the headache's back, so i don't know how useful i'm going to be for the night.
i don't have a swab, but i'm 95% sure it's strep. given that i started feeling sick sunday night, i actually probably picked it up on friday. there's a few ways i could have done that...
and, it's screwing up my sense of smell. i haven't smelled any drugs tonight, but there's a background odour that i think is tobacco but can't, at the moment, smell enough to be sure of. it's like 40% tobacco, 30% burnt meat and 30% bacteria or fungi. so, it could be the mattress again, or i could just be smelling the strep (there is a "sick" smell, when you smell your any pathogens in your nose or mouth), or it could be smoke from upstairs, or something else entirely. i will need to wait for my sense of smell to come back, better, first. that means the pot might have been stronger than i thought...
the aspirin was working before i fell asleep; the headache actually didn't come back until i finished my pasta. i don't think it's the food.
*shrug*.
i guess i'll get some more aspirin and give it another go, but i'm not convinced i'm very useful right now, or am going to be able to do much of anything besides sleep.
i don't get sick very often. i really don't. but, strep can be brutal, regardless, and i seem to have hit it pretty hard.
again: if this had anything to do with my lungs, i'd be coughing.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Wednesday, October 9, 2019
yeah, it's starting to feel like a virus, or maybe strep throat.
that's actually the better option. the other option is that i burned my throat up, but i wouldn't get a delayed reaction on that, right?
i needed some more sleep....
my sinuses seem to be mostly clear, now, which is an improvement.
i keep turning the fan off, like a fool, but the fact is that i don't want it on. i'll turn it back on at the slightest hint of anything, though.
all i want is for him to take a walk, subject to the agreement that he signed, or admit he signed an agreement in bad faith or in poor judgement and pay to get out of it. i should have a right to smoke-free housing.
i got a response on the cops' response to the human rights order in. it's mostly a sneaky way to ensure they actually filed it. i need need need to actually get to the request for review, now...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
that's actually the better option. the other option is that i burned my throat up, but i wouldn't get a delayed reaction on that, right?
i needed some more sleep....
my sinuses seem to be mostly clear, now, which is an improvement.
i keep turning the fan off, like a fool, but the fact is that i don't want it on. i'll turn it back on at the slightest hint of anything, though.
all i want is for him to take a walk, subject to the agreement that he signed, or admit he signed an agreement in bad faith or in poor judgement and pay to get out of it. i should have a right to smoke-free housing.
i got a response on the cops' response to the human rights order in. it's mostly a sneaky way to ensure they actually filed it. i need need need to actually get to the request for review, now...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
this is why there's a vacuum in the region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_genocide
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_genocide
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i ended up napping.
my sinuses are blocked up, so my sense of smell is poor, but it's coming back a little and i'm starting to realize that i'm going to need to do another major clean in here. again - it's when i leave and come back that this is necessary. so, what's going on in here when i'm not here?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
my sinuses are blocked up, so my sense of smell is poor, but it's coming back a little and i'm starting to realize that i'm going to need to do another major clean in here. again - it's when i leave and come back that this is necessary. so, what's going on in here when i'm not here?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
listen, i've made this argument before.
the question at hand is hardly about whether this is a "blow to us imperialism", as though i'm invested in dismantling american power in the region, or aligned with isis or something. i supported the bombing of isis, and i would like to see the russians take the lead role in the long run. that's not what this is about.
in fact, syria is historically a russian client state that is outside the scope of american imperialism. that's part of the point here - syria's not ours.
the argument i've made is that if your anarcho-socialist experiment - and my understanding is that rojava is really just another authoritarian leftist cult, and hardly an endpoint for anybody to aspire to - requires the backing of the global hegemon's imperial military might to exist, it's not much of an anarcho-socialist experiment, is it? they'd have to be able to stand on their own two feet to really be an anarchist experiment. really, rojava is itself better described as an outpost of american imperialism!
the history in the article is not accurate. these areas were neither historically arab nor historically kurdish, but historically assyrian. this is, in fact, the heart of ancient assyria. the assyrians were relatively light-skinned and majority christian well into the modern era, when the kurds massacred them in a series of brutal genocidal attacks. since then, there's been a struggle between kurds and arabs for control of the vacant lands.
so, if you want to do this right, you drive the kurds out and bring the assyrians back in.
that's not really plausible for a number of reasons, but the one thing you can't do in the twenty-first century is let the kurds conquer the area and drive the arabs out. any reasonable alliance with the kurds needed to be rooted in the assumption that they would behave as a responsible western ally and withdraw when the operation was complete; nato allies don't occupy the areas they liberate, they help in restructuring them with the ultimate aim of giving them back their sovereignty.
i don't like what the turks are doing here. it's far from ideal, of course. but, when the europeans are refusing to carry through with their international obligations in funding a peacekeeping force, and the kurds simply won't leave the areas they've conquered and occupied, there's not a better option on the table.
the most important thing here is maintaining the territorial integrity of syria. so long as this is a step in that end goal, it should be supported. if the turks deviate from that goal, they've fucked up and will feel it.
and, i would hope that the refugees in canada are given the opportunity to return home, as well, as that is what they actually want to do. i would call on the canadian government to offer to fly them back, if they make the request.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/10/rojava-syria-erdogan-turkey-united-states-military
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the question at hand is hardly about whether this is a "blow to us imperialism", as though i'm invested in dismantling american power in the region, or aligned with isis or something. i supported the bombing of isis, and i would like to see the russians take the lead role in the long run. that's not what this is about.
in fact, syria is historically a russian client state that is outside the scope of american imperialism. that's part of the point here - syria's not ours.
the argument i've made is that if your anarcho-socialist experiment - and my understanding is that rojava is really just another authoritarian leftist cult, and hardly an endpoint for anybody to aspire to - requires the backing of the global hegemon's imperial military might to exist, it's not much of an anarcho-socialist experiment, is it? they'd have to be able to stand on their own two feet to really be an anarchist experiment. really, rojava is itself better described as an outpost of american imperialism!
the history in the article is not accurate. these areas were neither historically arab nor historically kurdish, but historically assyrian. this is, in fact, the heart of ancient assyria. the assyrians were relatively light-skinned and majority christian well into the modern era, when the kurds massacred them in a series of brutal genocidal attacks. since then, there's been a struggle between kurds and arabs for control of the vacant lands.
so, if you want to do this right, you drive the kurds out and bring the assyrians back in.
that's not really plausible for a number of reasons, but the one thing you can't do in the twenty-first century is let the kurds conquer the area and drive the arabs out. any reasonable alliance with the kurds needed to be rooted in the assumption that they would behave as a responsible western ally and withdraw when the operation was complete; nato allies don't occupy the areas they liberate, they help in restructuring them with the ultimate aim of giving them back their sovereignty.
i don't like what the turks are doing here. it's far from ideal, of course. but, when the europeans are refusing to carry through with their international obligations in funding a peacekeeping force, and the kurds simply won't leave the areas they've conquered and occupied, there's not a better option on the table.
the most important thing here is maintaining the territorial integrity of syria. so long as this is a step in that end goal, it should be supported. if the turks deviate from that goal, they've fucked up and will feel it.
and, i would hope that the refugees in canada are given the opportunity to return home, as well, as that is what they actually want to do. i would call on the canadian government to offer to fly them back, if they make the request.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/10/rojava-syria-erdogan-turkey-united-states-military
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, i actually haven't been on the computer much of the night.
the place was really filthy. i guess he must have been smoking on sunday when i was gone, because there's something lingering in here, and it's absolutely rank.
so, i did some laundry. three loads, i guess - including sheets. hopefully, it doesn't come back tonight, because everything is clean in here, now, and i don't want to have to deal with more uncleanliness. every time i think i've cleaned the place up, he just gets grosser. like, no wonder the guy's single at 55. yuck. he's gross.
so, i did laundry, i did dishes again, i got something to eat and then moved the dresser back. i'm hoping that's it for the year, regarding the gas. we'll see. i know what it is, now...and i think the dresser is mostly cleared out. another month, hopefully, and it's done.
i didn't get into the shower until this morning after 8:00.
i was not feeling well when i got back from detroit on sunday night, and thought it might have been the beer on tap at new dodge. there was something floating in it, at some point - i don't know what. since last night, my throat has become the main problem, but it seems to be tied to my sinuses; i think it's allergies, and is also giving me a brutal headache, but i'm hoping i didn't screw up my throat too badly smoking all those filters on saturday. like, i remember the smell through the blackout, and i remember stopping and realizing what i was doing. i remember flipping the smokes around. this is in the dark space, 4:00-6:00. so, i think i inhaled a substantive amount of bad shit. i can't do much but hope it clears up.
i want to do more cleaning in here, but i'm both not sure there's a point (is he going to keep being gross?) and i want to actually do some work.
so, i was hoping i'd be halfway through this by now, at least. instead, i'm just getting started. if i can stay awake through all of the environmental havoc, i can maybe get a draft done by the morning. if not, i guess i lost the day....
right now, it would appear unlikely that i'd be going out this weekend. it's looking like chelsea wolfe on the 25th is the next show.
no reviews while i'm nursing a headache...that'll have to wait....
...but i've got aspirin. i've got coffee. let's get started.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the place was really filthy. i guess he must have been smoking on sunday when i was gone, because there's something lingering in here, and it's absolutely rank.
so, i did some laundry. three loads, i guess - including sheets. hopefully, it doesn't come back tonight, because everything is clean in here, now, and i don't want to have to deal with more uncleanliness. every time i think i've cleaned the place up, he just gets grosser. like, no wonder the guy's single at 55. yuck. he's gross.
so, i did laundry, i did dishes again, i got something to eat and then moved the dresser back. i'm hoping that's it for the year, regarding the gas. we'll see. i know what it is, now...and i think the dresser is mostly cleared out. another month, hopefully, and it's done.
i didn't get into the shower until this morning after 8:00.
i was not feeling well when i got back from detroit on sunday night, and thought it might have been the beer on tap at new dodge. there was something floating in it, at some point - i don't know what. since last night, my throat has become the main problem, but it seems to be tied to my sinuses; i think it's allergies, and is also giving me a brutal headache, but i'm hoping i didn't screw up my throat too badly smoking all those filters on saturday. like, i remember the smell through the blackout, and i remember stopping and realizing what i was doing. i remember flipping the smokes around. this is in the dark space, 4:00-6:00. so, i think i inhaled a substantive amount of bad shit. i can't do much but hope it clears up.
i want to do more cleaning in here, but i'm both not sure there's a point (is he going to keep being gross?) and i want to actually do some work.
so, i was hoping i'd be halfway through this by now, at least. instead, i'm just getting started. if i can stay awake through all of the environmental havoc, i can maybe get a draft done by the morning. if not, i guess i lost the day....
right now, it would appear unlikely that i'd be going out this weekend. it's looking like chelsea wolfe on the 25th is the next show.
no reviews while i'm nursing a headache...that'll have to wait....
...but i've got aspirin. i've got coffee. let's get started.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
if you're going to call yourself a leftist, you should be placing your solidarity with the apostates, which means with the queers being attacked by muslim families, which means with the women being expelled from their communities, which means with the atheists and secularists and general non-believers being othered by the people that are supposed to care about them.
if you're going to stand with bigots and conservatives and religionists and misogynists, you should be identifying yourself as such.
he sold out.
stop supporting him.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
if you're going to stand with bigots and conservatives and religionists and misogynists, you should be identifying yourself as such.
he sold out.
stop supporting him.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the democrats did not lose the midwest because of the gays.
that's a conspiracy theory peddled by bigots, the kind sanders has been paling around with, lately.
the democrats lost the midwest because the clintons embraced free trade.
he had it right the first time - before he sold out.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
that's a conspiracy theory peddled by bigots, the kind sanders has been paling around with, lately.
the democrats lost the midwest because the clintons embraced free trade.
he had it right the first time - before he sold out.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
if these fake leftist politicians like bernie sanders want to sell out their principles in order to stand in solidarity with these hate-filled, bigoted muslim and christian groups, they can do that - but...
...the guy's dying. what's the point?
the proper analysis is that the guy sold out to a bunch of anti-queer bigots and it rightfully killed him politically, but it's going to be obscured by the fact that he might never get out of bed.
the lesson for the left is not to make the same mistake he did. the future is secular and egalitarian; don't give into the kind of hate being peddled at your local mosque or church, like that idiot bernie sanders did.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
...the guy's dying. what's the point?
the proper analysis is that the guy sold out to a bunch of anti-queer bigots and it rightfully killed him politically, but it's going to be obscured by the fact that he might never get out of bed.
the lesson for the left is not to make the same mistake he did. the future is secular and egalitarian; don't give into the kind of hate being peddled at your local mosque or church, like that idiot bernie sanders did.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
people who fight against religion are not bigots, because religion is the cause of almost all bigotry in the world; the most effective way to fight against bigotry is to join the fight to abolish religion.
you're just redefining the terms in an upside down way.
it's orwellian.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
you're just redefining the terms in an upside down way.
it's orwellian.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
just the facts, ma'am - numbers are coming up a little, but he doesn't look like he's going to get close, in total deportations.
like, obama could beat him 2:1 on this, even if he gets a second term.
https://www.axios.com/immigration-ice-deportation-trump-obama-a72a0a44-540d-46bc-a671-cd65cf72f4b1.html
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
like, obama could beat him 2:1 on this, even if he gets a second term.
https://www.axios.com/immigration-ice-deportation-trump-obama-a72a0a44-540d-46bc-a671-cd65cf72f4b1.html
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i know it's hard to find a voice in this hyper-polarized political climate that is kind of meh on trump, but that's actually where i am; i'm agnostic on trump.
there's lots of things about trump i don't like; he's awful on the climate, to begin with.
there's lots of things, like his immigration enforcement policy, where he's mostly just carried forward with the status quo, regardless of what he's actually said. we'll see, in the end, whether he gets the title of deporter-in-chief or if we'll have to wait for the next democratic administration to surpass obama on mass deportations. the last i checked, deportations had decreased...
and there's less, but a few, things that i'm actually largely in agreement with him on. the nafta thing looks like a wash, but i would easily pick trump over clinton on foreign policy any day, and think it's a welcome change, actually, after so many years of these hawkish neo-cons in power. i've spent most of my life arguing against the hawks; i'm not going to retreat now that we're seeing some progress away from them.
it's going to be a very sad turn of events if the next democrat, whoever it is, just brings the fucking neo-cons back in. and, now that it looks like they're mostly gone, i'd suspect this is a wedge issue that isn't going away.
again: this was a ballot issue. there were many, many people that voted for trump because they didn't like clinton's hyper-aggressive foreign policy. he has a mandate to get out of syria.
i applaud him for doing it.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
there's lots of things about trump i don't like; he's awful on the climate, to begin with.
there's lots of things, like his immigration enforcement policy, where he's mostly just carried forward with the status quo, regardless of what he's actually said. we'll see, in the end, whether he gets the title of deporter-in-chief or if we'll have to wait for the next democratic administration to surpass obama on mass deportations. the last i checked, deportations had decreased...
and there's less, but a few, things that i'm actually largely in agreement with him on. the nafta thing looks like a wash, but i would easily pick trump over clinton on foreign policy any day, and think it's a welcome change, actually, after so many years of these hawkish neo-cons in power. i've spent most of my life arguing against the hawks; i'm not going to retreat now that we're seeing some progress away from them.
it's going to be a very sad turn of events if the next democrat, whoever it is, just brings the fucking neo-cons back in. and, now that it looks like they're mostly gone, i'd suspect this is a wedge issue that isn't going away.
again: this was a ballot issue. there were many, many people that voted for trump because they didn't like clinton's hyper-aggressive foreign policy. he has a mandate to get out of syria.
i applaud him for doing it.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
and, no, i don't want to fight a war against russia.
my enemy is not russia, it's political islam, and i'm more often than not on the russians' side with this.
i'm old compared to these kids. and, i barely remember the berlin wall falling. the cold war is a relic of the past - as meaningful to me as wwI.
the russians i've met are good people, and they don't tend to want to enforce their values on others. there's a more meaningful ally there to me than an evangelical religion that wants to take over the world.
russia has it's own problems with the rise of the orthodox church, and the kremlin has tried to accommodate this in ways i don't agree with. but, i'm not afraid of the russians erecting religious laws in canada. they're a stable global power with defined interests and a separate sphere of influence that should ultimately be respected and backed off from. i don't really have anything to fear from them.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
my enemy is not russia, it's political islam, and i'm more often than not on the russians' side with this.
i'm old compared to these kids. and, i barely remember the berlin wall falling. the cold war is a relic of the past - as meaningful to me as wwI.
the russians i've met are good people, and they don't tend to want to enforce their values on others. there's a more meaningful ally there to me than an evangelical religion that wants to take over the world.
russia has it's own problems with the rise of the orthodox church, and the kremlin has tried to accommodate this in ways i don't agree with. but, i'm not afraid of the russians erecting religious laws in canada. they're a stable global power with defined interests and a separate sphere of influence that should ultimately be respected and backed off from. i don't really have anything to fear from them.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
again, tonight - smoking pot directly on top of me.
complete.
childish.
asshole.
hey, kids. how many of you want to grow up to be an unemployed, 55 year-old pothead that survives on their tenant's disability check, and lies about and hides it instead of being honest about it?
the guy is a complete loser.
i'm taking notes. s'all i can do, for now. well, and i can take another shower; i guess i have to
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
complete.
childish.
asshole.
hey, kids. how many of you want to grow up to be an unemployed, 55 year-old pothead that survives on their tenant's disability check, and lies about and hides it instead of being honest about it?
the guy is a complete loser.
i'm taking notes. s'all i can do, for now. well, and i can take another shower; i guess i have to
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the western media tends to portray the kurds as this oppressed minority that needs our help.
why?
because they're mostly white. you can try and break this down a million other ways, but the fact is that western support for an independent kurdistan is basically a white supremacist policy.
if you let the media define this narrative, you'd be easily misled into thinking that the history of the kurds in the region is of this pristine, helpless minority in the face of this onslaught of assimilation; the reality is that the kurds have been participants in some of the worst genocides of the modern era, and should not be receiving unconditional support from anybody. they're not better. they shouldn't be separated out as special.
the fact is that these areas don't belong to them, and yet they won't leave. they are illegally occupying the region. you can't turn a blind eye to that; something needs to be done about it.
i guess some people just don't care much for what the rule of law says in the matter.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
why?
because they're mostly white. you can try and break this down a million other ways, but the fact is that western support for an independent kurdistan is basically a white supremacist policy.
if you let the media define this narrative, you'd be easily misled into thinking that the history of the kurds in the region is of this pristine, helpless minority in the face of this onslaught of assimilation; the reality is that the kurds have been participants in some of the worst genocides of the modern era, and should not be receiving unconditional support from anybody. they're not better. they shouldn't be separated out as special.
the fact is that these areas don't belong to them, and yet they won't leave. they are illegally occupying the region. you can't turn a blind eye to that; something needs to be done about it.
i guess some people just don't care much for what the rule of law says in the matter.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
trump has made the right decision to pull out of syria. this was a ballot question in 2016; he has a mandate for this, and is carrying out the will of the american people in removing itself from a conflict they don't want to be involved in. the pentagon, with it's mouthpieces at cnn and msnbc, will disagree with this. but, if there was a reason that trump was elected, it is this, and i am overjoyed to see him follow through with it.
the kurds need to leave this region, which is not theirs, and go home. we cannot have tribalist ethnic conquests happening in the 21st century; the syrian state must be reconstituted, and it's territorial sovereignty must be respected. the kurds cannot be allowed to conquer northern syria. that would be an anachronism, a reversion to backwardsness. it's bad enough as it is...
the turks should not be in syria, either, but if the kurds will not leave on their own then somebody needs to drive them out. i would call on the turks to respect the territorial sovereignty of the syrian state once they have completed their operation, and hand the territory back to the rightful sovereign power, which is in damascus.
the ideal here would be for an international peacekeeping force to be deployed to oversee the kurdish withdrawal, but the power politics in the region will not allow for this. this is a deficit in the united nations, and we need to reform the body so that it is able to function effectively again in the future.
for now, the turks need to occupy the role of the international peacekeeping force, and the kurds need to go home.
and, i hope that the turks will allow for co-operation with the russians as they remove the invading kurds from the region, as it is the russians (by invitation of the legitimate sovereign in syria) that will take over this space, in the long run.
this is just international law - and what anybody that pretends to pay lip service to it should be articulating.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the kurds need to leave this region, which is not theirs, and go home. we cannot have tribalist ethnic conquests happening in the 21st century; the syrian state must be reconstituted, and it's territorial sovereignty must be respected. the kurds cannot be allowed to conquer northern syria. that would be an anachronism, a reversion to backwardsness. it's bad enough as it is...
the turks should not be in syria, either, but if the kurds will not leave on their own then somebody needs to drive them out. i would call on the turks to respect the territorial sovereignty of the syrian state once they have completed their operation, and hand the territory back to the rightful sovereign power, which is in damascus.
the ideal here would be for an international peacekeeping force to be deployed to oversee the kurdish withdrawal, but the power politics in the region will not allow for this. this is a deficit in the united nations, and we need to reform the body so that it is able to function effectively again in the future.
for now, the turks need to occupy the role of the international peacekeeping force, and the kurds need to go home.
and, i hope that the turks will allow for co-operation with the russians as they remove the invading kurds from the region, as it is the russians (by invitation of the legitimate sovereign in syria) that will take over this space, in the long run.
this is just international law - and what anybody that pretends to pay lip service to it should be articulating.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
there is a secondary point with these "movements", and it's that what they do often seems designed to piss people off.
when you're 17, it's easy enough to think that stopping traffic is waking up the sheeple. i get that. i was there.
but, trust me - it just makes them want to run you down. if the intent is to raise awareness, it doesn't help, it just gets you hated even more.
so, why do they do it over and over?
if orwell was right, you wouldn't know it. you really, really wouldn't.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
when you're 17, it's easy enough to think that stopping traffic is waking up the sheeple. i get that. i was there.
but, trust me - it just makes them want to run you down. if the intent is to raise awareness, it doesn't help, it just gets you hated even more.
so, why do they do it over and over?
if orwell was right, you wouldn't know it. you really, really wouldn't.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
and, to be clear: what's more effective than voting is marching over factories and seizing control of them, and then converting them into publicly owned bodies.
you'll never accomplish that by voting.
rather, you need critical mass - and you can't contribute to it from inside of a jail cell.
demonstrating and marching and waving signs is fun and useful if it helps you meet friends when you're young, but it's pointless in actually doing anything real. that's the lie they tell you: that protesting matters. it doesn't.
"but, what about the civil rights movement".
they had guns, kids. they don't tell you that, but you can look it up. this was not peaceful civil disobedience, it was a display of force.
"what about gandhi?"
gandhi was demonstrating the size of his army to the british governors. what he did was very smart, don't misunderstand me, but it was based on a game theoretic argument that you've probably never heard of. what he said was this: we can fight if you want, but you don't think you can win, do you? the british saw the size of gandhi's army and calculated that they couldn't win and gave up, instead. it only worked because the british were rational. but, this wasn't peaceful disobedience, either - it was a direct threat of violence.
strikes work because they stop production, so you have to make sure that you're actually stopping production if you want them to work. likewise, parades only work when there's a threat of force attached to them, so you have to make sure you're actually being scary, or you're just wasting your time.
you're kids; what you can do is minimal, and hanging out and networking face-to-face isn't the worse way to spend your time at that age, either. but, if you kids get yourself arrested, you're going to have the cops on your ass for the rest of your life. it's a bad idea, and it doesn't help the movement in the long run if your phone is hacked by the cia and recording everything that's happening.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
you'll never accomplish that by voting.
rather, you need critical mass - and you can't contribute to it from inside of a jail cell.
demonstrating and marching and waving signs is fun and useful if it helps you meet friends when you're young, but it's pointless in actually doing anything real. that's the lie they tell you: that protesting matters. it doesn't.
"but, what about the civil rights movement".
they had guns, kids. they don't tell you that, but you can look it up. this was not peaceful civil disobedience, it was a display of force.
"what about gandhi?"
gandhi was demonstrating the size of his army to the british governors. what he did was very smart, don't misunderstand me, but it was based on a game theoretic argument that you've probably never heard of. what he said was this: we can fight if you want, but you don't think you can win, do you? the british saw the size of gandhi's army and calculated that they couldn't win and gave up, instead. it only worked because the british were rational. but, this wasn't peaceful disobedience, either - it was a direct threat of violence.
strikes work because they stop production, so you have to make sure that you're actually stopping production if you want them to work. likewise, parades only work when there's a threat of force attached to them, so you have to make sure you're actually being scary, or you're just wasting your time.
you're kids; what you can do is minimal, and hanging out and networking face-to-face isn't the worse way to spend your time at that age, either. but, if you kids get yourself arrested, you're going to have the cops on your ass for the rest of your life. it's a bad idea, and it doesn't help the movement in the long run if your phone is hacked by the cia and recording everything that's happening.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Powers of courts and tribunals
(2) This Act does not affect the power of a court
or a tribunal to compel a witness to testify or compel the production of
a document. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56, s. 51.
=======
i knew that, actually. not explicitly, in that legislation, but as a general rule; it was the guiding principle.
what the cops are actually stating is that they know that an order would be binding, but are asking the tribunal not to provide one because it's "unreasonable" due to the bullshit precedent.
yeah. i got this.
what's the time limit, though?
i'm gonna fall asleep again. tonight...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
=======
i knew that, actually. not explicitly, in that legislation, but as a general rule; it was the guiding principle.
what the cops are actually stating is that they know that an order would be binding, but are asking the tribunal not to provide one because it's "unreasonable" due to the bullshit precedent.
yeah. i got this.
what's the time limit, though?
i'm gonna fall asleep again. tonight...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
yeah, the first case they cited talks about somebody mailing something somewhere and concludes they should have taken greater steps to verify they had the right address. there's a series of cases cited afterwards where the idea that the applicant has to take steps to find the address is upheld, but all that actually provides any precedent for is the idea that i have to take initiative, which i've done.
it's a completely bullshit argument by a clearly stumped lawyer.
and, this is a lawyer i'm dealing with, now.
i would expect the tribunal to produce the order, at this point; there's no compelling reason presented by the police to not present this information to the tribunal, even though they obviously don't want to.
to be clear: i understand that i have the burden, here. but, i'm doing this; the lawyer is being disingenuous, and the tribunal should see through it.
how long do i get, though?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
it's a completely bullshit argument by a clearly stumped lawyer.
and, this is a lawyer i'm dealing with, now.
i would expect the tribunal to produce the order, at this point; there's no compelling reason presented by the police to not present this information to the tribunal, even though they obviously don't want to.
to be clear: i understand that i have the burden, here. but, i'm doing this; the lawyer is being disingenuous, and the tribunal should see through it.
how long do i get, though?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
no. stop.
imagine being arrested for stalking somebody that you've never met - that you've never seen a picture of - that you don't know the address or phone number of and that you appear to even have the wrong gender for (i thought i was communicating with a male named ryan, not a female named caroline).
then, imagine the cops telling you that the person's identity is protected by privacy laws when you try to determine who they are in order to sue them.
there would be something unconstitutional about those laws, don't you think?
if the tribunal orders the information, the cops will need to provide it, and i think the situation is at least unusual in that respect. i doubt the existing precedents would really cover the scenario; i think i'm looking for a novel ruling in a bizarre situation.
but, the laws cannot exist in such a state.
what happened cannot be allowed - they need to provide this information. i have a right to it.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
imagine being arrested for stalking somebody that you've never met - that you've never seen a picture of - that you don't know the address or phone number of and that you appear to even have the wrong gender for (i thought i was communicating with a male named ryan, not a female named caroline).
then, imagine the cops telling you that the person's identity is protected by privacy laws when you try to determine who they are in order to sue them.
there would be something unconstitutional about those laws, don't you think?
if the tribunal orders the information, the cops will need to provide it, and i think the situation is at least unusual in that respect. i doubt the existing precedents would really cover the scenario; i think i'm looking for a novel ruling in a bizarre situation.
but, the laws cannot exist in such a state.
what happened cannot be allowed - they need to provide this information. i have a right to it.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
what the cops are claiming is that they should only have to provide the information if it relates to an ongoing trial.
well, is this not a trial? i may need to get a judge to rule on it. i think i can win that debate.
they're also arguing that they would require a court order, and that's fine if they want to go down that path.
again: i'm not doing the slightest bit of research into this, for obvious reasons, and we'll take it to court if we must.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
well, is this not a trial? i may need to get a judge to rule on it. i think i can win that debate.
they're also arguing that they would require a court order, and that's fine if they want to go down that path.
again: i'm not doing the slightest bit of research into this, for obvious reasons, and we'll take it to court if we must.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, i got the denial from the cops that i was expecting and am now waiting for a response from the tribunal. i need to check deadlines on that.
the cops are essentially saying "this is an invasion of privacy.". but, this is a bullshit excuse - what they're doing is protecting the defendant. that's not unexpected, but it gives me an argument - they arrested me for harassment without a warrant and without any evidence in order to intimidate me into not filing the complaint, and then they won't tell me who the person that had me arrested was after i've filed it. there's some other components about the issue that have to do with how much work i've done on the file, but we're again in a farcical loop. they're telling me i should have taken the steps myself, but they just arrested me for harassment over it, which is creating a contradiction in their general position - they are both arguing that they can't release it due to the harassment charge, and that i should have harassed her enough to find the data on my own.
i don't know the identity of the person that had me arrested. so, my request to learn this information is not an invasion of privacy, it's a request for a fundamental principle of justice. that they're using this argument will look bad on them in the long run...
for now, i need to check up on what the tribunal does next. i presume they'll rule on the validity of the denial, and i'm kind of not sure about it. the idea i'm trying to get across is that i have no idea who this person is at all, so i avoided making lengthy arguments. on the other hand, we're not dealing with a rubber stamp body anymore, either. but, the courts tend to focus strongly on the perspective of the cops.
i'm not digging up dirt on this person, we're going to get the information from the cops, because they're the ones that are responsible for this. if the cops are going to act like this, they need to be held responsible for it, and that's a big part of why i'm doing this.
so, if the tribunal accepts the rejection, i'll have to appeal it in superior court and write back and request that they put the application on hold while that goes through.
we're going to be doing this for a long time, as i snake through the dozens of appeals and everything else. this is a huge legal fight, and i'm starkly committed to it.
you should not be allowed to use the cops as muscle to intimidate somebody, and then use them to hide your identity; if the cops are going to bully people around on a client's behest, they should be forced to provide information about that person's identity, on request.
we'll fight this one out for as long as it takes...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the cops are essentially saying "this is an invasion of privacy.". but, this is a bullshit excuse - what they're doing is protecting the defendant. that's not unexpected, but it gives me an argument - they arrested me for harassment without a warrant and without any evidence in order to intimidate me into not filing the complaint, and then they won't tell me who the person that had me arrested was after i've filed it. there's some other components about the issue that have to do with how much work i've done on the file, but we're again in a farcical loop. they're telling me i should have taken the steps myself, but they just arrested me for harassment over it, which is creating a contradiction in their general position - they are both arguing that they can't release it due to the harassment charge, and that i should have harassed her enough to find the data on my own.
i don't know the identity of the person that had me arrested. so, my request to learn this information is not an invasion of privacy, it's a request for a fundamental principle of justice. that they're using this argument will look bad on them in the long run...
for now, i need to check up on what the tribunal does next. i presume they'll rule on the validity of the denial, and i'm kind of not sure about it. the idea i'm trying to get across is that i have no idea who this person is at all, so i avoided making lengthy arguments. on the other hand, we're not dealing with a rubber stamp body anymore, either. but, the courts tend to focus strongly on the perspective of the cops.
i'm not digging up dirt on this person, we're going to get the information from the cops, because they're the ones that are responsible for this. if the cops are going to act like this, they need to be held responsible for it, and that's a big part of why i'm doing this.
so, if the tribunal accepts the rejection, i'll have to appeal it in superior court and write back and request that they put the application on hold while that goes through.
we're going to be doing this for a long time, as i snake through the dozens of appeals and everything else. this is a huge legal fight, and i'm starkly committed to it.
you should not be allowed to use the cops as muscle to intimidate somebody, and then use them to hide your identity; if the cops are going to bully people around on a client's behest, they should be forced to provide information about that person's identity, on request.
we'll fight this one out for as long as it takes...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Extinction Rebellion uses arrest as a tactic to try to achieve its goals.
this is simply too idiotic to be real, and i want to interject my own experience, here - one of the best ways that you can identify the cops is by looking at who gets arrested.
somebody else might say something about race, but that's just a distraction, really. there's a far more pressing concern, here. let's think this through.
what happens when you get arrested for something like this?
- you get processed, including fingerprinted. you might apply to have things destroyed, but it's not easy to get the cops to actually do this. i'm probably going to need to sue, myself - we'll see how that goes.
- they know your real name, your address, etc.
- you're put in a list.
- you're put under surveillance.
so, if you're using arrest as a tactic, you're playing right into their hands, and you're retarded. more likely - this is truly occam's razor - is that the whole thing's a sting operation, to try and capture data on the next generation of activists.
if you fell for it, there's not much you can do, at this point, but you probably want to stay away from any groups that you think are actually legit; otherwise, you're bringing the cops there, and potentially bringing a mic in, at that.
i keep telling you that if orwell was actually right then you wouldn't know it...
i got myself arrested last year, it is true, but it was for a different purpose - i was building a civil case against the cops. so, i got arrested in order to sue. i'm not currently involved in any kind of organizing, and don't expect to be.....pretty much ever again. i moved 800 km away from where i used to organize, as well. so, i'm not putting anybody at risk, and the use of spying on me like this is essentially nil. if that wasn't true, i'd be putting comrades at risk, which is a big problem.
so, what do i think about this? it sounds like a sting. if you're going to go down and look for activists and/or hang out, don't get arrested. that's the set-up!
that said, not everybody there is going to be a cop, and if my own experience is any guide then you may find some value in using it as a networking tool - just be extremely careful about infiltration, and get away from any more legit organizing immediately once you think they've "got" you..
i'm, personally, in no position to do this kind of thing.
would mass arrests accomplish anything in the long run? of course not.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
this is simply too idiotic to be real, and i want to interject my own experience, here - one of the best ways that you can identify the cops is by looking at who gets arrested.
somebody else might say something about race, but that's just a distraction, really. there's a far more pressing concern, here. let's think this through.
what happens when you get arrested for something like this?
- you get processed, including fingerprinted. you might apply to have things destroyed, but it's not easy to get the cops to actually do this. i'm probably going to need to sue, myself - we'll see how that goes.
- they know your real name, your address, etc.
- you're put in a list.
- you're put under surveillance.
so, if you're using arrest as a tactic, you're playing right into their hands, and you're retarded. more likely - this is truly occam's razor - is that the whole thing's a sting operation, to try and capture data on the next generation of activists.
if you fell for it, there's not much you can do, at this point, but you probably want to stay away from any groups that you think are actually legit; otherwise, you're bringing the cops there, and potentially bringing a mic in, at that.
i keep telling you that if orwell was actually right then you wouldn't know it...
i got myself arrested last year, it is true, but it was for a different purpose - i was building a civil case against the cops. so, i got arrested in order to sue. i'm not currently involved in any kind of organizing, and don't expect to be.....pretty much ever again. i moved 800 km away from where i used to organize, as well. so, i'm not putting anybody at risk, and the use of spying on me like this is essentially nil. if that wasn't true, i'd be putting comrades at risk, which is a big problem.
so, what do i think about this? it sounds like a sting. if you're going to go down and look for activists and/or hang out, don't get arrested. that's the set-up!
that said, not everybody there is going to be a cop, and if my own experience is any guide then you may find some value in using it as a networking tool - just be extremely careful about infiltration, and get away from any more legit organizing immediately once you think they've "got" you..
i'm, personally, in no position to do this kind of thing.
would mass arrests accomplish anything in the long run? of course not.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, near the end of the debate, trudeau just broadcast that he's in favour of wage and price controls...i mean building refineries in alberta.
look it up.
classic projection.
what's he talking about?
it was a notley thing, something she actually ran on, but that never happened. it's often been floated as a way out of the pipeline catastrophe - just build the refineries in alberta and ship it up to hudson's bay or something. and, he's right - it would need federal money.
wait for it....
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
look it up.
classic projection.
what's he talking about?
it was a notley thing, something she actually ran on, but that never happened. it's often been floated as a way out of the pipeline catastrophe - just build the refineries in alberta and ship it up to hudson's bay or something. and, he's right - it would need federal money.
wait for it....
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
it's clear, though.
the only person on stage that has the knowledge, life experiences and raw intelligence to be prime minister is elizabeth may. the rest of them are a bunch of idiots that should be out building their resumes, not running for prime minister.
it's mom vs the kids.
she's really running against herself.
but, she's also beating herself, soundly.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the only person on stage that has the knowledge, life experiences and raw intelligence to be prime minister is elizabeth may. the rest of them are a bunch of idiots that should be out building their resumes, not running for prime minister.
it's mom vs the kids.
she's really running against herself.
but, she's also beating herself, soundly.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
first audience question: only may bothered answering it, and it was a decent answer, as much as you can do in 45 seconds, i guess. may: B. rest: F.
bernier's q on multiculturalism: not important. ffwd.
second audience question about "leadership" in interprovincial relations: bernier wants state rights. fail. singh told us as a story about some stupid kid, rather than answering the question. fail. scheer wants to talk about carbon taxes. fail. may actually answered the question, with some kind of meech lake reference and it was sort of eh. B. blanchet doesn't understand equalization. F. trudeau claims he did things that he really mostly didn't. F.
singh makes a valid point that trudeau is harper redux, and trudeau tells you he'll do better next time, then deflects to scheer. but, that's what he said last time. decent question by singh, trudeau gets an F on the response. singh tries to double down, but on taxes, which is meh. bad question, pointless answer. ffwd. scheer jumps in and talks about boutique tax credits. it's harper v harper. ffwd. then, bernier tries to talk and is even worse. may tries to take the question back to climate change, which is welcome, but nobody really else has anything worthwhile to say. may: B. everybody else: F.
i ffwd through the section about immigration and multiculturalism. i don't want to hear it from these idiots. borrrring.
the next section is on indigenous rights...
they ask scheer about the duty to consult, and he actually said what you probably want to hear, but do you actually believe him? may then rightfully takes him to task for his party's record on this, and he fucks up a little when he responds. hey, i wouldn't want her yelling in my ear. i want to see more of this. scheer: F. may: A+.
blanchet tries to change the topic to quebec, and scheer tries to switch it back, because he's worse off talking about quebec than indigenous issues - which is telling. blanchet: F. scheer: F.
trudeau continues to pretend that he's done something that he actually hasn't, then tries to project harper onto scheer; scheer responded with a lot of things that align with the tory media narrative but are actually irrelevant. harper v harper, again. fail.
bernier - who is essentially a tory, and lost the leadership race to scheer - lobs a softball at scheer, here, by trying to make it about jurisdiction. fail.
singh wants to talk about education instead of consultation, then deflects to trudeau instead of nailing scheer on it, despite the conservatives and liberals having the same position on this. fail. then, he continues to try to nail trudeau, leading to a nice little friendly agreement between scheer and singh. hrmmn. they can fail together on this one, and maybe find a room after the debate.
i'm going to refresh my fruit bowl and come back, but i get the drift and may not bother updating from here on in.
once again, there's one actual serious candidate on stage, and it's may, and she's barely electable, herself - she only seems so much better relative to how awful the others are. the rest of them are basically equally terrible.
may: B - and better than i thought, overall.
the rest: F.
i still don't think i can vote for her, though.
ugh. i might have to...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
bernier's q on multiculturalism: not important. ffwd.
second audience question about "leadership" in interprovincial relations: bernier wants state rights. fail. singh told us as a story about some stupid kid, rather than answering the question. fail. scheer wants to talk about carbon taxes. fail. may actually answered the question, with some kind of meech lake reference and it was sort of eh. B. blanchet doesn't understand equalization. F. trudeau claims he did things that he really mostly didn't. F.
singh makes a valid point that trudeau is harper redux, and trudeau tells you he'll do better next time, then deflects to scheer. but, that's what he said last time. decent question by singh, trudeau gets an F on the response. singh tries to double down, but on taxes, which is meh. bad question, pointless answer. ffwd. scheer jumps in and talks about boutique tax credits. it's harper v harper. ffwd. then, bernier tries to talk and is even worse. may tries to take the question back to climate change, which is welcome, but nobody really else has anything worthwhile to say. may: B. everybody else: F.
i ffwd through the section about immigration and multiculturalism. i don't want to hear it from these idiots. borrrring.
the next section is on indigenous rights...
they ask scheer about the duty to consult, and he actually said what you probably want to hear, but do you actually believe him? may then rightfully takes him to task for his party's record on this, and he fucks up a little when he responds. hey, i wouldn't want her yelling in my ear. i want to see more of this. scheer: F. may: A+.
blanchet tries to change the topic to quebec, and scheer tries to switch it back, because he's worse off talking about quebec than indigenous issues - which is telling. blanchet: F. scheer: F.
trudeau continues to pretend that he's done something that he actually hasn't, then tries to project harper onto scheer; scheer responded with a lot of things that align with the tory media narrative but are actually irrelevant. harper v harper, again. fail.
bernier - who is essentially a tory, and lost the leadership race to scheer - lobs a softball at scheer, here, by trying to make it about jurisdiction. fail.
singh wants to talk about education instead of consultation, then deflects to trudeau instead of nailing scheer on it, despite the conservatives and liberals having the same position on this. fail. then, he continues to try to nail trudeau, leading to a nice little friendly agreement between scheer and singh. hrmmn. they can fail together on this one, and maybe find a room after the debate.
i'm going to refresh my fruit bowl and come back, but i get the drift and may not bother updating from here on in.
once again, there's one actual serious candidate on stage, and it's may, and she's barely electable, herself - she only seems so much better relative to how awful the others are. the rest of them are basically equally terrible.
may: B - and better than i thought, overall.
the rest: F.
i still don't think i can vote for her, though.
ugh. i might have to...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i actually forgot that there was even a debate last night.
i'm going to get some fruit for breakfast before i get started on this writing; i guess i'll check it out, but i'm not particularly excited.
my expectation is as follows:
scheer: F
trudeau: F
singh: F
bernier: F
blanchet: D+
may: C-
we'll see what we actually get.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i'm going to get some fruit for breakfast before i get started on this writing; i guess i'll check it out, but i'm not particularly excited.
my expectation is as follows:
scheer: F
trudeau: F
singh: F
bernier: F
blanchet: D+
may: C-
we'll see what we actually get.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i have essentially no childhood memories attached to this celebration. i usually spent it in the basement, avoiding family members that i didn't like.
it was the holiday that i never really understood. like, i may have tried to avoid people at the spring solstice, too, but at least i understood easter. what is thanksgiving, exactly? i never really got a straight answer until i looked into the history, in my 20s. maybe it's because i can't tie it to anything solar; maybe that's why it doesn't really make sense.
if you check my 2016 blog, i actually made it all the way to the post office before i even realized what day it was. i just pay absolutely no attention to this.
it could be partly because i really don't have any north american ancestors from that era, except maybe on my mom's dad side, which i don't know well. i've met my maternal grandfather something like five times in my whole life. my maternal grandmother is second generation, from norway, on her mom's side; i guess her father's parents were irish, but she never talked about them much, and i don't think she identified much with them. either way, we're still talking catholics, and they probably don't go further than the potato "famine" (that is, the irish genocide).
my dad's side is a mix, but all catholic and jewish, and maybe native and african. there's potentially some old stock quebecois in there, but there's nothing protestant.
so, don't be surprised if i do spend part of thanksgiving in the states, and don't expect me to really even notice it, if i do. this is something that i just don't care about.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
it was the holiday that i never really understood. like, i may have tried to avoid people at the spring solstice, too, but at least i understood easter. what is thanksgiving, exactly? i never really got a straight answer until i looked into the history, in my 20s. maybe it's because i can't tie it to anything solar; maybe that's why it doesn't really make sense.
if you check my 2016 blog, i actually made it all the way to the post office before i even realized what day it was. i just pay absolutely no attention to this.
it could be partly because i really don't have any north american ancestors from that era, except maybe on my mom's dad side, which i don't know well. i've met my maternal grandfather something like five times in my whole life. my maternal grandmother is second generation, from norway, on her mom's side; i guess her father's parents were irish, but she never talked about them much, and i don't think she identified much with them. either way, we're still talking catholics, and they probably don't go further than the potato "famine" (that is, the irish genocide).
my dad's side is a mix, but all catholic and jewish, and maybe native and african. there's potentially some old stock quebecois in there, but there's nothing protestant.
so, don't be surprised if i do spend part of thanksgiving in the states, and don't expect me to really even notice it, if i do. this is something that i just don't care about.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, it was a little after 3:00 when i noticed the smell of marijuana seeping in from upstairs, again. nowadays, this only seems to happen after i get home from the bar, indicating that there is some kind of feeling upstairs by the property owner that i'm some kind of hypocrite, or that my actions outside of the house provide some kind of license for his actions inside of it.
the smell was coming from all corners of the house, indicating that there was some intent to disperse the smell.
i ran upstairs to see if there was anybody outside, and there wasn't. nor was the smell anywhere outside. i will point out that i have seen at least one actual skunk in the neighbourhood, and it may have been an actual skunk that one time, but this smell was less controversial - this was a lighter smell, probably actually some kind of hash. the only possible conclusion is that he was smoking inside with the lights off and the windows closed so as to not get busted.
this is all very childish, on his behalf, and that's essentially my conclusion from dealing with this for the last year - this guy thinks like a teenager, and should hand in his adult card. and, the basic point is that i know better than to argue with dishonest people. after being sure it was him, i confronted him on it, and he's denied it...
so, i took a long shower to deal with the smell, did dishes (that always smells good....), made a pot of coffee in the other room and am going to make a pot of coffee in this room, now. actually, let me get up and do that...
it's brewing beside me. i've got the fan running, but short of putting down actual air fresheners, which i'm out of, there's not a lot i can do in this room.
let's hope it's under control, at least.
but, let's also review a few points:
1) i neither smoke marijuana nor do i smoke nicotine at home. while i was a habitual tobacco smoker for some years, i have not been since the start of 2016, which is almost four years ago. since then, i have only smoked when i'm drinking. four years is a long time, and i am confident that i will not return to habitual smoking. so, no - seeing me smoke at the bar or on the street does not imply that i've started smoking again. you should be confident at this point that that will never happen.
2) i have never been a habitual marijuana smoker, ever - i have only ever smoked marijuana in social settings, and in infrequent binges, from time to time. the legalization of marijuana in canada has not had any effect on my habits, and will not have any effect on my habits in the long run, either; while it will be nice to buy the odd pre-roll to take to the bars with me, i have no intention of smoking it at home. i simply do not want to smoke marijuana habitually - i prefer stimulants as my day-today habit, and consequently actually drink very large amounts of coffee. note that nicotine is also a stimulant, and consequently a very different type of habit.
3) as i do not want to smoke habitually, and consider that a key lifestyle decision at this point, i made a big deal out of signing a non-smoking lease when i moved in here at the end of 2018.
4) my habits outside of the unit have no legal implications towards the validity of the existing agreement, which i have upheld to the letter.
5) the agreement does not end or become void after a year. that agreement remains in force into perpetuity, unless somebody makes an effort to change it. this would not be difficult, but it would require the consent of both parties. as i would never consent to removing the non-smoking language, he's going to have to pay to get out.
6) he can, of course, pay to get out. it's his house. the agreement is real, but it isn't bondage - if he decides he made a mistake, he just has to pay a fine.
7) there's no hypocrisy on my behalf, and the law is clear enough. i told him i was a social smoker, but i didn't want it in the house, and that's exactly what we've got in front of us, on my end. i have every right to want this, and he has a clear obligation to provide for it, or be fucking honest about it and pay me out.
but, there's a pattern - it's when i come home.
and, i just need to be as clear as i can - no, my habits outside of the house don't mean i've changed my mind. and, if there's some delusion that i'm ever going to, people need to pull their heads out of their asses: that's not going to happen. ever.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
the smell was coming from all corners of the house, indicating that there was some intent to disperse the smell.
i ran upstairs to see if there was anybody outside, and there wasn't. nor was the smell anywhere outside. i will point out that i have seen at least one actual skunk in the neighbourhood, and it may have been an actual skunk that one time, but this smell was less controversial - this was a lighter smell, probably actually some kind of hash. the only possible conclusion is that he was smoking inside with the lights off and the windows closed so as to not get busted.
this is all very childish, on his behalf, and that's essentially my conclusion from dealing with this for the last year - this guy thinks like a teenager, and should hand in his adult card. and, the basic point is that i know better than to argue with dishonest people. after being sure it was him, i confronted him on it, and he's denied it...
so, i took a long shower to deal with the smell, did dishes (that always smells good....), made a pot of coffee in the other room and am going to make a pot of coffee in this room, now. actually, let me get up and do that...
it's brewing beside me. i've got the fan running, but short of putting down actual air fresheners, which i'm out of, there's not a lot i can do in this room.
let's hope it's under control, at least.
but, let's also review a few points:
1) i neither smoke marijuana nor do i smoke nicotine at home. while i was a habitual tobacco smoker for some years, i have not been since the start of 2016, which is almost four years ago. since then, i have only smoked when i'm drinking. four years is a long time, and i am confident that i will not return to habitual smoking. so, no - seeing me smoke at the bar or on the street does not imply that i've started smoking again. you should be confident at this point that that will never happen.
2) i have never been a habitual marijuana smoker, ever - i have only ever smoked marijuana in social settings, and in infrequent binges, from time to time. the legalization of marijuana in canada has not had any effect on my habits, and will not have any effect on my habits in the long run, either; while it will be nice to buy the odd pre-roll to take to the bars with me, i have no intention of smoking it at home. i simply do not want to smoke marijuana habitually - i prefer stimulants as my day-today habit, and consequently actually drink very large amounts of coffee. note that nicotine is also a stimulant, and consequently a very different type of habit.
3) as i do not want to smoke habitually, and consider that a key lifestyle decision at this point, i made a big deal out of signing a non-smoking lease when i moved in here at the end of 2018.
4) my habits outside of the unit have no legal implications towards the validity of the existing agreement, which i have upheld to the letter.
5) the agreement does not end or become void after a year. that agreement remains in force into perpetuity, unless somebody makes an effort to change it. this would not be difficult, but it would require the consent of both parties. as i would never consent to removing the non-smoking language, he's going to have to pay to get out.
6) he can, of course, pay to get out. it's his house. the agreement is real, but it isn't bondage - if he decides he made a mistake, he just has to pay a fine.
7) there's no hypocrisy on my behalf, and the law is clear enough. i told him i was a social smoker, but i didn't want it in the house, and that's exactly what we've got in front of us, on my end. i have every right to want this, and he has a clear obligation to provide for it, or be fucking honest about it and pay me out.
but, there's a pattern - it's when i come home.
and, i just need to be as clear as i can - no, my habits outside of the house don't mean i've changed my mind. and, if there's some delusion that i'm ever going to, people need to pull their heads out of their asses: that's not going to happen. ever.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
these idiots - and, they are idiots - seem to think i'm a russian spy, or something.
this is your intelligence service at work, keeping you safe.
this is what your taxes are paying for - spying on disabled people, as a consequence of debunked maddowite/mccarthyist conspiracy theories.
and, it gets back to the point about the media being at the root cause of the problems we have in front of us.
"if you aren't careful, the papers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and supporting the people who are doing the oppressing."
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
this is your intelligence service at work, keeping you safe.
this is what your taxes are paying for - spying on disabled people, as a consequence of debunked maddowite/mccarthyist conspiracy theories.
and, it gets back to the point about the media being at the root cause of the problems we have in front of us.
"if you aren't careful, the papers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and supporting the people who are doing the oppressing."
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
america could wake up tomorrow and implement a socialist program within a month, if it really wanted to.
so, why hasn't it?
because rich people?
no - it doesn't want to. and, the problem for the left remains what it's been for centuries - we have to find a way to get people engaged, which means undoing the programming and brainwashing.
that money floating around the system shouldn't, doesn't and won't matter if we can actually organize effectively.
all we're getting from sanders and warren (and uygur..) on this is boiler-plate, status quo republicanism from the mouth of rush limbaugh c. 1996.
don't fall for this.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, why hasn't it?
because rich people?
no - it doesn't want to. and, the problem for the left remains what it's been for centuries - we have to find a way to get people engaged, which means undoing the programming and brainwashing.
that money floating around the system shouldn't, doesn't and won't matter if we can actually organize effectively.
all we're getting from sanders and warren (and uygur..) on this is boiler-plate, status quo republicanism from the mouth of rush limbaugh c. 1996.
don't fall for this.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the root cause of the problems in america today is not the influence of big money in the political system, that shouldn't actually matter, it's the dismal education system and the terrible mass media, and the political apathy that these things breed in conjunction with one another.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
you can't ban money in politics, and you're a moron if you think you can. it's a cat and mouse game that you can't win, and i'm not willing to waste my time pretending that you can.
it's not like elections weren't bought before these recent supreme court rulings. the difference is just whether it happens in public or behind closed doors. so, do you want to take the debate back to behind closed doors? because that's all you'll ever actually succeed in by passing laws that try to restrict the flow of cash.
and, it's no coincidence that the people pushing this - elizabeth warren, cenk uygur - pretty much all used to be republicans. it's an idea that you need to be a conservative in order to take seriously, because it's essentially rooted in the idea that the reason that people don't have any power is because there aren't any rules. leftists know better than this - we have a deeper analysis than that.
in theory, an informed electorate shouldn't care about who is paying who to do what because we'd know better than to fall for it. there is one rule that i'd like to put in place, but i don't think that sanders or warren (and this is more of a warren thing, because it comes from the right of the spectrum) even support it - i'd like you to have to make your contributions public, and that would include small donations. if you're going to donate to a political party, you should be prepared for that information to get entered into a publicly available, searchable database. that way, people like me can do the research and figure it out.
if we don't care enough to do the research, all the laws and rules in the world will make no actual difference. if we do care enough, it's just a question of figuring it out - and somebody will probably even do it for you.
the basic reality is that i'm just not in the group of voters that are getting targeted with these kinds of proposals, which are designed to appeal to fiscal conservatives. i legitimately haven't the slightest interest in this, and i'm not remotely intellectually invested into debating it or voting for it.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
it's not like elections weren't bought before these recent supreme court rulings. the difference is just whether it happens in public or behind closed doors. so, do you want to take the debate back to behind closed doors? because that's all you'll ever actually succeed in by passing laws that try to restrict the flow of cash.
and, it's no coincidence that the people pushing this - elizabeth warren, cenk uygur - pretty much all used to be republicans. it's an idea that you need to be a conservative in order to take seriously, because it's essentially rooted in the idea that the reason that people don't have any power is because there aren't any rules. leftists know better than this - we have a deeper analysis than that.
in theory, an informed electorate shouldn't care about who is paying who to do what because we'd know better than to fall for it. there is one rule that i'd like to put in place, but i don't think that sanders or warren (and this is more of a warren thing, because it comes from the right of the spectrum) even support it - i'd like you to have to make your contributions public, and that would include small donations. if you're going to donate to a political party, you should be prepared for that information to get entered into a publicly available, searchable database. that way, people like me can do the research and figure it out.
if we don't care enough to do the research, all the laws and rules in the world will make no actual difference. if we do care enough, it's just a question of figuring it out - and somebody will probably even do it for you.
the basic reality is that i'm just not in the group of voters that are getting targeted with these kinds of proposals, which are designed to appeal to fiscal conservatives. i legitimately haven't the slightest interest in this, and i'm not remotely intellectually invested into debating it or voting for it.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, what am i doing?
i'll remind you that i got home late on sunday, this week - technically on monday morning. so, yes it's tuesday, but it's only been almost 24 hours since i got home.
i didn't really sleep until early this morning, at which pointed i needed to catch up on two days and flush the shit out. so, yeah - i've mostly been asleep since this morning. i think i'm awake, now.
i do have a review to do for the weekend, tonight. i also need to do some basic cleaning in here, but i'm going to try to wait until next week for the big stuff.
there's been a big temperature drop in here, but i'm ok with it, for now, because it's turning the air over. if the issue with the piping is at least mostly dealt with, let's hope that seasonal turnover down here is what i need to get the dresser back together and stuff. and, i'll need to look at filling those cracks in the floor as the next step on that.
but, i don't have any show research to do. i don't have any loose ends for the journals - i'll need to get started on november fresh (and may do december at the same time), but i can wait.
i got the result of the "review" on sept 3rd. there's no deadline, but it's well past time to get a move on it. i will do this this week.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i'll remind you that i got home late on sunday, this week - technically on monday morning. so, yes it's tuesday, but it's only been almost 24 hours since i got home.
i didn't really sleep until early this morning, at which pointed i needed to catch up on two days and flush the shit out. so, yeah - i've mostly been asleep since this morning. i think i'm awake, now.
i do have a review to do for the weekend, tonight. i also need to do some basic cleaning in here, but i'm going to try to wait until next week for the big stuff.
there's been a big temperature drop in here, but i'm ok with it, for now, because it's turning the air over. if the issue with the piping is at least mostly dealt with, let's hope that seasonal turnover down here is what i need to get the dresser back together and stuff. and, i'll need to look at filling those cracks in the floor as the next step on that.
but, i don't have any show research to do. i don't have any loose ends for the journals - i'll need to get started on november fresh (and may do december at the same time), but i can wait.
i got the result of the "review" on sept 3rd. there's no deadline, but it's well past time to get a move on it. i will do this this week.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Monday, October 7, 2019
i'm going to throw something out there, though.
bc's a mess as it is. but, if you look at some of the recent by-elections there, the people's party seems to be doing better than any polling would have suggested. i've pointed out previously that the ppc seems to be getting it's vote share from the liberals more than anywhere else, but this is particularly interesting in bc, given the history.
the ppc has a precedent in canadian history, namely the social credit party. they're not identical, but there's some dramatic overlap. there's usually been a party to the right of the conservatives, in canada - it was the merger in the early 00s that was ahistorical.
social credit initially formed governments in alberta, but, dwindled in the middle part of the century. in the end, they were left with pockets of support in rural quebec (the ppc is a splinter party created by an mp from quebec) and in british columbia.
the bc socreds were a powerful political force, but they did eventually dissolve due to internal squabbling, before reorganizing themselves as the bc liberal party. there is a bc conservative party, but it's a minor force. rather, what you have in bc is a coalition between the liberals and conservatives (called the "liberal party") that occurred mostly under periods of socred rule.
that means that a substantive number of liberal voters in bc today came from a political tradition that is actually on the far right - to the right of the conservatives.
so, it would not be surprising if the ppc did outperform their polling results in bc, even if they're not actually competitive anywhere. nor would it be surprising if, in the end, that's what we learn is behind the drop in liberal support in bc.
it's very hard to predict the outcome of an election where four or more parties are competitive because you start creating substantive ballot questions out of things that the media doesn't cover. just don't be surprised if it happens...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
bc's a mess as it is. but, if you look at some of the recent by-elections there, the people's party seems to be doing better than any polling would have suggested. i've pointed out previously that the ppc seems to be getting it's vote share from the liberals more than anywhere else, but this is particularly interesting in bc, given the history.
the ppc has a precedent in canadian history, namely the social credit party. they're not identical, but there's some dramatic overlap. there's usually been a party to the right of the conservatives, in canada - it was the merger in the early 00s that was ahistorical.
social credit initially formed governments in alberta, but, dwindled in the middle part of the century. in the end, they were left with pockets of support in rural quebec (the ppc is a splinter party created by an mp from quebec) and in british columbia.
the bc socreds were a powerful political force, but they did eventually dissolve due to internal squabbling, before reorganizing themselves as the bc liberal party. there is a bc conservative party, but it's a minor force. rather, what you have in bc is a coalition between the liberals and conservatives (called the "liberal party") that occurred mostly under periods of socred rule.
that means that a substantive number of liberal voters in bc today came from a political tradition that is actually on the far right - to the right of the conservatives.
so, it would not be surprising if the ppc did outperform their polling results in bc, even if they're not actually competitive anywhere. nor would it be surprising if, in the end, that's what we learn is behind the drop in liberal support in bc.
it's very hard to predict the outcome of an election where four or more parties are competitive because you start creating substantive ballot questions out of things that the media doesn't cover. just don't be surprised if it happens...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
when you create a society with winners and losers, and threreby create a lot of losers by design, those losers are going to socialize with each other, thereby nullifying their loserness.
in the end, the losers stick together.
so, you can go to parties nowadays with hundreds or thousands of losers at them.
so, think this through: you focus so much on this idea that socialism eliminates the drive to succeed and win. but, what we're seeing happen in front of us, as neo-liberalism moves into second and third generations, is that it's eliminated the stigma around losing, as people become desensitized to it as a normal fact of day-to-day life.
....because almost everybody loses, in this system, so nobody cares any more.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
in the end, the losers stick together.
so, you can go to parties nowadays with hundreds or thousands of losers at them.
so, think this through: you focus so much on this idea that socialism eliminates the drive to succeed and win. but, what we're seeing happen in front of us, as neo-liberalism moves into second and third generations, is that it's eliminated the stigma around losing, as people become desensitized to it as a normal fact of day-to-day life.
....because almost everybody loses, in this system, so nobody cares any more.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
you know, it's interesting to me that they're running hard on this, because it really is such a complicated, delicate issue.
i believe that the last time that somebody proposed this seriously was the infamous chretien white paper back in 1969, and there was such an outcry that they had to retreat from it.
i've tried to explain this here previously, but if there's a more complicated issue in canadian politics, i don't know what it is. the natives want to reframe the issue, but can't agree how to - the indian act is seen as assimilative, but so is the call to abolish it. so, any talk of doing anything at all becomes horribly divisive, and nothing gets done.
in the end, there's no real answer besides assimilation, but you still can't say that, not even now. yet, she nearly is doing exactly that.
i've stated repeatedly that the importance of indigenous support to the green movement cannot be underestimated. so, to come out with a policy that is so controversial in the indigenous community - if almost universally accepted by white liberals - is kind of head-scratching.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/greens-indigenous-reconciliation-election-1.5310561
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i believe that the last time that somebody proposed this seriously was the infamous chretien white paper back in 1969, and there was such an outcry that they had to retreat from it.
i've tried to explain this here previously, but if there's a more complicated issue in canadian politics, i don't know what it is. the natives want to reframe the issue, but can't agree how to - the indian act is seen as assimilative, but so is the call to abolish it. so, any talk of doing anything at all becomes horribly divisive, and nothing gets done.
in the end, there's no real answer besides assimilation, but you still can't say that, not even now. yet, she nearly is doing exactly that.
i've stated repeatedly that the importance of indigenous support to the green movement cannot be underestimated. so, to come out with a policy that is so controversial in the indigenous community - if almost universally accepted by white liberals - is kind of head-scratching.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/greens-indigenous-reconciliation-election-1.5310561
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i'm home, with some difficulty - it seems like somebody tried to steal my bike in hamtramck, but only got so far as deflating the tube. i had to walk it up to the gas station near the russell, which got me enough air to get me back to the tunnel. it doesn't look like it's going to hold, though....
i was worried i'd have to spend the night again tonight, which would have been bad.
i'll take a look at it. maybe i hit some glass. but, the tire was off the rim, so i think it was a botched attempt at trying to take the tire off.
the bike's worth $20.
i'll state it clearly - saturday was a little messy. somebody at the trumbullplex gave me a heaping amount of vodka. that doesn't happen often, but i was actually too drunk on saturday. i want to be honest - it really was the alcohol, this time. i remember buying beers number 4 & 6, but not beer number 5 (which i only deduce was purchased due to the fact that i otherwise lost $3), so i think i lost roughly an hour. i'll tell this story as best as i can recall it over the next few days.
right now, i want nachos.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i was worried i'd have to spend the night again tonight, which would have been bad.
i'll take a look at it. maybe i hit some glass. but, the tire was off the rim, so i think it was a botched attempt at trying to take the tire off.
the bike's worth $20.
i'll state it clearly - saturday was a little messy. somebody at the trumbullplex gave me a heaping amount of vodka. that doesn't happen often, but i was actually too drunk on saturday. i want to be honest - it really was the alcohol, this time. i remember buying beers number 4 & 6, but not beer number 5 (which i only deduce was purchased due to the fact that i otherwise lost $3), so i think i lost roughly an hour. i'll tell this story as best as i can recall it over the next few days.
right now, i want nachos.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Saturday, October 5, 2019
why are the ndp doing so poorly?
it is true that jagmeet singh is incredibly unpopular, and that his religion has a lot to do with it.
but, there have been longterm concerns about the direction the ndp is heading in for a long time. mulcair's insistence on balanced budgets, combined with notley's championing of the tar sands, draw their commitment to "progressive" values into deep question.
singh's unpopularity may be a catalyst, it is true. but, they've been dishonest for years. they've campaigned on the left, and governed on the right. they've brought in awful policies, when allowed to. they've attacked their own base.
and, now the greens are being seen by many people as the more "progressive" option.
i predicted this, but i predicted it because it was obvious - the ndp's days have been numbered for a long time now, because they've abandoned their roots, their core principles.
we don't need two liberal parties in this country.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
it is true that jagmeet singh is incredibly unpopular, and that his religion has a lot to do with it.
but, there have been longterm concerns about the direction the ndp is heading in for a long time. mulcair's insistence on balanced budgets, combined with notley's championing of the tar sands, draw their commitment to "progressive" values into deep question.
singh's unpopularity may be a catalyst, it is true. but, they've been dishonest for years. they've campaigned on the left, and governed on the right. they've brought in awful policies, when allowed to. they've attacked their own base.
and, now the greens are being seen by many people as the more "progressive" option.
i predicted this, but i predicted it because it was obvious - the ndp's days have been numbered for a long time now, because they've abandoned their roots, their core principles.
we don't need two liberal parties in this country.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
last night was eventful, but too cold to risk getting stuck outside in, so i did plan to get home, and did. i didn't get to sleep until close to 7:00. i'll do a review of the weekend up on monday.
for now: is it time to get predictive about the election, yet? if we're going to start seeing movement on the left, including in quebec, it's going to start soon, so take this analysis carefully. it could be out the window next week. but, based on what the polls are saying, what should we expect?
i'll start by pointing out that i think that the models that you see are fundamentally flawed in two ways.
first, they operate on aggregates, under the argument that it's a bigger sample size, but with no attempt to analyze the quality of the data. aggregates would be a good idea if all of the surveys were exactly the same. but, when you just throw everything into a giant pot and mix it up like they do, you're not "increasing the sample size", you're really just distorting the data. the bad surveys don't augment the good surveys by increasing the sample size, they just fuck up the sample. worse, you're doing apples and oranges comparisons across different sampling methods and modelling decisions. it's just not a good idea.
second, they smooth the data out, and they do it because they have to. so, they'll take a sampling frame called "alberta" and then calculate the results and then force them equally into calgary, edmonton and all of the rural areas. it's hard to take them seriously, for that reason.
in order to get good, predictive results, what we need are strong snapshots close to the election with far more detailed sampling frames than anybody wants to invest in. as it is, if you want to extrapolate the data well, you need to be knowledgeable about the different areas and essentially read into what the numbers are saying, by looking at what similar numbers provided for in the past.
the defenders of the models will claim i'm being irrigorous, and i don't deny that. i don't uphold this process as ideal. don't try this at home! but, the fact is that their models suck. this is less of a problem in the united states, where the states are smaller and more homogeneous, which is where these companies get their operating procedures from. until the industry decides to develop intrinsically canadian models from first principles, and revamps itself from scratch, starting with better sampling frames, this is the best that i can do.
so, what have we got?
the papers are focusing in on these day-to-day changes in polling leads, but the fact that both of the daily tracking firms that are publishing data are flipping every couple of days, and often contradict each other, demonstrates the point clearly enough: the parties are statistically tied in national polling numbers.
so, is it a coin toss? do the conservatives have a serious chance of winning?
no.
the regional polling has the liberals way ahead in ontario across the spectrum. if the liberals pull off ~45% in ontario, they're going to sweep the urban areas. if the ndp are really polling at 10% or lower, that sweep is going to be that much more pronounced. further, if the greens are really trending upwards in rural ontario, that's going to help the liberals, dramatically, as well. based on the data i'm seeing right now, it's reasonable to suggest that the liberals could win 100+ seats in ontario, by holding the gta and picking up a number of ndp strongholds.
if that happens, jagmeet singh should resign immediately.
there is a caveat, here: everybody has the ndp polling around 10-12%, except nanos, who is a bit of an outlier in this respect. he continues to have them pushing the top of the margin of error, that is closer to 15%, and maybe a little bit out of it. the signal appears to be significantly different. nanos is usually startlingly accurate, but he seems to be out of bounds on this. if he's right, the ndp may hold on to some of these seats. but, if everybody else is right, the ndp could be nearly wiped out of this province.
in the east, any increase in green support would appear to be cutting less into liberal support and more into ndp support. so, while it's tempting to think that the greens are just going to split the vote and help the consevatives, that doesn't seem to be actually true. i would expect the greens to poll higher than the ndp across the province, but that might just end up meaning a lot of second or third place finishes. it doesn't look like the picture is going to substantively change, here - the liberals should win most or all of these seats.
quebec is always messy, and in the end depends on turnout. with four or five major parties, polling data even a week before the vote is of minimal value, in quebec. but, the trends do appear to be towards the bloc and the greens, mostly at the expense of the ndp. at this point, it would be reasonable to assume that the bloc will steal most, if not all, of the existing ndp seats in the province. the liberals wanted to pick up setas here, but they'll be lucky if they manage to avoid losing any to the resurgent bloc, especially if the greens cut into their vote in any substantive way.
so, if the liberals end up losing 5-6% nationally, where is it, then? the answer is out west.
does it matter if the liberals go from 15% in alberta to 3%? broadly, no. they might lose a few seats. but, that will come out as an exaggerated drop in the national numbers. likewise, they may come in fourth place in saskatchewan, but they only have one seat there, anyways - and it's both the safest and least safe liberal seat in the country.
manitoba and british columbia are more important, with bc being more important than manitoba. the liberals do not compete provincially in manitoba, and the spectrum is shifted in bc. so, there are prominent provincial ndp parties that are overpowering the unelectability of jagmeet singh. the recent provincial results in ndp were not exactly inspiring, but they are better than the ndp is doing in most places, right now. so, the liberals could be in for some close fights with the ndp in winnipeg - but that's just a few seats. in bc, the liberals are going to get stung, but with the greens and ndp in a dogfight for the anti-pipeline vote, it's not yet clear who picks up the seats. if the greens get a majority of these seats, it's really "game over" for the ndp - even if they finish third, nationally.
when you add it up, then, the liberals are poised to win seats in ontario and lose seats pretty much every where else. so, it's going to be close - you're either looking at a very weak liberal majority or a very strong liberal minority. and, while it's not yet clear who the third party will be, it does not seem as thought it will be the ndp - it will either be the bloc or the greens.
the conservatives simply don't have the numbers in ontario right now to be looking at forming a minority government. gains made in the west may even be offset by losses in the east.
that's just the data, right now. we'll see what it says in a few weeks.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
for now: is it time to get predictive about the election, yet? if we're going to start seeing movement on the left, including in quebec, it's going to start soon, so take this analysis carefully. it could be out the window next week. but, based on what the polls are saying, what should we expect?
i'll start by pointing out that i think that the models that you see are fundamentally flawed in two ways.
first, they operate on aggregates, under the argument that it's a bigger sample size, but with no attempt to analyze the quality of the data. aggregates would be a good idea if all of the surveys were exactly the same. but, when you just throw everything into a giant pot and mix it up like they do, you're not "increasing the sample size", you're really just distorting the data. the bad surveys don't augment the good surveys by increasing the sample size, they just fuck up the sample. worse, you're doing apples and oranges comparisons across different sampling methods and modelling decisions. it's just not a good idea.
second, they smooth the data out, and they do it because they have to. so, they'll take a sampling frame called "alberta" and then calculate the results and then force them equally into calgary, edmonton and all of the rural areas. it's hard to take them seriously, for that reason.
in order to get good, predictive results, what we need are strong snapshots close to the election with far more detailed sampling frames than anybody wants to invest in. as it is, if you want to extrapolate the data well, you need to be knowledgeable about the different areas and essentially read into what the numbers are saying, by looking at what similar numbers provided for in the past.
the defenders of the models will claim i'm being irrigorous, and i don't deny that. i don't uphold this process as ideal. don't try this at home! but, the fact is that their models suck. this is less of a problem in the united states, where the states are smaller and more homogeneous, which is where these companies get their operating procedures from. until the industry decides to develop intrinsically canadian models from first principles, and revamps itself from scratch, starting with better sampling frames, this is the best that i can do.
so, what have we got?
the papers are focusing in on these day-to-day changes in polling leads, but the fact that both of the daily tracking firms that are publishing data are flipping every couple of days, and often contradict each other, demonstrates the point clearly enough: the parties are statistically tied in national polling numbers.
so, is it a coin toss? do the conservatives have a serious chance of winning?
no.
the regional polling has the liberals way ahead in ontario across the spectrum. if the liberals pull off ~45% in ontario, they're going to sweep the urban areas. if the ndp are really polling at 10% or lower, that sweep is going to be that much more pronounced. further, if the greens are really trending upwards in rural ontario, that's going to help the liberals, dramatically, as well. based on the data i'm seeing right now, it's reasonable to suggest that the liberals could win 100+ seats in ontario, by holding the gta and picking up a number of ndp strongholds.
if that happens, jagmeet singh should resign immediately.
there is a caveat, here: everybody has the ndp polling around 10-12%, except nanos, who is a bit of an outlier in this respect. he continues to have them pushing the top of the margin of error, that is closer to 15%, and maybe a little bit out of it. the signal appears to be significantly different. nanos is usually startlingly accurate, but he seems to be out of bounds on this. if he's right, the ndp may hold on to some of these seats. but, if everybody else is right, the ndp could be nearly wiped out of this province.
in the east, any increase in green support would appear to be cutting less into liberal support and more into ndp support. so, while it's tempting to think that the greens are just going to split the vote and help the consevatives, that doesn't seem to be actually true. i would expect the greens to poll higher than the ndp across the province, but that might just end up meaning a lot of second or third place finishes. it doesn't look like the picture is going to substantively change, here - the liberals should win most or all of these seats.
quebec is always messy, and in the end depends on turnout. with four or five major parties, polling data even a week before the vote is of minimal value, in quebec. but, the trends do appear to be towards the bloc and the greens, mostly at the expense of the ndp. at this point, it would be reasonable to assume that the bloc will steal most, if not all, of the existing ndp seats in the province. the liberals wanted to pick up setas here, but they'll be lucky if they manage to avoid losing any to the resurgent bloc, especially if the greens cut into their vote in any substantive way.
so, if the liberals end up losing 5-6% nationally, where is it, then? the answer is out west.
does it matter if the liberals go from 15% in alberta to 3%? broadly, no. they might lose a few seats. but, that will come out as an exaggerated drop in the national numbers. likewise, they may come in fourth place in saskatchewan, but they only have one seat there, anyways - and it's both the safest and least safe liberal seat in the country.
manitoba and british columbia are more important, with bc being more important than manitoba. the liberals do not compete provincially in manitoba, and the spectrum is shifted in bc. so, there are prominent provincial ndp parties that are overpowering the unelectability of jagmeet singh. the recent provincial results in ndp were not exactly inspiring, but they are better than the ndp is doing in most places, right now. so, the liberals could be in for some close fights with the ndp in winnipeg - but that's just a few seats. in bc, the liberals are going to get stung, but with the greens and ndp in a dogfight for the anti-pipeline vote, it's not yet clear who picks up the seats. if the greens get a majority of these seats, it's really "game over" for the ndp - even if they finish third, nationally.
when you add it up, then, the liberals are poised to win seats in ontario and lose seats pretty much every where else. so, it's going to be close - you're either looking at a very weak liberal majority or a very strong liberal minority. and, while it's not yet clear who the third party will be, it does not seem as thought it will be the ndp - it will either be the bloc or the greens.
the conservatives simply don't have the numbers in ontario right now to be looking at forming a minority government. gains made in the west may even be offset by losses in the east.
that's just the data, right now. we'll see what it says in a few weeks.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Friday, October 4, 2019
so, abortion rights are supposed to be about choice. i actually think what they're about is bodily autonomy, which is what morgantaler actually said, but we can go with it being about choice.
let's think about that for a second.
what are some other things that are about choice?
well, consent is about choice - they're synonymous concepts, really. and, we recognize that consent cannot be coerced. so, you can't consent when you're drunk, and you can't consent when you're underage and there are some open questions about what consent means when there's relationships of power. by extension, sex work is also about choice, and we don't accept concepts of coercion attached to that, either - we insist that these choices are truly free.
anarchists argue that labour ought to be about choice, while recognizing that the fundamental basis of capitalism is that it isn't. capitalism is the economic system in which we don't allow for meaningful choice in labour decisions. fighting for real choice in labour is what anarchism is all about.
yet, we don't seem to recognize these concepts of coercion when it comes to abortion, for some reason. when somebody gets pregnant, and aborts due to finances, we consider that a choice - while we wouldn't consider sex work to be a choice, in that situation. it's a bit of a contradiction.
we went through something similar to this in the gay movement. the idea that homosexuality was not a choice was so politically important that the actual science got completely ignored. we're slowly getting to the point where we can have a more mature conversation about this, and recognize that accepting that the actual science on this issue is unsettled doesn't mean gay people don't have rights, or that conversion therapy is somehow justified; it's ok to say that being gay is a choice, and that that choice should be accepted and respected for what it is. next gen, hopefully.
likewise, women have been so insistent on demanding that they have bodily autonomy, that they've maybe been less thoughtful than they should be about what that actually means.
so, when i hear a green candidate say things like "well, maybe if women had more options they wouldn't necessarily choose an abortion", i don't interpret that as anti-choice. rather, i interpret that as having a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of what a choice actually is, in context.
supporting the right of women to make this choice should mean ensuring that they have the material conditions to actually make a choice. abortion shouldn't be a hobson's choice, which is what it often is.
and, that's not a centrist position. it's not even a liberal position. this is socialism - and it's truly pro-choice. it's choicier, you could say. so, i would support these positions because i'm pro-choice, not in spite of it.
and, it makes me wonder exactly what mr. singh is thinking when he challenges statements such as this as anti-choice. does he think abortion should be a hobson's choice, as it so often is? or is he just talking out of his cock?
abortion's a gross thing, and most women don't take it lightly. i understand my biology. but, i'd expect that this more subtle approach to this topic would be well-received by most women that have uteri. there's a pro-abortion sub-culture that is kind of psychopathic, and that most people in politics should try to stay away from.
women need to have bodily autonomy, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that their bodies belong to them. but, let's make sure we have a good understanding of what that actually means before we speak.
ms. may should be ripping mr. singh apart for mansplaining this to her, and really just being a general asshole about it.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
let's think about that for a second.
what are some other things that are about choice?
well, consent is about choice - they're synonymous concepts, really. and, we recognize that consent cannot be coerced. so, you can't consent when you're drunk, and you can't consent when you're underage and there are some open questions about what consent means when there's relationships of power. by extension, sex work is also about choice, and we don't accept concepts of coercion attached to that, either - we insist that these choices are truly free.
anarchists argue that labour ought to be about choice, while recognizing that the fundamental basis of capitalism is that it isn't. capitalism is the economic system in which we don't allow for meaningful choice in labour decisions. fighting for real choice in labour is what anarchism is all about.
yet, we don't seem to recognize these concepts of coercion when it comes to abortion, for some reason. when somebody gets pregnant, and aborts due to finances, we consider that a choice - while we wouldn't consider sex work to be a choice, in that situation. it's a bit of a contradiction.
we went through something similar to this in the gay movement. the idea that homosexuality was not a choice was so politically important that the actual science got completely ignored. we're slowly getting to the point where we can have a more mature conversation about this, and recognize that accepting that the actual science on this issue is unsettled doesn't mean gay people don't have rights, or that conversion therapy is somehow justified; it's ok to say that being gay is a choice, and that that choice should be accepted and respected for what it is. next gen, hopefully.
likewise, women have been so insistent on demanding that they have bodily autonomy, that they've maybe been less thoughtful than they should be about what that actually means.
so, when i hear a green candidate say things like "well, maybe if women had more options they wouldn't necessarily choose an abortion", i don't interpret that as anti-choice. rather, i interpret that as having a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of what a choice actually is, in context.
supporting the right of women to make this choice should mean ensuring that they have the material conditions to actually make a choice. abortion shouldn't be a hobson's choice, which is what it often is.
and, that's not a centrist position. it's not even a liberal position. this is socialism - and it's truly pro-choice. it's choicier, you could say. so, i would support these positions because i'm pro-choice, not in spite of it.
and, it makes me wonder exactly what mr. singh is thinking when he challenges statements such as this as anti-choice. does he think abortion should be a hobson's choice, as it so often is? or is he just talking out of his cock?
abortion's a gross thing, and most women don't take it lightly. i understand my biology. but, i'd expect that this more subtle approach to this topic would be well-received by most women that have uteri. there's a pro-abortion sub-culture that is kind of psychopathic, and that most people in politics should try to stay away from.
women need to have bodily autonomy, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that their bodies belong to them. but, let's make sure we have a good understanding of what that actually means before we speak.
ms. may should be ripping mr. singh apart for mansplaining this to her, and really just being a general asshole about it.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, let's say bernie drops tomorrow. who are his voters?
- the ethnic voters (blacks, latinos) will probably go to biden.
- the old-white-male preference voters (the viagra vote. and, it's real.) will probably go to biden.
- the kids are what's really up for grabs.
will the kids go for warren?
she's going to need them to...
warren needed bernie to drop to have a serious lane, but it's by no means obvious that the condition is sufficient.
the media may, in fact, find itself shocked to learn that bernie's imminent resignation just hands it to biden.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
- the ethnic voters (blacks, latinos) will probably go to biden.
- the old-white-male preference voters (the viagra vote. and, it's real.) will probably go to biden.
- the kids are what's really up for grabs.
will the kids go for warren?
she's going to need them to...
warren needed bernie to drop to have a serious lane, but it's by no means obvious that the condition is sufficient.
the media may, in fact, find itself shocked to learn that bernie's imminent resignation just hands it to biden.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
and, what's my take on sitting at the back of the symphony hall?
well, i'm there to listen, and it's pretty loud anywhere in the building.
i think it's more of a status thing, really; if you really analyze it mathematically, the sound won't be measurably worse up there.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
well, i'm there to listen, and it's pretty loud anywhere in the building.
i think it's more of a status thing, really; if you really analyze it mathematically, the sound won't be measurably worse up there.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
there's still tickets, it's just that the website doesn't work with my version of firefox. i could see them when i logged into it via chrome, but i can't buy because i don't have a credit card, and it doesn't take pay pal.
i guess the best thing to do is go down tomorrow before the show....
and, actually, i should finally drop off some of the recycle stuff at the depot, too.
ok.
so, there's my day for tomorrow planned - i'll need to go down early and do some running around.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i guess the best thing to do is go down tomorrow before the show....
and, actually, i should finally drop off some of the recycle stuff at the depot, too.
ok.
so, there's my day for tomorrow planned - i'll need to go down early and do some running around.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the symphony might be sold out :(.
i'll be by there early in the morning anyways, so i might get a quick cancellation, but i might have to find something else to do in the afternoon.
and, of course, i have to sit at the very top, where it's like $15. i can't spent $300 on symphony tickets.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i'll be by there early in the morning anyways, so i might get a quick cancellation, but i might have to find something else to do in the afternoon.
and, of course, i have to sit at the very top, where it's like $15. i can't spent $300 on symphony tickets.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
yeah, i'm doing this.
05/06:
20:00-23:00 - prissy whip @ trumbullplex. $10
23:30-10:00 - marble show. $13.50 (if you get them soon, they've gone up twice).
11:00-13:00 - eat. $10
15:00-17:00 - beethoven's 5th @ dso. $15.
18:00-23:00 - post-rock show @ new dodge. $10.
that's a lighter night, actually - i'm starting off in the dance club, so i should have tons of energy.
i'll remind you that the last time i was at marble i'd already been out 24 hours before i got there, and i had those edibles, of unknown strength. even so, i wasn't drunk, so much as i was falling asleep.
i'm an empiricist. so, let's look at the data. for those that were eying me, is the following sequence of events not true?
- at a little after 2:00 am, before the vibert set started, i was out smoking in the back back near the portapotties, and somebody was like "vibert is playing", and i said "i want to finish my smoke", and then didn't actually finish it.
- during the set somebody mentioned that i looked "more than a little bit fucked up", which was no doubt true. i didn't have a mirror. i'll take them at their word. but o kept dancing.
- and i did try valiantly to dance, but i really was falling asleep.
- so, i went out back and enjoyed the ambient set, instead. and i did - it was a good set.
- several people gave me water, and i said no.
if i was black out drunk, or even just really shitfaced, i wouldn't have remembered any of that, would i? therefore, i actually wasn't that drunk. qed.
i was smashed. i don't deny it. but it was a lack of sleep combined with edibles. it wasn't the alcohol. i keep telling you i'm actually pretty good with the alcohol, and it's something else when i get spacey.
i should be back to my normal dancing self this week, and am actually going to be looking to make up for lost dancing during the vibert set.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
05/06:
20:00-23:00 - prissy whip @ trumbullplex. $10
23:30-10:00 - marble show. $13.50 (if you get them soon, they've gone up twice).
11:00-13:00 - eat. $10
15:00-17:00 - beethoven's 5th @ dso. $15.
18:00-23:00 - post-rock show @ new dodge. $10.
that's a lighter night, actually - i'm starting off in the dance club, so i should have tons of energy.
i'll remind you that the last time i was at marble i'd already been out 24 hours before i got there, and i had those edibles, of unknown strength. even so, i wasn't drunk, so much as i was falling asleep.
i'm an empiricist. so, let's look at the data. for those that were eying me, is the following sequence of events not true?
- at a little after 2:00 am, before the vibert set started, i was out smoking in the back back near the portapotties, and somebody was like "vibert is playing", and i said "i want to finish my smoke", and then didn't actually finish it.
- during the set somebody mentioned that i looked "more than a little bit fucked up", which was no doubt true. i didn't have a mirror. i'll take them at their word. but o kept dancing.
- and i did try valiantly to dance, but i really was falling asleep.
- so, i went out back and enjoyed the ambient set, instead. and i did - it was a good set.
- several people gave me water, and i said no.
if i was black out drunk, or even just really shitfaced, i wouldn't have remembered any of that, would i? therefore, i actually wasn't that drunk. qed.
i was smashed. i don't deny it. but it was a lack of sleep combined with edibles. it wasn't the alcohol. i keep telling you i'm actually pretty good with the alcohol, and it's something else when i get spacey.
i should be back to my normal dancing self this week, and am actually going to be looking to make up for lost dancing during the vibert set.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i slept much of the day, guess i had to.
i am done the concert run through. there's some posts at the dtk blog on the side...
i should for real get a start on the court stuff after i get something to eat, enough that i can make a few calls in the afternoon.
this is tentative. and, for the rest of the month, there are actually a lot of cheap shows in the corktown area, which is nice beause it means i can get over for quick shows in the week. the problem this summer has been that everything is in hamtramck or ferndale, so everything requires an overnight. pulling this stuff back into downtown is a big deal, for me.
i'm going to listen to all of this stuff more carefully. final decisions will likely be strongly weather-dependant, but being able to get home is also a major factor. for some of this stuff, i could see myself leaving my bike at the tunnel, even.
oct
04: <-----likely
19:00-21:45 - sacri monti/earthless @ deluxx fluxx. $15.
22:30-01:30 - bike thiefs @ phog. $5-10.
05: <------iffy. dependent on trumbullplex show.
20:00-23:00 - prissy whip @ trumbullplex $10.
23:30-10:00 - marble show $10.
11:00-13:00 - eat $10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06: <-------------------------------likely
15:00-17:00 - beethoven's 5th @ dso. $15.
18:00-23:00 - post-rock show @ new dodge. $10.
09: <------------------highly unlikely
19:00-23:00: caravan palace @ garden theatre. $30.
23:30-02:00: ufo?
10: <----------unlikely
19:00-23:00 trumbullplex
11: <-----leaning towards likely
early: war on women @ loving touch
late: operator music band @ outer limits
12: <-----late show?
early: pleasure city @ ufo
13: <-------unlikely
early: meute @ el club
late: the bobby lees @ pj's
14: <-----unlikely
goblin
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i am done the concert run through. there's some posts at the dtk blog on the side...
i should for real get a start on the court stuff after i get something to eat, enough that i can make a few calls in the afternoon.
this is tentative. and, for the rest of the month, there are actually a lot of cheap shows in the corktown area, which is nice beause it means i can get over for quick shows in the week. the problem this summer has been that everything is in hamtramck or ferndale, so everything requires an overnight. pulling this stuff back into downtown is a big deal, for me.
i'm going to listen to all of this stuff more carefully. final decisions will likely be strongly weather-dependant, but being able to get home is also a major factor. for some of this stuff, i could see myself leaving my bike at the tunnel, even.
oct
04: <-----likely
19:00-21:45 - sacri monti/earthless @ deluxx fluxx. $15.
22:30-01:30 - bike thiefs @ phog. $5-10.
05: <------iffy. dependent on trumbullplex show.
20:00-23:00 - prissy whip @ trumbullplex $10.
23:30-10:00 - marble show $10.
11:00-13:00 - eat $10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06: <-------------------------------likely
15:00-17:00 - beethoven's 5th @ dso. $15.
18:00-23:00 - post-rock show @ new dodge. $10.
09: <------------------highly unlikely
19:00-23:00: caravan palace @ garden theatre. $30.
23:30-02:00: ufo?
10: <----------unlikely
19:00-23:00 trumbullplex
11: <-----leaning towards likely
early: war on women @ loving touch
late: operator music band @ outer limits
12: <-----late show?
early: pleasure city @ ufo
13: <-------unlikely
early: meute @ el club
late: the bobby lees @ pj's
14: <-----unlikely
goblin
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Thursday, October 3, 2019
on top of everything else, electing 100 greens in the east would be an absolutely great way to tell alberta to fuck off, wouldn't it?
the tory media is no doubt chagrined by this statement.
but, that's exactly why so many easterners are so happy about it.
the bastards over here are tired of drowning in the heat, and we may just have something to say about it. eh?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the tory media is no doubt chagrined by this statement.
but, that's exactly why so many easterners are so happy about it.
the bastards over here are tired of drowning in the heat, and we may just have something to say about it. eh?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
tipping point coming? tipping point coming?
let me hear both sides, let me hear both sides, let me hear both....
we're not fear mongering, this is really happening...
https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.47/823.910.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-1445-CTV-Globe-Nanos-ELXN-Quebec-Ballot-Comparison-of-Weeks-1-and-2-Compiled.pdf
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
let me hear both sides, let me hear both sides, let me hear both....
we're not fear mongering, this is really happening...
https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.47/823.910.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-1445-CTV-Globe-Nanos-ELXN-Quebec-Ballot-Comparison-of-Weeks-1-and-2-Compiled.pdf
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
so, i was supposed to get to work last night, as soon as i finished the cross-reference, which literally took 12 hours.
it's not that facebook needs to upgrade it's servers, it's that the scripts it runs are so remarkably inefficient, by design. it is really the only site i know of that is like this.
so, instead of sending you a solid stream of data, they set up a script that references a database - a process that requires handshakes - every couple of kilobytes. on first glance, it's moronic, until you realize that what's slowing the whole thing down is data collection. you have to wait for them to finish tracking you, which means updating however many logs in however many places, before you're allowed to receive the next packet.
so, if i want to scroll back through 1000 posts from 2019 to 2013 to make sure the information on the page is what i want it to be, it makes me reconnect with the database every ten posts or so, so it can keep track of what i'm doing, which is particularly stupid in my case because i run an ad blocker. facebook no doubt has a thousand page file on me, documenting all the times i didn't click on anything at all. it has to document all the non-clicking, which is painfully slow.
but, what can i say? i have to do the reference...
for right now, it makes more sense for me to spend the night working out show reviews than it does to spend the night on legal documents. as mentioned: i think this will be a very light month, show wise. so, let me work the list until the 15th or so down, anyways, before i get this writing done up.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
it's not that facebook needs to upgrade it's servers, it's that the scripts it runs are so remarkably inefficient, by design. it is really the only site i know of that is like this.
so, instead of sending you a solid stream of data, they set up a script that references a database - a process that requires handshakes - every couple of kilobytes. on first glance, it's moronic, until you realize that what's slowing the whole thing down is data collection. you have to wait for them to finish tracking you, which means updating however many logs in however many places, before you're allowed to receive the next packet.
so, if i want to scroll back through 1000 posts from 2019 to 2013 to make sure the information on the page is what i want it to be, it makes me reconnect with the database every ten posts or so, so it can keep track of what i'm doing, which is particularly stupid in my case because i run an ad blocker. facebook no doubt has a thousand page file on me, documenting all the times i didn't click on anything at all. it has to document all the non-clicking, which is painfully slow.
but, what can i say? i have to do the reference...
for right now, it makes more sense for me to spend the night working out show reviews than it does to spend the night on legal documents. as mentioned: i think this will be a very light month, show wise. so, let me work the list until the 15th or so down, anyways, before i get this writing done up.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
so, it took me all night to get through the facebook cross-reference, because the site is just impossibly slow. in the mean time, i got distracted and republished my soundcloud page, for dj sets. the facebook cross-reference is at least done.
how do you get your music in the ears of people if you can't find a drummer? i don't like metal, and the punk scene is moribund in any meaningful sense (what is left of it is pretty much just garbage). there's no such thing as alternative rock anymore. so, i'm stuck choosing between folk and techno, and i'm far more techno than i am folk, even if i'm really neither.
i dunno. i see these djs around town that like to pretend they're doing serious art, and most (all) of them aren't. but, this is the medium, so what else is there to do besides deal with it?
i've got a few sets up to start. if i can get some people to bite, and can find a crowd, however small, willing to listen, then we go to the next stage from there.
the truth is that i should have done this a long time ago, actually.
the site is on the side, as well.
https://soundcloud.com/deathtokoalas
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
how do you get your music in the ears of people if you can't find a drummer? i don't like metal, and the punk scene is moribund in any meaningful sense (what is left of it is pretty much just garbage). there's no such thing as alternative rock anymore. so, i'm stuck choosing between folk and techno, and i'm far more techno than i am folk, even if i'm really neither.
i dunno. i see these djs around town that like to pretend they're doing serious art, and most (all) of them aren't. but, this is the medium, so what else is there to do besides deal with it?
i've got a few sets up to start. if i can get some people to bite, and can find a crowd, however small, willing to listen, then we go to the next stage from there.
the truth is that i should have done this a long time ago, actually.
the site is on the side, as well.
https://soundcloud.com/deathtokoalas
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Wednesday, October 2, 2019
at the very least, in quebec, in 2019, if you're going to invite the ndp, you have to invite the greens, too.
if you're not going to invite the greens, you should also exclude the ndp.
that you would pick one and not the other is irrational, given the data.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
if you're not going to invite the greens, you should also exclude the ndp.
that you would pick one and not the other is irrational, given the data.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
bc has a unique spectrum, with no provincial conservative party. in bc, the right-wing is the liberals and the centre is the ndp (like in australia). they used to have a right-wing called "social credit", but it's been dead for years (and largely eaten by the liberals). the greens have recently jumped up on the left, and currently hold the balance of power in an ndp-led government.
so, the ndp numbers are higher in bc than anywhere else for that reason - in bc, the ndp is the centre. singh is being saved by horgan.
but, don't be surprised if you wake up in a few weeks time and see them with one or two seats - or less - east of the rockies.
and, i'm sorry that i told you this would happen, but you should be sorrier that you didn't listen. nothing was more obvious. nothing was more predictable...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, the ndp numbers are higher in bc than anywhere else for that reason - in bc, the ndp is the centre. singh is being saved by horgan.
but, don't be surprised if you wake up in a few weeks time and see them with one or two seats - or less - east of the rockies.
and, i'm sorry that i told you this would happen, but you should be sorrier that you didn't listen. nothing was more obvious. nothing was more predictable...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
ekos wasn't the best pollster in 2015, which i think had to do with his sampling methods.
but, look at these numbers:
according to these numbers, the greens are beating the ndp in like half the country.
and, the ndp are polling at scary low numbers in a lot of places.
the debate is about whether the greens or ndp will finish in third, but if trends continue in the direction they're going, we're going to be asking if the ndp finish in 4th or 5th.
they could get wiped.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
but, look at these numbers:
according to these numbers, the greens are beating the ndp in like half the country.
and, the ndp are polling at scary low numbers in a lot of places.
the debate is about whether the greens or ndp will finish in third, but if trends continue in the direction they're going, we're going to be asking if the ndp finish in 4th or 5th.
they could get wiped.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
see, this is part of the reason we can't get rid of elizabeth may - they keep giving her the opportunity to write essays like this.
of course, she's right.
given current polling realities, it's very hard to justify including the ndp and excluding the greens. this simply doesn't make sense.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-green-party-wont-be-silenced-by-tva/
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
of course, she's right.
given current polling realities, it's very hard to justify including the ndp and excluding the greens. this simply doesn't make sense.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-green-party-wont-be-silenced-by-tva/
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
if you're going to make me choose solely between harris and warren, that's a pretty easy choice. harris has repeatedly demonstrated herself to be an unserious candidate.
on certain fundamental points, they may be more similar than different. neither will commit to serious health care reform, for example.
but, that's not a fair fight, overall, and it's easy to see why warren is kicking her ass.
what's less clear is whether she can take advantage of any of this or not.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
on certain fundamental points, they may be more similar than different. neither will commit to serious health care reform, for example.
but, that's not a fair fight, overall, and it's easy to see why warren is kicking her ass.
what's less clear is whether she can take advantage of any of this or not.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
but, to be clear, this graph makes it pretty obvious where support has been shifting and why.
warren is essentially destroying harris, and it would appear to be with female identity voters. sanders is actually roughly flat.
that means that it's not obvious that warren benefits from this.
i would be more likely to look at the greens, or some other third-party, than default to warren or biden.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
warren is essentially destroying harris, and it would appear to be with female identity voters. sanders is actually roughly flat.
that means that it's not obvious that warren benefits from this.
i would be more likely to look at the greens, or some other third-party, than default to warren or biden.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
i haven't seen eye-to-eye with bernie recently, but i do wish him a full recovery - in retirement.
it's sad to say that this was predictable, at his age, and i'm not the only person that questioned how far he would make it.
and, it does uphold a point that i and others have been making - it's not ageist to refer to statistics and uphold facts about aging. stats are ruthless things, and facts are even more intolerant than stats.
even if he comes back, it's over.
it's time for the left to move on, and it's not to elizabeth warren. there's still time for somebody to step in. i mean, what happens to these tens of millions of dollars that bernie raised? but, i really think that the focus needs to be to get a strong third party up and running right now.
is biden next? i'd suspect he's in better physical health. that was the difference - bernie seemed mentally sharp but physically weak, whereas biden seemed physically fine but mentally questionable. it's inevitable - not if but when.
and, then what?
all those candidates in single digits are still terrible, whether the old men are running or not.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
it's sad to say that this was predictable, at his age, and i'm not the only person that questioned how far he would make it.
and, it does uphold a point that i and others have been making - it's not ageist to refer to statistics and uphold facts about aging. stats are ruthless things, and facts are even more intolerant than stats.
even if he comes back, it's over.
it's time for the left to move on, and it's not to elizabeth warren. there's still time for somebody to step in. i mean, what happens to these tens of millions of dollars that bernie raised? but, i really think that the focus needs to be to get a strong third party up and running right now.
is biden next? i'd suspect he's in better physical health. that was the difference - bernie seemed mentally sharp but physically weak, whereas biden seemed physically fine but mentally questionable. it's inevitable - not if but when.
and, then what?
all those candidates in single digits are still terrible, whether the old men are running or not.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
and, the bloc.
the bloc should be killing it right now, and that they aren't seems to be a mixture of a feeling of apprehension about a couple of policies with a desire to move forwards, rather than backwards.
i understand the thing about "money and the ethnic vote". but, they need to focus less on demonizing other groups and more on promoting their own. quebec identity shouldn't be a process of defining itself against others, but a process of determining itself on it's own merits.
there is a broad feeling that the culture is under attack and needs to be protected from foreign influences, and i don't even want to challenge the point because i agree that it's true, but the party has been focusing too much on this in recent years and not enough on upholding quebec for what it is. if it wants to get over the hump and get back to where it was, it need some more positive messaging.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the bloc should be killing it right now, and that they aren't seems to be a mixture of a feeling of apprehension about a couple of policies with a desire to move forwards, rather than backwards.
i understand the thing about "money and the ethnic vote". but, they need to focus less on demonizing other groups and more on promoting their own. quebec identity shouldn't be a process of defining itself against others, but a process of determining itself on it's own merits.
there is a broad feeling that the culture is under attack and needs to be protected from foreign influences, and i don't even want to challenge the point because i agree that it's true, but the party has been focusing too much on this in recent years and not enough on upholding quebec for what it is. if it wants to get over the hump and get back to where it was, it need some more positive messaging.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
as for the conservatives.
they've consistently struggled to get to 20% in quebec since meech lake, and the media thinks that they're all of a sudden competitive when a few polls show them at 25% - a phenomenon unique to quebec's fragmented political system.
even so, they only won one close riding in 2015. even with all of these three or four way splits on the left, they still can barely compete.
so, don't fool yourself - quebec is not going to vote for andy scheer, except by accident. when the numbers settle - and it's mostly a two-way race between the liberals and bloc, with the greens as dark horse - the conservatives will remain uncompetitive in most regions of the province.
andy has no strategy here.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
they've consistently struggled to get to 20% in quebec since meech lake, and the media thinks that they're all of a sudden competitive when a few polls show them at 25% - a phenomenon unique to quebec's fragmented political system.
even so, they only won one close riding in 2015. even with all of these three or four way splits on the left, they still can barely compete.
so, don't fool yourself - quebec is not going to vote for andy scheer, except by accident. when the numbers settle - and it's mostly a two-way race between the liberals and bloc, with the greens as dark horse - the conservatives will remain uncompetitive in most regions of the province.
andy has no strategy here.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
who do you think justin's hero is?
laurier, like his father?
hopefully not reagan, like obama, surely, although some evidence leans in that direction
nope.
trudeau's hero is rocky balboa, the mentally challenged but broadly good natured fictional character played by sylvestor stallone in the rocky film series. it's as obvious as can be: this is the guy trudeau looks most up to, and wants to be most like.
don't vote for this guy again, please.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
laurier, like his father?
hopefully not reagan, like obama, surely, although some evidence leans in that direction
nope.
trudeau's hero is rocky balboa, the mentally challenged but broadly good natured fictional character played by sylvestor stallone in the rocky film series. it's as obvious as can be: this is the guy trudeau looks most up to, and wants to be most like.
don't vote for this guy again, please.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
trudeau inherited the smart party, and is trying to turn it into the stupid party by appealing to the dumbest voters out there.
and, he's at least succeeding in doing that.
boxing. really. you going to beat putin at his own game? you think this ends with a standoff against dolph lundgren at the un?
why not send him out on the beach shirtless? wait. they did.
dolph actually finished his engineering degree, fwiw.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
and, he's at least succeeding in doing that.
boxing. really. you going to beat putin at his own game? you think this ends with a standoff against dolph lundgren at the un?
why not send him out on the beach shirtless? wait. they did.
dolph actually finished his engineering degree, fwiw.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
“My presence in Quebec says, hey, there’s a better way to work together.
We can work together and not discriminate based on the way we look,”
said Singh.
he just doesn't understand what the whole thing is about at all.
he thinks it's just a rule that discriminates against people for looking different, and he's absolutely, 100% dead wrong.
i don't like foucault. but, has mr. singh read any?
no analysis at all.
the liberals are supposed to do better than his.
he just doesn't understand what the whole thing is about at all.
he thinks it's just a rule that discriminates against people for looking different, and he's absolutely, 100% dead wrong.
i don't like foucault. but, has mr. singh read any?
no analysis at all.
the liberals are supposed to do better than his.
Tuesday, October 1, 2019
i'm not working for anybody.
i'm not supporting or endorsing anybody.
i've endorsed non-voting, and i'll do it again: don't vote.
what i am is a disenfranchised textbook leftist stuck in a society that has swung hard to the right, and that has somehow confused classical conservatism with socialism.
all of the parties are too right-wing for me to support.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
i'm not supporting or endorsing anybody.
i've endorsed non-voting, and i'll do it again: don't vote.
what i am is a disenfranchised textbook leftist stuck in a society that has swung hard to the right, and that has somehow confused classical conservatism with socialism.
all of the parties are too right-wing for me to support.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
there goes jenny kwan clutching her pearls again...
she is by far the single most annoying member of parliament. i hope she loses her seat.
the reality is that most of them aren't legit refugees, and most of them will be sent back. the article also notes where popular opinion stands on this point, which is important, because it's a policy issue.
jenny is entitled to her opinions, but she's not entitled to make up facts. this guy is just telling the truth, and it's long past time that the ndp started to, too.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-oct-1-2019-1.5303044/irregular-border-crossers-aren-t-real-refugees-says-conservative-candidate-1.5303979
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
she is by far the single most annoying member of parliament. i hope she loses her seat.
the reality is that most of them aren't legit refugees, and most of them will be sent back. the article also notes where popular opinion stands on this point, which is important, because it's a policy issue.
jenny is entitled to her opinions, but she's not entitled to make up facts. this guy is just telling the truth, and it's long past time that the ndp started to, too.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-oct-1-2019-1.5303044/irregular-border-crossers-aren-t-real-refugees-says-conservative-candidate-1.5303979
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
the irony here is that the liberal party itself is the institution least likely to understand that.
so, who leaked the pictures?
i suspect - without evidence - that it may have been an inside job, because you'd have to think like an american to think it would hurt him, and that's a quality you'd assign to a frustrated liberal staffer, or somebody trying to make a move for the leadership spot.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, who leaked the pictures?
i suspect - without evidence - that it may have been an inside job, because you'd have to think like an american to think it would hurt him, and that's a quality you'd assign to a frustrated liberal staffer, or somebody trying to make a move for the leadership spot.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
to be clear, and terse, that is the reason why the blackface pictures are not hurting trudeau: canada is a different country with a different history that sees race through a different lens.
when we see somebody in black makeup, we don't see 19th century american minstrels mocking black people. that was something that happened in a different country with a different culture.
we just see a white guy in makeup.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
when we see somebody in black makeup, we don't see 19th century american minstrels mocking black people. that was something that happened in a different country with a different culture.
we just see a white guy in makeup.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, this type of article is actually predictable, from the tory media, that is so out of touch that it doesn't know it's out of touch. i even told you that something like this would happen, that you'd get bizarre self-rationalizations to explain why the pundits were so wrong.
but, listen. i explained the reasons why canadians were unlikely to care about the types of "scandals" hitting him. blackface is an american thing; the reality is that canadians don't "get it", because it doesn't make sense in the context of our own history. i told you it wouldn't hurt him much, and it looks like it hasn't. if anything, singh seems to have taken a hit for over-reacting. and, the snc-lavalin thing was a triviality - it was just as predictable that nobody would care about that, either.
canadians want to vote on social issues, we don't want to get bogged down by stupid scandals. if you were to replace trudeau with any other politician, you'd see the same thing.
so, it's not because trudeau is special, it's because these things don't matter to people. and, in that sense, perhaps we are special - we seem to be immune to the smear campaigns in the tory media, across the board.
maybe it's because so few people read the papers?
they were able to get to wynne for some reason, and a smart media analyst could maybe try to figure that out, but it was an anomaly in this country. this kind of thing usually fails here...
so long as the conservatives remain terrible, and the ndp runs a guy that thinks he has a magic beard, and the liberals are half-ways acceptable on policy (the latter point being questionable, at the moment), these kinds of things will not hurt them.
if you want to beat the liberals, you need to beat them on policy that people actually care about. that's been true for a hundred years, and it'll probably be true for a hundred more.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-justin-trudeaus-brand-is-too-big-to-fail/
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
but, listen. i explained the reasons why canadians were unlikely to care about the types of "scandals" hitting him. blackface is an american thing; the reality is that canadians don't "get it", because it doesn't make sense in the context of our own history. i told you it wouldn't hurt him much, and it looks like it hasn't. if anything, singh seems to have taken a hit for over-reacting. and, the snc-lavalin thing was a triviality - it was just as predictable that nobody would care about that, either.
canadians want to vote on social issues, we don't want to get bogged down by stupid scandals. if you were to replace trudeau with any other politician, you'd see the same thing.
so, it's not because trudeau is special, it's because these things don't matter to people. and, in that sense, perhaps we are special - we seem to be immune to the smear campaigns in the tory media, across the board.
maybe it's because so few people read the papers?
they were able to get to wynne for some reason, and a smart media analyst could maybe try to figure that out, but it was an anomaly in this country. this kind of thing usually fails here...
so long as the conservatives remain terrible, and the ndp runs a guy that thinks he has a magic beard, and the liberals are half-ways acceptable on policy (the latter point being questionable, at the moment), these kinds of things will not hurt them.
if you want to beat the liberals, you need to beat them on policy that people actually care about. that's been true for a hundred years, and it'll probably be true for a hundred more.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-justin-trudeaus-brand-is-too-big-to-fail/
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i know there's people reading this blog. lots of them.
you need to start sending me cash.
yes, you're going to get this for free anyways, but only up to the point that i can actually do it - and i need cash to exist.
so, what happens if i run into financial issues and have to....ugh.....get a job?
i'll less time to think, less time to write, less time to create and less time to party. posts will dry up. you'll lose this. the horrors.
you're supposed to buy my music, that's how this is supposed to work. that's what i want you to do. but, if you find that difficult for whatever reason, you can throw me money at patreon or even at noise trade.
i'm obviously getting something out of this, and i'll do it for free for as long as i can. there's no threat that i'm going to stop, so long as i can keep going. the question is - how long can i keep going?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
you need to start sending me cash.
yes, you're going to get this for free anyways, but only up to the point that i can actually do it - and i need cash to exist.
so, what happens if i run into financial issues and have to....ugh.....get a job?
i'll less time to think, less time to write, less time to create and less time to party. posts will dry up. you'll lose this. the horrors.
you're supposed to buy my music, that's how this is supposed to work. that's what i want you to do. but, if you find that difficult for whatever reason, you can throw me money at patreon or even at noise trade.
i'm obviously getting something out of this, and i'll do it for free for as long as i can. there's no threat that i'm going to stop, so long as i can keep going. the question is - how long can i keep going?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)