well, if you're going to listen to your loudness-wars compressed master through your 128 kbit mp3 and your software playback replay gain limiter, why not degrade the signal that much further by going wireless and introducing every kind of interference into the signal you can imagine, all while boosting the frequency at 100 hz so loud that all you can hear is the thud, anyways? no, listen. i'm a sound design artist. and i'm making a valid point. nobody cares about sound quality anymore.
www.cbc.ca/news/technology/apple-iphone-headphone-jack-1.3750086
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
j reacts to the usual calvinist criticism of socialism
"so what is the use of working hard and getting ahead in socialism?"
there isn't one.
that's the point.
stop jockeying for power. go outside and play.
there isn't one.
that's the point.
stop jockeying for power. go outside and play.
j reacts to the implied racism in focusing exclusively on china's human rights record
i think the point is that canadians should spend more time pressuring their own government, and less time buying into deflecting tactics in an attempt to work up anti-chinese sentiment. i agree with that, actually. we have a lot of work to do in cleaning up our mining industry, too.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-hong-kong-cemetery-war-dead-1.3749280
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-hong-kong-cemetery-war-dead-1.3749280
j reacts to the idea of 2000 being predictive for 2016 (maybe...)
i pointed this out earlier in the cycle, too. but, trump isn't falling in line like bush did...and because of that there's the johnson factor....
it's still in the realm of possible outcomes. if you see johnson evaporate, after all? it could look a whole lot like 2000. right now, i just think he's stretching a little.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?action=click&contentCollection=opinion&module=NextInCollection®ion=Footer&pgtype=article&version=column&rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fpaul-krugman
it's still in the realm of possible outcomes. if you see johnson evaporate, after all? it could look a whole lot like 2000. right now, i just think he's stretching a little.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?action=click&contentCollection=opinion&module=NextInCollection®ion=Footer&pgtype=article&version=column&rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fpaul-krugman
j reacts to the idea that markets will reduce wait times (it's laughable nonsense)
"Greater choice among insurance providers would encourage more competition, which would boost efficiency and improve access, Labrie said."
this is complete nonsense, and no study anywhere has ever backed this up. it's faith-based reasoning that reduces to a mythology of free markets.
markets are not a way to create resources, they are a way to distribute them. opening up a market in health care will consequently not reduce wait times, but merely redistribute them to the less wealthy. at the end of the day, you have x resources to distribute regardless of how you distribute them.
the system does not need more competition. the system needs more funding.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/landmark-private-health-care-lawsuit-heads-to-court-1.3749117
this is not about reducing wait times. it's about rich people thinking they should have the privilege to jump the queue. and, i expect the court to reject the arguments.
i do at least hope that the court has learned that it should not articulate itself the way it did in the quebec ruling. the quebec ruling was not designed to allow for private health insurance. it was designed to increase funding. but, the government used it as an opportunity to open up an industry. the court was not expecting the government to interpret it that way.
in fact, if the reverse question were presented to the court in the quebec context, i would expect it to be more explicit in upholding the canada health act.
the court needs to be more careful, this time. i expect it will be.
to be clear...
you could articulate the question one of two ways.
you could argue that the ban on private insurance means you have to wait in line and this is unfair. or, you could argue that allowing private insurance increases wait times by distributing resources to the wealthy and this is unfair. on some level, both arguments are valid. the question is what is of greater priority: equality or hierarchy.
what the court can do is determine if the law is unconstitutional or not. it has not previously ruled against the law, despite the rumblings in the right-wing media. what it has done in the past is agree that wait times are too long and that the state should take steps to reduce them. the state then determined that it should offer private services, rather than increase funding.
the problem is that the premise was absurd. the court got sloppy. it was a terrible ruling. wait times in quebec have not reduced. and that piece of evidence will likely not be viewed as irrelevant.
the precise question before the court is whether the ban on private insurance is restricting access to health care. the court needs to be explicit in citing evidence that explicitly rejects this argument as specious, rather than trying to use it as an opportunity to coerce the government into increasing funding. last time, it backfired. they got sloppy. they need to not repeat that error.
in the mean time, i would call on civil liberties groups in quebec to reverse the quebec government's misinterpretation of the previous ruling.
this is the result of allowing private insurance in quebec, instead of tackling the issue at a funding level.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/03/quebec-wait-times_n_10278874.html
this is complete nonsense, and no study anywhere has ever backed this up. it's faith-based reasoning that reduces to a mythology of free markets.
markets are not a way to create resources, they are a way to distribute them. opening up a market in health care will consequently not reduce wait times, but merely redistribute them to the less wealthy. at the end of the day, you have x resources to distribute regardless of how you distribute them.
the system does not need more competition. the system needs more funding.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/landmark-private-health-care-lawsuit-heads-to-court-1.3749117
this is not about reducing wait times. it's about rich people thinking they should have the privilege to jump the queue. and, i expect the court to reject the arguments.
i do at least hope that the court has learned that it should not articulate itself the way it did in the quebec ruling. the quebec ruling was not designed to allow for private health insurance. it was designed to increase funding. but, the government used it as an opportunity to open up an industry. the court was not expecting the government to interpret it that way.
in fact, if the reverse question were presented to the court in the quebec context, i would expect it to be more explicit in upholding the canada health act.
the court needs to be more careful, this time. i expect it will be.
to be clear...
you could articulate the question one of two ways.
you could argue that the ban on private insurance means you have to wait in line and this is unfair. or, you could argue that allowing private insurance increases wait times by distributing resources to the wealthy and this is unfair. on some level, both arguments are valid. the question is what is of greater priority: equality or hierarchy.
what the court can do is determine if the law is unconstitutional or not. it has not previously ruled against the law, despite the rumblings in the right-wing media. what it has done in the past is agree that wait times are too long and that the state should take steps to reduce them. the state then determined that it should offer private services, rather than increase funding.
the problem is that the premise was absurd. the court got sloppy. it was a terrible ruling. wait times in quebec have not reduced. and that piece of evidence will likely not be viewed as irrelevant.
the precise question before the court is whether the ban on private insurance is restricting access to health care. the court needs to be explicit in citing evidence that explicitly rejects this argument as specious, rather than trying to use it as an opportunity to coerce the government into increasing funding. last time, it backfired. they got sloppy. they need to not repeat that error.
in the mean time, i would call on civil liberties groups in quebec to reverse the quebec government's misinterpretation of the previous ruling.
this is the result of allowing private insurance in quebec, instead of tackling the issue at a funding level.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/03/quebec-wait-times_n_10278874.html
j reacts to the curious cnn poll with trump ahead
well, the cnn poll released today is a real poll, at least. wtf?
well, a few days ago, i was talking about how the way that you interpolate the undecideds is key to predicting the outcome. you'll notice something different about this poll - it adds up to 97%. most of the polls released over the last few months add up to around 90%. and, the difference went entirely to trump.
to be clear....
clinton is about flat.
johnson is about flat.
stein is about flat.
but, trump made up 6-7 points as the undecideds fell to the margins.
a few days ago, i asked the question: what does undecided actually mean? we had data indicating that both candidates were unpopular, but no way to really piece anything causal together. does it mean you hate both candidates? and will vote third party? or will stay home? so, will it distribute?
what this poll seems to suggest is that undecideds may be leaning heavily towards trump.
i find that very hard to believe, given his numbers. if you believe this poll, he's running twenty points ahead of his approval ratings.
note that the labour day weekend is always perilous to poll over and is known for producing outliers. but, we'll have to see what happens.
also note that while the nbc poll is more in line with the trendlines, the methodology is garbage and it should be ignored.
there may be a...
this idea is articulated a lot of ways. but, the idea is that you may get some bias in polling around issues of race.
given the media coverage, i would acknowledge the plausibility that a subset of people may be embarrassed to admit they plan to vote for trump. they may be defaulting to undecided.
i don't want to call that a "shy conservative effect", or a reverse anything effect. it's just people not wanting to admit it.
to suggest that this is the entire undecided vote, however, strikes me as too much.
so, even if this poll is revealing something that has to this point been hidden, i'm still more likely to point to the labour day weekend as an exaggerating factor. if trump voters are lower income and less educated, they're more likely to be home and ready to pick up the phone this weekend.
and, why did the undecideds come down this week, all of a sudden? perhaps they're more affluent.
i'm not going to make predictions. again: i don't think it's possible to predict the outcome of elections. i'm just pointing out reasons to be careful with this poll, and reasons it may end up in right field. or, may be illuminating, too.
at least note that it is a real poll.
well, a few days ago, i was talking about how the way that you interpolate the undecideds is key to predicting the outcome. you'll notice something different about this poll - it adds up to 97%. most of the polls released over the last few months add up to around 90%. and, the difference went entirely to trump.
to be clear....
clinton is about flat.
johnson is about flat.
stein is about flat.
but, trump made up 6-7 points as the undecideds fell to the margins.
a few days ago, i asked the question: what does undecided actually mean? we had data indicating that both candidates were unpopular, but no way to really piece anything causal together. does it mean you hate both candidates? and will vote third party? or will stay home? so, will it distribute?
what this poll seems to suggest is that undecideds may be leaning heavily towards trump.
i find that very hard to believe, given his numbers. if you believe this poll, he's running twenty points ahead of his approval ratings.
note that the labour day weekend is always perilous to poll over and is known for producing outliers. but, we'll have to see what happens.
also note that while the nbc poll is more in line with the trendlines, the methodology is garbage and it should be ignored.
there may be a...
this idea is articulated a lot of ways. but, the idea is that you may get some bias in polling around issues of race.
given the media coverage, i would acknowledge the plausibility that a subset of people may be embarrassed to admit they plan to vote for trump. they may be defaulting to undecided.
i don't want to call that a "shy conservative effect", or a reverse anything effect. it's just people not wanting to admit it.
to suggest that this is the entire undecided vote, however, strikes me as too much.
so, even if this poll is revealing something that has to this point been hidden, i'm still more likely to point to the labour day weekend as an exaggerating factor. if trump voters are lower income and less educated, they're more likely to be home and ready to pick up the phone this weekend.
and, why did the undecideds come down this week, all of a sudden? perhaps they're more affluent.
i'm not going to make predictions. again: i don't think it's possible to predict the outcome of elections. i'm just pointing out reasons to be careful with this poll, and reasons it may end up in right field. or, may be illuminating, too.
at least note that it is a real poll.
this is how you have to do it. i wish there was a better way. there isn't.
---
channel #1 DADADRat27
This is private land let the owners do what they want with it
Dumb hippies
jessica
this is actually a good lesson about private property: it only exists if you have the ability to protect it through force.
who lost on this day?
Mark
My ancestors were harassed, persecuted in Europe in the 1600-1700's. Their houses burned down and some executed. By your logic i have a right to take back those pieces of land they owned. Of course it is obvious this would be ridiculous, and so is the claim that the descendants of the people wronged need reimbursement.
jessica
why is it obvious that this is ridiculous? you're being too vague to make a determination.
off the top of my head, i can think of a dozen absolutely valid land claim cases in eastern europe.
depending on the circumstances, reparations may be more feasible. that doesn't make them invalid.
artifacts that were stolen during the second world war are still being returned, to this day.....
---
channel #1 DADADRat27
This is private land let the owners do what they want with it
Dumb hippies
jessica
this is actually a good lesson about private property: it only exists if you have the ability to protect it through force.
who lost on this day?
Mark
My ancestors were harassed, persecuted in Europe in the 1600-1700's. Their houses burned down and some executed. By your logic i have a right to take back those pieces of land they owned. Of course it is obvious this would be ridiculous, and so is the claim that the descendants of the people wronged need reimbursement.
jessica
why is it obvious that this is ridiculous? you're being too vague to make a determination.
off the top of my head, i can think of a dozen absolutely valid land claim cases in eastern europe.
depending on the circumstances, reparations may be more feasible. that doesn't make them invalid.
artifacts that were stolen during the second world war are still being returned, to this day.....
it's an outrageous conspiracy theory!
....or perhaps it is what it is.
William Gardanis
She is FINISHED Its OVER
jessica
if she had a viable opponent, perhaps.
----
Ben Petrie
Trumps seventy and 100X fitter that that zombie.
jessica
they're about the same age and he's certainly in better health. but, his policies are moronic. you'd have to be retarded...and the country is simply not about to go full retard.
Hayabusa Dragon
Sorry lady but you and the insane people like you are full retarded. Democrats have been in charge for quite some time and they have been running us into the ground. Just because she talks about families doesnt mean a damn thing. She will sell your children into the global slavery that is a socialist government she wants! Wake up! SHE doesnt know what made America great and thats why she wants to destroy it. Communism and socialism are not what made us great! She is a liar and you and anyone voting for her are tools! So she will give you b.s. social programs that are full of false altruism and in return you sell your souls and children to her global take over! Look into the causes of all things that hurt freedom and you will find socialism and communism. Its a fact. They want you to destroy your morals and accept false emotionally charged solutions to the problems THEY create!
jessica
see, it takes a special kind of retard to call a hyper-capitalist, neo-liberal a communist. the country's just not there, as a whole.
i am a socialist. hillary clinton is not.
if hillary clinton is elected, she will almost certainly be the most right-wing president since kennedy.
she may even be more right-wing than kennedy...
Despiser Despised
Youre stupid. Move to Venezuela or Cuba then, cunt... At some point America is going to fight you nasty indoctrinated leftwits to the death.
McCarthy wasnt a verb, McCarthy was a Prophet.
jessica
see, i don't mind hearing that from you. but, what you don't understand is that she agrees with you. her record is very clear. she's by far the more pro-capitalist of the two. she's the poster woman for crony capitalism.
i was a sanders supporter, because i am a socialist. over here on the left, we really don't like her very much - because she's so blatantly corporatist, so blatantly wall street funded, so blatantly neo-liberal.
again, it takes a special kind of retard to be so disconnected from reality as to think that the most pro-capitalist candidate in decades is some kind of communist.
JudgeJulieLit
Hillary (the once and always, still proclaims "proud" Goldwater Girl) is right wing; like BG avidly pro- "nuke Vietnam off the map" (no sense of radiation and other lethal blowback) and anti- passage of the landmark US Civil Rights and Voting Rights bills.
Kennedy (who in '62 Cuban missile crisis averted nuclear war, and '63 with Russia signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and who ideated the Civil Rights and Voting Rights bills) was not right wing.
jessica
kennedy was responsible for escalating vietnam and nearly starting a war over cuba, which khruschev backed off from at the last minute. if the bombs had dropped, and we had history books afterwards, kennedy would have been recorded as responsible everywhere outside of the united states.
nor was he in favour of civil rights. in fact, he slowed down the process substantially out of fear of losing votes from southern whites.
but, more to the point, he was also involved in the red scare during the 50s, working closely with mccarthy for a time.
he was the most conservative president that the united states has had in the modern (post-war) period.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/22/americans-think-john-f-kennedy-was-one-of-our-greatest-presidents-he-wasnt/
https://www.buzzfeed.com/irastoll/21-ways-jfk-was-actually-a-conservative-fjkq?utm_term=.lgkj1aAAG#.vxvkQA99D
Despiser Despised
Youre so fucking dumb Ill bet you think the NAZIs were "right wing", lol... You Socialists are the dumbest motherfuckers on Earth.
Bernie just bought his THIRD fucking house, dimwit...
jessica
yeah, i'm pretty sure the nazis were about as right-wing as you can get.
....and i don't know why how many houses sanders owns is relevant. he's a politician. he's not a religious icon. that kind of cult of personality is a right-wing thing.
i mean, he could own ten houses for all i care, so long as he pays his taxes and keeps fighting for universal health care.
DH
We need a true socialist. Sanders would have been the best. I'm thinking someone like Nicolás Maduro. Oh I get the chills just thinking about it.
jessica
maduro is not a socialist, either. what the united states needs right now, first and foremost, is a social movement to throw the republicans out of congress. it doesn't matter who the president is when the congress is run by the oil industry.
Hoodlum Priest
then move to a socialist country. But you won't because you're a coward.
jessica
the thing with socialism is that you can't do it on a country by country basis. socialism has to be global or not at all. this is actually the reason it's had such a hard time working, because we've been stuck in these situations where socialism inevitably has to do business with capitalism. and, of course it can't compete - the whole point of socialism is to abolish competition over resources in favour of the rational distribution of them.
so, venezuela has a lot of oil and not a lot of arable land. it can't have socialism under those circumstances, because it has to trade it's oil for food with a capitalist state and this forces down capitalism from above. all you end up with is yet another type of crony capitalism.
telling us to move somewhere else isn't going to work, unless that somewhere else never has to trade with the outside world. that doesn't exist. it can't exist. so, we're going to have to keep fighting it out....
....and understand that our side thinks this fight never ends.
Rat Ghost
Nazis were big government socialists, pretty much everything the American right and the old GOP absolutely stand against. Yes, the Nazis were nationalists so they were obsessed with their own Germanic identity and historical significance in the development of the German nation state and to this end, the left see Hitler and the NAZIs as right-wing. But basically, the term "NAZI" is an acronym for National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei -- National Socialist German Workers Party. Note the term "sozialistische" ---- meaning socialist. Note the term "workers party" -- very leftwing, even communist. There is nobody on any degree of the right in America today that supports socialism or a "workers party" in any form. These are terms used regularly by the worldwide left, not the right. The NAZIs were big government statists and while there were features of NAZISM that to leftists seem to echo ideas of American conservatism, the NAZIs were statists who put national government ahead of private enterprise. The NAZIs accepted private enterprise insofar as they could use their power to control it, tax it, regulate it, and partner with it to further the NAZI social and political goals and objectives much like today's Democrat Party.
Despiser Despised
Nazism is only "right wing" when using the European Political spectrum to measure. The American left understands this tactic very well. Just as McCarthy warned us all about 70 years ago. Americas version of "right wing" is Libertarian Individualism, limited Govt and low taxation. The TEA PARTY. The polar opposite of Democrats never ending projection. Collectivists are evil anti Americans.
I dont consider the Democrat party a Political party at all They are a crime syndicate posing as a Political Party.
Another perfect example of this tactic is with David Duke being portrayed as a Republican. He was a life long Democrat and was elected to the LA House as a Democrat. When he lost an election is when he "decided" he would join the GOP. He was never elected to ANY office or position of power as a Republican. Yet the narrative not only survives but grows stronger with each indoctrinated generation.
Another is Trent Lott at Robert Byrds 90th Birthday. Robert Byrd was a grand kleage of the KKK yet Trent Lotts tells a bad joke and is run out of the political arena altogether while Byrd was held up as a Democrat hero, and still is.
Democrats lost America's first Civil War because they enslaved Black people. Democrats are going to lose America's second Civil War because they attempted to enslave everyone else...
Not every Democrat was a KuKluxKlan member, but every KuKluxKlan member was a democrat.
jessica
socialism means that the means of production are owned by the people, not by capital. that is, socialism is the abolition of private property. the nazi system was a system of corporatism, where private property reigned supreme in the hands of a small number of cartels and workers were treated as slaves. the right refers to this as "crony capitalism", or "mercantilism", which was first designed by the conservative party in the united kingdom and is as far to the right of the spectrum as is possible.
the left/right distinction came out of the french revolution. the right were those that supported rule by the aristocracy - the bourgeoisie, the corporate class, the cartels. this is capitalism as we know it. the left were those that supported rule by the people. this included the kind of market socialism pushed by proudhon, and which has been distorted beyond recognition by the contemporary american right.
so, yes - the nazis were extremely right-wing because they were all about dominant hierarchies, private property and ruling classes.
fwiw - and i've been trying to be clear on this point - i would consider both the republicans and the democrats to be on the far right of the spectrum. but, even reagan acknowledged the value of keynesian spending. clinton may end up being the biggest fiscal conservative the country has seen since kennedy.
Despiser Despised
Communism advocates the abolition of private property; socialism advocates government ownership of the means of production (the people are not this govt). Fascism leaves that property in private hands–then shackles those hands, with every economic decision being directed by the state. The American right despises all three. The American left demands all three. My god youre scary dumb.
Your indoctrination is showing clearly. Labels are tools for Libidot Marxists who use them to confuse the easily confused, like you. Youre a "useful idiot" and too dumb to know it.
Youre either a Collectivist or an Individualist, PERIOD. America was founded upon the principles of INDIVIDUALISM (truly the first progressives) and it is clearly written into ALL of our founding documents. Collectivism is ANTI AMERICAN by its very nature you blind dumb moronic cunt.
National socialist NAZIs are only right wing while viewing from the European political spectrum, idiot. Communists on the left Fascists on teh right and Socialists ALL. America goes FAR right, almost to anarchy, comparatively speaking.
What part of "SOCIALIST" in NAZI dont you understand? Every nation has Nationalistic tendencies. Its why they are called NATIONS, dimwit.
The contemporary American Right created the Tea Party. Its goal was to reduce the size and scope of Govt, lower taxes, hold elected officials accountable all while maintaining private property rights as well as Constitutional rights. Pretty much the complete opposite of the indoctrination you received and the opposite of what modern regressive libidots have done for 50 years, dimwit.
To ANY modern dimwitted Libidiot Regressive 0bamacare is a "right" and the 2nd amendment isnt. That should be all the proof you need. But youre indoctrinated stupid like any NAZI Youth is.
Leftist rhetoric consists of beautiful lies concealing ugly truths.
Dimwit, anarchy is about as "right wing" as you can get. Nobody I know has ever advocated anarchy except indoctrinated leftwits of the 1% movement BS, whom actually consider themselves Socialists believe it or not, lol. It was actually quite comical watching a hippie take a shit on a unionized BIG GOVT Police car then blame Glenn Beck...
I guess you dont know what Politics even is. The right didn't want Kensyian economic policy (ask Milton Friedman) but were forced to negotiate with liars on the left to move "Politics" forward. Reagan was called a uniter of the parties, IMO that was never a good thing.
Do you think GW Bush really wanted Part D or No child left behind?? No he was politicking for future Democrat support in Iraq... And the Democrats slapped him in the face with it afterward and laughed. Ted Kennedy, murderer leading the charge with Grand Kleagle of the KKK (Hillary's hero) Robert Byrd right on his heels.
jessica
once again: socialism is the social ownership of the means of production. most socialists reject marx as authoritarian, and historical materialism as teleological. i identify as a libertarian socialist in the tradition of bakunin, kropotkin and malatesta.
there is no american left. i've stated this repeatedly. the democrats and the republicans are almost identical in policy and both represent the extreme right of the corporatist spectrum. obamacare was designed by the heritage institute as a means to maximize profit for shareholders; it is extremely right-wing in scope and implementation.
the vision of the tea party is a society run by large property owners - the bourgeois, the cartels, the bankers, the aristocrats. it is a vision that is not dissimilar from the nazi state. remember: the layer of government is merely a means of oversight for capital.
barack obama is a conservative.
socialism is individualism because it is designed to allow for full positive freedom. markets are collectivism because they enforce the tyranny of supply and demand, converting you into a slave of consensus. you're the one that's brainwashed. i don't have the time or interest in this. you're merely demonstrating my point.
anarchism is in fact a socialist ideology. it broke with marx at the second international in the 1870s, and developed largely from the writings of bakunin. you're confusion is a consequence of your ignorance. please take the time to educate yourself on the history of anarchism as a synonym for "libertarian socialism" before you respond further.
the point i was trying to make about reagan was that the politicking was on the other side of the spectrum. he didn't cut taxes because he thought it would create jobs.
Despiser Despised
You're taking simple concepts adding a bunch of bullshit to them so you can twist it into knots to fit your narrative, just as Marx suggested many times to his useful idiots.
Socialism, in any of its nasty forms has ever worked because of HUMAN NATURE... Capitalism does in fact work and has been proven. What America has now is NOT Capitalism in any way shape or form.
Sure, 0bama is a Conservative, lol. Taking over 1/5th of our economy in the form of Healthcare Insurance is sooo Conservative, lol. Do you listen to yourself at all?.
No amount of education can overcome Liberal stupidity.
jessica
you say that like it's empirical fact. listen: i reject the idea of human nature in favour of a tabula rasa. we're blank slates. are we assholes? mostly. but, we're taught to be assholes.
again: i'm not a marxist. marxism is authoritarian; i'm a libertarian socialist - an anarchist. look up bakunin's attack on marx. it's pretty devastating.
i'm not a liberal, either. you're a liberal.
obamacare is not single payer. it is not a government take over of anything. it's a law that forces you to buy private insurance. that's a market exchange. you should support this.
joe ramone
Holy fuck!!! Your so-called mind is warped. Socialism is where the government CONTROLS AND DISTRIBUTES the means of production. But your warped definition made it seem like the "people" were actually in control of their own companies and calling the shots.
jessica
no. the system where the government controls industry is called crony capitalism. as mentioned, it was developed largely in britain by the conservative party, through the creation of crown corporations (like the east india company, or the hudson's bay company). this was essentially the model that the nazis used in their cartelization of the economy - although one could also draw comparisons to the gilded era in the united states, before the trusts were broken up.
you seem to be implying that the soviet union was a socialist state. this is false. the academic term used to describe the economy of the soviet union is state capitalism.
there is one thing that the right-wingers get right, and it is that the soviets and nazis had essentially the same economic structure. but, the reason for this is that the soviets were capitalist, not that the nazis were communist.
again: the model is toryism. it's not liberalism. it's not market theory. but, it's firmly in the capitalist realm of cronyism & mercantilism.
if you hate the soviets, i agree with you. remember: the soviets slaughtered tens of thousands of leftists in their purges. they stamped out legitimate socialist revolts with inhuman cruelty. but, you're simply misinformed to conflate these things with the left.
Rat Ghost
Uhhh, the US Constitution pretty much prohibits the federal government from "forcing" the American citizen to buy anything. Read the Constitution and please tell me where it says the feds can tell me (or you) what product they want me to buy. It's not really private if the government is forcing you to buy it. It's more like an insidious, ill-conceived partnership between private companies and the federal government which victimizes the US citizen into obtaining something they don't want. I call it fascism. Obamacare is currently not single payer, but it hopes to be that way. The grand idea behind Obamacare was that it would break the health insurance companies financially covering many individuals with preexisting, often catastrophic health conditions.
Once the Insurance companies go broke or bow out of the system -- which is happening now, the government takes health car over from th failed insurance companies because individual health coverage is now law of the land --- Thank you justice Roberts and the SCOTUS. . And then BINGO! Obama and the liberal left/progressive/radicals/Marxists get what they have always dreamed of --- government run health care with the feds controlling your every move, all of your life, cradle to grave.
Where's the "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" that Obama promised?? Where's the "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan" that Obama promised?? Where's the " $2,500 per family average yearly health care savings" Obama was promising?? Never happened. It was all bullshit right from the inception.
Obamacare is the worst and most expensive government monstrosity ever forced upon the American people. It was designed to fail. It was all lies from the very beginning and soon we will all be giving up large percentages of our income to pay for it once it becomes so-called "single payer". And Single Payer is really a big lie too because it's not the government paying for it, it's the American people who will be taxed into the poor house to pay for it. The government just "redistributes' it.
jessica
see, i think this is a lot of conspiratorial drivel with essentially no supporting evidence. the supreme court already ruled that it's constitutional because it's a tax, but i agree that this is flawed logic.
think of it like this: the government forces you to buy auto insurance and a slew of other types of insurance. are these all unconstitutional? is the car insurance industry an extension of the government?
the main flaw in your conspiracy theory is intent. why would the insurance companies, who have the democrats in their back pockets, want single payer? they'd lose money. rather, if the insurance industry could design a system themselves, it would look exactly like obamacare. and, guess what: that's the reality. obamacare was written by the insurance industry, then placed into law by bought lobbyists.
if they wanted single payer, they would have just put in single payer. but, the president wouldn't even support the public option.
obamacare was designed to prevent single payer. from it's start in the heritage institute. to it's championing by newt gingrich in the 90s. to it's implementation by mitt romney in massachusettts. to it's implementation, nationally.
worse, the debate on the left has shifted. if you listen to these dipshit democrats talk, they no longer want to fight for single-payer. they want to fight to "save obamacare".
take sanders as an example. he supported single payer. the right-wing, democratic-backed media attacked him for wanting to "repeal obamacare" - which was technically true. but, consistently taken out of context.
this then created a backlash of hillary supporters that thought sanders was a menace to society because he wanted to repeal obamacare. there were rallies to "save obamacare".
this is the new debate: repeal or maintain obamacare. single payer is out of the spectrum. and, the fucking idiots have fallen right in line.
joe ramone
You're just another lefty socialist scumbag who knows everything yet knows nothing.
CRONY Capitalism is a term used when special favors are given to certain business owners/corporations. It has NOTHING to do with the government controlling and distributing the means of production as opposed to the business' owners doing so.
Make sure to get back to me with yet another incorrect definition and example.
Oh shit. You're a sick-in-the-head TRANNY!!! Bwahahahaha. Freaks, like you, should be blackballed from society. Oh wait a second. You already are.
jessica
you're describing a symptom. so, you could consider oil subsidies as a symptom of crony capitalism. but, why do we have these oil subsidies? because the state is operated by capital: bribery, lobbyists, corruption. crony capitalism is consequently the collusion between state and capital.
you could argue the cartels are different because they're outside government, but then you're missing the point. there's a revolving door. there's regulatory capture. there's an oligarchy in the ruling class, and the lines are blurred.
i'm actually being generous in calling this "crony capitalism" and allowing you the delusions of market theory. you can't actually have a "free market". it's utopian claptrap. all capitalism is crony capitalism, is toryism, is mercantilism....
again: the economic system in nazi germany was one where a cartel system of elite bourgeois property owners controlled and operated everything. it was essentially the same system that existed in colonial britain. it had parallels in gilded era america. you can recoil against this characterization of capitalism, if you'd like. but the nazi economy had nothing to do with the abolition of private property, the elimination of the bureaucracy, democratization in production or ensuring justice in distribution.
in fact, they gassed people that wanted that. they rounded socialists, communists and even liberals up and put them in gas chambers. they killed them by the thousands. they had no such persecution directed at conservatives or capitalists.
joe ramone
Fucking TRANNY!!! Bwahahahahaaha. Do your neighborhood, your family and the world a huge favor and hang yourself.
By the way, TRANNY, perhaps you should spend as much effort developing a career as opposed to typing out 5 paragraph replies on youtube that people won't read. Maybe then you wouldn't have to worry about big daddy government holding your limp-wristed TRANNY hand through life. Then again, who the fuck would hire a freak TRANNY, like you.
jessica
this is the guy that's accusing leftists of sounding like nazis. what, you're too fiscally conservative to gas me?
joe ramone
hey TRANNY, why don't you cut and paste my comments were I compared lefties to Nazis. I want to read it. Come on, TRANNY. Let's see it.
jessica
listen: i just don't want to have a career. i'm sorry. it's a quality of life issue. i mean, you only have a certain amount of time to live on this planet. who wants to waste it at work?
joe ramone
Oh and TRANNY, I would kick the shit out of you if I ever had the chance.
jessica
would you wear a brown shirt when you're beating the shit out of me?
joe ramone
Time for my family and myself to go have a nice rib dinner at Carson's. That's one luxury people who earn money can afford. Meanwhile, you'll sit on youtube and do nothing. Enjoy!!!
jessica
well, it's a question of priorities. just remember: while you're wasting your life away as a slave, i'm at home enjoying myself. if you think that's worth a rib dinner from time to time, good for you. i'm not so easily amused.
joe ramone
Hey TRANNY, for laughs I called my wife over and told her to take a look at your youtube profile. Her reaction, "Ewwwwwww. I don't want to look at that thing.".
jessica
well, what do you want? an apology?
....or perhaps it is what it is.
William Gardanis
She is FINISHED Its OVER
jessica
if she had a viable opponent, perhaps.
----
Ben Petrie
Trumps seventy and 100X fitter that that zombie.
jessica
they're about the same age and he's certainly in better health. but, his policies are moronic. you'd have to be retarded...and the country is simply not about to go full retard.
Hayabusa Dragon
Sorry lady but you and the insane people like you are full retarded. Democrats have been in charge for quite some time and they have been running us into the ground. Just because she talks about families doesnt mean a damn thing. She will sell your children into the global slavery that is a socialist government she wants! Wake up! SHE doesnt know what made America great and thats why she wants to destroy it. Communism and socialism are not what made us great! She is a liar and you and anyone voting for her are tools! So she will give you b.s. social programs that are full of false altruism and in return you sell your souls and children to her global take over! Look into the causes of all things that hurt freedom and you will find socialism and communism. Its a fact. They want you to destroy your morals and accept false emotionally charged solutions to the problems THEY create!
jessica
see, it takes a special kind of retard to call a hyper-capitalist, neo-liberal a communist. the country's just not there, as a whole.
i am a socialist. hillary clinton is not.
if hillary clinton is elected, she will almost certainly be the most right-wing president since kennedy.
she may even be more right-wing than kennedy...
Despiser Despised
Youre stupid. Move to Venezuela or Cuba then, cunt... At some point America is going to fight you nasty indoctrinated leftwits to the death.
McCarthy wasnt a verb, McCarthy was a Prophet.
jessica
see, i don't mind hearing that from you. but, what you don't understand is that she agrees with you. her record is very clear. she's by far the more pro-capitalist of the two. she's the poster woman for crony capitalism.
i was a sanders supporter, because i am a socialist. over here on the left, we really don't like her very much - because she's so blatantly corporatist, so blatantly wall street funded, so blatantly neo-liberal.
again, it takes a special kind of retard to be so disconnected from reality as to think that the most pro-capitalist candidate in decades is some kind of communist.
JudgeJulieLit
Hillary (the once and always, still proclaims "proud" Goldwater Girl) is right wing; like BG avidly pro- "nuke Vietnam off the map" (no sense of radiation and other lethal blowback) and anti- passage of the landmark US Civil Rights and Voting Rights bills.
Kennedy (who in '62 Cuban missile crisis averted nuclear war, and '63 with Russia signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and who ideated the Civil Rights and Voting Rights bills) was not right wing.
jessica
kennedy was responsible for escalating vietnam and nearly starting a war over cuba, which khruschev backed off from at the last minute. if the bombs had dropped, and we had history books afterwards, kennedy would have been recorded as responsible everywhere outside of the united states.
nor was he in favour of civil rights. in fact, he slowed down the process substantially out of fear of losing votes from southern whites.
but, more to the point, he was also involved in the red scare during the 50s, working closely with mccarthy for a time.
he was the most conservative president that the united states has had in the modern (post-war) period.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/22/americans-think-john-f-kennedy-was-one-of-our-greatest-presidents-he-wasnt/
https://www.buzzfeed.com/irastoll/21-ways-jfk-was-actually-a-conservative-fjkq?utm_term=.lgkj1aAAG#.vxvkQA99D
Despiser Despised
Youre so fucking dumb Ill bet you think the NAZIs were "right wing", lol... You Socialists are the dumbest motherfuckers on Earth.
Bernie just bought his THIRD fucking house, dimwit...
jessica
yeah, i'm pretty sure the nazis were about as right-wing as you can get.
....and i don't know why how many houses sanders owns is relevant. he's a politician. he's not a religious icon. that kind of cult of personality is a right-wing thing.
i mean, he could own ten houses for all i care, so long as he pays his taxes and keeps fighting for universal health care.
DH
We need a true socialist. Sanders would have been the best. I'm thinking someone like Nicolás Maduro. Oh I get the chills just thinking about it.
jessica
maduro is not a socialist, either. what the united states needs right now, first and foremost, is a social movement to throw the republicans out of congress. it doesn't matter who the president is when the congress is run by the oil industry.
Hoodlum Priest
then move to a socialist country. But you won't because you're a coward.
jessica
the thing with socialism is that you can't do it on a country by country basis. socialism has to be global or not at all. this is actually the reason it's had such a hard time working, because we've been stuck in these situations where socialism inevitably has to do business with capitalism. and, of course it can't compete - the whole point of socialism is to abolish competition over resources in favour of the rational distribution of them.
so, venezuela has a lot of oil and not a lot of arable land. it can't have socialism under those circumstances, because it has to trade it's oil for food with a capitalist state and this forces down capitalism from above. all you end up with is yet another type of crony capitalism.
telling us to move somewhere else isn't going to work, unless that somewhere else never has to trade with the outside world. that doesn't exist. it can't exist. so, we're going to have to keep fighting it out....
....and understand that our side thinks this fight never ends.
Rat Ghost
Nazis were big government socialists, pretty much everything the American right and the old GOP absolutely stand against. Yes, the Nazis were nationalists so they were obsessed with their own Germanic identity and historical significance in the development of the German nation state and to this end, the left see Hitler and the NAZIs as right-wing. But basically, the term "NAZI" is an acronym for National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei -- National Socialist German Workers Party. Note the term "sozialistische" ---- meaning socialist. Note the term "workers party" -- very leftwing, even communist. There is nobody on any degree of the right in America today that supports socialism or a "workers party" in any form. These are terms used regularly by the worldwide left, not the right. The NAZIs were big government statists and while there were features of NAZISM that to leftists seem to echo ideas of American conservatism, the NAZIs were statists who put national government ahead of private enterprise. The NAZIs accepted private enterprise insofar as they could use their power to control it, tax it, regulate it, and partner with it to further the NAZI social and political goals and objectives much like today's Democrat Party.
Despiser Despised
Nazism is only "right wing" when using the European Political spectrum to measure. The American left understands this tactic very well. Just as McCarthy warned us all about 70 years ago. Americas version of "right wing" is Libertarian Individualism, limited Govt and low taxation. The TEA PARTY. The polar opposite of Democrats never ending projection. Collectivists are evil anti Americans.
I dont consider the Democrat party a Political party at all They are a crime syndicate posing as a Political Party.
Another perfect example of this tactic is with David Duke being portrayed as a Republican. He was a life long Democrat and was elected to the LA House as a Democrat. When he lost an election is when he "decided" he would join the GOP. He was never elected to ANY office or position of power as a Republican. Yet the narrative not only survives but grows stronger with each indoctrinated generation.
Another is Trent Lott at Robert Byrds 90th Birthday. Robert Byrd was a grand kleage of the KKK yet Trent Lotts tells a bad joke and is run out of the political arena altogether while Byrd was held up as a Democrat hero, and still is.
Democrats lost America's first Civil War because they enslaved Black people. Democrats are going to lose America's second Civil War because they attempted to enslave everyone else...
Not every Democrat was a KuKluxKlan member, but every KuKluxKlan member was a democrat.
jessica
socialism means that the means of production are owned by the people, not by capital. that is, socialism is the abolition of private property. the nazi system was a system of corporatism, where private property reigned supreme in the hands of a small number of cartels and workers were treated as slaves. the right refers to this as "crony capitalism", or "mercantilism", which was first designed by the conservative party in the united kingdom and is as far to the right of the spectrum as is possible.
the left/right distinction came out of the french revolution. the right were those that supported rule by the aristocracy - the bourgeoisie, the corporate class, the cartels. this is capitalism as we know it. the left were those that supported rule by the people. this included the kind of market socialism pushed by proudhon, and which has been distorted beyond recognition by the contemporary american right.
so, yes - the nazis were extremely right-wing because they were all about dominant hierarchies, private property and ruling classes.
fwiw - and i've been trying to be clear on this point - i would consider both the republicans and the democrats to be on the far right of the spectrum. but, even reagan acknowledged the value of keynesian spending. clinton may end up being the biggest fiscal conservative the country has seen since kennedy.
Despiser Despised
Communism advocates the abolition of private property; socialism advocates government ownership of the means of production (the people are not this govt). Fascism leaves that property in private hands–then shackles those hands, with every economic decision being directed by the state. The American right despises all three. The American left demands all three. My god youre scary dumb.
Your indoctrination is showing clearly. Labels are tools for Libidot Marxists who use them to confuse the easily confused, like you. Youre a "useful idiot" and too dumb to know it.
Youre either a Collectivist or an Individualist, PERIOD. America was founded upon the principles of INDIVIDUALISM (truly the first progressives) and it is clearly written into ALL of our founding documents. Collectivism is ANTI AMERICAN by its very nature you blind dumb moronic cunt.
National socialist NAZIs are only right wing while viewing from the European political spectrum, idiot. Communists on the left Fascists on teh right and Socialists ALL. America goes FAR right, almost to anarchy, comparatively speaking.
What part of "SOCIALIST" in NAZI dont you understand? Every nation has Nationalistic tendencies. Its why they are called NATIONS, dimwit.
The contemporary American Right created the Tea Party. Its goal was to reduce the size and scope of Govt, lower taxes, hold elected officials accountable all while maintaining private property rights as well as Constitutional rights. Pretty much the complete opposite of the indoctrination you received and the opposite of what modern regressive libidots have done for 50 years, dimwit.
To ANY modern dimwitted Libidiot Regressive 0bamacare is a "right" and the 2nd amendment isnt. That should be all the proof you need. But youre indoctrinated stupid like any NAZI Youth is.
Leftist rhetoric consists of beautiful lies concealing ugly truths.
Dimwit, anarchy is about as "right wing" as you can get. Nobody I know has ever advocated anarchy except indoctrinated leftwits of the 1% movement BS, whom actually consider themselves Socialists believe it or not, lol. It was actually quite comical watching a hippie take a shit on a unionized BIG GOVT Police car then blame Glenn Beck...
I guess you dont know what Politics even is. The right didn't want Kensyian economic policy (ask Milton Friedman) but were forced to negotiate with liars on the left to move "Politics" forward. Reagan was called a uniter of the parties, IMO that was never a good thing.
Do you think GW Bush really wanted Part D or No child left behind?? No he was politicking for future Democrat support in Iraq... And the Democrats slapped him in the face with it afterward and laughed. Ted Kennedy, murderer leading the charge with Grand Kleagle of the KKK (Hillary's hero) Robert Byrd right on his heels.
jessica
once again: socialism is the social ownership of the means of production. most socialists reject marx as authoritarian, and historical materialism as teleological. i identify as a libertarian socialist in the tradition of bakunin, kropotkin and malatesta.
there is no american left. i've stated this repeatedly. the democrats and the republicans are almost identical in policy and both represent the extreme right of the corporatist spectrum. obamacare was designed by the heritage institute as a means to maximize profit for shareholders; it is extremely right-wing in scope and implementation.
the vision of the tea party is a society run by large property owners - the bourgeois, the cartels, the bankers, the aristocrats. it is a vision that is not dissimilar from the nazi state. remember: the layer of government is merely a means of oversight for capital.
barack obama is a conservative.
socialism is individualism because it is designed to allow for full positive freedom. markets are collectivism because they enforce the tyranny of supply and demand, converting you into a slave of consensus. you're the one that's brainwashed. i don't have the time or interest in this. you're merely demonstrating my point.
anarchism is in fact a socialist ideology. it broke with marx at the second international in the 1870s, and developed largely from the writings of bakunin. you're confusion is a consequence of your ignorance. please take the time to educate yourself on the history of anarchism as a synonym for "libertarian socialism" before you respond further.
the point i was trying to make about reagan was that the politicking was on the other side of the spectrum. he didn't cut taxes because he thought it would create jobs.
Despiser Despised
You're taking simple concepts adding a bunch of bullshit to them so you can twist it into knots to fit your narrative, just as Marx suggested many times to his useful idiots.
Socialism, in any of its nasty forms has ever worked because of HUMAN NATURE... Capitalism does in fact work and has been proven. What America has now is NOT Capitalism in any way shape or form.
Sure, 0bama is a Conservative, lol. Taking over 1/5th of our economy in the form of Healthcare Insurance is sooo Conservative, lol. Do you listen to yourself at all?.
No amount of education can overcome Liberal stupidity.
jessica
you say that like it's empirical fact. listen: i reject the idea of human nature in favour of a tabula rasa. we're blank slates. are we assholes? mostly. but, we're taught to be assholes.
again: i'm not a marxist. marxism is authoritarian; i'm a libertarian socialist - an anarchist. look up bakunin's attack on marx. it's pretty devastating.
i'm not a liberal, either. you're a liberal.
obamacare is not single payer. it is not a government take over of anything. it's a law that forces you to buy private insurance. that's a market exchange. you should support this.
joe ramone
Holy fuck!!! Your so-called mind is warped. Socialism is where the government CONTROLS AND DISTRIBUTES the means of production. But your warped definition made it seem like the "people" were actually in control of their own companies and calling the shots.
jessica
no. the system where the government controls industry is called crony capitalism. as mentioned, it was developed largely in britain by the conservative party, through the creation of crown corporations (like the east india company, or the hudson's bay company). this was essentially the model that the nazis used in their cartelization of the economy - although one could also draw comparisons to the gilded era in the united states, before the trusts were broken up.
you seem to be implying that the soviet union was a socialist state. this is false. the academic term used to describe the economy of the soviet union is state capitalism.
there is one thing that the right-wingers get right, and it is that the soviets and nazis had essentially the same economic structure. but, the reason for this is that the soviets were capitalist, not that the nazis were communist.
again: the model is toryism. it's not liberalism. it's not market theory. but, it's firmly in the capitalist realm of cronyism & mercantilism.
if you hate the soviets, i agree with you. remember: the soviets slaughtered tens of thousands of leftists in their purges. they stamped out legitimate socialist revolts with inhuman cruelty. but, you're simply misinformed to conflate these things with the left.
Rat Ghost
Uhhh, the US Constitution pretty much prohibits the federal government from "forcing" the American citizen to buy anything. Read the Constitution and please tell me where it says the feds can tell me (or you) what product they want me to buy. It's not really private if the government is forcing you to buy it. It's more like an insidious, ill-conceived partnership between private companies and the federal government which victimizes the US citizen into obtaining something they don't want. I call it fascism. Obamacare is currently not single payer, but it hopes to be that way. The grand idea behind Obamacare was that it would break the health insurance companies financially covering many individuals with preexisting, often catastrophic health conditions.
Once the Insurance companies go broke or bow out of the system -- which is happening now, the government takes health car over from th failed insurance companies because individual health coverage is now law of the land --- Thank you justice Roberts and the SCOTUS. . And then BINGO! Obama and the liberal left/progressive/radicals/Marxists get what they have always dreamed of --- government run health care with the feds controlling your every move, all of your life, cradle to grave.
Where's the "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" that Obama promised?? Where's the "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan" that Obama promised?? Where's the " $2,500 per family average yearly health care savings" Obama was promising?? Never happened. It was all bullshit right from the inception.
Obamacare is the worst and most expensive government monstrosity ever forced upon the American people. It was designed to fail. It was all lies from the very beginning and soon we will all be giving up large percentages of our income to pay for it once it becomes so-called "single payer". And Single Payer is really a big lie too because it's not the government paying for it, it's the American people who will be taxed into the poor house to pay for it. The government just "redistributes' it.
jessica
see, i think this is a lot of conspiratorial drivel with essentially no supporting evidence. the supreme court already ruled that it's constitutional because it's a tax, but i agree that this is flawed logic.
think of it like this: the government forces you to buy auto insurance and a slew of other types of insurance. are these all unconstitutional? is the car insurance industry an extension of the government?
the main flaw in your conspiracy theory is intent. why would the insurance companies, who have the democrats in their back pockets, want single payer? they'd lose money. rather, if the insurance industry could design a system themselves, it would look exactly like obamacare. and, guess what: that's the reality. obamacare was written by the insurance industry, then placed into law by bought lobbyists.
if they wanted single payer, they would have just put in single payer. but, the president wouldn't even support the public option.
obamacare was designed to prevent single payer. from it's start in the heritage institute. to it's championing by newt gingrich in the 90s. to it's implementation by mitt romney in massachusettts. to it's implementation, nationally.
worse, the debate on the left has shifted. if you listen to these dipshit democrats talk, they no longer want to fight for single-payer. they want to fight to "save obamacare".
take sanders as an example. he supported single payer. the right-wing, democratic-backed media attacked him for wanting to "repeal obamacare" - which was technically true. but, consistently taken out of context.
this then created a backlash of hillary supporters that thought sanders was a menace to society because he wanted to repeal obamacare. there were rallies to "save obamacare".
this is the new debate: repeal or maintain obamacare. single payer is out of the spectrum. and, the fucking idiots have fallen right in line.
joe ramone
You're just another lefty socialist scumbag who knows everything yet knows nothing.
CRONY Capitalism is a term used when special favors are given to certain business owners/corporations. It has NOTHING to do with the government controlling and distributing the means of production as opposed to the business' owners doing so.
Make sure to get back to me with yet another incorrect definition and example.
Oh shit. You're a sick-in-the-head TRANNY!!! Bwahahahaha. Freaks, like you, should be blackballed from society. Oh wait a second. You already are.
jessica
you're describing a symptom. so, you could consider oil subsidies as a symptom of crony capitalism. but, why do we have these oil subsidies? because the state is operated by capital: bribery, lobbyists, corruption. crony capitalism is consequently the collusion between state and capital.
you could argue the cartels are different because they're outside government, but then you're missing the point. there's a revolving door. there's regulatory capture. there's an oligarchy in the ruling class, and the lines are blurred.
i'm actually being generous in calling this "crony capitalism" and allowing you the delusions of market theory. you can't actually have a "free market". it's utopian claptrap. all capitalism is crony capitalism, is toryism, is mercantilism....
again: the economic system in nazi germany was one where a cartel system of elite bourgeois property owners controlled and operated everything. it was essentially the same system that existed in colonial britain. it had parallels in gilded era america. you can recoil against this characterization of capitalism, if you'd like. but the nazi economy had nothing to do with the abolition of private property, the elimination of the bureaucracy, democratization in production or ensuring justice in distribution.
in fact, they gassed people that wanted that. they rounded socialists, communists and even liberals up and put them in gas chambers. they killed them by the thousands. they had no such persecution directed at conservatives or capitalists.
joe ramone
Fucking TRANNY!!! Bwahahahahaaha. Do your neighborhood, your family and the world a huge favor and hang yourself.
By the way, TRANNY, perhaps you should spend as much effort developing a career as opposed to typing out 5 paragraph replies on youtube that people won't read. Maybe then you wouldn't have to worry about big daddy government holding your limp-wristed TRANNY hand through life. Then again, who the fuck would hire a freak TRANNY, like you.
jessica
this is the guy that's accusing leftists of sounding like nazis. what, you're too fiscally conservative to gas me?
joe ramone
hey TRANNY, why don't you cut and paste my comments were I compared lefties to Nazis. I want to read it. Come on, TRANNY. Let's see it.
jessica
listen: i just don't want to have a career. i'm sorry. it's a quality of life issue. i mean, you only have a certain amount of time to live on this planet. who wants to waste it at work?
joe ramone
Oh and TRANNY, I would kick the shit out of you if I ever had the chance.
jessica
would you wear a brown shirt when you're beating the shit out of me?
joe ramone
Time for my family and myself to go have a nice rib dinner at Carson's. That's one luxury people who earn money can afford. Meanwhile, you'll sit on youtube and do nothing. Enjoy!!!
jessica
well, it's a question of priorities. just remember: while you're wasting your life away as a slave, i'm at home enjoying myself. if you think that's worth a rib dinner from time to time, good for you. i'm not so easily amused.
joe ramone
Hey TRANNY, for laughs I called my wife over and told her to take a look at your youtube profile. Her reaction, "Ewwwwwww. I don't want to look at that thing.".
jessica
well, what do you want? an apology?
Monday, September 5, 2016
article 14 is somewhat of a concern to me, but it's really a debate we've been putting off too long. i might argue that this document is meaningless altogether unless indigenous peoples decide to look towards a concept of cultural synthesis and education has to be at the forefront of this movement. i mean, it's 2016. we can't be talking about turtle island, anymore. we can't be talking about great spirits. just like we can't be talking about legislating out of bibles or korans, either. it's backwards. north america is not a turtle. but that has to be a collective decision on their behalf in the first place. as such, it's not truly as dangerous as it looks. you have to assume that if you give them real education rights then they'll use that to their advantage; otherwise, it's just another worthless treaty, anyways. i went to a catholic school and took a religion class. it was a combination of philosophy, ethics, history and anthropology rather than real religious instruction. i'm probably better off for it. and, i wouldn't imagine a course in anthropology would be anything less than beneficial. again: you have to have faith in them to modernize, or the treaty is worthless to begin with.
for a similar reason, i don't really like article 24 - but have to shrug my concerns off under the faith that the concern is unnecessary. if at the end of this process, you end up with a society doing dances and drinking potions to ward off evil spirits then the document is irrelevant. those people will remain wards of the state. that has to be discarded freely. so, a right to hocus pocus becomes entirely rhetorical.
i otherwise don't see anything "unworkable" or "simplistic" about the document. to the contrary, i think it's entirely consistent with the supreme court's evolving interpretation of the constitution. s. 45 is particularly useful, there.
i support the private member's bill and hope the government reconsiders supporting the declaration. this would be a far more substantive step than continuing on with symbolic, and fully meaningless, identity politics.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
for a similar reason, i don't really like article 24 - but have to shrug my concerns off under the faith that the concern is unnecessary. if at the end of this process, you end up with a society doing dances and drinking potions to ward off evil spirits then the document is irrelevant. those people will remain wards of the state. that has to be discarded freely. so, a right to hocus pocus becomes entirely rhetorical.
i otherwise don't see anything "unworkable" or "simplistic" about the document. to the contrary, i think it's entirely consistent with the supreme court's evolving interpretation of the constitution. s. 45 is particularly useful, there.
i support the private member's bill and hope the government reconsiders supporting the declaration. this would be a far more substantive step than continuing on with symbolic, and fully meaningless, identity politics.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
she's right.
instead of telling her to shut up, you should just ignore her. that may mean getting up and walking away.
rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2016/09/unlearning-anti-black-racism-101-stop-canadiansplaining
instead of telling her to shut up, you should just ignore her. that may mean getting up and walking away.
rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2016/09/unlearning-anti-black-racism-101-stop-canadiansplaining
unworkable and simplistic?
i don't like this minister one bit...
rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/brent-patterson/2016/09/lasting-ramifications-tsilhqotin-decision-on-fish-farms-pipel
i don't like this minister one bit...
rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/brent-patterson/2016/09/lasting-ramifications-tsilhqotin-decision-on-fish-farms-pipel
Sunday, September 4, 2016
things are not always as they seem...
http://aptn.ca/news/2016/08/29/hearings-into-energy-east-pipeline-shut-down-in-montreal-mohawk-leaders-will-have-to-wait-another-day/
to be clear: i actually agree that the only way to shut the pipelines down is going to be through physical confrontation and i support that. these hearings are just not the place for it, and the scenario is consequently very fishy.
http://aptn.ca/news/2016/08/29/hearings-into-energy-east-pipeline-shut-down-in-montreal-mohawk-leaders-will-have-to-wait-another-day/
to be clear: i actually agree that the only way to shut the pipelines down is going to be through physical confrontation and i support that. these hearings are just not the place for it, and the scenario is consequently very fishy.
i hope that trudeau listens to indigenous groups, environmentalists (including james hansen) and the people that voted for his party.
...and i hope he doesn't listen to rona ambrose. at all.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ambrose-hopes-trudeau-listens-to-china-on-pipelines-lng-1.3057576
...and i hope he doesn't listen to rona ambrose. at all.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ambrose-hopes-trudeau-listens-to-china-on-pipelines-lng-1.3057576
proportional representation at work....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/german-anti-immigrant-party-beats-merkels-party-in-her-home-state/article31704863/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/german-anti-immigrant-party-beats-merkels-party-in-her-home-state/article31704863/
a couple of years ago, there was a fiasco around an "art collective" (it's questionable....) called pussy riot doing a performance piece outside a church in russia. this was misreported in the news as a crackdown by putin. in fact, the members did go to jail for some time. in order to understand what actually happened with pussy riot, you should consult this story, as it appears to at least be being reported correctly.
pussy riot was never charged with pissing off putin. they were charged with the exact same thing - being offensive to the church.
the point is that, while you should be concerned about freedom of expression in russia, you need to look at the real culprit, here, which is the increasing level of power being concentrated in the hands of the orthodox church.
the church is out of control. but, the scary part is that it actually has public support.
pussy riot was never charged with pissing off putin. they were charged with the exact same thing - being offensive to the church.
the point is that, while you should be concerned about freedom of expression in russia, you need to look at the real culprit, here, which is the increasing level of power being concentrated in the hands of the orthodox church.
the church is out of control. but, the scary part is that it actually has public support.
Saturday, September 3, 2016
there is no reason to think that allowing private health insurance will reduce wait times. rather, most studies suggest the opposite.
http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/09/02/canadas-universal-health-care-system-in-court-and-at-risk/
http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/09/02/canadas-universal-health-care-system-in-court-and-at-risk/
this is just like obamacare: it was the most obvious thing in the world that if you leave space exploration to the market, it's going to be a catastrophe. can we reverse this insanity soon, please?
http://www.wired.com/2016/09/spacex-explosion-need-know/
http://www.wired.com/2016/09/spacex-explosion-need-know/
no. you're not entitled to a court date. they don't have to give you a trial. this is their private property. they host your videos at their leisure. they have every right to arbitrarily demonetize you all they want.
i think it says something broader about how young people see the internet. i'm just kind of cluing into this. the internet seems to have completely destroyed any concept of market exchange. and, they see the internet not as a collection of privately owned servers but as a publicly held good.
maybe i ought to be spinning this around. after all, there's a socialist idea about property at the core of this, right?
if you think that the internet should be a publicly owned good, let's have a revolution. i'm down with that. but, you can't have it both ways.
the way people are reacting, it's like they think google is the state.
-----
if you want to use the employment analogy, which is wrong, then think about your argument. you're suggesting that employees ought to have the right to talk to customers however the fuck they damned well please. can you imagine walking into a restaurant and having the server swear at you while taking your order, then arguing they can't get fired due to freedom of speech? that's your analogy. great analogy.
the server could and no doubt will get fired for swearing at somebody while taking their order. why is that allowed? because it damages the brand.
but, this isn't even right. uploading here is not an employment contract. ad revenue probably isn't even legally taxable income (that is legal advice, but note that you have to win the supreme court case, first, and it's going to cost you time and money). it's legally probably a gift, for the precise reason that the terms are so vague.
there's an exchange, but the terms aren't defined. and, as such, there isn't really a contract. what are you getting paid for? it's not hourly. it's not salary. it's not even commission, really - there's no defined percentages. this is not within the realm of employment law.
i think it says something broader about how young people see the internet. i'm just kind of cluing into this. the internet seems to have completely destroyed any concept of market exchange. and, they see the internet not as a collection of privately owned servers but as a publicly held good.
maybe i ought to be spinning this around. after all, there's a socialist idea about property at the core of this, right?
if you think that the internet should be a publicly owned good, let's have a revolution. i'm down with that. but, you can't have it both ways.
the way people are reacting, it's like they think google is the state.
-----
if you want to use the employment analogy, which is wrong, then think about your argument. you're suggesting that employees ought to have the right to talk to customers however the fuck they damned well please. can you imagine walking into a restaurant and having the server swear at you while taking your order, then arguing they can't get fired due to freedom of speech? that's your analogy. great analogy.
the server could and no doubt will get fired for swearing at somebody while taking their order. why is that allowed? because it damages the brand.
but, this isn't even right. uploading here is not an employment contract. ad revenue probably isn't even legally taxable income (that is legal advice, but note that you have to win the supreme court case, first, and it's going to cost you time and money). it's legally probably a gift, for the precise reason that the terms are so vague.
there's an exchange, but the terms aren't defined. and, as such, there isn't really a contract. what are you getting paid for? it's not hourly. it's not salary. it's not even commission, really - there's no defined percentages. this is not within the realm of employment law.
Friday, September 2, 2016
i haven't dated for a while, but, last i checked, insisting on splitting the bills was actually considered feminist - and girls that insisted that they didn't have to pay their way were seen as out of touch. i don't know. maybe i'm stuck in the 90s. but this strikes me as an elaborate straw man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Qf42GrHlU
as a feminist, i would consider the premise that women should get free meals on dates to be backwards and patriarchal - and i'd consider dudes raging against the arrangement to be allies.
i don't know how or when expecting to be taken care of became a feminist position. frankly, i don't think it ever did. again: this is really a straw man.
it's the great irony: most mra's are really just male feminists, without realizing it. there's a few that are legit misogynists. but, most of them don't hate women, they hate patriarchy. they just can't realize it.
-----
(deleted)
jessica
no feminist would make any of these arguments. these arguments are not feminist at all. what these arguments are is patriarchal.
you wouldn't even get your average third waver in the door on a ladies night like that. they'd be the first to stand up and argue that ladies night is beyond-the-pale sexist.
the woman in this video is not a feminist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Qf42GrHlU
as a feminist, i would consider the premise that women should get free meals on dates to be backwards and patriarchal - and i'd consider dudes raging against the arrangement to be allies.
i don't know how or when expecting to be taken care of became a feminist position. frankly, i don't think it ever did. again: this is really a straw man.
it's the great irony: most mra's are really just male feminists, without realizing it. there's a few that are legit misogynists. but, most of them don't hate women, they hate patriarchy. they just can't realize it.
-----
(deleted)
jessica
no feminist would make any of these arguments. these arguments are not feminist at all. what these arguments are is patriarchal.
you wouldn't even get your average third waver in the door on a ladies night like that. they'd be the first to stand up and argue that ladies night is beyond-the-pale sexist.
the woman in this video is not a feminist.
so, the way that youtube works nowadays is that people upload idiocy in order to try to trick the site into showing advertisements that advertisers don't want shown and that everybody wants blocked. then, when the site steps in on behalf of advertisers (and viewers...), the uploaders that are just manipulating the situation for a quick dollar cry censorship. that sounds like a very successful, very sustainable business model to me.
i never vomit. i think that was the first time since moving to windsor. legit.
i bought a coffee a few hours ago, and there was a leak at the corner. i was about to walk into a grocery store when i noticed. i didn't want to trail coffee around the store, so i chugged it on a pretty empty stomach.
i'm guessing that's what came up. otherwise, i caught a bug somewhere. hope not.
extra large size.
i bought a coffee a few hours ago, and there was a leak at the corner. i was about to walk into a grocery store when i noticed. i didn't want to trail coffee around the store, so i chugged it on a pretty empty stomach.
i'm guessing that's what came up. otherwise, i caught a bug somewhere. hope not.
extra large size.
no adult in the world watches porn. well, ok, there's a few - but they aren't mentally adults. it should be renamed to adolescent entertainment. "adult entertainment" should be synonymous with adult contemporary.
porn is for kids...
it's the same thing with strip clubs. i haven't seen statistics. but, i wouldn't be surprised to find out that upwards of 90% of people at strip clubs are there due to somebody coming of age (or are underage) or somebody getting married.
i'd actually guess at least 75% of people that have attended a strip club in the last year have done so because of somebody's 18th or 19th birthday.
it's just a disgusting transaction, all around.
to crave this and keep coming back implies some kind of psychosis....
psychotic people exist. sure. in small percentages.
porn is for kids...
it's the same thing with strip clubs. i haven't seen statistics. but, i wouldn't be surprised to find out that upwards of 90% of people at strip clubs are there due to somebody coming of age (or are underage) or somebody getting married.
i'd actually guess at least 75% of people that have attended a strip club in the last year have done so because of somebody's 18th or 19th birthday.
it's just a disgusting transaction, all around.
to crave this and keep coming back implies some kind of psychosis....
psychotic people exist. sure. in small percentages.
no, you fucking...
i don't want socialism because i care about other people. i want socialism because i don't care about other people. explicitly. precisely.
i'm not a fucking christian.
i've been over this too often. it drives me nuts. it's just that it warps the conversation. if you could peel back the layers of brainwashing, you'd realize you're probably more of a socialist than you realize.
well, unless you're an asshole. don't get me wrong: there's lots of assholes out there that are all about dominance and competition and hierarchy. but, it's a minority.
trying to find a way to separate socialism from christianity really needs to be the primary goal of the left, at this point. it's not about christian aid work. it's not about charity. it's about positive freedom.
read this.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/
i don't want socialism because i care about other people. i want socialism because i don't care about other people. explicitly. precisely.
i'm not a fucking christian.
i've been over this too often. it drives me nuts. it's just that it warps the conversation. if you could peel back the layers of brainwashing, you'd realize you're probably more of a socialist than you realize.
well, unless you're an asshole. don't get me wrong: there's lots of assholes out there that are all about dominance and competition and hierarchy. but, it's a minority.
trying to find a way to separate socialism from christianity really needs to be the primary goal of the left, at this point. it's not about christian aid work. it's not about charity. it's about positive freedom.
read this.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/
01-09-2016: updating the alter-reality
tracks worked on in this vlog:
http://therealinri.blogspot.ca
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
http://therealinri.blogspot.ca
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Thursday, September 1, 2016
alter-reality update
i have finished the listening through the sansa, as well as the first run through the laptop. i don't see any use in updating this here because it's monotonous. it's in the vlog.
but, i'm also pushing forward with the alter-reality for the day.
1) new blog post:
sept 1, 1996
happy new year!
well, it's not really the new year, i guess, but it kind of feels like it. the roman calendar is heliocentric and resets when the sun reverses course and starts coming back towards us. how did we escape the victorian era without reconfiguring the calendar to the start of the school year, anyways? there are new beginnings to be found in the innocence of youth. yet, maybe such a concept of yearly rebirth was a little too pagan.
it's labour day tomorrow, which means i go back to school on tuesday. i'll be starting grade ten. it's not just a new year, though: i'm also being sent to nerd school. yuck :(. this is not consensual!
it's a little bit of my own fault, though. i tend to fool around in class. a lot. while i get almost solid As, the kids i'm distracting are not doing nearly as well. one may kneejerk into blaming the kids with the lower marks, but i've actually been fingered repeatedly as the root cause of the distractions. so, i'm a kind of an enigma. they haven't been able to figure out what to do with me; while they ought to expel me based on my behaviour, they just can't justify it because i'm an A student. what happened around the end of last year was that a cabal of teachers conspired with my parents to take me out of advanced courses and put me into enriched classes. the argument is that i'll be less bored that way, but that, more importantly, i won't be so much of a distraction to the students around me. everybody should win out...
...except that i know that the reality of it is that i'm actually going to be even more bored because i'm going to have to hang out with the nerds all of the time. the thing is that the nerds aren't really nerds. if they were legit nerds, i'd probably like them. the legit nerds are all in the advanced courses. what the enriched class "nerds" actually are are really the rich kids and they're actually mostly wannabe jocks. these are the kids that walk around in sports jerseys but can't make the school team. the only reason that most of them got separated out is because their parents demanded they get special treatment. there was no testing. there were no interviews. entry to enriched classes is dependent solely on maintaining an A average and being recommended by a teacher, which only happens with outside pressure. there are plenty of students in the advanced stream with higher grade averages.
how do i get out of this? well, i didn't have the choice. my parents would never do this to me under normal circumstances, but the cabal of teachers was absolutely insistent and they ultimately relented. the only way out of this next year is to get Bs this year. nobody's going to care, right? nobody's going to check my grade ten marks, right? i'm already thinking about a scorched earth policy...
what about the last week?
well, i picked up the new pearl jam record, no code. to be entirely honest, i'm kind of still processing it. i'm not too young to remember early pearl jam, but i'm pretty close; i was ten years old when ten was released (oddly enough...) and not really a fan of what i interacted with. i liked jeremy, but it was a distant appreciation rather than an active experience. i didn't like the other singles nearly as much. you have to understand that the headspace i was in at the time was not very open to anything that might be interpreted as "heavy metal". the reason is that i was growing up with a set of influences that saw metal as the refuge of violent drunks and uneducated losers. it took me a few years to realize that i was actually conflating an idea with it's anti-thesis and that my inability to differentiate between pearl jam and guns 'n' roses (and grunge and glam, more generally) was really just youthful ignorance on my behalf. in fact, pearl jam was exactly the kind of rock band i could get into, i just didn't realize it. i was eventually able to get into vs a little near the end of it's run, but it wasn't until vitalogy was released that i was actively converted into a fan. on some level, and notwithstanding my age, i may be a better actualization of what the band really desires as a fan. but, that itself - combined with my near violent aversion to 80s metal - makes me a very atypical listener. i actually tend to prefer their more experimental tendencies, as well as their punk sensibilities, over the cliches and muscular riffs. of their four released records, i like ten the least! but, the thing i like about pearl jam the most is actually the lyrics.
i'm finding this new record to really be pretty good on the few listens i've had over all night civ 2 sessions. it's kind of uneven, though, and i'm not sure how it's going to ultimately hold up as a result of it. vitalogy was also uneven, but it wasn't as pronounced. see, the flip of that is that some of the high points on no code are just that much stronger. the irony is that this exaggerates the weakness of the weaker tracks, which makes it less cohesive, overall. i'm still enjoying the record, mind you. i just wish they had cut a few of the slower tracks out. i don't mean the artsy ones, i mean the rural ones: off he goes & around the bend, specifically.
something, i did listen to a lot of in the early 90s, though, was REM, who were definitely my favourite band. so, i'm super hyped about the new REM album. i didn't like monster as much as their older stuff. it seemed kind of shallow, to me, in comparison. it didn't breathe or flow and kind of got boring under the monotony. but, i really really like the new single...
i don't know who the female singer is, though. is she actually singing or is she just an actress?
i've also been spending a lot of time in the recording studio in the basement. on the last update, i wondered out loud whether i should keep waiting for band members or just go ahead and start recording on my own. i've decided that i will be recording songs on my own with the intent of teaching them to other people when they're done. in fact, i have already finished my first song! in my next post, i will provide links to stream my very first song, recorded in my basement studio over the last week.
http://therealinri.blogspot.ca/1996/09/there-is-no-code-to-get-into-enriched_1.html
2) second part of the blog post:
sept 1, 1996
this is my very first recording!
i initially wrote this song in the wee hours of a morning in 1995, where it was recorded for future use by notating it on loose leaf (using a mix of tablature and chord blocks). it was slowly mutated into a final form over the next few years through solitary performance, and was eventually recorded in the summer of 1996.
the dream in the song is something that actually happened, although the concept was exaggerated for the track. there is a clear underlying misanthropy. but, it's more hands-off than the term usually implies. the song is not about starting fires, it's about not interfering in fires that are burning. all young people contemplate ways they can make a difference and "save the world" - literally or figuratively. but, is the world really worth saving?
i've also set up a youtube channel...
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXlH5Ds5mqClkdAUFJwQCNQ/
http://therealinri.blogspot.com/1996/09/external-links-to-recorded-music.html
3) the alter-reality bandcamp site is now up and running:
https://jnrj.bandcamp.com
4) the alter-reality youtube page will be up soon, too:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXlH5Ds5mqClkdAUFJwQCNQ/
i'll be back to listening soon, too.
but, i'm also pushing forward with the alter-reality for the day.
1) new blog post:
sept 1, 1996
there is no code to get into enriched classes, but i wish there was one....
happy new year!
well, it's not really the new year, i guess, but it kind of feels like it. the roman calendar is heliocentric and resets when the sun reverses course and starts coming back towards us. how did we escape the victorian era without reconfiguring the calendar to the start of the school year, anyways? there are new beginnings to be found in the innocence of youth. yet, maybe such a concept of yearly rebirth was a little too pagan.
it's labour day tomorrow, which means i go back to school on tuesday. i'll be starting grade ten. it's not just a new year, though: i'm also being sent to nerd school. yuck :(. this is not consensual!
it's a little bit of my own fault, though. i tend to fool around in class. a lot. while i get almost solid As, the kids i'm distracting are not doing nearly as well. one may kneejerk into blaming the kids with the lower marks, but i've actually been fingered repeatedly as the root cause of the distractions. so, i'm a kind of an enigma. they haven't been able to figure out what to do with me; while they ought to expel me based on my behaviour, they just can't justify it because i'm an A student. what happened around the end of last year was that a cabal of teachers conspired with my parents to take me out of advanced courses and put me into enriched classes. the argument is that i'll be less bored that way, but that, more importantly, i won't be so much of a distraction to the students around me. everybody should win out...
...except that i know that the reality of it is that i'm actually going to be even more bored because i'm going to have to hang out with the nerds all of the time. the thing is that the nerds aren't really nerds. if they were legit nerds, i'd probably like them. the legit nerds are all in the advanced courses. what the enriched class "nerds" actually are are really the rich kids and they're actually mostly wannabe jocks. these are the kids that walk around in sports jerseys but can't make the school team. the only reason that most of them got separated out is because their parents demanded they get special treatment. there was no testing. there were no interviews. entry to enriched classes is dependent solely on maintaining an A average and being recommended by a teacher, which only happens with outside pressure. there are plenty of students in the advanced stream with higher grade averages.
how do i get out of this? well, i didn't have the choice. my parents would never do this to me under normal circumstances, but the cabal of teachers was absolutely insistent and they ultimately relented. the only way out of this next year is to get Bs this year. nobody's going to care, right? nobody's going to check my grade ten marks, right? i'm already thinking about a scorched earth policy...
what about the last week?
well, i picked up the new pearl jam record, no code. to be entirely honest, i'm kind of still processing it. i'm not too young to remember early pearl jam, but i'm pretty close; i was ten years old when ten was released (oddly enough...) and not really a fan of what i interacted with. i liked jeremy, but it was a distant appreciation rather than an active experience. i didn't like the other singles nearly as much. you have to understand that the headspace i was in at the time was not very open to anything that might be interpreted as "heavy metal". the reason is that i was growing up with a set of influences that saw metal as the refuge of violent drunks and uneducated losers. it took me a few years to realize that i was actually conflating an idea with it's anti-thesis and that my inability to differentiate between pearl jam and guns 'n' roses (and grunge and glam, more generally) was really just youthful ignorance on my behalf. in fact, pearl jam was exactly the kind of rock band i could get into, i just didn't realize it. i was eventually able to get into vs a little near the end of it's run, but it wasn't until vitalogy was released that i was actively converted into a fan. on some level, and notwithstanding my age, i may be a better actualization of what the band really desires as a fan. but, that itself - combined with my near violent aversion to 80s metal - makes me a very atypical listener. i actually tend to prefer their more experimental tendencies, as well as their punk sensibilities, over the cliches and muscular riffs. of their four released records, i like ten the least! but, the thing i like about pearl jam the most is actually the lyrics.
i'm finding this new record to really be pretty good on the few listens i've had over all night civ 2 sessions. it's kind of uneven, though, and i'm not sure how it's going to ultimately hold up as a result of it. vitalogy was also uneven, but it wasn't as pronounced. see, the flip of that is that some of the high points on no code are just that much stronger. the irony is that this exaggerates the weakness of the weaker tracks, which makes it less cohesive, overall. i'm still enjoying the record, mind you. i just wish they had cut a few of the slower tracks out. i don't mean the artsy ones, i mean the rural ones: off he goes & around the bend, specifically.
something, i did listen to a lot of in the early 90s, though, was REM, who were definitely my favourite band. so, i'm super hyped about the new REM album. i didn't like monster as much as their older stuff. it seemed kind of shallow, to me, in comparison. it didn't breathe or flow and kind of got boring under the monotony. but, i really really like the new single...
i don't know who the female singer is, though. is she actually singing or is she just an actress?
i've also been spending a lot of time in the recording studio in the basement. on the last update, i wondered out loud whether i should keep waiting for band members or just go ahead and start recording on my own. i've decided that i will be recording songs on my own with the intent of teaching them to other people when they're done. in fact, i have already finished my first song! in my next post, i will provide links to stream my very first song, recorded in my basement studio over the last week.
http://therealinri.blogspot.ca/1996/09/there-is-no-code-to-get-into-enriched_1.html
2) second part of the blog post:
sept 1, 1996
external links to recorded music
this is my very first recording!
i initially wrote this song in the wee hours of a morning in 1995, where it was recorded for future use by notating it on loose leaf (using a mix of tablature and chord blocks). it was slowly mutated into a final form over the next few years through solitary performance, and was eventually recorded in the summer of 1996.
the dream in the song is something that actually happened, although the concept was exaggerated for the track. there is a clear underlying misanthropy. but, it's more hands-off than the term usually implies. the song is not about starting fires, it's about not interfering in fires that are burning. all young people contemplate ways they can make a difference and "save the world" - literally or figuratively. but, is the world really worth saving?
i've also set up a youtube channel...
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXlH5Ds5mqClkdAUFJwQCNQ/
http://therealinri.blogspot.com/1996/09/external-links-to-recorded-music.html
3) the alter-reality bandcamp site is now up and running:
https://jnrj.bandcamp.com
4) the alter-reality youtube page will be up soon, too:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXlH5Ds5mqClkdAUFJwQCNQ/
i'll be back to listening soon, too.
jessica
even a two-year old can reason that maximizing utility with toys is not portable to moralizing questions about a train wreck in real life, which he likely can't even really fathom. the only teachable moment here is that he doesn't understand the question.
fwiw, the right answer is to try and pull the train off the tracks. and, i'm not missing the point.
sm901ftw
But what about the guys in the train you just derailed?
jessica
i don't think that derailing the train decreases their chances of surviving an impact.
sm901ftw
If you're saying the right answer to the trolley problem is to forcibly derail the train while it's in motion, then the train will probably crash hard. There's a good chance some people on the train are going to die or suffer serious injury in the crash.
This of course assumes we're considering an actual train with passengers to kill.
jessica
i realize that derailing the train is going to cause it to crash hard. but, it's going to crash hard, anyways. that is a constant through all scenarios.
sm901ftw
Maybe. I don't think hitting someone would cause the train to derail. Idk but I imagine suicide/murder by train would be much less common if it also frequently derailed the trains.
Even then it still doesn't change the moral question much. The only difference in the new scenario is now you have to chose between total inaction, actively minimising the number of deaths (changing to hit the 1 person) or actively trying to save everyone but by putting the most people at risk to do so (forced derailment).
jessica
no, you're not...
the train is going to crash under all circumstances. what happens after it runs over the one person? it crashes. it's out of control. it will crash. so, derailing the train minimizes the risk of harm to only those on board, which is the best possible outcome.
i would actually argue that it doesn't matter if you pull the switch or not, because i wouldn't value six lives as more important than one. in the typical formulation of the problem, i would argue you should do nothing, say something about how shit happens and go smoke a joint. there's simply no positive course of action and you shouldn't pretend that there is. that's not rare, either.
but, if you can get the train off the tracks before it hits anybody, you're accomplishing something.
sm901ftw
Is the train definitely out of control? I've heard so many versions of this problem I can't say for sure which is the original anymore.
If you know it's out of control then you have a good point, but unless you're on the train you have no idea whether it's a runaway or the driver just hasn't seen the people on the track. Also I wasn't making any judgement on which action is best. I was just saying you seemed to be treating causing a crash as an objectively better decision than letting it hit anyone. There're moral implications no matter what you do.
Plus I think the point of the problem is to discuss whether actively causing a little harm is acceptable when the alternative is passively allowing a lot of harm to occur. In that sense derailing the train can still be regarded as actively causing harm, just to different people. Whether they're at risk regardless isn't the point so much as whether you pull the trigger. Or at least that's how I interpret it.
jessica
well, if there's a way to stop the train then there's no dilemma: you stop the train. that you can't stop the train is the basis of the problem. it follows that the crash is unavoidable, and i'm not measuring outcomes so much as minimizing harm.
i want to be clear: i'm not saying the crash is morally preferable. i'm claiming it's unavoidable. it's consequently the only way to interfere that is objectively preferable.
what you're constructing is what i'm rejecting, and why i'm not missing the point. the answer is no: it is not acceptable to play god. you are neither causing nor preventing harm. you are redistributing it. you don't have the right to make the choice to kill somebody to prevent the deaths of others. it's not up to you to make that choice. you should walk away from the situation altogether.
what i'm saying is that if you can't stop the train, you should do nothing at all. but, you should also try to stop the train, somehow.
sm901ftw
I'm not trying to drag this out, but I genuinely don't see why the crash is confirmed as unavoidable. Unless you're in the drivers seat you can't be sure the train is out of control. I was always told the problem in the sense that the train won't stop in time, but is still functional and capable of stopping at some point i.e. the train is fine but the people are around a corner and not in sight.
All you have control of at the switch is which way the train goes and supposedly a way to derail it. You have to work on the assumption that the train won't stop in time to prevent someone being run over. You aren't in a position to know whether the train is a runaway and can't be saved after it's hit someone.
jessica
you're not changing the logic of the situation. for the sake of argument, if i concede the point, even though i don't think it makes any sense, then the correct answer remains non-interference.
even a two-year old can reason that maximizing utility with toys is not portable to moralizing questions about a train wreck in real life, which he likely can't even really fathom. the only teachable moment here is that he doesn't understand the question.
fwiw, the right answer is to try and pull the train off the tracks. and, i'm not missing the point.
sm901ftw
But what about the guys in the train you just derailed?
jessica
i don't think that derailing the train decreases their chances of surviving an impact.
sm901ftw
If you're saying the right answer to the trolley problem is to forcibly derail the train while it's in motion, then the train will probably crash hard. There's a good chance some people on the train are going to die or suffer serious injury in the crash.
This of course assumes we're considering an actual train with passengers to kill.
jessica
i realize that derailing the train is going to cause it to crash hard. but, it's going to crash hard, anyways. that is a constant through all scenarios.
sm901ftw
Maybe. I don't think hitting someone would cause the train to derail. Idk but I imagine suicide/murder by train would be much less common if it also frequently derailed the trains.
Even then it still doesn't change the moral question much. The only difference in the new scenario is now you have to chose between total inaction, actively minimising the number of deaths (changing to hit the 1 person) or actively trying to save everyone but by putting the most people at risk to do so (forced derailment).
jessica
no, you're not...
the train is going to crash under all circumstances. what happens after it runs over the one person? it crashes. it's out of control. it will crash. so, derailing the train minimizes the risk of harm to only those on board, which is the best possible outcome.
i would actually argue that it doesn't matter if you pull the switch or not, because i wouldn't value six lives as more important than one. in the typical formulation of the problem, i would argue you should do nothing, say something about how shit happens and go smoke a joint. there's simply no positive course of action and you shouldn't pretend that there is. that's not rare, either.
but, if you can get the train off the tracks before it hits anybody, you're accomplishing something.
sm901ftw
Is the train definitely out of control? I've heard so many versions of this problem I can't say for sure which is the original anymore.
If you know it's out of control then you have a good point, but unless you're on the train you have no idea whether it's a runaway or the driver just hasn't seen the people on the track. Also I wasn't making any judgement on which action is best. I was just saying you seemed to be treating causing a crash as an objectively better decision than letting it hit anyone. There're moral implications no matter what you do.
Plus I think the point of the problem is to discuss whether actively causing a little harm is acceptable when the alternative is passively allowing a lot of harm to occur. In that sense derailing the train can still be regarded as actively causing harm, just to different people. Whether they're at risk regardless isn't the point so much as whether you pull the trigger. Or at least that's how I interpret it.
jessica
well, if there's a way to stop the train then there's no dilemma: you stop the train. that you can't stop the train is the basis of the problem. it follows that the crash is unavoidable, and i'm not measuring outcomes so much as minimizing harm.
i want to be clear: i'm not saying the crash is morally preferable. i'm claiming it's unavoidable. it's consequently the only way to interfere that is objectively preferable.
what you're constructing is what i'm rejecting, and why i'm not missing the point. the answer is no: it is not acceptable to play god. you are neither causing nor preventing harm. you are redistributing it. you don't have the right to make the choice to kill somebody to prevent the deaths of others. it's not up to you to make that choice. you should walk away from the situation altogether.
what i'm saying is that if you can't stop the train, you should do nothing at all. but, you should also try to stop the train, somehow.
sm901ftw
I'm not trying to drag this out, but I genuinely don't see why the crash is confirmed as unavoidable. Unless you're in the drivers seat you can't be sure the train is out of control. I was always told the problem in the sense that the train won't stop in time, but is still functional and capable of stopping at some point i.e. the train is fine but the people are around a corner and not in sight.
All you have control of at the switch is which way the train goes and supposedly a way to derail it. You have to work on the assumption that the train won't stop in time to prevent someone being run over. You aren't in a position to know whether the train is a runaway and can't be saved after it's hit someone.
jessica
you're not changing the logic of the situation. for the sake of argument, if i concede the point, even though i don't think it makes any sense, then the correct answer remains non-interference.
the new youtube rules are not going to bother me, because i don't upload for the cash, anyways.
but i think, in the end, that youtube may find that the family-friendly market is less lucrative than it thinks.
this is an error. it could produce a set of serious competitors.
i don't have a problem with it. people just don't get the business model.
youtube is selling advertising space, not acting as a speech platform. they give you a cut of their revenue, but they don't even have to, really. it's just an incentive for you to upload. in the end, you're just being used as a conduit.
the actual financial transaction that occurs is that youtube sells space in your videos to advertisers. it's consequently entirely up to the advertisers as to whether they want to be associated with your videos or not. i think that's in their rights. and, if the advertisers don't want to be associated with you? that's their choice.
imagine your girlfriend breaking up with you because she doesn't like your politics. is that censorship? no. you have every right to keep talking. she just doesn't want to hang out with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbph5or0NuM
this playlist may increase in size.
no biggie.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrHImg7oLm2aP4aFlcpTsPI6eSTBAlPyf
but i think, in the end, that youtube may find that the family-friendly market is less lucrative than it thinks.
this is an error. it could produce a set of serious competitors.
i don't have a problem with it. people just don't get the business model.
youtube is selling advertising space, not acting as a speech platform. they give you a cut of their revenue, but they don't even have to, really. it's just an incentive for you to upload. in the end, you're just being used as a conduit.
the actual financial transaction that occurs is that youtube sells space in your videos to advertisers. it's consequently entirely up to the advertisers as to whether they want to be associated with your videos or not. i think that's in their rights. and, if the advertisers don't want to be associated with you? that's their choice.
imagine your girlfriend breaking up with you because she doesn't like your politics. is that censorship? no. you have every right to keep talking. she just doesn't want to hang out with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbph5or0NuM
this playlist may increase in size.
no biggie.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrHImg7oLm2aP4aFlcpTsPI6eSTBAlPyf
j reacts to the elite's misunderstood plan for climate change
nononono, you don't under...
the elite does have a plan to deal with the trillions of dollars required to adjust to climate change. that plan is to profit from the trillions of dollars required to adjust to climate change.
when the floods come in, that's pay day!
the elite does have a plan to deal with the trillions of dollars required to adjust to climate change. that plan is to profit from the trillions of dollars required to adjust to climate change.
when the floods come in, that's pay day!
j reacts to bernie sanders being a dirty, rotten sellout (or not...)
see, here's the thing: i was never actually opposed to money in politics in the first place. money changing hands doesn't bother me. what bothers me is not knowing who is giving money to who.
canada has much stricter laws. i've posted here about some of the ways that you can get around those laws. i don't think writing more laws is the answer in either country.
what i'd like to see is transparency, and a culture that upholds it. so, if a candidate wants to take money from wall street or the oil industry or the weapons industry, then that's ok - so long as they tell me so i can look it up. i would be highly unlikely to vote for such a candidate on the basis of them having a conflict of interest. that's what we need, here: a culture that rejects conflicts of interest as unacceptable, not more laws to be dodged while an apathetic voting base shrugs. jefferson articulated this position by calling for an educated populace.
so, when sanders says he wants to take money, it doesn't bother me a priori. but, i would push him to ban anonymous contributions and to lead the way in transparently publishing the source of every dime that comes in. i want who, how much and (where possible) why. that way, the media and the public can see for themselves where the money is coming from and decide whether a conflict of interest exists. it would be in the organization's interest, then, to be careful about who it accepts money from. but, that's a part of building trust in good governance.
"the cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electorate." - thomas jefferson
canada has much stricter laws. i've posted here about some of the ways that you can get around those laws. i don't think writing more laws is the answer in either country.
what i'd like to see is transparency, and a culture that upholds it. so, if a candidate wants to take money from wall street or the oil industry or the weapons industry, then that's ok - so long as they tell me so i can look it up. i would be highly unlikely to vote for such a candidate on the basis of them having a conflict of interest. that's what we need, here: a culture that rejects conflicts of interest as unacceptable, not more laws to be dodged while an apathetic voting base shrugs. jefferson articulated this position by calling for an educated populace.
so, when sanders says he wants to take money, it doesn't bother me a priori. but, i would push him to ban anonymous contributions and to lead the way in transparently publishing the source of every dime that comes in. i want who, how much and (where possible) why. that way, the media and the public can see for themselves where the money is coming from and decide whether a conflict of interest exists. it would be in the organization's interest, then, to be careful about who it accepts money from. but, that's a part of building trust in good governance.
"the cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electorate." - thomas jefferson
j reacts to how bad polling is a compounded, escalating problem
the polls out this week are mostly trash. the best of the bunch is actually the fox poll, although you'd have to expect some bias from fox. the monmouth poll is good, too. even the ppp is trash, methodologically (due to the inclusion of an opt-in internet panel). if you go back through my vlogs, i predicted that this would happen. you're supposed to conclude that they can't all be wrong and then be affected by them. this is the error of aggregate polling: averaging out a lot of trash doesn't give you a better result. it's still trash. garbage in, garbage out. they can all be wrong, and no doubt are.
if we get some better polls in and they show a tightening race, so be it. but, i'm not going to speculate on garbage. i'm just going to throw it in the trash.
if we get some better polls in and they show a tightening race, so be it. but, i'm not going to speculate on garbage. i'm just going to throw it in the trash.
j reacts to the media's baffling refusal to understand hegemony
author does not understand hegemony.
"the policeman is there to preserve disorder."
http://www.alternet.org/world/us-policy-killing-kurds
if the kurds are getting too much influence, that must be countered because the goal is not to end the conflict but to continue it. any time anybody gets an advantage, america will step in to reverse it. this is the american goal, here - to ensure that the region is in a state of constant stalemate and perpetual warfare that nobody can possibly break out of.
once the turks have taken the kurds down a notch, the amercans will need to pull the turks back and help the kurds regain the ground that was just lost.
they don't want peace. they want an unending war.
"the policeman is there to preserve disorder."
http://www.alternet.org/world/us-policy-killing-kurds
if the kurds are getting too much influence, that must be countered because the goal is not to end the conflict but to continue it. any time anybody gets an advantage, america will step in to reverse it. this is the american goal, here - to ensure that the region is in a state of constant stalemate and perpetual warfare that nobody can possibly break out of.
once the turks have taken the kurds down a notch, the amercans will need to pull the turks back and help the kurds regain the ground that was just lost.
they don't want peace. they want an unending war.
j reacts to the bipartisan demagoguery on mexicans (the deportation force is called ICE)
again: it's hard to see a reason to get involved in the immigration discussion when it's easy to see that they actually basically have the same policy of continuing to provide cheap slave labour to corporate interests while deporting those who escape the plantations, while distracting from the static policy with demagogic rhetoric designed to appeal to different bases.
so, trump uses this wacky right-wing rhetoric to appeal to the xenophobes that want insularity and purity, whereas clinton uses more inclusive rhetoric to appeal to multicultural liberals and the relatives of the migrants, themselves. you can decide which rhetoric you like better if you'd like. but, the rhetoric is designed in both cases to distract from the actual policy, which is basically the same.
trying to erect some kind of meaningful discussion when both sides are blatantly lying is entirely pointless. the discourse just has no connection to the reality.
....which is that the united states already has a deportation police force (called ice) and that neither of them will do anything besides continue the status quo put in place by the 'deporter in chief'.
so, yeah: i may like what clinton says better, but i don't expect that i'll like what she does.
i at least believe her when she says she wants to increase resources to the border. that means hiring more cops, building more detention facilities and hiring more judges. i don't doubt that she agrees that the system is overloaded. i don't doubt that she'll try and make it more efficient.
so, trump uses this wacky right-wing rhetoric to appeal to the xenophobes that want insularity and purity, whereas clinton uses more inclusive rhetoric to appeal to multicultural liberals and the relatives of the migrants, themselves. you can decide which rhetoric you like better if you'd like. but, the rhetoric is designed in both cases to distract from the actual policy, which is basically the same.
trying to erect some kind of meaningful discussion when both sides are blatantly lying is entirely pointless. the discourse just has no connection to the reality.
....which is that the united states already has a deportation police force (called ice) and that neither of them will do anything besides continue the status quo put in place by the 'deporter in chief'.
so, yeah: i may like what clinton says better, but i don't expect that i'll like what she does.
i at least believe her when she says she wants to increase resources to the border. that means hiring more cops, building more detention facilities and hiring more judges. i don't doubt that she agrees that the system is overloaded. i don't doubt that she'll try and make it more efficient.
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
there's actually no reason that you couldn't have a 20th note, you just couldn't express it in terms of quarter notes because you get an infinite series. it's convergent. but it doesn't help the notation.
you couldn't count it, but you could feel it.
i flipped my fraction over and thought i had an answer (i do this, flip the fraction over, to myself all the time), because i'm actually used to dealing with these kinds of weird conversions as a relic of writing drum sequences in a scorewriter. there's lots of ways to convert weird signatures. the series just has to terminate. it doesn't here, but that's just bad luck.
if you split the bar into five equal temporal spaces, each one will be four fifths of a quarter note. .8/4 = 0.2. so, a 20th note would be 20% of a quarter note - which is 40% of an eighth note and 80% of a sixteenth note. indeed, .8*(1/16) = 1/20. you can't notate this using western music theory (because the series happens not to terminate....), but that doesn't mean it's undefined or unplayable
80%(1/16th) =
160% (1/32nd) =
1/32nd + 60%(32nd) =
1/32nd + 1.2(64th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + .2(64th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + .4(128th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + .8(256th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + epsilon =
3/64th + epsilon
you simply couldn't hear 80% of a 256th note. that's indistiguishable from human error.
so, a 20th note would be indistinguishable from a triplet of 64th notes. that means that 4/20 would be four triplets of 64th notes.
....which is a blast beat.
http://thehardtimes.net/2016/08/29/stoner-tech-metal-band-trying-really-hard-write-song-420-time/?fb_comment_id=1161463340592034_1163796750358693
you couldn't count it, but you could feel it.
i flipped my fraction over and thought i had an answer (i do this, flip the fraction over, to myself all the time), because i'm actually used to dealing with these kinds of weird conversions as a relic of writing drum sequences in a scorewriter. there's lots of ways to convert weird signatures. the series just has to terminate. it doesn't here, but that's just bad luck.
if you split the bar into five equal temporal spaces, each one will be four fifths of a quarter note. .8/4 = 0.2. so, a 20th note would be 20% of a quarter note - which is 40% of an eighth note and 80% of a sixteenth note. indeed, .8*(1/16) = 1/20. you can't notate this using western music theory (because the series happens not to terminate....), but that doesn't mean it's undefined or unplayable
80%(1/16th) =
160% (1/32nd) =
1/32nd + 60%(32nd) =
1/32nd + 1.2(64th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + .2(64th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + .4(128th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + .8(256th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + epsilon =
3/64th + epsilon
you simply couldn't hear 80% of a 256th note. that's indistiguishable from human error.
so, a 20th note would be indistinguishable from a triplet of 64th notes. that means that 4/20 would be four triplets of 64th notes.
....which is a blast beat.
http://thehardtimes.net/2016/08/29/stoner-tech-metal-band-trying-really-hard-write-song-420-time/?fb_comment_id=1161463340592034_1163796750358693
you know, i walk around with headphones on all of the time and it doesn't mean "leave me alone" so much as it means "i like to listen to music when i'm transiting by myself.". the idea that my headphones may or may not act as a disincentive to approach me has truly never even crossed my mind. not everything i do is meant to be interpreted in the filter of whether it is or is not ok to hit on me. i mean, does it logically imply that if i'm not wearing headphones then i'm inviting a conversation? this is a stupid discussion all around....
http://www.upworthy.com/advice-for-talking-to-women-wearing-headphones-ignores-why-women-wear-headphones
http://www.upworthy.com/advice-for-talking-to-women-wearing-headphones-ignores-why-women-wear-headphones
j reacts to how interpolating undecideds for '16 leads to a choice between '92 and '96
i'm going to do something i consistently criticize people for. but, we do not currently have data that contradicts it.
in the last election in canada, we had consistent polling that undecideds were substantial and they would not pick stephen harper. this created polls that exaggerated his position through most of the race, until the undecideds came down. i don't see any polling like that right now - both candidates are very unpopular.
you can read that two ways.
1) all of the undecideds will vote for johnson. it's a lot harder to assign all of the undecideds to a third party candidate in a two-party system than it is to assign them to the natural governing party (the liberals) in a multi-party system. it could happen. bad assumption.
2) the undecideds might distribute.
now, i hate this. you do this when you don't have any other data. it's a vanilla assumption - usually wrong. i'm going to do it anyways...
the rcp average is pinning 9% undecided. distributing...
clinton: 42.2/91 = 46.3.
trump: 37.8/91 = 41.5
johnson: 7.9/91 = 8.6
stein: 3.1/91 = 3.4
this most closely matches the 1996 results for johnson/perot...
clinton - 49.2
dole - 40.7
perot - 8.4
so, if you assume that the undecideds will distribute then the wild card in using 1996 to predict 2016 is stein. if you deliver stein to clinton, it's very close to 1992. if you don't, it could hinder her in close races.
but, what if they all go third party? then the adjusted rcp average is:
clinton: 42.2
trump: 37.8
other: 20
look at 1992:
clinton: 43.0
bush: 37.4
perot + other: 18.9 + .7 = 19.6
whether you're looking at '92 or '96 as the better predictor is going to depend on how you interpolate undecideds. so, go get me more data on undecideds.
this is not yet predictive though, either. there's too much volatility, which is very different than the last election in canada, where the conservatives had flatlined for months and nothing moved them. clinton's graph could still careen out of control, producing a landslide.
but, it's what we've got right now.
as mentioned previously, you also have to make some smart adjustments. these are national polls. so you have to distribute them, too.
but it should give an idea about which states are in play and which aren't.
1996..
States where the margin of victory was under 7% :
Kentucky, 0.96%
Nevada, 1.02%
Georgia, 1.17%
Arizona, 2.22%
Tennessee, 2.41%
Montana, 2.88%
South Dakota, 3.46%
North Carolina, 4.69%
Texas, 4.93%
Mississippi, 5.13%
Indiana, 5.58%
Florida, 5.70%
South Carolina, 6.04%
Missouri, 6.30%
Ohio, 6.36%
North Dakota, 6.81%
Alabama, 6.96%
1992...
States with margin of victory less than 7%
Georgia – 0.59%
North Carolina – 0.79%
Ohio – 1.83%
Florida – 1.89%
Arizona – 1.95%
Montana – 2.51%
Nevada – 2.63%
Kentucky – 3.21%
Texas – 3.48%
South Dakota – 3.52%
Louisiana – 4.61%
Tennessee – 4.65%
Kansas – 5.14%
Iowa – 6.02%
Indiana – 6.12%
Alabama – 6.77%
in the last election in canada, we had consistent polling that undecideds were substantial and they would not pick stephen harper. this created polls that exaggerated his position through most of the race, until the undecideds came down. i don't see any polling like that right now - both candidates are very unpopular.
you can read that two ways.
1) all of the undecideds will vote for johnson. it's a lot harder to assign all of the undecideds to a third party candidate in a two-party system than it is to assign them to the natural governing party (the liberals) in a multi-party system. it could happen. bad assumption.
2) the undecideds might distribute.
now, i hate this. you do this when you don't have any other data. it's a vanilla assumption - usually wrong. i'm going to do it anyways...
the rcp average is pinning 9% undecided. distributing...
clinton: 42.2/91 = 46.3.
trump: 37.8/91 = 41.5
johnson: 7.9/91 = 8.6
stein: 3.1/91 = 3.4
this most closely matches the 1996 results for johnson/perot...
clinton - 49.2
dole - 40.7
perot - 8.4
so, if you assume that the undecideds will distribute then the wild card in using 1996 to predict 2016 is stein. if you deliver stein to clinton, it's very close to 1992. if you don't, it could hinder her in close races.
but, what if they all go third party? then the adjusted rcp average is:
clinton: 42.2
trump: 37.8
other: 20
look at 1992:
clinton: 43.0
bush: 37.4
perot + other: 18.9 + .7 = 19.6
whether you're looking at '92 or '96 as the better predictor is going to depend on how you interpolate undecideds. so, go get me more data on undecideds.
this is not yet predictive though, either. there's too much volatility, which is very different than the last election in canada, where the conservatives had flatlined for months and nothing moved them. clinton's graph could still careen out of control, producing a landslide.
but, it's what we've got right now.
as mentioned previously, you also have to make some smart adjustments. these are national polls. so you have to distribute them, too.
but it should give an idea about which states are in play and which aren't.
1996..
States where the margin of victory was under 7% :
Kentucky, 0.96%
Nevada, 1.02%
Georgia, 1.17%
Arizona, 2.22%
Tennessee, 2.41%
Montana, 2.88%
South Dakota, 3.46%
North Carolina, 4.69%
Texas, 4.93%
Mississippi, 5.13%
Indiana, 5.58%
Florida, 5.70%
South Carolina, 6.04%
Missouri, 6.30%
Ohio, 6.36%
North Dakota, 6.81%
Alabama, 6.96%
1992...
States with margin of victory less than 7%
Georgia – 0.59%
North Carolina – 0.79%
Ohio – 1.83%
Florida – 1.89%
Arizona – 1.95%
Montana – 2.51%
Nevada – 2.63%
Kentucky – 3.21%
Texas – 3.48%
South Dakota – 3.52%
Louisiana – 4.61%
Tennessee – 4.65%
Kansas – 5.14%
Iowa – 6.02%
Indiana – 6.12%
Alabama – 6.77%
if you want to watch or take part in pornography, go ahead. what do i care? and, you don't need my permission, either. just don't insult my intelligence by referring to your pornography as 'art'.
if you want to go to a strip club, go ahead. just don't pretend that you're going to a 'concert'.
...and if you want to let your kids watch strippers on tv, that's your choice. well, at least it is in the sense that you own the tv. your kids aren't your property. just, stop fooling yourself into thinking it's a 'music video'. it's not. they're strippers. and it's porn.
if you want to go to a strip club, go ahead. just don't pretend that you're going to a 'concert'.
...and if you want to let your kids watch strippers on tv, that's your choice. well, at least it is in the sense that you own the tv. your kids aren't your property. just, stop fooling yourself into thinking it's a 'music video'. it's not. they're strippers. and it's porn.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
if you're curious, i think tattoos are gross. nothing moralizing about it. it's your body; i don't care. i just find them very unattractive. small piercings can range from meh to hot, but they have to be very subtle to accomplish that. i don't like implants, either. or even make-up, really. i'm just really not into body modification at all. i'm kind of more into naturalism. and, as such, i kind of more have a thing for stuff like body odour and body hair...
except pits. i don't care what your gender is. shave your pits.
i have zero tattoos, and i don't want any.
i had a belly button ring for a while, but it's been out for around ten years, now.
no plastic surgery...
except pits. i don't care what your gender is. shave your pits.
i have zero tattoos, and i don't want any.
i had a belly button ring for a while, but it's been out for around ten years, now.
no plastic surgery...
canada needs to strike a balance in terms of it's relationships with china and the united states. this is a very dangerous game that all of the recent prime ministers have had to play. i'm going to shut up about this for now, until he gets back. but the game is about playing them off against each other and winning concessions.
harper tried to use oil exports as leverage and got burned by it. he lacked the subtlety required to play this game at this level. the dauphin, here, had better rely on his advisers in order to avoid something worse.
the premise here is absurd. but, joining that bank is curious. we haven't heard anything about the tpp in a while, either.
the liberal party will not automatically fall in line with the washington consensus. it will seek compromise and concessions. but it won't take orders.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-china-day-1-1.3741070
harper tried to use oil exports as leverage and got burned by it. he lacked the subtlety required to play this game at this level. the dauphin, here, had better rely on his advisers in order to avoid something worse.
the premise here is absurd. but, joining that bank is curious. we haven't heard anything about the tpp in a while, either.
the liberal party will not automatically fall in line with the washington consensus. it will seek compromise and concessions. but it won't take orders.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-china-day-1-1.3741070
my view on this is that the opposition to the changes merely demonstrate their necessity. we need to be teaching these kids secular values over the opposition of their parents - and the more the parents yell that it offends their religious values, the more necessary it is to teach their kids secular values. this should really be made clear in the immigration process, so that people are not settling here under false pretenses.
tripartisan consensus on the topic is appropriate.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-sex-ed-mistake-1.3740877
tripartisan consensus on the topic is appropriate.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-sex-ed-mistake-1.3740877
growing up in a niners fan household, i actually know a thing or two about jerry rice. confused by what he said? don't be. over on the left, we've been telling you this all along. it's not about race. it's about class.
and, of course that's the left. it's the definition of the left: the world is defined by perpetual class warfare. no leftist would argue otherwise. they couldn't possibly be a leftist.
the perspective on the left about race is that it's an imaginary construct invented by the ruling class to keep the proletariat in conflict with itself and distract from revolutionary politics.
this is the left, kids. notice the focus on class? that's what the left is about.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/21/the-invention-of-the-white-race/
and, of course that's the left. it's the definition of the left: the world is defined by perpetual class warfare. no leftist would argue otherwise. they couldn't possibly be a leftist.
the perspective on the left about race is that it's an imaginary construct invented by the ruling class to keep the proletariat in conflict with itself and distract from revolutionary politics.
this is the left, kids. notice the focus on class? that's what the left is about.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/21/the-invention-of-the-white-race/
my view on this is that the opposition to the changes merely demonstrate their necessity. we need to be teaching these kids secular values over the opposition of their parents - and the more the parents yell that it offends their religious values, the more necessary it is to teach their kids secular values. this should really be made clear in the immigration process, so that people are not settling here under false pretenses.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-sex-ed-mistake-1.3740877
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-sex-ed-mistake-1.3740877
Monday, August 29, 2016
j reacts to trump getting desperate about the black vote
it's not wrong.
...and i said they had to get creative...
....but this will backfire. that clinton landslide is getting clearer and clearer.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrC2_dLWYAEuAvg.jpg
...and i said they had to get creative...
....but this will backfire. that clinton landslide is getting clearer and clearer.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrC2_dLWYAEuAvg.jpg
j reacts to the contradiction between trust and self-interest
you can't trust anybody in a capitalist society. it's not "human nature", but it's an unavoidable consequence of the economy we live in. to trust somebody is, by definition, to ask them to act against their self-interest. this is only feasible in a union of fools.
the only way that a relationship can function in a market economy is through the certainty of mutually assured destruction upon dissolution.
any imbalance is exploitation. and, hence any weakness is prostitution.
love is impossible in the presence of currency.
<----single.
but, this is the best reason to abolish capitalism: to reclaim the possibility of love.
the only way that a relationship can function in a market economy is through the certainty of mutually assured destruction upon dissolution.
any imbalance is exploitation. and, hence any weakness is prostitution.
love is impossible in the presence of currency.
<----single.
but, this is the best reason to abolish capitalism: to reclaim the possibility of love.
j reacts to the internet's perversion of the protestant work ethic into pure narcissism
i think we're starting to see the development of a new phenomenon: people that are actually convinced that their appearance entitles them to wealth. all you have to do is get beautiful, and the dollars will start rolling in.
where to start? i don't know, i need some more mental ordering. yoga. hip-hop culture. instagram. fucking evangelical christianity. it's all swirling together into this mess of hyper-capitalist narcissism.
this may be a developing theme here, as i encounter further examples and can unravel it in more detail.
but, expect to encounter this, i think: a hierarchy based on appearance (instagram followers?), and people that expect to be treated preferentially based solely on their looks.
i don't want to say it's a rejection of merit altogether, so much as it's a perversion of it. in their minds, looking good is hard work. that's really the basis of their thinking. they worked hard at the gym and expect some kind of reward.
it's more of a rejection of market exchange in favour of...god? i mean, who or what is doling out the rewards, here? the universe?
the actual truth is that i'm not sure you'd get a coherent answer if you tried. all you're going to get is the idea that hard work should be rewarded.
it doesn't matter if that work has any social purpose or greater good.
so, it's also a perversion of calvinism.
it's almost more like the idea of sacrificing something to the gods. the gym (or the yoga studio) is the new temple. the workout bench is the new altar. in return for hard work in the gym, they expect the gods to look favourably upon them.
like sacrificing a fucking goat...
i'm an atheist. don't misunderstand me, this isn't a moralistic rant - it's a sociological observation. i'm just describing shit. i'm not judging. if i am judging a little (we can't help it...), it's from a communist slant. but i just for the first time understood the social utility of monotheistic attacks upon paganism. this behaviour is anti-social.
like i say: expect this to probably develop more over time.
where to start? i don't know, i need some more mental ordering. yoga. hip-hop culture. instagram. fucking evangelical christianity. it's all swirling together into this mess of hyper-capitalist narcissism.
this may be a developing theme here, as i encounter further examples and can unravel it in more detail.
but, expect to encounter this, i think: a hierarchy based on appearance (instagram followers?), and people that expect to be treated preferentially based solely on their looks.
i don't want to say it's a rejection of merit altogether, so much as it's a perversion of it. in their minds, looking good is hard work. that's really the basis of their thinking. they worked hard at the gym and expect some kind of reward.
it's more of a rejection of market exchange in favour of...god? i mean, who or what is doling out the rewards, here? the universe?
the actual truth is that i'm not sure you'd get a coherent answer if you tried. all you're going to get is the idea that hard work should be rewarded.
it doesn't matter if that work has any social purpose or greater good.
so, it's also a perversion of calvinism.
it's almost more like the idea of sacrificing something to the gods. the gym (or the yoga studio) is the new temple. the workout bench is the new altar. in return for hard work in the gym, they expect the gods to look favourably upon them.
like sacrificing a fucking goat...
i'm an atheist. don't misunderstand me, this isn't a moralistic rant - it's a sociological observation. i'm just describing shit. i'm not judging. if i am judging a little (we can't help it...), it's from a communist slant. but i just for the first time understood the social utility of monotheistic attacks upon paganism. this behaviour is anti-social.
like i say: expect this to probably develop more over time.
j reacts to the benefits of a clinton landslide for the real left
i want to push my point.
liberal democrats are not going to be granted an audience in a clinton administration. the bigger the majority, the more room the party has to fracture.
the best scenario here in this very dour circumstance is to try and work towards a situation where clinton's opposition is on the left. that can happen if the caucus grows large enough that the size of the progressive wing challenges what's left of the republicans in congress.
it's a hard, long slog one way or another. and, trump is a historically bad candidate that could destroy the party's future. so, i really think the left is better off taking the opportunity to try and get rid of the republicans once and for all than pouting about the lack of options.
the best way to help the greens this election is to get the biggest democratic party majority possible, then try and splinter the party once it's in place.
go for the kill.
they would show no mercy to you.
but, it's still early, bob. if the groupthink sets in strong enough (like it did in '08), that supermajority is possible. the house is possible. and, i think the mississippi delta (possibly including texas) is possible, too.
i'm wearing my poli sci hat right now, not my data analyst hat. granted. and i'm talking in possibilities, rather than certainties. but, if those fluctuations you see on those graphs spin out...
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/08/29/if-you-want-celebrate-landslide-clinton-victory-dont-call-me
you want to tell me there's a trend line there?
what you have to do is focus solely on the last two days of the polling, ignore everything else and then project that into the future. it's preposterous.
rather, if i were to guess, i'd suggest that the end result will be closer to the numbers you saw in april. so long as we're cherry picking...
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/57bf1c8ab996ebef008b479e-850/screenshot%202016-08-25%2012.27.33.png
when i talk about the republicans being wiped out, of course i don't mean that literally. but if the democrats play this right, they could be pushed down into the twenties and then the teens and then slowly fade away...
the spectrum is fucked. there's nothing resembling a left. that needs to be corrected.
http://time.com/4466108/donald-trump-democracy/
liberal democrats are not going to be granted an audience in a clinton administration. the bigger the majority, the more room the party has to fracture.
the best scenario here in this very dour circumstance is to try and work towards a situation where clinton's opposition is on the left. that can happen if the caucus grows large enough that the size of the progressive wing challenges what's left of the republicans in congress.
it's a hard, long slog one way or another. and, trump is a historically bad candidate that could destroy the party's future. so, i really think the left is better off taking the opportunity to try and get rid of the republicans once and for all than pouting about the lack of options.
the best way to help the greens this election is to get the biggest democratic party majority possible, then try and splinter the party once it's in place.
go for the kill.
they would show no mercy to you.
but, it's still early, bob. if the groupthink sets in strong enough (like it did in '08), that supermajority is possible. the house is possible. and, i think the mississippi delta (possibly including texas) is possible, too.
i'm wearing my poli sci hat right now, not my data analyst hat. granted. and i'm talking in possibilities, rather than certainties. but, if those fluctuations you see on those graphs spin out...
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/08/29/if-you-want-celebrate-landslide-clinton-victory-dont-call-me
you want to tell me there's a trend line there?
what you have to do is focus solely on the last two days of the polling, ignore everything else and then project that into the future. it's preposterous.
rather, if i were to guess, i'd suggest that the end result will be closer to the numbers you saw in april. so long as we're cherry picking...
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/57bf1c8ab996ebef008b479e-850/screenshot%202016-08-25%2012.27.33.png
when i talk about the republicans being wiped out, of course i don't mean that literally. but if the democrats play this right, they could be pushed down into the twenties and then the teens and then slowly fade away...
the spectrum is fucked. there's nothing resembling a left. that needs to be corrected.
http://time.com/4466108/donald-trump-democracy/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)