the facts are pretty clear that we're on the path towards a majority atheist electorate, now, within a couple of cycles.
there is admittedly a threat to this that comes from overwhelmingly high levels of right-leaning recent immigrants, and it's something that atheists need to take seriously, but so long as we're vigilant about it and conscious enough about pushing for real integration - which the bill in quebec is an example of - it's something we should be able to handily overcome and convincingly defeat.
i try very hard to avoid being alarmist about immigration, while sticking to the facts the best i can. the facts are that high levels of low-income immigration into the urban cores where i live hurts low income people by straining the social system, and you can choose to blame that on underfunding or on immigration, but the basic fact of the matter holds itself steady - it creates a higher level of competition amongst people that are already having a hard time competing, and you'd only deny that if you're ignorant or stupid. people in the suburbs or in rural areas are more likely to be wealthy and consequently less likely to be affected by the increasing competition, even if they're more like likely to be christians. in the long run, we should expect christians and muslims to form an alliance with each other, because they're basically the same.
but, the facts are also that the power of atheism in the very near future should absolutely dwarf that of muslims. we might live in a country with 20% muslims within a generation or two - and that's a big change. but, such a society would also have 60% atheists.
so, i know who my biggest threats are, and i know what i need to be wary of. the sitting government is certainly moving in the wrong direction, on this, without question. but, i'm far more excited about the coming atheist supermajority than i am worried about the eclipse of christianity by islam.
we're going to win, it's going to be ok.
Sunday, September 15, 2019
i mean, it's a trick right out of orwell to suggest that rejecting a regression to medievalism is "conservatism" because it's pushing back against change, while supporting a societal regression is liberal because it's promoting "change".
and, i don't think that orwell invented the term reactionaryism.
and, i don't think that orwell invented the term reactionaryism.
no, it isn't, and tory media talking heads like john ibbitson can fuck right off for trying to make it one.
the party leaders need to be clear that this is a local issue that is intrinsically tied to quebecois self-determination, and the federal government has no role to play in interfering, before or after the election.
but, as a non-quebecker, the blunt, basic truth is that the election is too important to waste on a triviality that only exists inside of quebec. i don't fucking care, one way or the other.
the rest of the country has more important things to concern itself with.
worse, i'm flat out sick of muslims being at the centre of the political discourse. they're a small, privileged minority in this country and should not receive such a disproportionately high amount of space in the discussion. they're over-represented just about everywhere. we're a secular society that upholds liberal concepts of law, and we're going to get more secular and more liberal, if we can find a way to grapple with the demographic bulge and convert them all to heathenism. the discourse should better reflect it.
atheists intend to win this fight, you know.
again: i think they should have let the court clean it up. but, i don't think the basic purpose of the law is unconstitutional, and the reality is that you have to take an exceedingly conservative view of the constitution to think that it is, a view that may be popular in the institutions but has minimal support in actual case law.
i'd rather talk about the recent ruling on assisted suicide.
and, i insist this election be about anything else.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-quebecs-religious-symbols-ban-a-major-issue-in-federal-election/
the party leaders need to be clear that this is a local issue that is intrinsically tied to quebecois self-determination, and the federal government has no role to play in interfering, before or after the election.
but, as a non-quebecker, the blunt, basic truth is that the election is too important to waste on a triviality that only exists inside of quebec. i don't fucking care, one way or the other.
the rest of the country has more important things to concern itself with.
worse, i'm flat out sick of muslims being at the centre of the political discourse. they're a small, privileged minority in this country and should not receive such a disproportionately high amount of space in the discussion. they're over-represented just about everywhere. we're a secular society that upholds liberal concepts of law, and we're going to get more secular and more liberal, if we can find a way to grapple with the demographic bulge and convert them all to heathenism. the discourse should better reflect it.
atheists intend to win this fight, you know.
again: i think they should have let the court clean it up. but, i don't think the basic purpose of the law is unconstitutional, and the reality is that you have to take an exceedingly conservative view of the constitution to think that it is, a view that may be popular in the institutions but has minimal support in actual case law.
i'd rather talk about the recent ruling on assisted suicide.
and, i insist this election be about anything else.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-quebecs-religious-symbols-ban-a-major-issue-in-federal-election/
so, there's an election in canada, and this is an issue: what's the correct take on the new nafta? is this better or worse?
it's not obvious...
i followed the discussions relatively closely up to a point, and then i more or less tuned out entirely, and there's a series of reasons for it. one of the more embarrassing things to have to deal with during the process was realizing that canada was taking an explicitly pro-investor position on the deal, while trump was legitimately pushing for workers' rights. trudeau is several degrees to the right of trump on this issue; trudeau isn't even a corporatist democrat like obama, he's more of a market conservative like elizabeth warren or paul ryan. like, you couldn't even get one of those trademark platitudes out of trudeau on the issue - he was strictly, 100% concerned about the rights of canadian investors. that's the actual reason he tried to build a common front with mexico - his dominant interest was insuring that the investor class didn't take a hit.
on the issue of environmental and labour standards, trump did come through on this, even if he had to cut trudeau out of the discussion and make the deal directly with mexico. enforcement is always another question, but at least the text of the deal is better for workers, on it's face.
i would have liked to completely abolish chapter 19, as it has done nothing but harm for workers on both sides of the border. unfortunately, our government - interested solely in the rights of investors - refused to sign on unless it was included. that this position was insisted upon by a liberal government is to our great shame and national embarrassment.
so, i'm standing over here on the far left and that's twice that i agree with trump on free trade and disagree with trudeau.
yes, it's going to give the pharmaceuticals more patent rights for a specific class of new drugs, but if we can bring in pharmacare then we can socialize the cost of it. so, it's a different discussion up here. i may oppose it in principle, but i'm more in support of pharmacare than i am in opposition to intellectual property rights, so it's the former i'd rather focus on (and the best way to do that is to reduce the liberals to a minority and then let them take credit for it as a vote-buying scheme, not to elect an ndp government that is going to see it die in committee). might a spike in costs actually help piss people off?
there's some opening up of the dairy market that was probably unnecessary, but that's not sustainable in the long run. quebec will start a civil war before it gives up supply management. and, what consultation was there with quebec, who has not signed our constitution? they may even just ignore the agreement.
trade experts claim it'll probably be a wash, in terms of gdp, with the united states benefiting slightly at the expense of canada and mexico. i can't blame them for that. i have to blame my own government for that.
so, i almost want to suggest separating apathy over the deal from opposition to my own government around it. i neither see a reason to oppose the deal any more strenuously than i already opposed it, nor a reason to ease up on my existing strenuous opposition. so, i'm still of the opinion that we need to renegotiate nafta, and i'm still likely to vote for people arguing for a renegotiation of nafta. in that sense, the whole thing was really just a stupid waste of time. but, the process badly exposed both the deep incompetence of justin trudeau and the deep incompetence of his team, particularly the incompetence of chrystia freeland, who i would really like to see lose her seat in this election.
so, given that abolition is not an option and the choice is between the old nafta and the new nafta, do you support this or not?
i don't think there's a clear answer. you need to look at it closely and figure out what your self-interests are.
it's not obvious...
i followed the discussions relatively closely up to a point, and then i more or less tuned out entirely, and there's a series of reasons for it. one of the more embarrassing things to have to deal with during the process was realizing that canada was taking an explicitly pro-investor position on the deal, while trump was legitimately pushing for workers' rights. trudeau is several degrees to the right of trump on this issue; trudeau isn't even a corporatist democrat like obama, he's more of a market conservative like elizabeth warren or paul ryan. like, you couldn't even get one of those trademark platitudes out of trudeau on the issue - he was strictly, 100% concerned about the rights of canadian investors. that's the actual reason he tried to build a common front with mexico - his dominant interest was insuring that the investor class didn't take a hit.
on the issue of environmental and labour standards, trump did come through on this, even if he had to cut trudeau out of the discussion and make the deal directly with mexico. enforcement is always another question, but at least the text of the deal is better for workers, on it's face.
i would have liked to completely abolish chapter 19, as it has done nothing but harm for workers on both sides of the border. unfortunately, our government - interested solely in the rights of investors - refused to sign on unless it was included. that this position was insisted upon by a liberal government is to our great shame and national embarrassment.
so, i'm standing over here on the far left and that's twice that i agree with trump on free trade and disagree with trudeau.
yes, it's going to give the pharmaceuticals more patent rights for a specific class of new drugs, but if we can bring in pharmacare then we can socialize the cost of it. so, it's a different discussion up here. i may oppose it in principle, but i'm more in support of pharmacare than i am in opposition to intellectual property rights, so it's the former i'd rather focus on (and the best way to do that is to reduce the liberals to a minority and then let them take credit for it as a vote-buying scheme, not to elect an ndp government that is going to see it die in committee). might a spike in costs actually help piss people off?
there's some opening up of the dairy market that was probably unnecessary, but that's not sustainable in the long run. quebec will start a civil war before it gives up supply management. and, what consultation was there with quebec, who has not signed our constitution? they may even just ignore the agreement.
trade experts claim it'll probably be a wash, in terms of gdp, with the united states benefiting slightly at the expense of canada and mexico. i can't blame them for that. i have to blame my own government for that.
so, i almost want to suggest separating apathy over the deal from opposition to my own government around it. i neither see a reason to oppose the deal any more strenuously than i already opposed it, nor a reason to ease up on my existing strenuous opposition. so, i'm still of the opinion that we need to renegotiate nafta, and i'm still likely to vote for people arguing for a renegotiation of nafta. in that sense, the whole thing was really just a stupid waste of time. but, the process badly exposed both the deep incompetence of justin trudeau and the deep incompetence of his team, particularly the incompetence of chrystia freeland, who i would really like to see lose her seat in this election.
so, given that abolition is not an option and the choice is between the old nafta and the new nafta, do you support this or not?
i don't think there's a clear answer. you need to look at it closely and figure out what your self-interests are.
Saturday, September 14, 2019
back at the end of july or the beginning of august, i suggested that we might have the last serious weekend of the summer as early as the first or second weekend of august. that's a crazy suggestion, right? was i right?
well, let's first understand that i'm talking about overnights. in mid-summer, i'm often going to leave the house at 20:00 or 21:00 and come back at 9:00 or 10:00 the next morning. to me, that's a good summer night. so, i want warm temperatures overnight! i know some people may even hate me for it, but the mid-afternoon heat is kind of irrelevant to me, if i'm sleeping through it.
further, warm temperatures overnight should mean that the low is not much lower than 20 degrees - so, like, 17, minimum. when it came to weekends, we didn't get many more after the 4th. one, in fact - the 16th-18th, due to the hurricane. next weekend may be a nice surprise, but we'll see what happens...
so, there may have been some hot days this august, and that's not surprising. it's august. where were the hot nights? again: some of you may even be happy about it. but, i like the heat...
blue checks are the days i was outside partying in some way or another. highlighted dates are the warm overnights. underlined reds are the cold-ish ones. black xes are the weekends i stayed in.
well, let's first understand that i'm talking about overnights. in mid-summer, i'm often going to leave the house at 20:00 or 21:00 and come back at 9:00 or 10:00 the next morning. to me, that's a good summer night. so, i want warm temperatures overnight! i know some people may even hate me for it, but the mid-afternoon heat is kind of irrelevant to me, if i'm sleeping through it.
further, warm temperatures overnight should mean that the low is not much lower than 20 degrees - so, like, 17, minimum. when it came to weekends, we didn't get many more after the 4th. one, in fact - the 16th-18th, due to the hurricane. next weekend may be a nice surprise, but we'll see what happens...
so, there may have been some hot days this august, and that's not surprising. it's august. where were the hot nights? again: some of you may even be happy about it. but, i like the heat...
blue checks are the days i was outside partying in some way or another. highlighted dates are the warm overnights. underlined reds are the cold-ish ones. black xes are the weekends i stayed in.
...but, here in the north, we're also about to embark on our yearly retreat from the sun.
i wasn't planning on going anywhere this week anyways, but they've cut the temperature down a little. it's not cold this weekend, exactly, but the overnights are dipping to below 15 degrees celsius, and it's not going to be fun to be out in at 5:00 or 6:00.
the forecast for next weekend looks a tad better, but i somehow doubt that's going to actually happen. we'll see, i guess.
i wasn't planning on going anywhere this week anyways, but they've cut the temperature down a little. it's not cold this weekend, exactly, but the overnights are dipping to below 15 degrees celsius, and it's not going to be fun to be out in at 5:00 or 6:00.
the forecast for next weekend looks a tad better, but i somehow doubt that's going to actually happen. we'll see, i guess.
and what causes those high pressure systems? atmospheric cooling.
there may be potential for something like this to push the jetstream in the east, where i am, down even further. the way that would work would be that the warm temperatures in the north pacific would keep the jetstream high up over alaska, thereby plunging it south through the middle of the continent. this would result in a warmer than usual fall in the west, and deep freezes in the east - along with serious late fall tornado activity in the plain states. so, it could be the kind of year here you get frost days in florida.
it would go away when the high pressure system lifts, and the imminent return of the sun would have to help.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/the-2019-blob-pacific-ocean-weather-patterns-autumn-fall
there may be potential for something like this to push the jetstream in the east, where i am, down even further. the way that would work would be that the warm temperatures in the north pacific would keep the jetstream high up over alaska, thereby plunging it south through the middle of the continent. this would result in a warmer than usual fall in the west, and deep freezes in the east - along with serious late fall tornado activity in the plain states. so, it could be the kind of year here you get frost days in florida.
it would go away when the high pressure system lifts, and the imminent return of the sun would have to help.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/the-2019-blob-pacific-ocean-weather-patterns-autumn-fall
this is a simple, easy-to-understand summary of what i was saying that cites a recently released report for relevance:
https://theconversation.com/ipccs-land-report-shows-the-problem-with-farming-based-around-oil-not-soil-121643
https://theconversation.com/ipccs-land-report-shows-the-problem-with-farming-based-around-oil-not-soil-121643
Friday, September 13, 2019
there are some python films that i saw over and over again through my teenage years, and there are some that i saw once or twice in elementary school, and there are some that i haven't seen at all.
i do know that i saw the life of bryan when i was very very small, but i don't remember seeing it twice, and i remember thinking it was kind of slow-moving and not very funny. granted, i may have missed some context, given that i was about ten years old or something. but, it hasn't really come up much, since.
i don't really feel that missing a reference, however disingenuously cited, is particularly damaging to my credibility, and i apologize if you disagree and feel that it's absolutely pertinent, but i have to think you've somehow lost the plot if that's your takeaway from the process.
my father would have no doubt been quickly on it, but it's because he actually lived through it. my own knowledge of the troupe is mostly second-hand, given that i was born in 1981, which was after their most well known work had already been completed.
i do know that i saw the life of bryan when i was very very small, but i don't remember seeing it twice, and i remember thinking it was kind of slow-moving and not very funny. granted, i may have missed some context, given that i was about ten years old or something. but, it hasn't really come up much, since.
i don't really feel that missing a reference, however disingenuously cited, is particularly damaging to my credibility, and i apologize if you disagree and feel that it's absolutely pertinent, but i have to think you've somehow lost the plot if that's your takeaway from the process.
my father would have no doubt been quickly on it, but it's because he actually lived through it. my own knowledge of the troupe is mostly second-hand, given that i was born in 1981, which was after their most well known work had already been completed.
every legal scholar in the country knew this was going to happen, immediately after the bill was paassed.
and, i've actually cited it as evidence of wilson-raybould's less than stellar performance as justice minister. the drunk driving law is going to get struck down, too.
so, what does trudeau do?
well, first off, i guess it's now an election issue, isn't it? so, i would, first of all, recommend upholding the ruling.
then, if the liberals win, he needs to admit that his first ag was a dud, and let the one he's got now work it out. and, he may even be advised to recall some of her other bills prematurely, to prevent the court from wasting it's time with it.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/09/13/trudeau-facing-tough-choices-as-quebec-judge-strikes-down-federal-limits-on-assisted-dying.html
and, i've actually cited it as evidence of wilson-raybould's less than stellar performance as justice minister. the drunk driving law is going to get struck down, too.
so, what does trudeau do?
well, first off, i guess it's now an election issue, isn't it? so, i would, first of all, recommend upholding the ruling.
then, if the liberals win, he needs to admit that his first ag was a dud, and let the one he's got now work it out. and, he may even be advised to recall some of her other bills prematurely, to prevent the court from wasting it's time with it.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/09/13/trudeau-facing-tough-choices-as-quebec-judge-strikes-down-federal-limits-on-assisted-dying.html
so, i did watch the debate, and i essentially think i wasted time doing it.
- biden looked older, yet again. but, the base is old....
- i already know that warren is a neo-liberal pretending to be something she isn't
- harris was a clown
- sanders was disappointing
- booker seemed too smart for his audience.
- everybody else wasted some time
meh.
- biden looked older, yet again. but, the base is old....
- i already know that warren is a neo-liberal pretending to be something she isn't
- harris was a clown
- sanders was disappointing
- booker seemed too smart for his audience.
- everybody else wasted some time
meh.
and, booker.
same analysis as previous: cory booker is actually smart. he's not just pretending to be that way, not just projecting it, not just playing a smart guy on tv.
and, it's interesting to hear him talk. i'd like to drag him out to a few more of these things, because he's making positive contributions to the discussion.
but, his policies are questionable.
and, his appeal is perhaps marginal.
in the end, he may do better with white voters than black voters.
same analysis as previous: cory booker is actually smart. he's not just pretending to be that way, not just projecting it, not just playing a smart guy on tv.
and, it's interesting to hear him talk. i'd like to drag him out to a few more of these things, because he's making positive contributions to the discussion.
but, his policies are questionable.
and, his appeal is perhaps marginal.
in the end, he may do better with white voters than black voters.
beto's answer there to the sunrise/cowspiracy question was sneaky.
the idea that the tariffs are behind this is pretty specious. this is a decades old debate in brazil that broke open with the recent election of the far right, which was perhaps helped along by us interests, but was largely an internal process.
he's at least right to tie it to soy beans, though.
listen: there's no question that deforestation in brazil is a problem, and that it's tied to unsustainable land use decisions. but, what are the actual facts, here?
1) Five percent of all beef — chilled, frozen and cooked — imported to the USA is from Brazil, according to Cassandra Fish, a cattle and beef market expert.
2) This year’s import contribution is projected to fall below 9% - just slightly under the overall average of 9.3% dating back to 2000.
let's be generous - let's say a full 10% of beef is imported.
5% of 10% is 0.5%.
3) The top exports of Brazil are Soybeans ($25.9B), Iron Ore ($20.1B), Crude Petroleum ($17.4B), Raw Sugar ($11.4B) and Cars ($6.78B).
the idea that the tariffs are behind this is pretty specious. this is a decades old debate in brazil that broke open with the recent election of the far right, which was perhaps helped along by us interests, but was largely an internal process.
he's at least right to tie it to soy beans, though.
listen: there's no question that deforestation in brazil is a problem, and that it's tied to unsustainable land use decisions. but, what are the actual facts, here?
1) Five percent of all beef — chilled, frozen and cooked — imported to the USA is from Brazil, according to Cassandra Fish, a cattle and beef market expert.
2) This year’s import contribution is projected to fall below 9% - just slightly under the overall average of 9.3% dating back to 2000.
let's be generous - let's say a full 10% of beef is imported.
5% of 10% is 0.5%.
3) The top exports of Brazil are Soybeans ($25.9B), Iron Ore ($20.1B), Crude Petroleum ($17.4B), Raw Sugar ($11.4B) and Cars ($6.78B).
and, again: livestock consumption is not a significant driver of climate change in the united states. it is only about 3-5% of total emissions, and only about 33% of agricultural emissions. that means that two thirds of emissions from agriculture come from plants.
buttigieg was right on this point: that's a republican talking point. more importantly, it's an industry talking point.
it's a distraction.
and, it lets us know who is paying for the event.
buttigieg was right on this point: that's a republican talking point. more importantly, it's an industry talking point.
it's a distraction.
and, it lets us know who is paying for the event.
so, i've noticed this with buttigieg before, and i'm not going to go into details because i can't be bothered.
...but he states a lot of things that aren't true. he often does so with great confidence, as he attempts to project himself as an educated elite, and maybe that works in nowheresville, indiana, but the pretentious presentation of his mistruths don't actually make them more true.
now, i'm not exactly calling him a liar. i actually think the truth is that he's badly misinformed, and probably because he gets his information from poor sources.
there are two types of stupid people on this planet: those that know they're stupid, and those that don't. it's the ones that don't know it that scare me.
i've seen enough of him, and hope he stops wasting his time, soon.
...but he states a lot of things that aren't true. he often does so with great confidence, as he attempts to project himself as an educated elite, and maybe that works in nowheresville, indiana, but the pretentious presentation of his mistruths don't actually make them more true.
now, i'm not exactly calling him a liar. i actually think the truth is that he's badly misinformed, and probably because he gets his information from poor sources.
there are two types of stupid people on this planet: those that know they're stupid, and those that don't. it's the ones that don't know it that scare me.
i've seen enough of him, and hope he stops wasting his time, soon.
so, i'm not feeling like going out anywhere tonight, which means i've cleared my schedule out until next friday. that gives me a full seven days to get these lawsuits in order, and i'm setting a goal for myself to have the crux of it worked out by monday, when i'm going to need to start making a number of calls.
so, that's this week...
so, that's this week...
there's something afoot in canada right now.
we're collectively fed up. this is a "throw the bums out" election, but we just can't find a better bum.
these scenarios are unpredictable. but, what's going to happen is predictably unpredictable, and that means you can take some rough guesses.
when the smoke clears, expect a lot of dead bodies, and a few unexpected winners.
we're collectively fed up. this is a "throw the bums out" election, but we just can't find a better bum.
these scenarios are unpredictable. but, what's going to happen is predictably unpredictable, and that means you can take some rough guesses.
when the smoke clears, expect a lot of dead bodies, and a few unexpected winners.
when i am agreeing with jonathan kay's defense of elizabeth may, we've already descended into the rabbit hole.
it's a legal issue, it's not a political one. abortion rights are under no threat in this country. and, sane people should be pushing back against the demagoguery around the idea that they are.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jonathan-kay-why-progressives-desperately-stifle-any-dissent-on-abortion-even-from-elizabeth-may
it's a legal issue, it's not a political one. abortion rights are under no threat in this country. and, sane people should be pushing back against the demagoguery around the idea that they are.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jonathan-kay-why-progressives-desperately-stifle-any-dissent-on-abortion-even-from-elizabeth-may
listen, i want to be clear on the point: i have, in the past, loudly argued for the ouster of elizabeth may, and the reasoning behind it was largely to do with her religious beliefs (i don't think that ordained ministers should even be allowed to run for city council, let alone prime minister, however nominally). the evidence is in this mass of posts.
so, do not mistake me for an elizabeth may fan, and do not mistake my endorsement as genuine. if i thought she had any chance at governing, i would be endorsing a spoiled ballot, at this point.
but, she is the least worst option, by far, in a group of absolutely terrible options.
i could grade them like this:
scheer - F
trudeau - F
singh - F
may - C-
maybe the point is a little clearer, when i put it like that.
my support for the greens is as a protest vote. i'm not voting with my heart, i'm voting with my colon. if it leads to a broken parliament, that's the desire - it's intended to fuck things up, to cause chaos, to generate instability.
the ultimate aim needs to be the resignation of justin trudeau. reducing him to a minority is a step on that path. the greens are in the right place at the right time to use for that purpose.
and, it won't be very far into the future until i'm back to arguing that may needs to resign for the greens to get to the next level.
so, do not mistake me for an elizabeth may fan, and do not mistake my endorsement as genuine. if i thought she had any chance at governing, i would be endorsing a spoiled ballot, at this point.
but, she is the least worst option, by far, in a group of absolutely terrible options.
i could grade them like this:
scheer - F
trudeau - F
singh - F
may - C-
maybe the point is a little clearer, when i put it like that.
my support for the greens is as a protest vote. i'm not voting with my heart, i'm voting with my colon. if it leads to a broken parliament, that's the desire - it's intended to fuck things up, to cause chaos, to generate instability.
the ultimate aim needs to be the resignation of justin trudeau. reducing him to a minority is a step on that path. the greens are in the right place at the right time to use for that purpose.
and, it won't be very far into the future until i'm back to arguing that may needs to resign for the greens to get to the next level.
i have to say this, though.
it's really tiring - annoying, actually - to hear singh consistently relate every question to a baseless anecdote. it's all this "i met with..." or "i talked to...", as though that means anything.
i don't care who you met with, or who you talked to.
i met with the abominable snowman, and he told me about the existential threats to his habitat that come with climate change. he told me about the sorrow he felt, after losing the last yeti. when will it end?
stop this bullshit. give me policies. give me facts. give me data. this is supposed to be an adult conversation. keep your stories for your children.....
it's really tiring - annoying, actually - to hear singh consistently relate every question to a baseless anecdote. it's all this "i met with..." or "i talked to...", as though that means anything.
i don't care who you met with, or who you talked to.
i met with the abominable snowman, and he told me about the existential threats to his habitat that come with climate change. he told me about the sorrow he felt, after losing the last yeti. when will it end?
stop this bullshit. give me policies. give me facts. give me data. this is supposed to be an adult conversation. keep your stories for your children.....
i've watched a bunch of the canadian debate tonight, which is linked to below, and i'm convinced that trudeau made a dramatic error in skipping it.
a few things.
1) singh comes off as an empty suit. tepid. flat. uninspiring.
2) scheer is running on an issue - balanced budgets - that canadians don't care about. to an extent, he's speaking solely to his base, as they have almost no room for growth, but, in doing so, he's misunderstanding it. if this is his campaign, it's going to have turnout issues.
3) may exists. therefore, she wins.
canada is a deeply polarized country, politically, but the polarization is not symmetrical. the perpetual truth is that the motive of the vast majority of canadians is to vote against the conservative party, in some way. the empty podium on stage could just as well belong to stephen harper. by ceding the attack against scheer to his opponents, trudeau is diminishing his own relevance.
but, i keep saying this: they're stupid.
may killed it. over and over. she was the only serious candidate on stage. and, we'll see if it moves the numbers or not.
what i saw tonight is just more evidence for the tipping point.
a few things.
1) singh comes off as an empty suit. tepid. flat. uninspiring.
2) scheer is running on an issue - balanced budgets - that canadians don't care about. to an extent, he's speaking solely to his base, as they have almost no room for growth, but, in doing so, he's misunderstanding it. if this is his campaign, it's going to have turnout issues.
3) may exists. therefore, she wins.
canada is a deeply polarized country, politically, but the polarization is not symmetrical. the perpetual truth is that the motive of the vast majority of canadians is to vote against the conservative party, in some way. the empty podium on stage could just as well belong to stephen harper. by ceding the attack against scheer to his opponents, trudeau is diminishing his own relevance.
but, i keep saying this: they're stupid.
may killed it. over and over. she was the only serious candidate on stage. and, we'll see if it moves the numbers or not.
what i saw tonight is just more evidence for the tipping point.
this picture made me laugh in fits for twenty minutes.
he's been prime minister for, what, five minutes? first thing he does is lie to the queen.
i'm just imagining 65 million shocked brits.
did you lie to the queen, boris?
(boris can now be seen lowering his gaze, and fidgeting his foot)
boris. how could you?
he's been prime minister for, what, five minutes? first thing he does is lie to the queen.
i'm just imagining 65 million shocked brits.
did you lie to the queen, boris?
(boris can now be seen lowering his gaze, and fidgeting his foot)
boris. how could you?
Thursday, September 12, 2019
warren had the right answer for the cowspiracy people, anyways. that could very well turn out to be the most substantive part of this long, surreal charade.
she seems to think that the answer to the problem is to legislate emissions targets and let the market figure it out, a mentality that i would argue is actually a part of the problem. we're not going to solve the problems that markets have created in our society by insisting on the implementation of more markets, that's the definition of insanity. solving the climate crisis means turning market theory on it's head, which has been the entire crux of the movement on the left, from the start. what warren is saying sounds more in line with a greenwashing campaign, or the imposition of "green capitalism".
she seems wary of carbon taxes, and i share that lack of enthusiasm, but if you think a carbon tax will have minimal effect, why would you expect a regulatory process to have an effect? doesn't recognizing that people are willing to pay more for gas (at the expense of consumption spending in other sectors) imply realizing that businesses are willing to pay the fines as a cost of business and consumers are willing to eat cost increases as just another type of inflation? and, where do you think that banning behaviours or products is going to get you, if the reason you're resorting to it is that you can't find an incentive system that actually works?
i would not be likely to support these kinds of proposals. as more and more details of them emerge, you can expect me to be increasingly critical of them. and, i will debunk them using their own language, that is the language of market theory.
this should be seen as a defining difference between warren and sanders. the world needs america to pony up and spend on transition, not some more twentieth-century platitudes about incentivizing actors in free markets; that's been the status quo for thirty years.
she seems to think that the answer to the problem is to legislate emissions targets and let the market figure it out, a mentality that i would argue is actually a part of the problem. we're not going to solve the problems that markets have created in our society by insisting on the implementation of more markets, that's the definition of insanity. solving the climate crisis means turning market theory on it's head, which has been the entire crux of the movement on the left, from the start. what warren is saying sounds more in line with a greenwashing campaign, or the imposition of "green capitalism".
she seems wary of carbon taxes, and i share that lack of enthusiasm, but if you think a carbon tax will have minimal effect, why would you expect a regulatory process to have an effect? doesn't recognizing that people are willing to pay more for gas (at the expense of consumption spending in other sectors) imply realizing that businesses are willing to pay the fines as a cost of business and consumers are willing to eat cost increases as just another type of inflation? and, where do you think that banning behaviours or products is going to get you, if the reason you're resorting to it is that you can't find an incentive system that actually works?
i would not be likely to support these kinds of proposals. as more and more details of them emerge, you can expect me to be increasingly critical of them. and, i will debunk them using their own language, that is the language of market theory.
this should be seen as a defining difference between warren and sanders. the world needs america to pony up and spend on transition, not some more twentieth-century platitudes about incentivizing actors in free markets; that's been the status quo for thirty years.
so, it just decided not to bother warming up today - the temperature has been roughly steady since 2:00 this morning. i'm feeling like the better choice is to stay in for the night.
i took a gamble on the rain last night, deducing that the jet stream's retreat to just north of here would keep the humidity high and the storm path just far enough away to not bother me. i got that part right, but convection storms from the heat were stronger than i thought they would be and lingered into the early morning. it did clear up, but not before it rained pretty hard, and not until the bars were closed, and i didn't get my park party out of it. i had fun anyways, and have a few stories.
i left around 18:30 to try and catch a break in the rain - i knew it was going to rain again, but expected it to clear out around midnight. so, i expected the ride to hamtramck to need to be done in stints, kind of thing. it had been spitting off and on all day downtown (there were more serious storms elsewhere), but the convection finally broke moments after i got to the bus shelter. i checked today to see how much rain actually fell (it was a lot) and was reminded of the locality of it - i guess it wasn't raining at the airport, because the official record says it wasn't raining at all. but, a news report suggested there was 40 mm of rain in some parts of the city yesterday, which is a daily rainfall record.
those numbers can't be for downtown, where it was mostly dry before the skies opened, and the downpour only lasted twenty minutes. but, for those twenty minutes, it rained about as hard as it can rain. i wasn't in it; i actually found myself enjoying the after-rain air. detroit continues to have some serious air quality issues due to industrialization, so a good rainstorm is that much more refreshing when it hits. it's actually one of the better times to enjoy playing outside.
the ride to hamtramck was through thick humidity and sweaty as fuck, but the rain restrained itself until i got there - when it promptly started back up again. it mostly cleared out before the show was over, but the ride to the second bar was a little drizzly.
the first band, not ok, was actually pretty much ok. ok? ok. they did a style of generic emo-core. i'm going to leave it at that.
the savage seven seemed to downplay their silliness a little in the live setting, partly because the singer was a little less confident than i expected him to be. there's a swagger on the recording that is central to the presentation and was perhaps missing in the show. i'd encourage him to try and capture that better when he's performing. they're a kind of novelty act style rock band with a bit of a very early detroit rock feel, and they pulled it off at points in the set.
wizard rifle, a two piece guitar & drum duo, were on point, even if i was hoping for a longer set in a bar that cleared out before midnight. the mix was dominated by their powerful drummer, who, name-dropped influences aside, actually sounded most like dave grohl going to town. the guitar work is mostly riff-based, but it has an angularity to it that gives it a dose of manic energy, and he makes liberal use of an effects chain to scuzz up the sound. they wear their influences prominently, often jumping into sections that sound like they were taken directly from king crimson or lightning bolt tracks, but that's alright, because they mix it up and rip it apart. they appear to be from portland, and have relocated to detroit; this was the first night of a us tour, so they had some sound issues with the mix. basically, they need to turn the guitars and vocals up in order to compete with the muscular drumming.
as mentioned, the ride to the next bar was a little bit drizzly, but not too bad. i missed the actual event, some kind of industry mixer, while lost in a bit of my own drama: somewhere, somehow i lost a $20, which was also my last $20 for the night.
i strictly carry cash when i'm in detroit, because the banking system is a messy situation. i took money out of a machine in detroit for the first time a few weeks ago, but my debit card won't work. nor do i carry a credit card. so, if i run out of cash, i'll at least need to find a machine, and that machine will need to be on the right network. i'm also looking at around $10 in service charges because it's an international transaction. so, i'm generally fairly paranoid about this, because i know that if i run out of cash in detroit that i'm more or less shit out of luck until i get home.
it was around 1:00 or so when i went to the washroom and checked my pockets to see how much i had left; i had a vague idea that it was around $20, but i don't usually do my accounting until later. so, what's in my pocket?
- keys? check.
- lighter? check.
- three cards: nexus card (border), debit card, health card (ohip.)? check.
- ziploc bags (to protect things in the rain)? check.
- bus fare in cdn dollars? check.
- american money? nope.
wait.
- american money? nope.
that can't be right. let's try this again...
- american money? nope.
fuck.
now, i admit i was a little bit drunk - i was fully conscious and coherent and capable of walking in straight lines and stuff, but even a simple amount of accounting would have benefited from some kind of ledger, and wasn't likely to happen strictly mentally at that point, or at least not correctly. i was also a little flustered. if i had sat down and centered myself and worked out each transaction that had occurred over the night, it would have been immediately clear that i dropped it somewhere. all that i was able to process entirely right there was that i knew i came to detroit with three 20s, and i knew i'd only broken two of them. so, i knew i was missing a $20.
well, it didn't evaporate. it didn't develop locomotion and run away. i guess it might have been pick-pocketed, but what are the chances, really? so, when you lose something you retrace your steps, right?
i had made two transactions at the bar, to that point. i thought i had given the door a $5 bill for cover, and i thought i had given the bartender three one dollar bills for a beer. i'm usually a pretty good bean counter; if i'm going to screw up, it's because i'm going to drop something out of my pocket when i'm rummaging through, but everybody fucks up sometimes. so, maybe i gave one of them a twenty by accident. i can ask, right?
the bartender was pretty certain - he'd have remembered it, because he'd have been surprised by it. and, i had to make the point - i'm not being confrontational, i'm not making accusations, i've just lost some cash and am trying to figure out if i can find it.
the door person was a little less certain - she claimed she couldn't remember, but insisted that if she did then she'd have given me change. her honesty opened a window for me, because if she'd just had said "no. you gave me a $5.", i would have shrugged and walked off. the fact that she was like "i dunno. maybe you did give me a $20.", left me prodding her to remember, to be certain, to be sure; but, as that was happening, i remembered that i gave her a $5, so i had to apologize and walk off.
well, what's next? i might have dropped it near my bike...
nope.
by that point, i'd gotten over the initial shock and sobered up a little due to necessity (it's funny how that happens), so i was able to think it through a little better. i had $61. i spent $9 at the 7/11, $12 + $12 = $24 at the rock show, $5 on cover and $3 dollars on one beer at marble. so i should have.....$20. i should have had a $20, a $5 and three $1s on my way into the bar. if i had accidentally given the door person a $20, i'd still have the $5. if i had accidentally given the bartender a $20, i'd still have the $1. so, i lost the $20; this is my fault.
i made sure that the relevant people were aware of this fact, that i was taking responsibility for losing the cash and not blaming or accusing anybody, when i got back into the bar, went out for a smoke and started cruising for pot, instead.
but, then, something kind of cool happened: somebody tapped me on the shoulder and gave me the $20. it was found by bar staff on the ground.
(and, no, gay people are not recruited. but, i think you'd be being daft in taking that skit too seriously)
by that time, the bar was nearly closed, and the music had shut down, so i only got one more in before it was time to go - no dancing, not much talking, even.
nobody at the park...
i stopped at the gas station at trumbull & warren to get smokes, and lit one up before i got back on my bike. a car full of dudes screeches to a halt an inch from me, and a couple of them get out.
"how much?"
what?
"i said, how much?"
*pause*
no.
"but you're standing right there."
in front of my bike?
"i'm a go into the store, you stay right there."
i was gone before he came back out, and finished my smoke up at the benches on cass, just south of warren.
i had had 10 drinks and been gifted some pot at that point, so i was inebriated, but i was in control and the night was crystal clear until i got to the diner; i just got a coffee, but i seem to have dozed off, and it gets a little blurry for a bit around 4:00. i vaguely recall getting yelled at by a homeless person, but i don't recall the context.
i dozed off a second time at the bus stop, and had to be honked at by the driver to wake me up. but, i'm ok, clearly.
i got me some pasta.
i took me a shower.
and i slept most of the day.
i took a gamble on the rain last night, deducing that the jet stream's retreat to just north of here would keep the humidity high and the storm path just far enough away to not bother me. i got that part right, but convection storms from the heat were stronger than i thought they would be and lingered into the early morning. it did clear up, but not before it rained pretty hard, and not until the bars were closed, and i didn't get my park party out of it. i had fun anyways, and have a few stories.
i left around 18:30 to try and catch a break in the rain - i knew it was going to rain again, but expected it to clear out around midnight. so, i expected the ride to hamtramck to need to be done in stints, kind of thing. it had been spitting off and on all day downtown (there were more serious storms elsewhere), but the convection finally broke moments after i got to the bus shelter. i checked today to see how much rain actually fell (it was a lot) and was reminded of the locality of it - i guess it wasn't raining at the airport, because the official record says it wasn't raining at all. but, a news report suggested there was 40 mm of rain in some parts of the city yesterday, which is a daily rainfall record.
those numbers can't be for downtown, where it was mostly dry before the skies opened, and the downpour only lasted twenty minutes. but, for those twenty minutes, it rained about as hard as it can rain. i wasn't in it; i actually found myself enjoying the after-rain air. detroit continues to have some serious air quality issues due to industrialization, so a good rainstorm is that much more refreshing when it hits. it's actually one of the better times to enjoy playing outside.
the ride to hamtramck was through thick humidity and sweaty as fuck, but the rain restrained itself until i got there - when it promptly started back up again. it mostly cleared out before the show was over, but the ride to the second bar was a little drizzly.
the first band, not ok, was actually pretty much ok. ok? ok. they did a style of generic emo-core. i'm going to leave it at that.
the savage seven seemed to downplay their silliness a little in the live setting, partly because the singer was a little less confident than i expected him to be. there's a swagger on the recording that is central to the presentation and was perhaps missing in the show. i'd encourage him to try and capture that better when he's performing. they're a kind of novelty act style rock band with a bit of a very early detroit rock feel, and they pulled it off at points in the set.
wizard rifle, a two piece guitar & drum duo, were on point, even if i was hoping for a longer set in a bar that cleared out before midnight. the mix was dominated by their powerful drummer, who, name-dropped influences aside, actually sounded most like dave grohl going to town. the guitar work is mostly riff-based, but it has an angularity to it that gives it a dose of manic energy, and he makes liberal use of an effects chain to scuzz up the sound. they wear their influences prominently, often jumping into sections that sound like they were taken directly from king crimson or lightning bolt tracks, but that's alright, because they mix it up and rip it apart. they appear to be from portland, and have relocated to detroit; this was the first night of a us tour, so they had some sound issues with the mix. basically, they need to turn the guitars and vocals up in order to compete with the muscular drumming.
as mentioned, the ride to the next bar was a little bit drizzly, but not too bad. i missed the actual event, some kind of industry mixer, while lost in a bit of my own drama: somewhere, somehow i lost a $20, which was also my last $20 for the night.
i strictly carry cash when i'm in detroit, because the banking system is a messy situation. i took money out of a machine in detroit for the first time a few weeks ago, but my debit card won't work. nor do i carry a credit card. so, if i run out of cash, i'll at least need to find a machine, and that machine will need to be on the right network. i'm also looking at around $10 in service charges because it's an international transaction. so, i'm generally fairly paranoid about this, because i know that if i run out of cash in detroit that i'm more or less shit out of luck until i get home.
it was around 1:00 or so when i went to the washroom and checked my pockets to see how much i had left; i had a vague idea that it was around $20, but i don't usually do my accounting until later. so, what's in my pocket?
- keys? check.
- lighter? check.
- three cards: nexus card (border), debit card, health card (ohip.)? check.
- ziploc bags (to protect things in the rain)? check.
- bus fare in cdn dollars? check.
- american money? nope.
wait.
- american money? nope.
that can't be right. let's try this again...
- american money? nope.
fuck.
now, i admit i was a little bit drunk - i was fully conscious and coherent and capable of walking in straight lines and stuff, but even a simple amount of accounting would have benefited from some kind of ledger, and wasn't likely to happen strictly mentally at that point, or at least not correctly. i was also a little flustered. if i had sat down and centered myself and worked out each transaction that had occurred over the night, it would have been immediately clear that i dropped it somewhere. all that i was able to process entirely right there was that i knew i came to detroit with three 20s, and i knew i'd only broken two of them. so, i knew i was missing a $20.
well, it didn't evaporate. it didn't develop locomotion and run away. i guess it might have been pick-pocketed, but what are the chances, really? so, when you lose something you retrace your steps, right?
i had made two transactions at the bar, to that point. i thought i had given the door a $5 bill for cover, and i thought i had given the bartender three one dollar bills for a beer. i'm usually a pretty good bean counter; if i'm going to screw up, it's because i'm going to drop something out of my pocket when i'm rummaging through, but everybody fucks up sometimes. so, maybe i gave one of them a twenty by accident. i can ask, right?
the bartender was pretty certain - he'd have remembered it, because he'd have been surprised by it. and, i had to make the point - i'm not being confrontational, i'm not making accusations, i've just lost some cash and am trying to figure out if i can find it.
the door person was a little less certain - she claimed she couldn't remember, but insisted that if she did then she'd have given me change. her honesty opened a window for me, because if she'd just had said "no. you gave me a $5.", i would have shrugged and walked off. the fact that she was like "i dunno. maybe you did give me a $20.", left me prodding her to remember, to be certain, to be sure; but, as that was happening, i remembered that i gave her a $5, so i had to apologize and walk off.
well, what's next? i might have dropped it near my bike...
nope.
by that point, i'd gotten over the initial shock and sobered up a little due to necessity (it's funny how that happens), so i was able to think it through a little better. i had $61. i spent $9 at the 7/11, $12 + $12 = $24 at the rock show, $5 on cover and $3 dollars on one beer at marble. so i should have.....$20. i should have had a $20, a $5 and three $1s on my way into the bar. if i had accidentally given the door person a $20, i'd still have the $5. if i had accidentally given the bartender a $20, i'd still have the $1. so, i lost the $20; this is my fault.
i made sure that the relevant people were aware of this fact, that i was taking responsibility for losing the cash and not blaming or accusing anybody, when i got back into the bar, went out for a smoke and started cruising for pot, instead.
but, then, something kind of cool happened: somebody tapped me on the shoulder and gave me the $20. it was found by bar staff on the ground.
(and, no, gay people are not recruited. but, i think you'd be being daft in taking that skit too seriously)
by that time, the bar was nearly closed, and the music had shut down, so i only got one more in before it was time to go - no dancing, not much talking, even.
nobody at the park...
i stopped at the gas station at trumbull & warren to get smokes, and lit one up before i got back on my bike. a car full of dudes screeches to a halt an inch from me, and a couple of them get out.
"how much?"
what?
"i said, how much?"
*pause*
no.
"but you're standing right there."
in front of my bike?
"i'm a go into the store, you stay right there."
i was gone before he came back out, and finished my smoke up at the benches on cass, just south of warren.
i had had 10 drinks and been gifted some pot at that point, so i was inebriated, but i was in control and the night was crystal clear until i got to the diner; i just got a coffee, but i seem to have dozed off, and it gets a little blurry for a bit around 4:00. i vaguely recall getting yelled at by a homeless person, but i don't recall the context.
i dozed off a second time at the bus stop, and had to be honked at by the driver to wake me up. but, i'm ok, clearly.
i got me some pasta.
i took me a shower.
and i slept most of the day.
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
if i'm going to a show, i'm going to a show. where the show is doesn't matter - i'm going to the show.
but, if i'm going for drinks, i want to avoid spaces where....what i'm concerned about is being mistaken for cis.
it depends, really. i feel safer in a mixed setting, usually, and i'm not too keen about getting hit on by gay guys, either. so, if i'm going to go dancing, i'd rather go dancing in a place that is mostly straight, so long as it isn't oppressively so - i'd rather be the weirdo, sort of thing. unfortunately, the bars on the strip in windsor are horrible places that are going to exert exaggerated concepts of hetero-normativity, and that i'm not going to want to go into, for that reason. i've never been into most of these places, but i've walked by there frequently, and it's enough to scare me off. i know i'm going to get stuck with some straight guy all over me when all i actually want to do is dance...
so, i'd feel safer in a queer bar.
but, there doesn't appear to actually be the option. it's a show at phog, or bust.
but, if i'm going for drinks, i want to avoid spaces where....what i'm concerned about is being mistaken for cis.
it depends, really. i feel safer in a mixed setting, usually, and i'm not too keen about getting hit on by gay guys, either. so, if i'm going to go dancing, i'd rather go dancing in a place that is mostly straight, so long as it isn't oppressively so - i'd rather be the weirdo, sort of thing. unfortunately, the bars on the strip in windsor are horrible places that are going to exert exaggerated concepts of hetero-normativity, and that i'm not going to want to go into, for that reason. i've never been into most of these places, but i've walked by there frequently, and it's enough to scare me off. i know i'm going to get stuck with some straight guy all over me when all i actually want to do is dance...
so, i'd feel safer in a queer bar.
but, there doesn't appear to actually be the option. it's a show at phog, or bust.
i did a quick google search and it doesn't appear that there are any gay bars in windsor, although a few have recently closed. and, i found some articles documenting something similar happening in hamilton.
i'm not going to research this, so this is a deduction and, like all deductions, should be contradicted via evidence, should any arise.
but, it's easy enough to figure this out: gay men, especially, are largely looking for sex, and they're going to get what they're looking for quicker and faster in an online personal site than in a bar. so, you'd expect a decline in explicitly queer hangout spaces to follow as a corollary to the rise of internet personals, given that everybody knows that the actual purpose of them was always explicitly sexual.
i can always check out phog mid-week.
but, the cursive show is looking more likely.
i'm not going to research this, so this is a deduction and, like all deductions, should be contradicted via evidence, should any arise.
but, it's easy enough to figure this out: gay men, especially, are largely looking for sex, and they're going to get what they're looking for quicker and faster in an online personal site than in a bar. so, you'd expect a decline in explicitly queer hangout spaces to follow as a corollary to the rise of internet personals, given that everybody knows that the actual purpose of them was always explicitly sexual.
i can always check out phog mid-week.
but, the cursive show is looking more likely.
the early forecast is that it's going to be beautiful next week, but with the uncertainty of the track...
...and there's nothing happening, as far as i can see.
i'm not just going to go out for beers, if there's no bands. that's boring. so, this whole exercise might collapse in on itself, in the end.
...and there's nothing happening, as far as i can see.
i'm not just going to go out for beers, if there's no bands. that's boring. so, this whole exercise might collapse in on itself, in the end.
i haven't really started on the legal stuff, yet. i've been sleepy. that's ok, i have time.
it's looking to me like the storm is going to track about 100 km north of here, but, as it's been all year, it's almost impossible to be certain about it.
i'm itchy. i want to get out of here tonight if i can. so, i'm going to get ready for it, and if i have to reverse that choice around 18:00 or so, so be it..
it's looking to me like the storm is going to track about 100 km north of here, but, as it's been all year, it's almost impossible to be certain about it.
i'm itchy. i want to get out of here tonight if i can. so, i'm going to get ready for it, and if i have to reverse that choice around 18:00 or so, so be it..
trump wasn't exactly an anti-war candidate.
but, if obama was the alter-war candidate, and clinton was the ultra-war candidate, trump was the less-war candidate.
i know that certain media outlets wanted to push a narrative of trump being unhinged, and even being in cahoots with russia. this was all very silly, and is all very easily deconstructed, but the concern was always that he'd kind of lose interest in foreign policy and let the party take control. that's how bolton got there in the first place.
what trump actually ran on, what was a central part of his populist rhetoric, was an invocation of the "glorious isolation" pushed by conservatives in the early part of the last century.
i think there's a role to play for international institutions; i'm not opposed to global governance. but, i'll take isolationism over the perverted trostkyism of the neo-conservative clique, which is just a demented front for the war lobby.
but, if obama was the alter-war candidate, and clinton was the ultra-war candidate, trump was the less-war candidate.
i know that certain media outlets wanted to push a narrative of trump being unhinged, and even being in cahoots with russia. this was all very silly, and is all very easily deconstructed, but the concern was always that he'd kind of lose interest in foreign policy and let the party take control. that's how bolton got there in the first place.
what trump actually ran on, what was a central part of his populist rhetoric, was an invocation of the "glorious isolation" pushed by conservatives in the early part of the last century.
i think there's a role to play for international institutions; i'm not opposed to global governance. but, i'll take isolationism over the perverted trostkyism of the neo-conservative clique, which is just a demented front for the war lobby.
john bolton was probably the single most dangerous person in washington. i'm not naive enough to expect his removal to be enough to spin trump back towards his campaign promises on a quasi-isolationist foreign policy, but it's just about the most positive thing you could possibly hope for from this administration. this is good news.
the press is predictably lionizing bolton for preventing trump from making "mistakes" in north korea, syria and iran....
i've been clear on this point: i think he had an electoral mandate to withdraw, and he's broken it. bolton has essentially operated as a representative for the deep state, trying to keep the president in line. while it's not clear that his replacement will be better, i can't imagine it being much worse.
john bolton is not an american hero, and doesn't deserve your respect or admiration. john bolton is a war criminal, and he deserves to spend the rest of his life in a jail cell.
i've been clear on this point: i think he had an electoral mandate to withdraw, and he's broken it. bolton has essentially operated as a representative for the deep state, trying to keep the president in line. while it's not clear that his replacement will be better, i can't imagine it being much worse.
john bolton is not an american hero, and doesn't deserve your respect or admiration. john bolton is a war criminal, and he deserves to spend the rest of his life in a jail cell.
in fact, for the last years of his life, about 2007-2011, not including his battle with cancer, my father spent sunday mornings with me on a breakfast date. i would often end up cancelling due to hangovers, or something else. but, the general ritual was that he'd pick me up at 9:00 or 10:00, and we'd go get eggs at one of a handful of diners up on wellington. and, we'd catch up on what happened that week...
it was quite important to him.
what i didn't realize until a while into it was that he dropped my stepmother off at church on the way to picking me up, and picked her up on the way home. so, it was partly a "get out of church" card.
it was quite important to him.
what i didn't realize until a while into it was that he dropped my stepmother off at church on the way to picking me up, and picked her up on the way home. so, it was partly a "get out of church" card.
in fact, the effects of maurice richard on quebecois identity are quite substantial.
he was a quasi-religious figure that was seen by many as a messiah that would save them from anglo hegemony.
much has been written on this topic.
so, that wasn't merely a glib comment; there was some truth to the idea that the rocket was bigger than jesus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Riot
he was a quasi-religious figure that was seen by many as a messiah that would save them from anglo hegemony.
much has been written on this topic.
so, that wasn't merely a glib comment; there was some truth to the idea that the rocket was bigger than jesus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Riot
and, again: my mother's parents were anglican, but she never went to church out of her own will. she may have identified vaguely as a deist, but i would actually categorize her as more of a laveyan satanist.
my father appears to have had a complex ethnic background that included jewish, italian, french canadian, native american and potentially african-american ancestry, but he was baptized as an infant and raised a roman catholic. his father looked pretty jewish, but had a pure laine quebecois mother, and identified as a francophone roman catholic, as well. i never saw him go to church of his own free will, either; he was vaguely deist, but i think the truth is that he just didn't think about it much. what did religion have to do with the habs winning the cup, anyways? he believed more in maurice richard than he did in jesus; his real religion was hockey.
i was not baptized as an infant. i actually remember my baptism, at the age of four. at the time, the public school system started at grade one, and the catholic school system had two years of kindergarten. so, i was baptized into the catholic church by my satanist mother as a cynical ploy to get me to go to school. and, don't be too kind about her motives: she was a brutal alcoholic and was trying to find something to do with me.
by the time i was about nine or ten, i'd decided that religion was ridiculous, and i never wavered on the point.
so, i'm not religiously or culturally jewish - my dad would have identified as italian or french. and, i'm not roman catholic in any meaningful sense, either.
my father appears to have had a complex ethnic background that included jewish, italian, french canadian, native american and potentially african-american ancestry, but he was baptized as an infant and raised a roman catholic. his father looked pretty jewish, but had a pure laine quebecois mother, and identified as a francophone roman catholic, as well. i never saw him go to church of his own free will, either; he was vaguely deist, but i think the truth is that he just didn't think about it much. what did religion have to do with the habs winning the cup, anyways? he believed more in maurice richard than he did in jesus; his real religion was hockey.
i was not baptized as an infant. i actually remember my baptism, at the age of four. at the time, the public school system started at grade one, and the catholic school system had two years of kindergarten. so, i was baptized into the catholic church by my satanist mother as a cynical ploy to get me to go to school. and, don't be too kind about her motives: she was a brutal alcoholic and was trying to find something to do with me.
by the time i was about nine or ten, i'd decided that religion was ridiculous, and i never wavered on the point.
so, i'm not religiously or culturally jewish - my dad would have identified as italian or french. and, i'm not roman catholic in any meaningful sense, either.
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
maybe i should explain the law, here.
when a tenant makes a smoke complaint, the landlord has the obligation to make a good faith effort to resolve it. the landlord can't just tell the tenant "if you don't like it, leave". that would be against the landlord tenant act, and open up the landlord to serious litigation by the tenant. in very, very rare cases, it could even lead to charges of criminal negligence.
second-hand smoke kills people. it's not trivial. it's a serious complaint, and it's a big deal when a tenant makes it.
but, that's exactly what the landlord did. she verbatim told me "if you don't like the smoke, leave.". so, i sued her for a few thousand dollars - mostly to get the funds i needed to move, because i live on disability, and can't just up and move on a whim. and, i think it's pretty fucking obvious that if she wasn't going to make any attempt to address the second-hand smoke, then she had a moral and legal obligation to pay for my way out of the unit.
in order for me to win that case, i had to find a way to prove in court that she was actually smoking in the house. it should be obvious that i don't care if she smokes away from the house. she can even swallow a fucking tailpipe for all i care - my interest in her as a living entity was purely, absolutely nihil. and, i'm not a christian, so i don't care about being nice to my neighbours, especially when they won't respect my basic rights. to hell with her. she didn't give a fuck about my rights, so i showed her the same absolute level of disrespect that she showed me, and she deserved any fallout that she got from it for being a self-centered piece of shit. am i sounding more and more like a cop, here?
so, how could i prove that she was smoking inside? i could film her, which would be pretty invasive. i could get an air quality test, which would be expensive. i could subpoena her, which might not even work. the easiest, most fail-proof way to demonstrate my claim in court was to get a police report. so, that's what i did. and, fuck her.
you can accuse me of being anti-social if you want, and i won't disagree with you so much as i'll justify my actions as being proportionate and reasonable, in context. but, suggesting i acted like a cop is just specious.
and, i'll say it again: it's the cops that call other people cops. real people don't act like that.
and, i'll say this: if you're concerned about me retaliating, you're right to be. i'm easy-going, but i'm not a pacifist. i don't look for trouble - that's easy to see. but, if you fuck with me, i'll fuck with you, and i won't apologize for it.
so, don't fuck with me and we'll get along....
when a tenant makes a smoke complaint, the landlord has the obligation to make a good faith effort to resolve it. the landlord can't just tell the tenant "if you don't like it, leave". that would be against the landlord tenant act, and open up the landlord to serious litigation by the tenant. in very, very rare cases, it could even lead to charges of criminal negligence.
second-hand smoke kills people. it's not trivial. it's a serious complaint, and it's a big deal when a tenant makes it.
but, that's exactly what the landlord did. she verbatim told me "if you don't like the smoke, leave.". so, i sued her for a few thousand dollars - mostly to get the funds i needed to move, because i live on disability, and can't just up and move on a whim. and, i think it's pretty fucking obvious that if she wasn't going to make any attempt to address the second-hand smoke, then she had a moral and legal obligation to pay for my way out of the unit.
in order for me to win that case, i had to find a way to prove in court that she was actually smoking in the house. it should be obvious that i don't care if she smokes away from the house. she can even swallow a fucking tailpipe for all i care - my interest in her as a living entity was purely, absolutely nihil. and, i'm not a christian, so i don't care about being nice to my neighbours, especially when they won't respect my basic rights. to hell with her. she didn't give a fuck about my rights, so i showed her the same absolute level of disrespect that she showed me, and she deserved any fallout that she got from it for being a self-centered piece of shit. am i sounding more and more like a cop, here?
so, how could i prove that she was smoking inside? i could film her, which would be pretty invasive. i could get an air quality test, which would be expensive. i could subpoena her, which might not even work. the easiest, most fail-proof way to demonstrate my claim in court was to get a police report. so, that's what i did. and, fuck her.
you can accuse me of being anti-social if you want, and i won't disagree with you so much as i'll justify my actions as being proportionate and reasonable, in context. but, suggesting i acted like a cop is just specious.
and, i'll say it again: it's the cops that call other people cops. real people don't act like that.
and, i'll say this: if you're concerned about me retaliating, you're right to be. i'm easy-going, but i'm not a pacifist. i don't look for trouble - that's easy to see. but, if you fuck with me, i'll fuck with you, and i won't apologize for it.
so, don't fuck with me and we'll get along....
and, i need to be very clear and explicit about this point: claims that i'm a police officer are ridiculous, and easily debunked by anybody who's spent more than a few minutes with me.
but, that's not the point i'm making, here. the point i'm making is that you should in general be very suspicious about people that go around calling other people cops.
because those are the actual cops.
trust me: i've been around. i've been in activist circles. i've been in party scenes. the cops are the ones that call other people cops.
and, don't get meta, because i'm not pointing specific fingers, i'm laying down a general rule.
the call that i made was with the sole intent of generating documents for then upcoming litigation. i needed documents for the case i filed against the landlord, as i needed a way to prove in court that the neighbour was, in fact, smoking drugs in the house. in canada, you can't actually get arrested for smoking drugs, anwyays - and i never intended for them to drag her away, or something. the call was a domestic disturbance complaint around an individual that was refusing to respect my rights, as a tenant, to live in smoke-free housing. and, i won the case that i generated the documents around - i don't regret it, and i'd do it again. to attempt to draw some kind of connection between making a domestic disturbance complaint against a neighbour that was being legitimately disrespectful in the face of ridiculous negligence by the landlord and being some kind of a narc is entirely specious. well, unless you think that i don't have any rights, in which case you'd be legally and morally completely fucking wrong, as demonstrated by the fact that i won the case.
again: you might not think it from seeing me out and about, but i can peg a cop, because i've been around. and, i'll tell you flat out: if there's somebody on my case about this, that person is a cop, and you should get away from them. this is how they operate, through divide and conquer.
i'm a threat. they want to alienate me.
if you're reading this, you realize that.
but, that's not the point i'm making, here. the point i'm making is that you should in general be very suspicious about people that go around calling other people cops.
because those are the actual cops.
trust me: i've been around. i've been in activist circles. i've been in party scenes. the cops are the ones that call other people cops.
and, don't get meta, because i'm not pointing specific fingers, i'm laying down a general rule.
the call that i made was with the sole intent of generating documents for then upcoming litigation. i needed documents for the case i filed against the landlord, as i needed a way to prove in court that the neighbour was, in fact, smoking drugs in the house. in canada, you can't actually get arrested for smoking drugs, anwyays - and i never intended for them to drag her away, or something. the call was a domestic disturbance complaint around an individual that was refusing to respect my rights, as a tenant, to live in smoke-free housing. and, i won the case that i generated the documents around - i don't regret it, and i'd do it again. to attempt to draw some kind of connection between making a domestic disturbance complaint against a neighbour that was being legitimately disrespectful in the face of ridiculous negligence by the landlord and being some kind of a narc is entirely specious. well, unless you think that i don't have any rights, in which case you'd be legally and morally completely fucking wrong, as demonstrated by the fact that i won the case.
again: you might not think it from seeing me out and about, but i can peg a cop, because i've been around. and, i'll tell you flat out: if there's somebody on my case about this, that person is a cop, and you should get away from them. this is how they operate, through divide and conquer.
i'm a threat. they want to alienate me.
if you're reading this, you realize that.
to be clear: what's happening is that all of that nice humidity is coming up (partly from the hurricane, and partly just because it's at it's maximum extent; i get that), but...
at some point, at any time of the year, no matter what, the humidity is going to smash into the jet stream. both of these things are there all of the time. in the hottest days of the summer, you hope that happens somewhere up near hudson bay, because the jet stream has retreated. by november, that starts happening considerably south of here, over the ohio river, or further south.
i mean, i'm complaining about the possibility of rain. but, at least i'm almost getting the heat. if i was in sudbury or thunder bay, i'd be experiencing autumn.
for this week, detroit is right where the cold from the jet stream and the warmth from the oceans are smashing into each other, and that's actually pretty normal for....a little later, but around this time of year. it's often the event that transitions from summer to fall.
so, the forecast appears to have been a little eager about the warmth, and rather than get that last bit of humidity, we might wake up after the system passes in a few days in full blown autumn.
i'm not a clairvoyant, it's not about whether i predicted the weather weeks in advance, it's just a question of understanding what's going on. forecasting the weather always comes with a lot of uncertainty. but, what's happening isn't surprising, anyways - this aggressive jet stream has been dominating the weather here for months.
at some point, at any time of the year, no matter what, the humidity is going to smash into the jet stream. both of these things are there all of the time. in the hottest days of the summer, you hope that happens somewhere up near hudson bay, because the jet stream has retreated. by november, that starts happening considerably south of here, over the ohio river, or further south.
i mean, i'm complaining about the possibility of rain. but, at least i'm almost getting the heat. if i was in sudbury or thunder bay, i'd be experiencing autumn.
for this week, detroit is right where the cold from the jet stream and the warmth from the oceans are smashing into each other, and that's actually pretty normal for....a little later, but around this time of year. it's often the event that transitions from summer to fall.
so, the forecast appears to have been a little eager about the warmth, and rather than get that last bit of humidity, we might wake up after the system passes in a few days in full blown autumn.
i'm not a clairvoyant, it's not about whether i predicted the weather weeks in advance, it's just a question of understanding what's going on. forecasting the weather always comes with a lot of uncertainty. but, what's happening isn't surprising, anyways - this aggressive jet stream has been dominating the weather here for months.
so, i've got this worked out pretty authoritatively, but it seems like the weather is going to keep me locked up. it's going to at least try to be warm, but i keep telling you that i'm right on that nasty jet stream, which is acting up, and the worst case scenario is that it rains non-stop for the next week, as what's left of the summer gets plowed over by the polar vortex.
so, i will probably only make it to one or two of these, unfortunately.
11th: wizard rifle @ sanctuary--->marble--->park
12th: hot snakes @ small's ---->marble---> park
13th:
19:00-22:00 - strange beautiful music @ dia.
22:30-???? - hide @ small's
secret late night party #1
i will not be doing a full weekend, this week. in fact, saturday is shaping up to be a little cold, and i'll probably want to just stay in.
14th:
17:00 23:00 - strange beautiful music @ dso
secret late night party #2
15th:
no show
16th: cursive @ blind pig----> long bike ride home.
17th, 18th, 19th:
no show.
20th-22nd - potential three day party that would include human eye, severed heads, man man, luke vibert and tunic and that i'll work the details out for closer to the date.
realistically, i'm hoping to get out for the 11th and 12th and, if i do, i could very well stay in for the weekend. but, if i get rained out both days, and it seems nice, i could feel like i need to get out of the house, sort of thing. about the only way i go to the cursive show is if i get completely rained out.
i have not left the house since the 2nd, after all. i might get itchy, if i get stuck.
and, now, i need to get to work on the legal stuff. after a nap...
so, i will probably only make it to one or two of these, unfortunately.
11th: wizard rifle @ sanctuary--->marble--->park
12th: hot snakes @ small's ---->marble---> park
13th:
19:00-22:00 - strange beautiful music @ dia.
22:30-???? - hide @ small's
secret late night party #1
i will not be doing a full weekend, this week. in fact, saturday is shaping up to be a little cold, and i'll probably want to just stay in.
14th:
17:00 23:00 - strange beautiful music @ dso
secret late night party #2
15th:
no show
16th: cursive @ blind pig----> long bike ride home.
17th, 18th, 19th:
no show.
20th-22nd - potential three day party that would include human eye, severed heads, man man, luke vibert and tunic and that i'll work the details out for closer to the date.
realistically, i'm hoping to get out for the 11th and 12th and, if i do, i could very well stay in for the weekend. but, if i get rained out both days, and it seems nice, i could feel like i need to get out of the house, sort of thing. about the only way i go to the cursive show is if i get completely rained out.
i have not left the house since the 2nd, after all. i might get itchy, if i get stuck.
and, now, i need to get to work on the legal stuff. after a nap...
while i'm not going to support the privatization of "freddie mac" and "fannie mae", i think that this is a sector where the government has a valid role in, i don't really think that what happened in 2008 had much to do with them, or that predictions of collapse from spinning them off are particularly grounded.
which isn't to say that i don't think the economy is teetering on the brink. i actually do.
but, just to say that when it tips over, you should probably avoid blaming it on this policy.
which isn't to say that i don't think the economy is teetering on the brink. i actually do.
but, just to say that when it tips over, you should probably avoid blaming it on this policy.
the most recent example of it actually working was the 2015 federal election in canada.
and, while it turned out that justin trudeau was a filthy, rotten liar, that's not the question at hand.
i want to interject a more important point: this is not a historical norm. turnout has been at historical lows for around 20 years or so. so, if you're looking deep into the past for examples of a recent phenomenon, you shouldn't be surprised not to find much.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/10/democrats-turnout-2020-election-228040
and, while it turned out that justin trudeau was a filthy, rotten liar, that's not the question at hand.
i want to interject a more important point: this is not a historical norm. turnout has been at historical lows for around 20 years or so. so, if you're looking deep into the past for examples of a recent phenomenon, you shouldn't be surprised not to find much.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/10/democrats-turnout-2020-election-228040
i'm starting to think i'm going to end up defending biden more often than i'd like to, because, in group discussion scenarios, he tends to be detail-oriented. this isn't idealism v pragmatism. it's not left v right; i don't really agree with him. but, he's wonkish where others aren't, and i appreciate that.
he came off better than all of the candidates that came before him. he's taking the issue seriously, at least.
but, he's visibly aging. he looks older every time i see him. and, at some point...
but, there's no evidence, yet. and, if he's not much older than the average primary voter, it might not at all.
he came off better than all of the candidates that came before him. he's taking the issue seriously, at least.
but, he's visibly aging. he looks older every time i see him. and, at some point...
but, there's no evidence, yet. and, if he's not much older than the average primary voter, it might not at all.
so, i'm tentatively done with 10/2013, except the travel blog which i'll do last.
politics: 417 pages
music journal: 98 pages
deathtokoalas: 79 pages
as mentioned, the politics page had mirrors of old essays and web documents. that's done, but i did a lot of writing for the next few months, so the documents will remain heavy.
i will not be finalizing or publishing these documents until i get the legal documents done. so, this is to be put aside for a little while.
i'm going to stop to eat, convince myself that i'm staying in tonight and will then get to the legal writing by mid-afternoon.
politics: 417 pages
music journal: 98 pages
deathtokoalas: 79 pages
as mentioned, the politics page had mirrors of old essays and web documents. that's done, but i did a lot of writing for the next few months, so the documents will remain heavy.
i will not be finalizing or publishing these documents until i get the legal documents done. so, this is to be put aside for a little while.
i'm going to stop to eat, convince myself that i'm staying in tonight and will then get to the legal writing by mid-afternoon.
this is what i was looking for.
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/06/j-reacts-to-political-spectrum-and.html
the secular left is badly disenfranchised, right now. the closest thing to a candidate that we have is sanders, but he's a weak representative, himself.
the politician of the future that is going to break through to us is going to sound like a kucinich or a nader, and we're not going to care what s/he looks like.
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/06/j-reacts-to-political-spectrum-and.html
the secular left is badly disenfranchised, right now. the closest thing to a candidate that we have is sanders, but he's a weak representative, himself.
the politician of the future that is going to break through to us is going to sound like a kucinich or a nader, and we're not going to care what s/he looks like.
i can't find the post where i ran myself against the most recent democrats over the political compass. we weren't even in the same quadrant.
the fact is that i would agree with barely half of what clinton said and proposed.
the correct perspective is actually that atheists - a growing, powerful demographic - are completely disenfranchised.
we used to have the liberal party up in canada, but they're in the process of imploding and it's not clear if we can salvage it after we turf trudeau. in the united states, if we're going to organize, we'll probably need to do it in a third party.
the fact is that i would agree with barely half of what clinton said and proposed.
the correct perspective is actually that atheists - a growing, powerful demographic - are completely disenfranchised.
we used to have the liberal party up in canada, but they're in the process of imploding and it's not clear if we can salvage it after we turf trudeau. in the united states, if we're going to organize, we'll probably need to do it in a third party.
the tone of this article is horrific, and the author deserves a talking to about it.
but, the simple reality is that the spectrum sucks. i've pointed this out before. when there are acceptable candidates, we'll vote for them.
but don't run hillary clinton or al gore (or barack obama...or elizabeth warren....or michael ignatieff) for president and then get bitchy at atheists for refusing to vote for them. they're simply not representative of where we stand in the spectrum, and we're simply not going to vote for something that we don't believe in.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/09/08/prodding-irreligious-left-vote
but, the simple reality is that the spectrum sucks. i've pointed this out before. when there are acceptable candidates, we'll vote for them.
but don't run hillary clinton or al gore (or barack obama...or elizabeth warren....or michael ignatieff) for president and then get bitchy at atheists for refusing to vote for them. they're simply not representative of where we stand in the spectrum, and we're simply not going to vote for something that we don't believe in.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/09/08/prodding-irreligious-left-vote
Monday, September 9, 2019
just an update: this rebuild has been brutal.
i thought it would be quick because i'd just be pasting html files in and cross-referencing, but this has demonstrated itself to be time consuming.
the politics document will be between 400 and 450 pages, and i hope to finish the build in the next few hours. but, i'm not going to do all of the clean-up or upload it, yet, because i want to get the legal stuff done first.
november might not be much different, as i will still have a lot of mirroring to do.
i thought it would be quick because i'd just be pasting html files in and cross-referencing, but this has demonstrated itself to be time consuming.
the politics document will be between 400 and 450 pages, and i hope to finish the build in the next few hours. but, i'm not going to do all of the clean-up or upload it, yet, because i want to get the legal stuff done first.
november might not be much different, as i will still have a lot of mirroring to do.
just a reminder.
====
oct 26, 2013
i was looking for something like this a few months ago. nice to see it appear.
they did a good job pulling together sources and making it readable, but it's a little naive in how it talks about the elite using the illuminati to "explain revolt", as though they were confused by the masses of starving people trying to kill them and didn't understand why. maybe, though, they're trying to avoid replacing a conspiracy with another.
the illuminati conspiracy was created by the catholic church as a means of scaring the peasants away from enlightenment revolutionary activity. masons were cast as the legions of satan. the illuminati was likewise a satanic plot. did the peasants want to go to hell? if not, they'd better stay away from those nogoodnik enlightenment revolutionaries...
over time, the tactics were adopted by "protestant" preachers in the united states for the same reasons and to protect the same interests, except the satanists became communists. hence, the new world order conspiracy.
so, it's not just a naive attempt to understand the world by primitive european aristocrats; it's a very carefully worked out means of mind control.
ironically.
https://overthrowingilluminati.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/how-to-overthrow-the-illuminati_read.pdf
====
oct 26, 2013
i was looking for something like this a few months ago. nice to see it appear.
they did a good job pulling together sources and making it readable, but it's a little naive in how it talks about the elite using the illuminati to "explain revolt", as though they were confused by the masses of starving people trying to kill them and didn't understand why. maybe, though, they're trying to avoid replacing a conspiracy with another.
the illuminati conspiracy was created by the catholic church as a means of scaring the peasants away from enlightenment revolutionary activity. masons were cast as the legions of satan. the illuminati was likewise a satanic plot. did the peasants want to go to hell? if not, they'd better stay away from those nogoodnik enlightenment revolutionaries...
over time, the tactics were adopted by "protestant" preachers in the united states for the same reasons and to protect the same interests, except the satanists became communists. hence, the new world order conspiracy.
so, it's not just a naive attempt to understand the world by primitive european aristocrats; it's a very carefully worked out means of mind control.
ironically.
https://overthrowingilluminati.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/how-to-overthrow-the-illuminati_read.pdf
i'm not advertising for the atkins diet. i eat very little meat, myself; i recommend a balanced diet.
there are many scientists working in the field to try and promote more sustainable practices across the field of agriculture - both for livestock and for crops.
my intent is to convince you that blaming meat consumption is a red herring.
the problem is oil, not cows.
there are many scientists working in the field to try and promote more sustainable practices across the field of agriculture - both for livestock and for crops.
my intent is to convince you that blaming meat consumption is a red herring.
the problem is oil, not cows.
i don't know anything about the sunrise movement. i'm too old for student movements, at this point.
and, i don't know if the stooge they got on cnn actually had anything to do with it, or was just an actor on tv.
but, i will tell you very authoritatively that the question posed to klobuchar was an oil industry talking point designed to distract attention away from fossil fuel companies and towards farmers in the midwest, who are an easy target, but are not a substantive part of the problem.
and, i don't know if the stooge they got on cnn actually had anything to do with it, or was just an actor on tv.
but, i will tell you very authoritatively that the question posed to klobuchar was an oil industry talking point designed to distract attention away from fossil fuel companies and towards farmers in the midwest, who are an easy target, but are not a substantive part of the problem.
if you need it stated to you this way, so be it.
https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-warming.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-warming.htm
well, do you import beef from the other side of the world?
chances are pretty high that it's from the state or province you live in, unless you're eating at some bourgeois restaurant.
so, global production from agriculture isn't relevant to your consumption patterns. what's relevant is your local transportation footprint.
again: this isn't accidental. this is propaganda. those "audience questions" sounded like lobbyist talking points. they were the same points i've heard in online debates by bots and trolls. the whole thing was clearly set up.
chances are pretty high that it's from the state or province you live in, unless you're eating at some bourgeois restaurant.
so, global production from agriculture isn't relevant to your consumption patterns. what's relevant is your local transportation footprint.
again: this isn't accidental. this is propaganda. those "audience questions" sounded like lobbyist talking points. they were the same points i've heard in online debates by bots and trolls. the whole thing was clearly set up.
the numbers i previously cited were from the epa reported cited in this article.
https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968
https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968
well, which endorsements matter?
the reason i want to give sanders the edge here - even over biden - is that he seems to be doing better with things like unions. does anybody care who their congress person endorses, really? i think people care more about endorsements from community newspapers, unions, church leaders, etc.
and, i actually expect that sanders will run the table on all of this stuff, which is why he's the more serious candidate, over warren.
warren, on the other hand, will do better with the actual party people, but it's not clear if those types of endorsements will help or hinder her. i've pointed out before that i think her polling numbers are being exaggerated by "friendly" sampling decisions, but that's a hunch.
but, i live in detroit, too. and, i'm going to tell you a secret: bernie is still the most popular candidate downtown, which is pretty black. the watch parties at the downtown bars are all sanders watch parties. but, i'm seeing watch parties in ferndale and grosse pointe pop up, wealthier white suburbs, and they are increasingly warren watch parties.
nobody seems to care much about biden.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-it-really-a-three-candidate-race/
the reason i want to give sanders the edge here - even over biden - is that he seems to be doing better with things like unions. does anybody care who their congress person endorses, really? i think people care more about endorsements from community newspapers, unions, church leaders, etc.
and, i actually expect that sanders will run the table on all of this stuff, which is why he's the more serious candidate, over warren.
warren, on the other hand, will do better with the actual party people, but it's not clear if those types of endorsements will help or hinder her. i've pointed out before that i think her polling numbers are being exaggerated by "friendly" sampling decisions, but that's a hunch.
but, i live in detroit, too. and, i'm going to tell you a secret: bernie is still the most popular candidate downtown, which is pretty black. the watch parties at the downtown bars are all sanders watch parties. but, i'm seeing watch parties in ferndale and grosse pointe pop up, wealthier white suburbs, and they are increasingly warren watch parties.
nobody seems to care much about biden.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-it-really-a-three-candidate-race/
and, those numbers are misleading, anyways.
they're comparing global numbers, which takes into account the fact that much of the world uses bad farming practices and doesn't drive cars.
i've fact checked this before and this article is more accurate - in the united states, transportation is in the 25-30% range and livestock emissions are in the 3-5% range. the difference is a little smaller in canada, iirc, but the same basic distortion is present.
so, if you're reading this, and you're talking about your own lifestyle choices, you don't want to think these are comparable issues, or that going vegan is much of a real answer. they aren't, and it isn't.
https://www.futurity.org/dont-blame-cows-for-climate-change/
they're comparing global numbers, which takes into account the fact that much of the world uses bad farming practices and doesn't drive cars.
i've fact checked this before and this article is more accurate - in the united states, transportation is in the 25-30% range and livestock emissions are in the 3-5% range. the difference is a little smaller in canada, iirc, but the same basic distortion is present.
so, if you're reading this, and you're talking about your own lifestyle choices, you don't want to think these are comparable issues, or that going vegan is much of a real answer. they aren't, and it isn't.
https://www.futurity.org/dont-blame-cows-for-climate-change/
Environmentally, AMP systems came out in the green, while feedlot
emissions were in the red primarily because of feed-based nitrogen
emissions from fertilizer.
again: when cattle farming is a problem, it's due to the petrochemical inputs, and not the cattle itself.
it all goes back to the oil in the end, and the need to find ways to leave it in the ground.
and, can we feed cows without oil? well, we did it for 9900 years...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180319120133.htm
again: when cattle farming is a problem, it's due to the petrochemical inputs, and not the cattle itself.
it all goes back to the oil in the end, and the need to find ways to leave it in the ground.
and, can we feed cows without oil? well, we did it for 9900 years...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180319120133.htm
you know how cow farmers used to get their own fertilizer back in the day, right?
it's tricky - there's good ways and bad ways, best practices, etc. i'm not going to argue against efficiency.
but, don't let the oil companies pull the wool over your eyes on this - the problem is their product. solely. strictly.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/cows-beef-farming-reverse-climate-change-global-warming-a8202121.html
it's tricky - there's good ways and bad ways, best practices, etc. i'm not going to argue against efficiency.
but, don't let the oil companies pull the wool over your eyes on this - the problem is their product. solely. strictly.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/cows-beef-farming-reverse-climate-change-global-warming-a8202121.html
suppose you have a lake that is fed by a river, and exits into a series of underwater caves, before falling off into a natural reservoir. it's an ancient lake in a stable geological area, so the flow of water is in perfect harmony with itself.
now, let's suppose some asshole humans show up and reroute this other river into the lake, that is the same lake we just talked about, in order to reclaim the land under the other river to build a casino. they just figured that the river would flow into the lake and that would be that.
but, in fact, the second river was much larger, which increased the amount of water flowing into the lake by a great amount, leading to annual flooding once the reservoirs filled up. so, they take the money from the casino and hire a geoengineer to study it.
the geongineer takes a good look at the situation and decides that the lake can take about 90% of the flow rate without flooding. so he needs to find a way to reduce the amount of water flowing into the river by about 10%. he then looks at the two sources and measures their rates, concluding that the original source of the lake is responsible for about 15% of the flow rate and the river that was routed into it by the assholes is responsible for 85%.
he then takes his findings back to the casino owners, who quickly devise a strategy.
"well, why don't we reroute the initial river, then? that way, we can save our casino and prevent the flooding. and, it's a smaller river, so what can they do?"
so, they route the smaller river in a different direction one night, when the inhabitants in the region are sleeping. and, indeed, the flooding stops for a while.
meanwhile, however, the reservoir is slowly filling up. and, when somebody else further upstream decides to reroute the river for their own self-interest, the flooding comes back again.
this is a parable to help you understand what happens when you blame livestock farming for global warming. while it may be true that livestock is responsible for ~15% of emissions, these emissions can be placed into equilibrium. it's this new river that is causing the floods. and, in the long run, it's the new river that needs to be addressed to stop the flooding - even if rerouting the small stream might help for a while.
now, let's suppose some asshole humans show up and reroute this other river into the lake, that is the same lake we just talked about, in order to reclaim the land under the other river to build a casino. they just figured that the river would flow into the lake and that would be that.
but, in fact, the second river was much larger, which increased the amount of water flowing into the lake by a great amount, leading to annual flooding once the reservoirs filled up. so, they take the money from the casino and hire a geoengineer to study it.
the geongineer takes a good look at the situation and decides that the lake can take about 90% of the flow rate without flooding. so he needs to find a way to reduce the amount of water flowing into the river by about 10%. he then looks at the two sources and measures their rates, concluding that the original source of the lake is responsible for about 15% of the flow rate and the river that was routed into it by the assholes is responsible for 85%.
he then takes his findings back to the casino owners, who quickly devise a strategy.
"well, why don't we reroute the initial river, then? that way, we can save our casino and prevent the flooding. and, it's a smaller river, so what can they do?"
so, they route the smaller river in a different direction one night, when the inhabitants in the region are sleeping. and, indeed, the flooding stops for a while.
meanwhile, however, the reservoir is slowly filling up. and, when somebody else further upstream decides to reroute the river for their own self-interest, the flooding comes back again.
this is a parable to help you understand what happens when you blame livestock farming for global warming. while it may be true that livestock is responsible for ~15% of emissions, these emissions can be placed into equilibrium. it's this new river that is causing the floods. and, in the long run, it's the new river that needs to be addressed to stop the flooding - even if rerouting the small stream might help for a while.
stop for a second.
agriculture started about 10,000 years ago. the warming started about two hundred years ago. think it through. we had 9800 years of agriculture without devastating climate change, right?
now, let me blow your mind a third time: it is actually thought, now, that we did experience a little bit of warming at the start of the neolithic, but that it's hard to separate from the natural warming that occurred at the end of the last interglacial, and that it ultimately balanced out. farming produces emissions, but it also acts as a sink, right?
if you're still confused, the thing you need to ask yourself is where does the carbon come from. so, long as the carbon is coming from the sky or the soil or living things, it gets recycled. it's when we start pulling it out of the underground reservoirs at industrial rates that it fucks up the balance.
if you're concerned, you're way better off getting an electric car than going vegan.
agriculture started about 10,000 years ago. the warming started about two hundred years ago. think it through. we had 9800 years of agriculture without devastating climate change, right?
now, let me blow your mind a third time: it is actually thought, now, that we did experience a little bit of warming at the start of the neolithic, but that it's hard to separate from the natural warming that occurred at the end of the last interglacial, and that it ultimately balanced out. farming produces emissions, but it also acts as a sink, right?
if you're still confused, the thing you need to ask yourself is where does the carbon come from. so, long as the carbon is coming from the sky or the soil or living things, it gets recycled. it's when we start pulling it out of the underground reservoirs at industrial rates that it fucks up the balance.
if you're concerned, you're way better off getting an electric car than going vegan.
what the newspapers will tell you is that agriculture produces around 15% of the carbon that goes into the atmosphere, which is true. but, what they forget to tell you is that this is naturally occurring carbon, not new carbon.
what?
carbon, of course, is a naturally occurring substance in the environment. it's at the centre of every living organism around you.
and, there's something called a carbon cycle that describes how carbon recycles through the ecosystem. i suppose we get hit by meteorites once in a while, but the net amount of carbon in this system is roughly constant.
climate change is about the amount of carbon that we're introducing into the carbon cycle, and the only source of this introduced carbon is from fossil fuels, where it's been trapped in the ground, for millions or billions of years.
now, as mentioned, there are net inputs when it comes to meat production. the pesticides used to grow the grain are very carbon intensive, and opening up new grazing lands means cutting down trees. there's also transport issues, as well as a number of other things i'm sure i'm forgetting. but, in the abstract ideal of cattle roaming free on naturally occurring grassland, on the edge of an existing forest, there's no net increase of carbon at play.
so, why are they pushing this so hard?
because they think that if they can convert us all into vegans, they can salvage their business model. that is, the idea is to shift the blame, and then shift the source. they essentially think they can continue to emit new carbon, so long as they remove carbon from the existing cycle. get it?
but, it's a false solution, anyways, because even if we did manage to eliminate carbon being recycled by agriculture, your cars are going to eventually replace it all.
stated simply: it's oil industry propaganda. and, it's wide spread. and, people you like will repeat it. but, it's wrong.
what?
carbon, of course, is a naturally occurring substance in the environment. it's at the centre of every living organism around you.
and, there's something called a carbon cycle that describes how carbon recycles through the ecosystem. i suppose we get hit by meteorites once in a while, but the net amount of carbon in this system is roughly constant.
climate change is about the amount of carbon that we're introducing into the carbon cycle, and the only source of this introduced carbon is from fossil fuels, where it's been trapped in the ground, for millions or billions of years.
now, as mentioned, there are net inputs when it comes to meat production. the pesticides used to grow the grain are very carbon intensive, and opening up new grazing lands means cutting down trees. there's also transport issues, as well as a number of other things i'm sure i'm forgetting. but, in the abstract ideal of cattle roaming free on naturally occurring grassland, on the edge of an existing forest, there's no net increase of carbon at play.
so, why are they pushing this so hard?
because they think that if they can convert us all into vegans, they can salvage their business model. that is, the idea is to shift the blame, and then shift the source. they essentially think they can continue to emit new carbon, so long as they remove carbon from the existing cycle. get it?
but, it's a false solution, anyways, because even if we did manage to eliminate carbon being recycled by agriculture, your cars are going to eventually replace it all.
stated simply: it's oil industry propaganda. and, it's wide spread. and, people you like will repeat it. but, it's wrong.
i want to make a general comment, though, because we're seeing a trend show up in blaming the issue on cattle farming. i ignored it at first, but it's starting to become a theme, and that's disturbing, because it's not based on any actual science.
it is true that farming is a substantive contributor to global warming, but the idea that it's the dominant factor (and specifically that cows are the dominant factor) is simply wrong and, i believe, ultimately sourced from a dubious hollywood film that took copious amounts of money from the fossil fuel industry. when you hear people talk like this, red flags should go off in your mind. this is pseudo-science, but it's worse than that - it's meant to shift the blame from transnational industry to small farmers that can't really defend themselves.
the host at one point even suggested that the problem would be solved if the whole world went vegan, which is so horrifically wrong as to demand a retraction.
raising cattle is, in theory, actually carbon neutral. why is that? because the carbon that the cattle release into the environment came from the environment in the first place. cows don't create carbon, they use carbon and recycle it. the reason that farming is a substantive contributor is not due to cattle, but due to the use of oil-based pesticides for vegetables, as well as the habit of land-clearing to make room for them.
so, no, you don't have to give up burgers and cheese to solve the problem. nor is giving up burgers and cheese from a state like wisconsin going to make any substantive difference. factory farming is not a significant net contributor. but, soy and corn are.
if you're solely concerned about carbon emissions, your soy burger is worse.
i'm sorry if i burst your bubble of ignorance, but you need to stop watching movies. read books, instead.
i suppose it's not surprising to see this on cnn. i mean, the party itself refused it. so, why wouldn't exxon step in, right?
but understand it for what it is. and, now that the tone is set, i'll do my best to deconstruct the situation further as it happens.
we need to go after industry, not farmers.
it is true that farming is a substantive contributor to global warming, but the idea that it's the dominant factor (and specifically that cows are the dominant factor) is simply wrong and, i believe, ultimately sourced from a dubious hollywood film that took copious amounts of money from the fossil fuel industry. when you hear people talk like this, red flags should go off in your mind. this is pseudo-science, but it's worse than that - it's meant to shift the blame from transnational industry to small farmers that can't really defend themselves.
the host at one point even suggested that the problem would be solved if the whole world went vegan, which is so horrifically wrong as to demand a retraction.
raising cattle is, in theory, actually carbon neutral. why is that? because the carbon that the cattle release into the environment came from the environment in the first place. cows don't create carbon, they use carbon and recycle it. the reason that farming is a substantive contributor is not due to cattle, but due to the use of oil-based pesticides for vegetables, as well as the habit of land-clearing to make room for them.
so, no, you don't have to give up burgers and cheese to solve the problem. nor is giving up burgers and cheese from a state like wisconsin going to make any substantive difference. factory farming is not a significant net contributor. but, soy and corn are.
if you're solely concerned about carbon emissions, your soy burger is worse.
i'm sorry if i burst your bubble of ignorance, but you need to stop watching movies. read books, instead.
i suppose it's not surprising to see this on cnn. i mean, the party itself refused it. so, why wouldn't exxon step in, right?
but understand it for what it is. and, now that the tone is set, i'll do my best to deconstruct the situation further as it happens.
we need to go after industry, not farmers.
to be clear: the intent behind this kind of an attack would not be to try and convince people that warren is a racist, although that would be a bonus. rather, the intent would be to force her to adjust. and, then, once you get lots of media images of warren shaking hands with black and brown people with weird clothes and stuff - and the sanders campaign may have to help disseminate those - you can snap this white voting bloc out of the haze it's in.
so, if you can convince black voters that warren is a racist, that's a bonus.
but, what bernie's campaign really needs to do is convince white voters that she's not a racist.
then, they can get back to looking at policy - and she'll lose when you put the issues on the table, straight up.
so, if you can convince black voters that warren is a racist, that's a bonus.
but, what bernie's campaign really needs to do is convince white voters that she's not a racist.
then, they can get back to looking at policy - and she'll lose when you put the issues on the table, straight up.
it was always a left-wing policy. leftists are supposed to believe in state secularism; conservatives are supposed to believe in religious freedom. liberals take a middle approach.
we just live in an era where nobody knows their right from left anymore.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/secularism-law-opinion-jean-francis-lisee-1.5274015
we just live in an era where nobody knows their right from left anymore.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/secularism-law-opinion-jean-francis-lisee-1.5274015
in order to win, sanders has to have an outright majority going in. he can't give the party any opportunity to overturn the results, because they will, if they can.
and, in order to do that, he had to block warren at the start. he had to stop her from gaining any traction at all.
but, he's run an aimless campaign that allowed the media to prop her up, while he campaigned in areas he can't actually win in, and chased demographics that are either out of his reach or too marginal to really matter. and, she's managed to undercut him through his own incompetence.
she still can't win so long as biden is there. but, she can - and will - run interference long enough to give it to biden.
and, in order to do that, he had to block warren at the start. he had to stop her from gaining any traction at all.
but, he's run an aimless campaign that allowed the media to prop her up, while he campaigned in areas he can't actually win in, and chased demographics that are either out of his reach or too marginal to really matter. and, she's managed to undercut him through his own incompetence.
she still can't win so long as biden is there. but, she can - and will - run interference long enough to give it to biden.
right now - and it's early. things will change. - it seems clear enough that biden will sweep the south, while warren and sanders split the north and west. warren still doesn't have a path, but splitting the delegates is enough to keep bernie out of it, because once you get to the convention, they won't support him.
so, you may even end up in a scenario where sanders has more delegates than warren going into the convention. but, they'll pick warren, anyways.
and, warren will lose to trump.
so, you may even end up in a scenario where sanders has more delegates than warren going into the convention. but, they'll pick warren, anyways.
and, warren will lose to trump.
no, what i'm drawing attention to is a racist media.
listen: you get what i'm saying or you don't, i'm not going to push the point, and i largely think it's too late. i don't think this requires a lot of explanation, or takes a lot of thought to work out, even if you need somebody to point it out.
but, let's be careful about muslim voter participation. it's easy to look at data and say "70% of muslims voted democrat", and think that's a rising group. but, two points. first, 70% of "muslims" is not the same thing as 70% of muslims. and, second, it's misleading if you take into account that only 5% of muslims voted.
(it should be obvious that i'm just making numbers up, but i'm aware of the trend)
in fact, it doesn't take a lot of thought to realize that those 5% are outliers, comparable to the children of evangelicals that swing left in revolt of their parents. and, to be clear: i'm in solidarity with those voters. but, they're "muslims". they're not muslims. and, there's never going to be a whole lot of them.
some outreach towards muslims is of course a good idea, as is outreach towards any other group. you want as many votes as you can get, obviously. but, when you're dealing with an unpopular group and a hostile media that's keen on framing you negatively, you need to be careful about cost benefit analyses. and, while he might not like to hear it, bernie needs to be careful with this.
as it is, i don't think that linda sarsour's endorsement has much to do with her being a muslim. she doesn't seem to be a spokesperson for the muslim community, but rather an activist in a youth movement that i'm too old to be aware of. ok. but, that's not how the media is covering it, and not how most people are going to interact with it.
i'm just saying that he needs to be mindful of the realities of what the media is actually doing, and that he needs to be realistic about the potential benefits of outreach to this specific group.
listen: you get what i'm saying or you don't, i'm not going to push the point, and i largely think it's too late. i don't think this requires a lot of explanation, or takes a lot of thought to work out, even if you need somebody to point it out.
but, let's be careful about muslim voter participation. it's easy to look at data and say "70% of muslims voted democrat", and think that's a rising group. but, two points. first, 70% of "muslims" is not the same thing as 70% of muslims. and, second, it's misleading if you take into account that only 5% of muslims voted.
(it should be obvious that i'm just making numbers up, but i'm aware of the trend)
in fact, it doesn't take a lot of thought to realize that those 5% are outliers, comparable to the children of evangelicals that swing left in revolt of their parents. and, to be clear: i'm in solidarity with those voters. but, they're "muslims". they're not muslims. and, there's never going to be a whole lot of them.
some outreach towards muslims is of course a good idea, as is outreach towards any other group. you want as many votes as you can get, obviously. but, when you're dealing with an unpopular group and a hostile media that's keen on framing you negatively, you need to be careful about cost benefit analyses. and, while he might not like to hear it, bernie needs to be careful with this.
as it is, i don't think that linda sarsour's endorsement has much to do with her being a muslim. she doesn't seem to be a spokesperson for the muslim community, but rather an activist in a youth movement that i'm too old to be aware of. ok. but, that's not how the media is covering it, and not how most people are going to interact with it.
i'm just saying that he needs to be mindful of the realities of what the media is actually doing, and that he needs to be realistic about the potential benefits of outreach to this specific group.
i don't know who linda sarsour is, but the sanders campaign needs to be mindful of the media's apparent insistence on projecting sanders as a pro-muslim candidate.
that's not going to help him win votes in any important demographic - not suburban women, not southern blacks, not midwestern whites. muslims are deeply unpopular amongst pretty much every key swing group.
which is, of course, why they're doing it.
again: i've never heard of her before. i have no analysis or comment, other than to be cautious about the optics, because they're not positive.
and, i'm sorry if you're a muslim and find that offensive, but, like, get an analysis.
that's not going to help him win votes in any important demographic - not suburban women, not southern blacks, not midwestern whites. muslims are deeply unpopular amongst pretty much every key swing group.
which is, of course, why they're doing it.
again: i've never heard of her before. i have no analysis or comment, other than to be cautious about the optics, because they're not positive.
and, i'm sorry if you're a muslim and find that offensive, but, like, get an analysis.
the increasing concentrations of carbon in our atmosphere and oceans are a real thing, and they will have measurable consequences in the future. but, this is only one aspect in a complicated system, and for much of the planet, it's not even the dominant aspect. in the higher temperate latitudes of the northern hemisphere, it's actually a minor concern in understanding the weather for most of the year.
and, it won't keep us warm if the sun shuts itself off - not any more than a lighter will keep you warm in the dead of winter.
for better or worse, it seems as though we're currently emerging from a weak solar period, and, within the next couple of years, should expect the higher temperate latitudes to stop bucking the global trend.
for right now, expect a cold winter.
and, it won't keep us warm if the sun shuts itself off - not any more than a lighter will keep you warm in the dead of winter.
for better or worse, it seems as though we're currently emerging from a weak solar period, and, within the next couple of years, should expect the higher temperate latitudes to stop bucking the global trend.
for right now, expect a cold winter.
i know you want to see the solar system as something that's fixed and "natural". inalterable. many of the early greeks liked this concept of the universe that they understood. and, it's hobbesian, in some way. but, it's just another type of naturalistic fallacy.
the "natural state" of the universe is one where chaos and randomness is dominant, and small variations in only vaguely understood distant forces could very well wipe us right the fuck out.
we are a small planet suspended in an unimaginably large ocean of unimaginably powerful energy, and we get thrown around by the universe at will, even as we remain anchored in place by our sun - which is itself experiencing massive turbulence.
if you want to understand what is happening in front of you, you need to begin by understanding how small you are.
the "natural state" of the universe is one where chaos and randomness is dominant, and small variations in only vaguely understood distant forces could very well wipe us right the fuck out.
we are a small planet suspended in an unimaginably large ocean of unimaginably powerful energy, and we get thrown around by the universe at will, even as we remain anchored in place by our sun - which is itself experiencing massive turbulence.
if you want to understand what is happening in front of you, you need to begin by understanding how small you are.
milankovitch theory is an example of a messy theory, which is the case for most modern theories. what that means is that you can't find nice equations that govern the behaviour of the earth over any period, and you even need to calculate for error and compensate for uncertainty.
so, it's true that the milankovitch theory has proven lacking in key contexts, but the correct takeaway is that the system is proving more complex than we thought it was, and we've yet to uncover all of the complexity. it would be naive to suggest that there's any other way to uncover this besides slowly waiting for the data to come in via increased observation of the relevant celestial mechanics. and, it could take quite a while to work it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
so, it's true that the milankovitch theory has proven lacking in key contexts, but the correct takeaway is that the system is proving more complex than we thought it was, and we've yet to uncover all of the complexity. it would be naive to suggest that there's any other way to uncover this besides slowly waiting for the data to come in via increased observation of the relevant celestial mechanics. and, it could take quite a while to work it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
High-pressure areas are normally caused by a phenomenon called
subsidence, meaning that as the air in the high cools it becomes denser
and moves toward the ground. Pressure increases here because more air
fills the space left from the low. Subsidence also evaporates most of
the atmosphere's water vapor, so high-pressure systems are usually associated with clear skies and calm weather.
in the northern hemisphere, we experience rapid atmospheric cooling starting around the beginning of september as a consequence of the earth's tilt as it orbits the sun in a wobbly and imprecise manner, which is why we get two things near the end of the year:
1) a lot of high-pressure systems.
2) winter.
further, when you see high-pressure systems assert themselves earlier in the year, or linger later into the spring, the reason this is happening is that the sun isn't warming the atmosphere up enough, or even because the amount of solar energy hitting the earth on the tilt is decreasing in counter-intuitive ways. this is complicated, because it is non-linear. physicists call this an n-body problem, because you calculate it using the sum of the gravity exerted on the earth by the n bodies around it. there is no general solution to the n-body problem, and we are better off trying to measure this directly than solving it using numerical methods. the dynamic nature of the sun further contributes to the complexity in this system. climate scientists would refer to the fluctuations caused by the n-body problem, together with the fluctuations in the solar field, as the mechanics comprising the milankovitch theory.
in the northern hemisphere, we experience rapid atmospheric cooling starting around the beginning of september as a consequence of the earth's tilt as it orbits the sun in a wobbly and imprecise manner, which is why we get two things near the end of the year:
1) a lot of high-pressure systems.
2) winter.
further, when you see high-pressure systems assert themselves earlier in the year, or linger later into the spring, the reason this is happening is that the sun isn't warming the atmosphere up enough, or even because the amount of solar energy hitting the earth on the tilt is decreasing in counter-intuitive ways. this is complicated, because it is non-linear. physicists call this an n-body problem, because you calculate it using the sum of the gravity exerted on the earth by the n bodies around it. there is no general solution to the n-body problem, and we are better off trying to measure this directly than solving it using numerical methods. the dynamic nature of the sun further contributes to the complexity in this system. climate scientists would refer to the fluctuations caused by the n-body problem, together with the fluctuations in the solar field, as the mechanics comprising the milankovitch theory.
just in case people don't understand: high pressure atmospheric systems in the northern hemisphere are caused by decreases in energy in the upper levels of the atmosphere, which are driven by variations in sunlight.
so, when you hear a weather forecaster talk about a "high pressure system moving in", you should understand that the primary driver of that weather phenomenon is, in fact, solar insolation.
and, that is basic science.
so, when you hear a weather forecaster talk about a "high pressure system moving in", you should understand that the primary driver of that weather phenomenon is, in fact, solar insolation.
and, that is basic science.
Sunday, September 8, 2019
and, you'd have to destroy it good, too.
- burn it.
- bulldoze it.
- burn it again.
- ship the remains off to the ends of the earth in unmarked containers to be buried in unmarked, unknown locations.
- burn it a third time.
- pave it.
i've got some italian in me, i guess.
but, if you want me to take a side, that's the side i'm on.
- burn it.
- bulldoze it.
- burn it again.
- ship the remains off to the ends of the earth in unmarked containers to be buried in unmarked, unknown locations.
- burn it a third time.
- pave it.
i've got some italian in me, i guess.
but, if you want me to take a side, that's the side i'm on.
you'll notice that i don't tend to take sides in these sorts of things, and it's really not because i'm some kind of milquetoast fence sitter - it's because i actually don't support either side.
the faction i would support here would be a secular left that wants to tear down the temple/mosque complex and turn it into a fucking parking lot.
the faction i would support here would be a secular left that wants to tear down the temple/mosque complex and turn it into a fucking parking lot.
"but, then you reject israel's right to exist."
rights are things that states define; they're rules that exist within themselves. who defines the rules as to which states exist? nobody. so, states can't have rights, it's a contradiction in terms.
i would support israel's opportunity to exist, but if it gets outbred, then it loses, and that's their problem.
rights are things that states define; they're rules that exist within themselves. who defines the rules as to which states exist? nobody. so, states can't have rights, it's a contradiction in terms.
i would support israel's opportunity to exist, but if it gets outbred, then it loses, and that's their problem.
i pulled that out of the rebuild from oct, 2013.
maybe it's a good time to remind people that i actually reject a two-state solution in the region, because i reject the premise of ethnic nationalism. i don't think you should have separate states based on religious or ethnic identities, based on justifications from an iron age work of fiction. i think that everything about that idea is thoroughly, completely insane.
rather, i would support a single state solution where jews and arabs have equal voting rights, equal rights to buy property, etc. and, if that takes a long time to actually happen in reality, then we'll just have to wait it out.
maybe it's a good time to remind people that i actually reject a two-state solution in the region, because i reject the premise of ethnic nationalism. i don't think you should have separate states based on religious or ethnic identities, based on justifications from an iron age work of fiction. i think that everything about that idea is thoroughly, completely insane.
rather, i would support a single state solution where jews and arabs have equal voting rights, equal rights to buy property, etc. and, if that takes a long time to actually happen in reality, then we'll just have to wait it out.
you can really see what i mean about the jet stream, here:
it's like an evil force field.
the article attached to that picture points out that ocean temperatures in the atlantic are warmest at this time of the year, but it forgets that the sun is also bottoming out. nobody has the right data required to run this properly at a distance of more than a day or two.
but, if the spike in the ocean wins out over the dip in the solar magnets, i'm more likely to get a break down here in windsor than they are up in ottawa, which means we may get a week or two more after all.
if the jet stream overpowers, it's going to be a very early fall.
it's like an evil force field.
the article attached to that picture points out that ocean temperatures in the atlantic are warmest at this time of the year, but it forgets that the sun is also bottoming out. nobody has the right data required to run this properly at a distance of more than a day or two.
but, if the spike in the ocean wins out over the dip in the solar magnets, i'm more likely to get a break down here in windsor than they are up in ottawa, which means we may get a week or two more after all.
if the jet stream overpowers, it's going to be a very early fall.
this tipping point...
it's almost as tipsy as elizabeth may, herself.
canada could revolt hard this election.
https://thenarwhal.ca/canadians-in-every-riding-support-climate-action-new-research/
it's almost as tipsy as elizabeth may, herself.
canada could revolt hard this election.
https://thenarwhal.ca/canadians-in-every-riding-support-climate-action-new-research/
so, do i think that orthodox jews should be given conscientious objector status? man, that's a minefield.
i think it should be obvious that i oppose conscription in the first place. but, if conscription is necessary, then i guess i'd have to necessarily lean support towards the side that is arguing against conscription, necessarily. but, i'd want to expand the terms. that is, there should be a way out, but not just for orthodox jews. a secular pacifist should also be able to claim conscientious objector status. if you're going to do this at all...
but, hey, if we can finally get rid of netanyahu, right?
i'm not going to pretend i have a grasp on this. it's messy, and complicated. i'm just optimistic that a new era in israel is days away...
i think it should be obvious that i oppose conscription in the first place. but, if conscription is necessary, then i guess i'd have to necessarily lean support towards the side that is arguing against conscription, necessarily. but, i'd want to expand the terms. that is, there should be a way out, but not just for orthodox jews. a secular pacifist should also be able to claim conscientious objector status. if you're going to do this at all...
but, hey, if we can finally get rid of netanyahu, right?
i'm not going to pretend i have a grasp on this. it's messy, and complicated. i'm just optimistic that a new era in israel is days away...
it would be nice to see a red tory tradition (re)-assert itself in the united states, partly because it would make it that much easier for the democrats to actually focus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Tory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Tory
yang seemed to have a better grasp of the situation, but he seemed to think it was a secondary issue, and was constantly trying to either change the topic or relate it to something else. this is frustrating. at the end of the day, he might support some incentivizing measures, but i wouldn't expect him to support much of anything that would be in any way inconvenient to the investor class - and he's not going to be at all interested in the kind of major state-led initiatives and investments that are required to actually solve the problem, at this stage. so, despite having a better grasp of the severity of the issue, he had a far worse grasp on the steps necessary to address it, and seemed to perceive it as less important than talking to people about their wallets.
put together, he sounds like what they used to call a "moderate" republican. and, i would plead with him: everybody would be better off if these ideas were floated in that party, instead.
he's the kind of potential legislator i'd like to see a democratic minority compromise with, not the kind of potential legislator i'd want to actively vote for.
put together, he sounds like what they used to call a "moderate" republican. and, i would plead with him: everybody would be better off if these ideas were floated in that party, instead.
he's the kind of potential legislator i'd like to see a democratic minority compromise with, not the kind of potential legislator i'd want to actively vote for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)