but you don't enjoy it, and you really wish you were somewhere else. i would often find myself drunk at christmas parties, simply because i didn't have any way to relate to the people that were supposed to be my friends. i know: find new friends, right? except that when you put a group of introverted nerds in a room together, they all ignore each other and read by themselves.
i don't think friendship is possible in a capitalist society, but i'll spare you that rant for now. the point i'm making is just that this idea that "friends and family are what's important" is not a universal value, and there are some people that would argue that individual pursuits are the highest pinnacle of achievement, rather than identifying as a part of a group.
i don't want to share these days with other people; i prefer and even need the time alone, to myself.
but, it's not just my politics, it's my personality, although the politics no doubt derive from the personality. introverts are not figments of the psychologist's imagination; we do exist. i will remind you that the reason i live on disability is due to social anxiety, meaning i'm even clinically diagnosed with preferring to avoid people, to the point that i'm being excused from having to work (for the time being). so, how would one really expect a heavily introverted anarchist with extreme social anxiety to spend the holidays?
i'm not interested in having a family, and i've never enjoyed spending time with friends. but, isn't that just something that losers say as an excuse? it really isn't.
of course, i grew up in a family, and it is true that my father is now dead, but everybody else is still alive - if hundreds of kilometres away. what you might not realize is that i wouldn't have spent the holidays with my family even when my father was alive, and they were right in front of me. when i lived on my own, i would routinely reject family get-togethers, because i didn't want to spend my leisure time with my family - i'd rather spend it reading, or listening to and/or writing music. there were some years where i was working 50 hour weeks, or deeply invested in school. to me, the holidays were a way to immerse myself in my own interests, not a way to get to know my family. i needed the alone time. my dad could get usually get me out for a few hours on one day, but i made sure they knew that was going to be the extent of it; i would be completely absent from any family life for 20 out of 21 days, and fully on my own prerogative. even when i lived at home, i was the kind of teenager and twenty-something that spent the holidays in my room with the door closed. parades of family members and family friends would come through without me opening the door for more than a few seconds to acknowledge them. or, often, i would come out of the bedroom only to eat, and go back in the moment my last bite was finished, probably even taking coffee or even dessert with me. in some cases, i may not have liked the specific individuals involved, but i was broadly simply more interested in pursuing my own individualistic interests than taking part in a family.
today, i look at the idea of starting my own family as a danger to avoid, rather than a future to plan for. even if i were to accidentally find a partner, i wouldn't want to be around their family. and, i have simply never enjoyed being around children. i would be as terribly disinterested as i've always been - i may even find myself needing to get out of the house to relieve the stress from dealing with so many people at once. it's not outside of the realm of possibility to imagine me taking off to go for a bike ride, or even have a beer, while my partner is stuck preparing food and dealing with kids that i don't have any interest in. the simple reality is that i'm honestly much happier reading by myself.
but, what about friends? if you hate family, don't you at least want friends?
you should probably think that through, as it doesn't make as much sense as you think it does, but, sure - i've had friends. i've been to christmas parties. and, it's actually always been the same thing - people bunched together talking about video games or tv shows that i don't know anything about, leaving me horribly bored and nursing my beer. so, you go through the motions of going to the party because you're supposed to, but you don't enjoy it, and you really wish you were somewhere else. i would often find myself drunk at christmas parties, simply because i didn't have any way to relate to the people that were supposed to be my friends. i know: find new friends, right? except that when you put a group of introverted nerds in a room together, they all ignore each other and read by themselves.
i don't think friendship is possible in a capitalist society, but i'll spare you that rant for now. the point i'm making is just that this idea that "friends and family are what's important" is not a universal value, and there are some people that would argue that individual pursuits are the highest pinnacle of achievement, rather than identifying as a part of a group.
i don't want to share these days with other people; i prefer and even need the time alone, to myself.
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
so, i guess that was a different type of head clear.
i'm trying to detox, and it's being obfuscated by whomever is upstairs smoking. what can i say? i can't sleep forever.
i forced myself to suffer through it today and got most of the email over 2016 pulled down this afternoon, so that will be my next posting update.
for right now, i'm very tired. unfortunately.
and, i'll need to make some calls tomorrow; whomever the drug addict upstairs is is just incentivizing me to sue.
i'm trying to detox, and it's being obfuscated by whomever is upstairs smoking. what can i say? i can't sleep forever.
i forced myself to suffer through it today and got most of the email over 2016 pulled down this afternoon, so that will be my next posting update.
for right now, i'm very tired. unfortunately.
and, i'll need to make some calls tomorrow; whomever the drug addict upstairs is is just incentivizing me to sue.
i've been clear repeatedly: i think the focus should be to go after businesses that use illegal labour, not to go after the labourers, themselves. the longstanding republican approach, which trump is just amplifying, is a type of supply-side economics: they argue that by controlling the supply of labour, they can reduce the demand for it. this is incoherent everywhere it is applied, but they do it all of the time...
what the policy should be focused on is reducing demand, not controlling the supply. what you need to do with this is to make sure that the laws that exist are enforced and that companies that hire illegal workers are severely prosecuted for it.
if the demand for cheap labour were to dry up, the movement across the border would stop, too.
that said, you can't expect a government to do that on it's own, because a government always operates in the interests of capital - unless a popular uprising exists. the pre-requisite to shutting down businesses that hire illegal workers is a strong workers movement. but, the unions have all been brought along side the interests of capital, so you don't get any meaningful action. and, sadly, the hierarchy is designed so that even unionized workers can take advantage of cheap strawberries.
so, instead of the necessary worker movement, you just get right-wing politicians taking advantage of the situation to gain votes to get into power.
the failure is at the worker level - workers need to organize to ensure that the standards they've fought for are actually being observed for everybody.
in the short term, forcing people to go through a checkpoint at least ensures we know they're here, which makes it easier to track employers that want to exploit them - and everybody else.
what the policy should be focused on is reducing demand, not controlling the supply. what you need to do with this is to make sure that the laws that exist are enforced and that companies that hire illegal workers are severely prosecuted for it.
if the demand for cheap labour were to dry up, the movement across the border would stop, too.
that said, you can't expect a government to do that on it's own, because a government always operates in the interests of capital - unless a popular uprising exists. the pre-requisite to shutting down businesses that hire illegal workers is a strong workers movement. but, the unions have all been brought along side the interests of capital, so you don't get any meaningful action. and, sadly, the hierarchy is designed so that even unionized workers can take advantage of cheap strawberries.
so, instead of the necessary worker movement, you just get right-wing politicians taking advantage of the situation to gain votes to get into power.
the failure is at the worker level - workers need to organize to ensure that the standards they've fought for are actually being observed for everybody.
in the short term, forcing people to go through a checkpoint at least ensures we know they're here, which makes it easier to track employers that want to exploit them - and everybody else.
fwiw, i actually don't have an opinion on a border fence.
democrats are bizarrely fixated on the price. but, it's an infrastructure project, so it should pay for itself via multiplier effects; it should also create some long term employment around the administration of it. so, if you want to tell me that the reason you oppose the wall is because you're opposed to deficit spending, i'm not on your side on that at all - and every time i hear a democrat say something about how america can't afford the wall, i write them off as a conservative. on purely economic terms, it's a great idea, and i'm all for it.
now, if you want to talk about the humanitarian basis of it, that's something else. a "great wall of texas", if effective, would cut off legitimate refugee claims, even as it cuts down on economic migrants. and, yes - i would support a schengen agreement with the nafta partners in principle, but only on the premise that mexico can secure it's southern borders. once labour mobility is established across the trade zone, and the border is properly secured, then you can talk about extending it to the next leg, subject to the central american countries meeting certain conditions about labour standards. for right now, i would support attempts to limit the movement of economic migrants; the focus should be on helping them improve the conditions in their home countries.
everybody knows they're being used as ways to avoid obeying labour laws, which both exploits them and undercuts legal workers. there's nothing left-wing about housing them in a church for a few weeks, and then helping them get a job for half of the minimum wage, and no benefits - and if you think there is, you're just a useful idiot for capital. this doesn't improve working conditions, it doesn't build revolutionary potential, it doesn't do anything of value to the left at all - it just cements the existing system in place buy buying into calvinist ideas about work ethic, and perpetuating the lie that we call the "american dream". wide open borders don't help anybody except the bourgeois class.
it is for this reason that i remain skeptical that any meaningful barrier will be built - it is not in the interests of capital to erect a border barrier. the local food industries would have to pay people, all of a sudden. and, the elite couldn't buy their guatemalan house slaves any more. it would be a catastrophe.
but, the thing is that i'm not sure the narrative around the wall is realistic. putting aside the realities of the interests of capital, if we are to oppose the wall because it would prevent refugee claims, well, ok, but would a wall really do that? or would it act as a check point, thereby merely slowing down the process of admittance?
i think trump is imagining that the wall is just going to have a couple of soldiers patrolling it, as a complete separation between the two countries - that the wall will cut migration down to zero by making it impossible to get through. but, of course, this is delusional. these people will just appear at the border and make their claims, anyways. the difference is in increasing the ability to manage existing migration, rather than altering it, and is that particularly awful?
see, and this is really the crux of it - i've said before that i would oppose the wall on humanitarian grounds (rather than economic grounds. i would support it on economic grounds.), but the more i've thought it through, the less i think it really matters. so, i find myself without much of an opinion, because i don't imagine it would really make a lot of difference.
of course, i live in canada. the shut down affects me more than the wall does.
....but when you strip away all of the alarmism and reactionary propaganda from both sides, the most substantive analysis is probably simply that "it would be good for the economy".
democrats are bizarrely fixated on the price. but, it's an infrastructure project, so it should pay for itself via multiplier effects; it should also create some long term employment around the administration of it. so, if you want to tell me that the reason you oppose the wall is because you're opposed to deficit spending, i'm not on your side on that at all - and every time i hear a democrat say something about how america can't afford the wall, i write them off as a conservative. on purely economic terms, it's a great idea, and i'm all for it.
now, if you want to talk about the humanitarian basis of it, that's something else. a "great wall of texas", if effective, would cut off legitimate refugee claims, even as it cuts down on economic migrants. and, yes - i would support a schengen agreement with the nafta partners in principle, but only on the premise that mexico can secure it's southern borders. once labour mobility is established across the trade zone, and the border is properly secured, then you can talk about extending it to the next leg, subject to the central american countries meeting certain conditions about labour standards. for right now, i would support attempts to limit the movement of economic migrants; the focus should be on helping them improve the conditions in their home countries.
everybody knows they're being used as ways to avoid obeying labour laws, which both exploits them and undercuts legal workers. there's nothing left-wing about housing them in a church for a few weeks, and then helping them get a job for half of the minimum wage, and no benefits - and if you think there is, you're just a useful idiot for capital. this doesn't improve working conditions, it doesn't build revolutionary potential, it doesn't do anything of value to the left at all - it just cements the existing system in place buy buying into calvinist ideas about work ethic, and perpetuating the lie that we call the "american dream". wide open borders don't help anybody except the bourgeois class.
it is for this reason that i remain skeptical that any meaningful barrier will be built - it is not in the interests of capital to erect a border barrier. the local food industries would have to pay people, all of a sudden. and, the elite couldn't buy their guatemalan house slaves any more. it would be a catastrophe.
but, the thing is that i'm not sure the narrative around the wall is realistic. putting aside the realities of the interests of capital, if we are to oppose the wall because it would prevent refugee claims, well, ok, but would a wall really do that? or would it act as a check point, thereby merely slowing down the process of admittance?
i think trump is imagining that the wall is just going to have a couple of soldiers patrolling it, as a complete separation between the two countries - that the wall will cut migration down to zero by making it impossible to get through. but, of course, this is delusional. these people will just appear at the border and make their claims, anyways. the difference is in increasing the ability to manage existing migration, rather than altering it, and is that particularly awful?
see, and this is really the crux of it - i've said before that i would oppose the wall on humanitarian grounds (rather than economic grounds. i would support it on economic grounds.), but the more i've thought it through, the less i think it really matters. so, i find myself without much of an opinion, because i don't imagine it would really make a lot of difference.
of course, i live in canada. the shut down affects me more than the wall does.
....but when you strip away all of the alarmism and reactionary propaganda from both sides, the most substantive analysis is probably simply that "it would be good for the economy".
i actually agree that seven is way too old for santa, and if your kids are still talking about santa at seven you should be ashamed of yourself, as a parent.
my parents tried to pull that shit on me too, but i didn't fall for it for a second. i was the kid that pointed out that we don't have a chimney, and the story doesn't even add up. flying reindeer? what?
but, what i'm more interested in here is this thing we say to kids.
"do you believe in santa?"
...because that is the same thing as asking "do you believe in odin?".
despite christian attempts at burying it, santa claus as we understand it is actually an example of how chistianity tended to absorb local elements everywhere it went. christianity is not only deeply syncretic at it's core, a stew of mystery religions and socratic philosophy, but was constantly changing as it colonized new areas. nothern europe (including england, the netherlands, scandinavia, northern france and germany) had a shared pantheon of indo-european gods that we refer to as 'germanic', with odin at the top of it. odin was not exactly zeus, and not exactly hermes (the etymology of the latin term german), and not exactly mercury, although he was certainly mercurial, taking the shape of talking birds, amongst other things. but, he was the main god.
if the germans were to sacrifice a prisoner of war, they would sacrifice him to odin.
so, does your child believe in odin? well, that's perhaps less the point. what i'm trying to point out is that the question of belief in the indigenous religions of northern europe is being infantilized by the ritual, in favour of the invading jewish doctrine.
odin is for kids - and they'll grow out of it.
and, what that really is is colonization.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/south-carolina-girl-7-who-spoke-to-trump-about-santa-says-she-still-believes
my parents tried to pull that shit on me too, but i didn't fall for it for a second. i was the kid that pointed out that we don't have a chimney, and the story doesn't even add up. flying reindeer? what?
but, what i'm more interested in here is this thing we say to kids.
"do you believe in santa?"
...because that is the same thing as asking "do you believe in odin?".
despite christian attempts at burying it, santa claus as we understand it is actually an example of how chistianity tended to absorb local elements everywhere it went. christianity is not only deeply syncretic at it's core, a stew of mystery religions and socratic philosophy, but was constantly changing as it colonized new areas. nothern europe (including england, the netherlands, scandinavia, northern france and germany) had a shared pantheon of indo-european gods that we refer to as 'germanic', with odin at the top of it. odin was not exactly zeus, and not exactly hermes (the etymology of the latin term german), and not exactly mercury, although he was certainly mercurial, taking the shape of talking birds, amongst other things. but, he was the main god.
if the germans were to sacrifice a prisoner of war, they would sacrifice him to odin.
so, does your child believe in odin? well, that's perhaps less the point. what i'm trying to point out is that the question of belief in the indigenous religions of northern europe is being infantilized by the ritual, in favour of the invading jewish doctrine.
odin is for kids - and they'll grow out of it.
and, what that really is is colonization.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/south-carolina-girl-7-who-spoke-to-trump-about-santa-says-she-still-believes
hot & humid > cold & dry > cold & humid > hot & dry.
so, i would prefer a climate like malaysia or brazil to a climate like california, or israel.
i keep pointing out that i would NOT like the weather in california, or the culture, or the people, or the constant threat of natural disaster. it is NOT in a list of places i'd consider moving to, or even visiting. sorry.
florida would be a lot better, if it weren't for the hurricanes and floods.
but, i'd be happier in denmark. or italy.
so, i would prefer a climate like malaysia or brazil to a climate like california, or israel.
i keep pointing out that i would NOT like the weather in california, or the culture, or the people, or the constant threat of natural disaster. it is NOT in a list of places i'd consider moving to, or even visiting. sorry.
florida would be a lot better, if it weren't for the hurricanes and floods.
but, i'd be happier in denmark. or italy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)