be careful with pipeline politics. they're tricky. and, sometimes don't make sense on first glance.
keystone, for example. it was good that it got blocked. but, did the state department really want to help canadian oil get to market in china?
when it was considering exports of it's own?
a number of things just happened.
1) canada approved some pipelines. one of them increasing capacity to cushing.
2) opec cut supply (thereby increasing prices).
again: it's always nice to see a pipeline halted. just, be careful about understanding why. it might not be what you think.
Sunday, December 4, 2016
i actually consider islam to be firmly within the bounds of western culture, and think that you're just wrong if you're arguing otherwise.
"the west" is greece, basically.
so, "the west" includes all of the areas that have been defined by greek culture: europe, russia, the middle east, north africa and iran.
"the east" is buddhism, basically.
so, "the east" includes all of the areas that have been defined by buddhism: india, central asia, china, southeast asia.
a good dividing line between east and west is the indus river. that's where alexander stopped.
"the west" is greece, basically.
so, "the west" includes all of the areas that have been defined by greek culture: europe, russia, the middle east, north africa and iran.
"the east" is buddhism, basically.
so, "the east" includes all of the areas that have been defined by buddhism: india, central asia, china, southeast asia.
a good dividing line between east and west is the indus river. that's where alexander stopped.
there's no shame in being wrong, not if you have a good argument. it's not about whether your deductions are correct, it's about whether your argument is sound and you can find your flawed assumptions when the results of the experiment exposes them.
there is something shameful about taking credit for being right when you did not have a rigorous argument to back up your claim.
it is better to be rigorous and wrong than it is to be correct by chance.
knowledge is not a battle of egos. it is a collaborative pursuit. and, debates over who is right and wrong just get in the way of finding a closer approximation of truth.
the reduction of epistemology to a battle of egos is one of the most profound ways that capitalism is destroying our culture.
there is something shameful about taking credit for being right when you did not have a rigorous argument to back up your claim.
it is better to be rigorous and wrong than it is to be correct by chance.
knowledge is not a battle of egos. it is a collaborative pursuit. and, debates over who is right and wrong just get in the way of finding a closer approximation of truth.
the reduction of epistemology to a battle of egos is one of the most profound ways that capitalism is destroying our culture.
Friday, December 2, 2016
today was actually a little bit rough on me. i got really flustered doing grocery shopping, of all things. i just wasn't in a state of mind to be surrounded by people - people that were moving through the aisles slowly, people that were taking their time in the line, etc. that's the social anxiety part of social anxiety disorder.
i don't tend to get scared, i tend to get angry. i'm more likely to start yelling at strangers than i am to go cower in the corner.
and, resolving it is just as simple as getting home and centering.
when i'm stuck in it, though, you want to stay out of my way.
the second ear doctor (the initial appointment...) echoed what the other one said, but upheld my logic, independently: i need to see a dentist about tmj.
i don't tend to get scared, i tend to get angry. i'm more likely to start yelling at strangers than i am to go cower in the corner.
and, resolving it is just as simple as getting home and centering.
when i'm stuck in it, though, you want to stay out of my way.
the second ear doctor (the initial appointment...) echoed what the other one said, but upheld my logic, independently: i need to see a dentist about tmj.
Thursday, December 1, 2016
the japanese appear to be expecting trump to flip-flop on the tpp.
http://www.thetelegram.com/business/2016/11/27/japan-waits-to-deal-direct-with-canada-o-4694243.html
http://www.thetelegram.com/business/2016/11/27/japan-waits-to-deal-direct-with-canada-o-4694243.html
see, this is the problem. and why we have to be patient in lowering our expectations for diversification as a best approach in the short run.
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/12/01/news/canadas-stagnant-slipping-national-wealth-overly-reliant-oil-and-gas-study
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/12/01/news/canadas-stagnant-slipping-national-wealth-overly-reliant-oil-and-gas-study
but, he's a "master negotiator", bernie.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/01/bernie-sanders-carrier-just-showed-corporations-how-to-beat-donald-trump/
do i think this is right? in some abstract way, maybe. in reality, businesses don't make decisions based on tax incentives in the first place. i know that because they tell us it when we ask them: tax policies have almost no effect on whether a business stays or leaves. that is because you basically can't cut taxes low enough to offset the benefits of offshoring. you'd have to resort to corporate welfare - which happens for the big players, but can't be the actual norm.
so, this is a bit of a bait and switch. the issue is labour costs. and, bernie is being tricked into responding on the wrong terms.
to be clear: even if you were to cut the corporate tax rate to 0%, it would still be cheaper to move to mexico in almost all cases where the issue exists. you would have to actually give them handouts to convince them to stay.
the idea that the issue is taxes is the lie that bernie should be taking down.
so, why is it so much cheaper to manufacture in mexico? it's a lot of reasons.
1) poor worker's rights, and subsequent low wages.
2) more regulation over all kinds of economic rents. that is, a much less "free" economy. this leads to a lower cost of living because the costs of rent are much lower.
3) greater centralization of resources. the state-owned oil sector is especially key in keeping energy prices low, but it's more general than this.
4) insufficient environmental and labour regulations, and poor enforcement of the ones that exist.
the solution is to reverse these problems:
1) we need greater solidarity with mexican labour unions. we need to help mexican workers organize and fight for their rights.
2) we need to go after the rentier class.
3) we need to nationalize our resources.
4) we need to enforce nafta and demand that mexico regulate it's industries.
but, the political class tells us that we need more open markets. they tell us that because they benefit from this, while the rest of us suffer.
it has nothing to do with taxes. and, tariffs will only lead to inflation.
-
"It’s not clear if organized labor will play a role in Trump’s efforts to save Midwest manufacturing jobs. Chuck Jones, the president of the United Steelworkers in Indiana — the union that represents workers at the Carrier and Rexnord plants — went to the Carrier event today to speak with Trump officials. Jones and the union were not briefed on the deal ahead of time.
Jones said he was checked by Secret Service and placed in a holding room to await Trump while the president-elect toured the plant. Jones said he was eventually told Trump’s schedule was too tight for a meeting; Trump left without speaking to him."
https://news.vice.com/story/donald-trump-threatens-u-s-companies-that-would-send-jobs-overseas
i didn't think of the pay cut slant. it's possible.
but, it's obviously not about workers, is it?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/01/bernie-sanders-carrier-just-showed-corporations-how-to-beat-donald-trump/
do i think this is right? in some abstract way, maybe. in reality, businesses don't make decisions based on tax incentives in the first place. i know that because they tell us it when we ask them: tax policies have almost no effect on whether a business stays or leaves. that is because you basically can't cut taxes low enough to offset the benefits of offshoring. you'd have to resort to corporate welfare - which happens for the big players, but can't be the actual norm.
so, this is a bit of a bait and switch. the issue is labour costs. and, bernie is being tricked into responding on the wrong terms.
to be clear: even if you were to cut the corporate tax rate to 0%, it would still be cheaper to move to mexico in almost all cases where the issue exists. you would have to actually give them handouts to convince them to stay.
the idea that the issue is taxes is the lie that bernie should be taking down.
so, why is it so much cheaper to manufacture in mexico? it's a lot of reasons.
1) poor worker's rights, and subsequent low wages.
2) more regulation over all kinds of economic rents. that is, a much less "free" economy. this leads to a lower cost of living because the costs of rent are much lower.
3) greater centralization of resources. the state-owned oil sector is especially key in keeping energy prices low, but it's more general than this.
4) insufficient environmental and labour regulations, and poor enforcement of the ones that exist.
the solution is to reverse these problems:
1) we need greater solidarity with mexican labour unions. we need to help mexican workers organize and fight for their rights.
2) we need to go after the rentier class.
3) we need to nationalize our resources.
4) we need to enforce nafta and demand that mexico regulate it's industries.
but, the political class tells us that we need more open markets. they tell us that because they benefit from this, while the rest of us suffer.
it has nothing to do with taxes. and, tariffs will only lead to inflation.
-
"It’s not clear if organized labor will play a role in Trump’s efforts to save Midwest manufacturing jobs. Chuck Jones, the president of the United Steelworkers in Indiana — the union that represents workers at the Carrier and Rexnord plants — went to the Carrier event today to speak with Trump officials. Jones and the union were not briefed on the deal ahead of time.
Jones said he was checked by Secret Service and placed in a holding room to await Trump while the president-elect toured the plant. Jones said he was eventually told Trump’s schedule was too tight for a meeting; Trump left without speaking to him."
https://news.vice.com/story/donald-trump-threatens-u-s-companies-that-would-send-jobs-overseas
i didn't think of the pay cut slant. it's possible.
but, it's obviously not about workers, is it?
while i support the irv, i would actually prefer to keep fptp than move to a proportional system. that was another reason i voted for the liberals and not the ndp.
irv > fptp >>>>> pr.
if you put a proportional system up to a vote, i would vote against it.
i don't want fringe voices in parliament.
but, i'm disappointed that they're not ramming through a preferential ballot, too. they have a very strong mandate for this.
the other reason that pr is a bad idea is that it will increase gridlock.
and, i think that the minister's reaction is basically right: the committee is being obstructionist. now, let's hope the government reacts by ramming the preferential ballot through.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-electoral-reform-committee-1.3866879
irv > fptp >>>>> pr.
if you put a proportional system up to a vote, i would vote against it.
i don't want fringe voices in parliament.
but, i'm disappointed that they're not ramming through a preferential ballot, too. they have a very strong mandate for this.
the other reason that pr is a bad idea is that it will increase gridlock.
and, i think that the minister's reaction is basically right: the committee is being obstructionist. now, let's hope the government reacts by ramming the preferential ballot through.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-electoral-reform-committee-1.3866879
i just want to point out that this is ignoring the effects of the infrastructure rollout, which are going to be substantial in the long term - and are absolutely necessary, if we're serious about doing anything at all. this is stuff like expanding the grid.
that's not to argue that the net effects of his policies are positive. they aren't. but, all of the major parties were going to approve at least some of the lines. it's the least bad option out of three terrible choices.
http://www.nationalobserver.com/sites/nationalobserver.com/files/styles/body_img/public/img/2016/11/30/trudeau-bait-and-switch-on-climate-v2.jpg?itok=2V2Kydeb
just keep fighting this on the ground.
you were going to have to fight it under all possible outcomes.
that's not to argue that the net effects of his policies are positive. they aren't. but, all of the major parties were going to approve at least some of the lines. it's the least bad option out of three terrible choices.
http://www.nationalobserver.com/sites/nationalobserver.com/files/styles/body_img/public/img/2016/11/30/trudeau-bait-and-switch-on-climate-v2.jpg?itok=2V2Kydeb
just keep fighting this on the ground.
you were going to have to fight it under all possible outcomes.
one of the things that is going to hurt trump the most is this perception that nothing matters except winning, and his inability to understand the consequences of deploying negative tactics to do so.
he is not going to immediately understand why muslim leaders are going to react cooly to him. he's not going to understand why his rhetoric about mexicans is going to harm american interests in latin america.
he did it to win. he won. doesn't that justify everything he said? in his mind, it does.
principles matter. i don't want to argue over whether the ends justify the means. that's not my point. my point is that there's a day after, and the means have consequences on that day, and all following ones.
by 70 years old, most people have learned this lesson. if he hasn't yet, there is no reason to think he ever will. and, it will destroy him in the end, as his enemies grow in number.
he is not going to immediately understand why muslim leaders are going to react cooly to him. he's not going to understand why his rhetoric about mexicans is going to harm american interests in latin america.
he did it to win. he won. doesn't that justify everything he said? in his mind, it does.
principles matter. i don't want to argue over whether the ends justify the means. that's not my point. my point is that there's a day after, and the means have consequences on that day, and all following ones.
by 70 years old, most people have learned this lesson. if he hasn't yet, there is no reason to think he ever will. and, it will destroy him in the end, as his enemies grow in number.
the americans had driven down the price of oil primarily to hurt the russians, and also to hurt the iranians. so, is this a reset in relations? is this trump giving putin a hand? i doubt it. more likely is that opec is giving trump the finger. this was always a possibility (i suggested trump would keep oil prices low, unless he pisses off opec), but i didn't think it would actually happen - and certainly not this fast.
this benefits the canadian dollar, which means it hurts exports, too. although we'll see how that pans out with nafta. it could be a net benefit.
it benefits other oil exporters, of course - including russia.
it harms america, mostly.
the deep state fucked up.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/30/oil-price-opec-cut-in-output-saudi-arabia-deal-market
i mean, the guy runs a campaign based on hating on muslims and latin-speakers because he thinks they're weak and despised and inferior. but, newsflash: it's muslims and latin-speakers that control the primary lever in the economy, which is energy prices. and, now he's got some 'splainin' to do.
they fucked up.
also, the shale oil theory is bunk. the saudis know that shale oil supplies are very limited, that their own supplies are much greater and that they'd be better off letting the americans run through what they have as quickly as possible. there's just a concerted effort in the american press to distract from any exploration of the geopolitical explanations of things. americans are supposed to believe that america is the unquestioned hegemon, and everybody else just does what it says.
consider the iran deal, for example.
look as hard as you may, you will not find any source in the american press that explains that russia and america have competing interests in iran. the entire narrative is that iran is subservient to american demands, and can either do what america says or face the consequences. the idea that iran may prefer to deal with russia instead, or that america may lose iran to russian influence, does not exist, anywhere.
there was a lot of literature about "who lost china". nobody asks who lost iran. because the premise that it could be lost is not admitted.
the result is that the business press usually bases it's reporting on false premises, and people end up with skewed concepts of what is happening.
the reason that oil prices went down in 2014 was to punish russia for it's invasion of crimea. it was a part of the sanctions regime. and, that sanctions regime relied on a very careful network of alliances that is apparently unraveling very quickly.
there was a series on the bbc a few years ago.
i think it may be sort of prophetic. bush II was in a lot of ways a replay of reagan, whereas obama was indeed somewhat like carter in the sense that he was kind of a republican front. and, now nixon has returned in the embodiment of trump.
can mike pence chew gum and walk at the same time?
maybe there's an upside. maybe there's a civil rights battle coming.
or, maybe civil rights are set to reverse in the next cycle...
this benefits the canadian dollar, which means it hurts exports, too. although we'll see how that pans out with nafta. it could be a net benefit.
it benefits other oil exporters, of course - including russia.
it harms america, mostly.
the deep state fucked up.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/30/oil-price-opec-cut-in-output-saudi-arabia-deal-market
i mean, the guy runs a campaign based on hating on muslims and latin-speakers because he thinks they're weak and despised and inferior. but, newsflash: it's muslims and latin-speakers that control the primary lever in the economy, which is energy prices. and, now he's got some 'splainin' to do.
they fucked up.
also, the shale oil theory is bunk. the saudis know that shale oil supplies are very limited, that their own supplies are much greater and that they'd be better off letting the americans run through what they have as quickly as possible. there's just a concerted effort in the american press to distract from any exploration of the geopolitical explanations of things. americans are supposed to believe that america is the unquestioned hegemon, and everybody else just does what it says.
consider the iran deal, for example.
look as hard as you may, you will not find any source in the american press that explains that russia and america have competing interests in iran. the entire narrative is that iran is subservient to american demands, and can either do what america says or face the consequences. the idea that iran may prefer to deal with russia instead, or that america may lose iran to russian influence, does not exist, anywhere.
there was a lot of literature about "who lost china". nobody asks who lost iran. because the premise that it could be lost is not admitted.
the result is that the business press usually bases it's reporting on false premises, and people end up with skewed concepts of what is happening.
the reason that oil prices went down in 2014 was to punish russia for it's invasion of crimea. it was a part of the sanctions regime. and, that sanctions regime relied on a very careful network of alliances that is apparently unraveling very quickly.
there was a series on the bbc a few years ago.
i think it may be sort of prophetic. bush II was in a lot of ways a replay of reagan, whereas obama was indeed somewhat like carter in the sense that he was kind of a republican front. and, now nixon has returned in the embodiment of trump.
can mike pence chew gum and walk at the same time?
maybe there's an upside. maybe there's a civil rights battle coming.
or, maybe civil rights are set to reverse in the next cycle...
it's not surprising. let's take a step back.
when trudeau was running for prime minister, he made it clear that he saw the purpose of the review process as a means to rubber stamp industry initiatives. his concern was that the process had been overly politicized by a conservative government that had openly ridiculed the premise of looking to science for evidence. in his view, that created a backlash that was slowing down growth. the problem wasn't whether the government was really consulting evidence or not - this did not matter - but the perception that they were anti-science, which abolished their credibility on the topic. the solution is for the government to pay greater lip service to science, so that canadians would not offer such resistance to industry.
trudeau seems to have actually believed that the protests would stop if people had more trust in the government. then, industry would have a free hand.
mulcair and the ndp said all of the same things, and often times in much clearer language - because mulcair is the policy wonk, and trudeau is the pr front.
this is of course the broader truth in the trudeau government - that everything is image, that truth is subjective, that it doesn't matter what the facts are so much as it matters how people perceive them. it's a softer kind of neo-liberalism. but, it's the same hogwash, under the surface.
and, when i saw him pick jim carr, i knew this was coming. he was sent for exactly this reason.
the thing is that they're still a lesser evil. i've pointed out repeatedly that it was clear that this was coming, and that it's unfortunate and that it needs to be fought on the ground. but, they're still the only one of the three major parties with a transition strategy.
the reason this is important to the federal government is that it pulls in a huge amount of tax revenue on oil exports. it is the difference between whether they can balance a budget or not. and, so long as we send the message that budgets should be balanced, they will support oil exports.
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/11/30/news/scientists-dont-know-what-evidence-trudeau-used-approve-pipelines
when trudeau was running for prime minister, he made it clear that he saw the purpose of the review process as a means to rubber stamp industry initiatives. his concern was that the process had been overly politicized by a conservative government that had openly ridiculed the premise of looking to science for evidence. in his view, that created a backlash that was slowing down growth. the problem wasn't whether the government was really consulting evidence or not - this did not matter - but the perception that they were anti-science, which abolished their credibility on the topic. the solution is for the government to pay greater lip service to science, so that canadians would not offer such resistance to industry.
trudeau seems to have actually believed that the protests would stop if people had more trust in the government. then, industry would have a free hand.
mulcair and the ndp said all of the same things, and often times in much clearer language - because mulcair is the policy wonk, and trudeau is the pr front.
this is of course the broader truth in the trudeau government - that everything is image, that truth is subjective, that it doesn't matter what the facts are so much as it matters how people perceive them. it's a softer kind of neo-liberalism. but, it's the same hogwash, under the surface.
and, when i saw him pick jim carr, i knew this was coming. he was sent for exactly this reason.
the thing is that they're still a lesser evil. i've pointed out repeatedly that it was clear that this was coming, and that it's unfortunate and that it needs to be fought on the ground. but, they're still the only one of the three major parties with a transition strategy.
the reason this is important to the federal government is that it pulls in a huge amount of tax revenue on oil exports. it is the difference between whether they can balance a budget or not. and, so long as we send the message that budgets should be balanced, they will support oil exports.
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/11/30/news/scientists-dont-know-what-evidence-trudeau-used-approve-pipelines
i'm trying an experiment with the heat down here.
i like this place. i really do. but all the pros come with the massive con that the heating is really awful.
it's the winter. i want the heat 'on'. i think that's reasonable. but, instead of just having a switch that i can turn on and off, i have one of these electronic temperature control devices that tries to turn the heat up and down to fit a desired temperature. of course, it doesn't work right. first, it's localized to one side of the room, so it's uneven - but i can deal with that. it's not the problem. the problem is that it gets stuck, and won't come 'on' by turning itself up past the heat i dial in and then never getting back down again. maybe this is supposed to be a power saving mechanism, but i have clean electricity here and i consequently don't have an environmental incentive to save energy.
so, what's been happening is that i just keep turning the heat up higher and higher. i set it to 23, and it turns off. so, i set it to 23.5 and it turns off. so, i set it to 24 and it turns off. listen: it's cold out. i don't care what the temperature on the thermostat says. i don't want it to set a temperature, have it shoot out a blast for a few seconds and then have it turn off. i just want it to stay 'on'. all the time. constant.
so, this cycle takes the temperature up higher and higher. but, then i eventually get to the point where i need to set the heat to 32 to turn it on, and i get dry skin and sore throats. so, this is not sustainable.
i'm trying to force the system back down to the low 20s by keeping the window open until it gets down to around 20. and it's taking a long time. and, then it turns on for a few seconds and turns off.
the answer may be to set up an algorithm where i take it up to 30 and then let it fall back.
but it can't be that dry in here. i need it to come down. and i need to find a way for it to stay on.
i'd like to just call the landlord and have him take out the thermostat. in an ideal world, i could explain to him that it doesn't work right. reality is that i'm just going to piss him off, because he's going to think i'm wasting energy. but it doesn't work right, and he'll save money taking them out.
right now, the windows are open. and i'm cold. but it's almost to the point that i can close them.
i like this place. i really do. but all the pros come with the massive con that the heating is really awful.
it's the winter. i want the heat 'on'. i think that's reasonable. but, instead of just having a switch that i can turn on and off, i have one of these electronic temperature control devices that tries to turn the heat up and down to fit a desired temperature. of course, it doesn't work right. first, it's localized to one side of the room, so it's uneven - but i can deal with that. it's not the problem. the problem is that it gets stuck, and won't come 'on' by turning itself up past the heat i dial in and then never getting back down again. maybe this is supposed to be a power saving mechanism, but i have clean electricity here and i consequently don't have an environmental incentive to save energy.
so, what's been happening is that i just keep turning the heat up higher and higher. i set it to 23, and it turns off. so, i set it to 23.5 and it turns off. so, i set it to 24 and it turns off. listen: it's cold out. i don't care what the temperature on the thermostat says. i don't want it to set a temperature, have it shoot out a blast for a few seconds and then have it turn off. i just want it to stay 'on'. all the time. constant.
so, this cycle takes the temperature up higher and higher. but, then i eventually get to the point where i need to set the heat to 32 to turn it on, and i get dry skin and sore throats. so, this is not sustainable.
i'm trying to force the system back down to the low 20s by keeping the window open until it gets down to around 20. and it's taking a long time. and, then it turns on for a few seconds and turns off.
the answer may be to set up an algorithm where i take it up to 30 and then let it fall back.
but it can't be that dry in here. i need it to come down. and i need to find a way for it to stay on.
i'd like to just call the landlord and have him take out the thermostat. in an ideal world, i could explain to him that it doesn't work right. reality is that i'm just going to piss him off, because he's going to think i'm wasting energy. but it doesn't work right, and he'll save money taking them out.
right now, the windows are open. and i'm cold. but it's almost to the point that i can close them.
indeed. this article gives a lot away. the ndp are falling all over themselves to be indiscernible from the conservatives, and now the conservatives are realizing that they're running against themselves. i suppose this is a victory for capital. but, it's a sad day for alberta, and a sad day for dippers.
https://ipolitics.ca/2016/11/30/trudeau-notley-and-trans-mountain-in-your-face-mr-kenney/
the way out of this is that you refrain from voting next time, let the conservatives back in and rebuild. that sends the message to the ndp that they can't hold their base if they're going to govern like conservatives
https://ipolitics.ca/2016/11/30/trudeau-notley-and-trans-mountain-in-your-face-mr-kenney/
the way out of this is that you refrain from voting next time, let the conservatives back in and rebuild. that sends the message to the ndp that they can't hold their base if they're going to govern like conservatives
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
actually, i have far more fun with the paid stooges after their party is in power, when they're trying to build the cult of personality. that's when they get really comical. it's then the election afterwards, when they try to apply all of the nonsense, that we can really have some fun.
see, in tearing down the cult of personality, i get to be an anarchist and demonstrate that conservatives are basically stalinists in disguise: the cult of personality is a statist phenomenon. conservatives do it. liberals do it. but, whereas conservatives kind of yearn for it deep down, it's the liberals (wherever they are on the spectrum) that can't stand it.
so, i'm actually being trans-partisan. not post. i'd like to keep parties, actually. and even have more of them. and not bi. as though we're in kahoots, right? no. trans-partisan. and, the language is entirely coincidental.
this is when i'm most entertaining. and, attempts to semi-deify trump are an easy target - because he is himself an easy target. so, keep an eye out for it.
see, in tearing down the cult of personality, i get to be an anarchist and demonstrate that conservatives are basically stalinists in disguise: the cult of personality is a statist phenomenon. conservatives do it. liberals do it. but, whereas conservatives kind of yearn for it deep down, it's the liberals (wherever they are on the spectrum) that can't stand it.
so, i'm actually being trans-partisan. not post. i'd like to keep parties, actually. and even have more of them. and not bi. as though we're in kahoots, right? no. trans-partisan. and, the language is entirely coincidental.
this is when i'm most entertaining. and, attempts to semi-deify trump are an easy target - because he is himself an easy target. so, keep an eye out for it.
also, if you're curious - the alter-reality has not stopped, it's just been paused. i will catch up when i am finished inri021. i've done this before. it's not ideal, but it's where my head needs to be. it also seems like i'll need to stop to read the grapes of wrath pretty much all of the way through. barring further delays, that should be the first week of december.
i'm going to do a recitation for the first time in two weeks and plan to time them, in the future, when my sd card fills up.
that's going to be about twice a month. roughly.
i'm going to do a recitation for the first time in two weeks and plan to time them, in the future, when my sd card fills up.
that's going to be about twice a month. roughly.
“There will be a multiyear transition into the replacement,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.). “This is a failed piece of legislation and it is coming apart at the seams, but it is going to take us awhile to make that transition from the repeal to actually replacing it.”
mmhmm.
when he said on day one, he meant in terms of a biblical analogy. because the lord is working through him, and he is carrying out god's plans. so, day one really means his first term.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/30/getting-rid-of-obamacare-may-take-longer-than-trump-plans/?tid=ss_twm&utm_term=.de660945dc22
mmhmm.
when he said on day one, he meant in terms of a biblical analogy. because the lord is working through him, and he is carrying out god's plans. so, day one really means his first term.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/30/getting-rid-of-obamacare-may-take-longer-than-trump-plans/?tid=ss_twm&utm_term=.de660945dc22
you don't have to care about my stupid music.
...but realize that i don't care about your stupid economy, either.
reciprocity? well, your stupid economy puts me at a disadvantage. the ideal is if we put property in common. then i'm not forced into slavery.
but, i don't ask for you to change your goals, i ask for you to back off and let me accomplish mine. i am lucky. i have this option. and, i may be best off to just be quiet and enjoy it, as i know that workers are brainwashed by religion to be subservient and reject "laziness". i'm targeting myself. but, i feel everybody should have this option - and that the world around me would be more vibrant if everybody did.
i feel that giving people more time to spend making art by freeing them from the constraints of labour is in my self-interest.
but, this isn't even slacktivism. this is an online journal. it's just an idea, man. like, my opinion, and stuff. and, yes - i know i have hundreds of daily readers. but i have not cultivated them. and i don't know who they are or what they want.
...but realize that i don't care about your stupid economy, either.
reciprocity? well, your stupid economy puts me at a disadvantage. the ideal is if we put property in common. then i'm not forced into slavery.
but, i don't ask for you to change your goals, i ask for you to back off and let me accomplish mine. i am lucky. i have this option. and, i may be best off to just be quiet and enjoy it, as i know that workers are brainwashed by religion to be subservient and reject "laziness". i'm targeting myself. but, i feel everybody should have this option - and that the world around me would be more vibrant if everybody did.
i feel that giving people more time to spend making art by freeing them from the constraints of labour is in my self-interest.
but, this isn't even slacktivism. this is an online journal. it's just an idea, man. like, my opinion, and stuff. and, yes - i know i have hundreds of daily readers. but i have not cultivated them. and i don't know who they are or what they want.
walkom is one of the few writers in canada that isn't an old tory.
he's right about pierre. and, he's right about canadians. canada's admiration for castro is less about who castro was or what he did and more about the symbolism of being a pain in the side of the empire. and, our solidarity with the trudeaus is symbolic on that level. it's some good old-fashioned anti-americanism.
you could say something about justin living in a different era, about him not sharing these anti-american instincts. or, at least not yet. i mean, a great society must be a just one, right? lbj may have famously roughed up pearson a little. but, it took a nixon for pierre to really look the other way.
but, insofar as the different era is concerned, i think we're all missing the obvious: justin trudeau had no relationship with fidel castro. and, he snubbed him on the only chance he had to meet him.
i'm not sure correlation implies causality, here, regarding the media smackdown. why would he have gone in the first place?
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/11/30/justin-trudeau-loses-his-nerve-skips-fidel-castros-funeral-walkom.html
"i've been called worse things by better people." - pierre trudeau reacting to reports that richard nixon called him an asshole.
i'm not sure that nixon was ever seen as diplomatic. but, this is likely a fairly quaint precursor to trump, who is certainly not.
nixon and pet were pretty far apart on the spectrum. trump and justin are pretty much the same dynamic, but with the elastic pulled right out of shape...
it was exasperation with nixon that had trudeau flirting with the non-aligned movement.
he's right about pierre. and, he's right about canadians. canada's admiration for castro is less about who castro was or what he did and more about the symbolism of being a pain in the side of the empire. and, our solidarity with the trudeaus is symbolic on that level. it's some good old-fashioned anti-americanism.
you could say something about justin living in a different era, about him not sharing these anti-american instincts. or, at least not yet. i mean, a great society must be a just one, right? lbj may have famously roughed up pearson a little. but, it took a nixon for pierre to really look the other way.
but, insofar as the different era is concerned, i think we're all missing the obvious: justin trudeau had no relationship with fidel castro. and, he snubbed him on the only chance he had to meet him.
i'm not sure correlation implies causality, here, regarding the media smackdown. why would he have gone in the first place?
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/11/30/justin-trudeau-loses-his-nerve-skips-fidel-castros-funeral-walkom.html
"i've been called worse things by better people." - pierre trudeau reacting to reports that richard nixon called him an asshole.
i'm not sure that nixon was ever seen as diplomatic. but, this is likely a fairly quaint precursor to trump, who is certainly not.
nixon and pet were pretty far apart on the spectrum. trump and justin are pretty much the same dynamic, but with the elastic pulled right out of shape...
it was exasperation with nixon that had trudeau flirting with the non-aligned movement.
why isn't there an html5-blocker for firefox?
it's the autoplay. whatever you want it to do, it doesn't work. it's just annoying.
i mean, do you want a slew of two second "watches" distorting your stats? no? then, ditch autoplay.
this gets flashblock working again:
media.audio_data.enabled;false
media.autoplay.enabled;false
media.ogg.enabled;false
media.webaudio.enabled;false
media.webm.enabled;false
it's the autoplay. whatever you want it to do, it doesn't work. it's just annoying.
i mean, do you want a slew of two second "watches" distorting your stats? no? then, ditch autoplay.
this gets flashblock working again:
media.audio_data.enabled;false
media.autoplay.enabled;false
media.ogg.enabled;false
media.webaudio.enabled;false
media.webm.enabled;false
in the midst of continuing stories about foreign hacking and computer faud, i just want to clarify what i'm thinking regarding how this whole election fraud thing works. no, i can't prove it. nobody else will ever prove it, either. but, how do they do that? there's lots of ways, of course. but, let's tell a little story that i think gets the main idea across...
this is jonah. jonah willis. he had his picture taken for a uk site, but he lives in north carolina, and he's going to vote for clinton.
"i'mma vote for clinton."
but, then bae comes in.
bae: but, cornel says she's a racist.
jonah: i know she's a racist, but they're both racists, and i think that other guy's a jackass, so i'mma vote for clinton. you coming?
bae: naw. i think they're all the same.
jonah: fine. i'm leaving. i'mma vote for clinton.
now, jonah knows he's black, so he knows he has to take special precautions if he wants his vote to count. that's why he has a suitcase of identification over there, which he always brings whenever he needs to vote:
the suitcase has 23 different types of identification, so there's no way they're not letting him vote.
when he shows up to the voting place, he's moved into the "black line". nobody calls it the black line. but everybody knows it's the black line. it features extra delays & extra checking and pretty much everybody ends up with a "provisional ballot" in the end.
after going through the suitcase item by item, the lady at the booth eventually rejects all of them as "insufficient" and gives jonah a "provisional ballot". she ensures jonah that all of the photocopies will be checked, and so long as at least one of them checks out then his vote will count.
jonah did actually vote for clinton. what else can he do but go home?
but, the lady at the booth put an asterisk beside jonah's name when he was in the booth. this was something she was instructed to do by the party.
at the end of the day, when everybody is gone, and while the ballots are being counted, a second operation is underway - the list that had jonah's name on it is being replaced by a list without his name on it. the new list does not have the name of any black people on it. the number of scrubbed black voters is then added up, and that number is removed from the pile of provisional ballots. these ballots are then destroyed.
in the end, there is no evidence that jonah ever showed up to vote at all.
if questioned on this procedure, the lady at the booth would no doubt be matter-of-fact:
it's tradition. we've been doing this here for generations. we let them come in and vote, but we don't actually count them. we never have. otherwise, they'd take over.
the only evidence that exists is the following strange truth: despite opinion polls implying the contrary, trump almost held his base. but, clinton was millions of votes short of all projections, specifically in the black and latino communities.
it seems like votes disappeared. and, if they did they will never be found...
this is jonah. jonah willis. he had his picture taken for a uk site, but he lives in north carolina, and he's going to vote for clinton.
"i'mma vote for clinton."
but, then bae comes in.
bae: but, cornel says she's a racist.
jonah: i know she's a racist, but they're both racists, and i think that other guy's a jackass, so i'mma vote for clinton. you coming?
bae: naw. i think they're all the same.
jonah: fine. i'm leaving. i'mma vote for clinton.
now, jonah knows he's black, so he knows he has to take special precautions if he wants his vote to count. that's why he has a suitcase of identification over there, which he always brings whenever he needs to vote:
the suitcase has 23 different types of identification, so there's no way they're not letting him vote.
when he shows up to the voting place, he's moved into the "black line". nobody calls it the black line. but everybody knows it's the black line. it features extra delays & extra checking and pretty much everybody ends up with a "provisional ballot" in the end.
after going through the suitcase item by item, the lady at the booth eventually rejects all of them as "insufficient" and gives jonah a "provisional ballot". she ensures jonah that all of the photocopies will be checked, and so long as at least one of them checks out then his vote will count.
jonah did actually vote for clinton. what else can he do but go home?
but, the lady at the booth put an asterisk beside jonah's name when he was in the booth. this was something she was instructed to do by the party.
at the end of the day, when everybody is gone, and while the ballots are being counted, a second operation is underway - the list that had jonah's name on it is being replaced by a list without his name on it. the new list does not have the name of any black people on it. the number of scrubbed black voters is then added up, and that number is removed from the pile of provisional ballots. these ballots are then destroyed.
in the end, there is no evidence that jonah ever showed up to vote at all.
if questioned on this procedure, the lady at the booth would no doubt be matter-of-fact:
it's tradition. we've been doing this here for generations. we let them come in and vote, but we don't actually count them. we never have. otherwise, they'd take over.
the only evidence that exists is the following strange truth: despite opinion polls implying the contrary, trump almost held his base. but, clinton was millions of votes short of all projections, specifically in the black and latino communities.
it seems like votes disappeared. and, if they did they will never be found...
and, for you people that think the democrats need to "get rid of identity politics"...
...that means what, exactly? running a candidate that says black children are super-predators, wants to deport latino children to south america and refuses to back gay equality until the last minute?
i mean, you lose because minority support is less than expected, and you want less minority voters? what?
i think what that actually means is that the democrats need to attract more white voters, and it's a kind of coded way to suggest that they should be more racist. but, i guess you weren't paying attention. because, hillary blew that dog whistle fairly often. and, unlike trump, she has a policy record to back it up.
i think there's a valid idea hidden in there, though, and that idea begins with the understanding that what the republicans have been doing with white voters is, in fact, just identity politics. the democrats have spent a lot of resources creating these minority-based identity politics. the republicans went for the mother of all demographics, and created an identity politics of the white christian. voter suppression or not, it clearly worked.
now, we're left face to face with the problem that the left has known all along: we have to change the nature of "white identity" in america. that's basically the mission of the left anyways.
it's not impossible, either. we've largely won this fight in canada. and, back in the 90s, it sure looked like the white liberal was winning the culture war in america, too.
and, that may the ultimate conclusion, here: the culture war that so many of us thought was over actually isn't. in the end, it may be a last gasp of a dying generation. but, it's not wise to make that assumption. rather, it seems like there's still a lot of battles to be fought and won.
-
it's just, like...
i'm white. yeah. i know it. i know it affects cultural decisions. who i spend time with. etc.
but, i'm secular. that probably has a lot do with the rest of my views.
i'm not economically well-off, either - although i have no interest in competing and am happy to live in poverty in exchange for freedom from labour.
so, i'm a lower class white voter. i'm an atheist. and i'm educated. but, i'm still white and lower class.
and i simply don't have a desire to live in a culture full of other people like me. that strikes me as very boring. this insularism is foreign to me. it can't be inherent.
i don't feel attracted to other white people. it could partly be because i know that so many other white people are conservative and christian and capitalist. sure. but, that solidarity is not there.
rather, i feel that solidarity over class. i feel it over ideology. i feel it over musical taste, as silly as that may be. and, those are categories that transcend skin colour.
i don't think i'm an anomaly. i just think i'm a product of a different culture. and, i can only look to america and say "this cannot be inherent. this cannot be permanent. this cannot be static. because the rest of the world is not like this."
...that means what, exactly? running a candidate that says black children are super-predators, wants to deport latino children to south america and refuses to back gay equality until the last minute?
i mean, you lose because minority support is less than expected, and you want less minority voters? what?
i think what that actually means is that the democrats need to attract more white voters, and it's a kind of coded way to suggest that they should be more racist. but, i guess you weren't paying attention. because, hillary blew that dog whistle fairly often. and, unlike trump, she has a policy record to back it up.
i think there's a valid idea hidden in there, though, and that idea begins with the understanding that what the republicans have been doing with white voters is, in fact, just identity politics. the democrats have spent a lot of resources creating these minority-based identity politics. the republicans went for the mother of all demographics, and created an identity politics of the white christian. voter suppression or not, it clearly worked.
now, we're left face to face with the problem that the left has known all along: we have to change the nature of "white identity" in america. that's basically the mission of the left anyways.
it's not impossible, either. we've largely won this fight in canada. and, back in the 90s, it sure looked like the white liberal was winning the culture war in america, too.
and, that may the ultimate conclusion, here: the culture war that so many of us thought was over actually isn't. in the end, it may be a last gasp of a dying generation. but, it's not wise to make that assumption. rather, it seems like there's still a lot of battles to be fought and won.
-
it's just, like...
i'm white. yeah. i know it. i know it affects cultural decisions. who i spend time with. etc.
but, i'm secular. that probably has a lot do with the rest of my views.
i'm not economically well-off, either - although i have no interest in competing and am happy to live in poverty in exchange for freedom from labour.
so, i'm a lower class white voter. i'm an atheist. and i'm educated. but, i'm still white and lower class.
and i simply don't have a desire to live in a culture full of other people like me. that strikes me as very boring. this insularism is foreign to me. it can't be inherent.
i don't feel attracted to other white people. it could partly be because i know that so many other white people are conservative and christian and capitalist. sure. but, that solidarity is not there.
rather, i feel that solidarity over class. i feel it over ideology. i feel it over musical taste, as silly as that may be. and, those are categories that transcend skin colour.
i don't think i'm an anomaly. i just think i'm a product of a different culture. and, i can only look to america and say "this cannot be inherent. this cannot be permanent. this cannot be static. because the rest of the world is not like this."
because cutting corporate taxes create jobs. right.
they don't believe that. don't think they do. they just think you're stupid enough to believe it. and, if the you is universal, they're right.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-treasury-secretary-our-first-priority-is-tax-cuts-2016-11
obviously, that they would invest more if they only had more money on hand? can't you see that?
http://www.businessinsider.com/record-us-corporate-cash-holdings-182-trillion-2015-6
they don't believe that. don't think they do. they just think you're stupid enough to believe it. and, if the you is universal, they're right.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-treasury-secretary-our-first-priority-is-tax-cuts-2016-11
obviously, that they would invest more if they only had more money on hand? can't you see that?
http://www.businessinsider.com/record-us-corporate-cash-holdings-182-trillion-2015-6
hey donald.
hows 'bout you pass a law limiting the number of times somebody can declare bankruptcy?
if i was him, i'd like to leave my business interests behind, too. will his creditors agree, though?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-leaving-business-interests
i guarantee you he declares bankruptcy.
^ a rhetorical device. obviously, i can't guarantee anything.
hows 'bout you pass a law limiting the number of times somebody can declare bankruptcy?
if i was him, i'd like to leave my business interests behind, too. will his creditors agree, though?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-leaving-business-interests
i guarantee you he declares bankruptcy.
^ a rhetorical device. obviously, i can't guarantee anything.
so, will this wave of kneejerk "anti-liberalism" in favour of magical thinking that conservatives will act like liberals if we all think hard enough that they will take justin trudeau down?
the truth is that it already did. and, he reacted. and he won a landslide on top of it.
rewind to a year, or even a few months, before the election. trudeau was ahead in the polls. then, he started talking about balanced budgets. he screwed up badly on c-51. and, canadians turned to our systemic bernie sanders - the ndp. history may forget to record that they nearly won. and they really nearly did.
then, harper started playing the anti-islam card. you can say what you will about this, but what it comes down to is that trudeau had the brand recognition necessary to fight back against it. kellie leitch? no, we just had that election, and that tactic lost.
trudeau had the political smarts that clinton didn't have. he saw it coming and he reacted. he beat the ndp at their own game, and they're still figuring out what to do.
it was paul krugman that pointed out that canada is always ahead of the curve, that we should look to canada for a taste of the future. yet, we're constantly told to expect the effects of american elections to be felt, here. i think that certain voices in the canadian commentariat may want to adjust their analysis.
it already happened, here. and, he co-opted it. we may even get a renegotiation of nafta out of it. hey - a girl can dream.
trudeau is the anti-elite backlash.
-
but, really. you gotta wonder if you should be dusting off the pavlov in your post-mortem, here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmarginal_inhibition
the truth is that it already did. and, he reacted. and he won a landslide on top of it.
rewind to a year, or even a few months, before the election. trudeau was ahead in the polls. then, he started talking about balanced budgets. he screwed up badly on c-51. and, canadians turned to our systemic bernie sanders - the ndp. history may forget to record that they nearly won. and they really nearly did.
then, harper started playing the anti-islam card. you can say what you will about this, but what it comes down to is that trudeau had the brand recognition necessary to fight back against it. kellie leitch? no, we just had that election, and that tactic lost.
trudeau had the political smarts that clinton didn't have. he saw it coming and he reacted. he beat the ndp at their own game, and they're still figuring out what to do.
it was paul krugman that pointed out that canada is always ahead of the curve, that we should look to canada for a taste of the future. yet, we're constantly told to expect the effects of american elections to be felt, here. i think that certain voices in the canadian commentariat may want to adjust their analysis.
it already happened, here. and, he co-opted it. we may even get a renegotiation of nafta out of it. hey - a girl can dream.
trudeau is the anti-elite backlash.
-
but, really. you gotta wonder if you should be dusting off the pavlov in your post-mortem, here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmarginal_inhibition
thomas mulcair is attacking justin trudeau for his willingness to open up nafta.
“How can the Prime Minister put an entire trade deal on the table before he says anything to Canadians about what he is looking for?”
really. really...
it's a sad day in canada when the leader of the ndp champions nafta. a sad day, indeed.
after refusing to step down after voters clearly rejected his rightward shifting of the party's positions, which were in clear contempt of the party's platform, mr. mulcair was unceremoniously dumped by his own party. we are now months past his own party's rejection of his political positions, and he refuses to stand down.
mr. mulcair, the voters have spoken. the party members have spoken. your mps have spoken. it is time for you to sit down and be quiet. it is time for you to go away. it is time for you to let go of the position that you would not let go of, that has been stripped from you and that nobody has faith in you to hold.
trudeau's comments will not hurt him, politically. but, mulcair is continuing to remind us why he lost his own base.
the party of douglas has become the party of mindless obstructionism. and, if this is what it has to offer, then it is time that it merge not with the liberals but with the tories.
my sadness is only eclipsed by my disgust.
-
yeah. they took it down.
they took their platform down.
and, then they wonder why they lost their base?
this is what the ndp's donors and voters and grassroots had in their platform, before mulcair took it down.
“Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to protect Canadian sovereignty, especially in investment and energy security.”
and, mulcair has been taken down, himself. he's just stuck in cache; he just refuses to go away.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/ndp-policy-manual-removed-from-partys-website-because-it-is-not-the-platform-ndp-advisor
F5. F5. F5. fuck. work...
“How can the Prime Minister put an entire trade deal on the table before he says anything to Canadians about what he is looking for?”
really. really...
it's a sad day in canada when the leader of the ndp champions nafta. a sad day, indeed.
after refusing to step down after voters clearly rejected his rightward shifting of the party's positions, which were in clear contempt of the party's platform, mr. mulcair was unceremoniously dumped by his own party. we are now months past his own party's rejection of his political positions, and he refuses to stand down.
mr. mulcair, the voters have spoken. the party members have spoken. your mps have spoken. it is time for you to sit down and be quiet. it is time for you to go away. it is time for you to let go of the position that you would not let go of, that has been stripped from you and that nobody has faith in you to hold.
trudeau's comments will not hurt him, politically. but, mulcair is continuing to remind us why he lost his own base.
the party of douglas has become the party of mindless obstructionism. and, if this is what it has to offer, then it is time that it merge not with the liberals but with the tories.
my sadness is only eclipsed by my disgust.
-
yeah. they took it down.
they took their platform down.
and, then they wonder why they lost their base?
this is what the ndp's donors and voters and grassroots had in their platform, before mulcair took it down.
“Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to protect Canadian sovereignty, especially in investment and energy security.”
and, mulcair has been taken down, himself. he's just stuck in cache; he just refuses to go away.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/ndp-policy-manual-removed-from-partys-website-because-it-is-not-the-platform-ndp-advisor
F5. F5. F5. fuck. work...
j reacts to the pipeline approvals in canada
this is no surprise. i fully expected that this battle would need to be fought on the ground. let's just not lose focus on the importance of fighting for positive steps towards transition, as we continue to fight this regressive feet-dragging.
putting all your focus on stopping the pipelines, and winning, doesn't leave us with much at the end of the day if the grid is in the same shape as it is now. we have to focus on transition and adaptation, too. with the election of the denier-in-chief, that's just all the more apparent. so, this is going to require a lot of hard work to stop. but, the liberals are still the lesser evil and it was still the right choice to put them in power.
we just have to make sure those infrastructure funds get released and put to use in transitioning, even as we fight the pipelines.
the ndp supported the pipelines, too. but, they had no plan for transition. indeed, their plan was to rely on taxing dirty oil to pay for social services.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/29/liberals-approve-trans-mountain-line-3-pipeline-projects.html
putting all your focus on stopping the pipelines, and winning, doesn't leave us with much at the end of the day if the grid is in the same shape as it is now. we have to focus on transition and adaptation, too. with the election of the denier-in-chief, that's just all the more apparent. so, this is going to require a lot of hard work to stop. but, the liberals are still the lesser evil and it was still the right choice to put them in power.
we just have to make sure those infrastructure funds get released and put to use in transitioning, even as we fight the pipelines.
the ndp supported the pipelines, too. but, they had no plan for transition. indeed, their plan was to rely on taxing dirty oil to pay for social services.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/29/liberals-approve-trans-mountain-line-3-pipeline-projects.html
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
j reacts to the republican plan to convert medicare into obamacare (and keep obamacare)
i don't think they're going to get rid of obamacare, because it was actually what they wanted. before it was obamacare, it was romneycare. and, before that it was gingrichcare. it came right out of the heritage institute.....what more could they want?
well, ok, there's a few things in implementation. so, they may change a few minor parts of it. i could see them breaking down the state monopoly part of it, which was designed to prevent companies from sheltering in states with bad laws (they'll claim competition will reduce prices, which is always an absurd lie and should be a red flag when you hear it). then, they'll rebrand it as 'something better'. and people will largely swallow it. but they'll keep the basic idea, because it's what they always wanted.
but, could they convert medicare into obamacare? that sounds like something they'd want to do, yeah.
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/11/paul-ryan-trump-privatize-medicare-000241
well, ok, there's a few things in implementation. so, they may change a few minor parts of it. i could see them breaking down the state monopoly part of it, which was designed to prevent companies from sheltering in states with bad laws (they'll claim competition will reduce prices, which is always an absurd lie and should be a red flag when you hear it). then, they'll rebrand it as 'something better'. and people will largely swallow it. but they'll keep the basic idea, because it's what they always wanted.
but, could they convert medicare into obamacare? that sounds like something they'd want to do, yeah.
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/11/paul-ryan-trump-privatize-medicare-000241
i remain without vlog. what's the deal with that?
well, i'm not done the record. that's all there is to it. but, i'm also kind of digging the freedom.
i am vlogging. i just dumped a 32 gb sd card to hard drive. so, lots of data.
but i've been clear over and over - i'm not vlogging for profit. i'm vlogging partly for marketing (i do many things, but i identify as a composer) and partly for documentation.
i mean, imagine if beethoven had a vlog. he would have smashed the camera, and there would have been no more vlog. i've digressed.
what that means is that there really isn't any reason why i need to upload my vlogs in any specific frequency. so long as the data exists, it exists. it doesn't matter if it gets uploaded or edited or not. right?
well, i like the idea of a stable vlog, even if it's staggered. clearly, a week was not enough time. and, i'm not going to catch the two week target. three weeks is just weird. so, i'm moving to a month. well, four weeks. so, a little less than a month...
the vlog for nov 15th will be published at 00:30 on dec 14th, and we'll keep going from there.
hopefully, what that means is that i can restrict editing to two or three days a month.
well, i'm not done the record. that's all there is to it. but, i'm also kind of digging the freedom.
i am vlogging. i just dumped a 32 gb sd card to hard drive. so, lots of data.
but i've been clear over and over - i'm not vlogging for profit. i'm vlogging partly for marketing (i do many things, but i identify as a composer) and partly for documentation.
i mean, imagine if beethoven had a vlog. he would have smashed the camera, and there would have been no more vlog. i've digressed.
what that means is that there really isn't any reason why i need to upload my vlogs in any specific frequency. so long as the data exists, it exists. it doesn't matter if it gets uploaded or edited or not. right?
well, i like the idea of a stable vlog, even if it's staggered. clearly, a week was not enough time. and, i'm not going to catch the two week target. three weeks is just weird. so, i'm moving to a month. well, four weeks. so, a little less than a month...
the vlog for nov 15th will be published at 00:30 on dec 14th, and we'll keep going from there.
hopefully, what that means is that i can restrict editing to two or three days a month.
Monday, November 28, 2016
j reacts to the ubiquity of junk economics in the mainstream press
"Trump's stated plans to cut taxes and ramp up infrastructure spending is expected to boost the U.S. economy, and the Federal Reserve is expected to boost U.S. interest rates, which could draw investors toward the U.S. greenback."
no.
rather, i'd expect that a congressional push for austerity and entitlement clawbacks is going to lead to a punishing recession, which will lead to a strong sell-off. republicans are generally terrible for the american economy, and usually create recessions. the combination of congressional austerity with a protectionist white house is likely going to be disastrous.
i agree with the rate hike, but i do not believe that rate hikes or cuts affect the value of the currency much.
the canadian dollar is traded on a market. rates are not meaningful because traders sell the currency quickly. it does not react to macroeconomic factors, either. it's value is determined by the perception of investors, not by causal economic laws. these predictions are consequently always worthless - when they are right, it is by sheer chance.
that said, i'd also expect that the sum effect of trump's policies is going to push oil lower (unless he manages to piss off opec, or something). and, because canada's dollar is perceived as a petro-currency, that remains the dominant psychological factor on the value that the canadian currency is traded at.
so, what we're going to be looking at with the loonie is finding a middle point between a worse-than-usual republican recession (which helps the loonie) and low oil prices (which doesn't). i'm not going to guess where it balances out, and don't think you should either. but, i'd bet more on stability than instability.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/loonie-us-dollar-forecasts-1.3863851
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/11/20/trumps-turn-republican-presidents-rule-recessions/93976832/
"While we see substantial support in Congress for proposals to cut taxes and reform the tax code, our current impression is that market expectations of quick fiscal expansion may be running ahead of political and legislative realities," Goldman said.
yup.
tax cut? check.
infrastructure spending? nope.
the report also makes the "error" of assigning gdp growth to tax cuts. i say "error" because i do not believe that goldman sachs actually believes in reaganomics, so much as it is holding to the lie because it wants the tax cut.
expect a recession. and pretty quickly.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/19/us-recession-odds-relatively-low-but-curb-your-enthusiasm-on-trumponomics-goldman.html
don't be surprised if the recession turns into a depression, either.
no.
rather, i'd expect that a congressional push for austerity and entitlement clawbacks is going to lead to a punishing recession, which will lead to a strong sell-off. republicans are generally terrible for the american economy, and usually create recessions. the combination of congressional austerity with a protectionist white house is likely going to be disastrous.
i agree with the rate hike, but i do not believe that rate hikes or cuts affect the value of the currency much.
the canadian dollar is traded on a market. rates are not meaningful because traders sell the currency quickly. it does not react to macroeconomic factors, either. it's value is determined by the perception of investors, not by causal economic laws. these predictions are consequently always worthless - when they are right, it is by sheer chance.
that said, i'd also expect that the sum effect of trump's policies is going to push oil lower (unless he manages to piss off opec, or something). and, because canada's dollar is perceived as a petro-currency, that remains the dominant psychological factor on the value that the canadian currency is traded at.
so, what we're going to be looking at with the loonie is finding a middle point between a worse-than-usual republican recession (which helps the loonie) and low oil prices (which doesn't). i'm not going to guess where it balances out, and don't think you should either. but, i'd bet more on stability than instability.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/loonie-us-dollar-forecasts-1.3863851
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/11/20/trumps-turn-republican-presidents-rule-recessions/93976832/
"While we see substantial support in Congress for proposals to cut taxes and reform the tax code, our current impression is that market expectations of quick fiscal expansion may be running ahead of political and legislative realities," Goldman said.
yup.
tax cut? check.
infrastructure spending? nope.
the report also makes the "error" of assigning gdp growth to tax cuts. i say "error" because i do not believe that goldman sachs actually believes in reaganomics, so much as it is holding to the lie because it wants the tax cut.
expect a recession. and pretty quickly.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/19/us-recession-odds-relatively-low-but-curb-your-enthusiasm-on-trumponomics-goldman.html
don't be surprised if the recession turns into a depression, either.
didn't they actually buy a drone company for delivery?
my best guess is that they just came to the startling conclusion that the most cost-effective way to deliver the product was to convert warehouses into store fronts.
i'd kinda still like to see drone mail delivery. more likely is that they're going to slowly lose market share, online.
and i'll stick with the second hand book stores, myself.
www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/amazon-offline-1.3868891
my best guess is that they just came to the startling conclusion that the most cost-effective way to deliver the product was to convert warehouses into store fronts.
i'd kinda still like to see drone mail delivery. more likely is that they're going to slowly lose market share, online.
and i'll stick with the second hand book stores, myself.
www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/amazon-offline-1.3868891
liberals need to avoid taking the alt-right bait on a racist narrative. this can't be about white liberals standing up for brown people. that just plays into their identity politics narrative, and perpetuates further conflict, even if we win most of the battles. it has to be a teachable moment used to banish race from the discourse altogether.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/race-is-not-biological_us_56b8db83e4b04f9b57da89ed
news flash: voter suppression or not, it was the republicans that were most successful in using identity politics, this election.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/race-is-not-biological_us_56b8db83e4b04f9b57da89ed
news flash: voter suppression or not, it was the republicans that were most successful in using identity politics, this election.
the right-wing press is nailing trudeau for refraining from demonizing castro.
they don't represent popular opinion in the country. trudeau should stick by his comments, which were reflective of the broad understanding in this country that castro was not perfect but that he did far more good than he did harm.
that's the historical narrative that will stick. the tory media is, as usual, completely wrong.
trudeau did not win the election by caving to the media. and, he should not cave to the media, now.
a lot of the people in the tory press that are criticizing trudeau today for his comments on castro were no doubt supporting apartheid south africa while castro was fighting it. they were on the wrong side of history then, and they are on the wrong side of history, now.
these are the same people that declared mandela a terrorist and stuck to it.
their opinions are wrong. they have always been wrong. and, if their media parent companies had any concept of social responsibility, their microphones and pens and keyboards would have been taken away from them years ago.
you don't have to be an advocate of historical materialism to realize that you can't expect a primitive society to respect queer rights. my understanding is that the reality was less that castro was an opponent of queer rights and more that he chose not to prevent their persecution. the ultimate problem stemmed from centuries of colonial rule by the catholic church. it was something that he couldn't overturn quickly, and fighting against it too strenuously may have put the whole thing in jeopardy.
the same thing is true today in russia. putin does not care about gay people one way or another. but, he knows that standing up to the church, which is what is actually leading the persecution, would put his own position in jeopardy.
i'm not trying to whitewash putin or castro. you can call putin weak, and be right. and, you can question castro's judgement. but, let us attribute the problem, correctly - in both cases, the problem is religion. and, on the left, we know how careful we have to be about religion and striking the right balance in letting it die out slowly.
it's not that queer rights are not important. of course, they are. but, they are a second-generation concern.
there is consequently something deeply bourgeois and distressingly haughty in these upper class tories and liberals looking down on these developing societies and criticizing them for not overturning their colonial brainwashing fast enough.
queer rights are a deduction, and not a premise. a certain framework must come first.
and, in time, castro's society did become more free for queer people - once it had time to undo the effects of catholicism.
they don't represent popular opinion in the country. trudeau should stick by his comments, which were reflective of the broad understanding in this country that castro was not perfect but that he did far more good than he did harm.
that's the historical narrative that will stick. the tory media is, as usual, completely wrong.
trudeau did not win the election by caving to the media. and, he should not cave to the media, now.
a lot of the people in the tory press that are criticizing trudeau today for his comments on castro were no doubt supporting apartheid south africa while castro was fighting it. they were on the wrong side of history then, and they are on the wrong side of history, now.
these are the same people that declared mandela a terrorist and stuck to it.
their opinions are wrong. they have always been wrong. and, if their media parent companies had any concept of social responsibility, their microphones and pens and keyboards would have been taken away from them years ago.
you don't have to be an advocate of historical materialism to realize that you can't expect a primitive society to respect queer rights. my understanding is that the reality was less that castro was an opponent of queer rights and more that he chose not to prevent their persecution. the ultimate problem stemmed from centuries of colonial rule by the catholic church. it was something that he couldn't overturn quickly, and fighting against it too strenuously may have put the whole thing in jeopardy.
the same thing is true today in russia. putin does not care about gay people one way or another. but, he knows that standing up to the church, which is what is actually leading the persecution, would put his own position in jeopardy.
i'm not trying to whitewash putin or castro. you can call putin weak, and be right. and, you can question castro's judgement. but, let us attribute the problem, correctly - in both cases, the problem is religion. and, on the left, we know how careful we have to be about religion and striking the right balance in letting it die out slowly.
it's not that queer rights are not important. of course, they are. but, they are a second-generation concern.
there is consequently something deeply bourgeois and distressingly haughty in these upper class tories and liberals looking down on these developing societies and criticizing them for not overturning their colonial brainwashing fast enough.
queer rights are a deduction, and not a premise. a certain framework must come first.
and, in time, castro's society did become more free for queer people - once it had time to undo the effects of catholicism.
more projection. classic trump. he knows the election was rigged in his favour - that millions more votes for clinton disappeared. this is what he does to control his herd of idiots and deplorables (it was a stupid thing to say, but it was always true, and i'm going to stick with it). at some point, the sheep will react. but, they're sheep. it could be a while.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/trump-calls-it-sad-that-clinton-joining-recount-effort/article33058826/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/trump-calls-it-sad-that-clinton-joining-recount-effort/article33058826/
j reacts to the idea that pipelines can be a compromise in fighting climate change
"Mr. Trudeau has appeared willing to take that risk because it could lead to a political triumph. If he can balance a pipeline with a climate deal with premiers at a meeting Dec. 8 – and it appears a deal with all provincial premiers except Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall is likely – then he can claim the broad political middle by asserting he delivered both a pipeline to tidewater and a deal on emissions."
this is stupidity. he will do neither. he will alienate both constituencies.
there is no "political middle". it's a fantasy created by conservatives to co-opt the left.
the liberals played this game in the 90s and lost. the lesson they should have learned is that they can't balance the left and right, and that they're only deluding themselves in pretending that they can.
the reason is that nobody actually wants this compromise. there's no victory in getting pipelines built, while you address climate change. that's not something i want, or something i'll celebrate. it's just feet-dragging and weak tea.
i know it's coming. i never pretended it wasn't. i knew he was going to approve pipelines, and i knew they would need to be fought in court and on the ground. but, i'm not looking forward to it, and nobody else is, either.
that's delusional. simply. plainly.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/were-about-to-see-just-how-ruthless-trudeau-can-be/article33065655/
this is stupidity. he will do neither. he will alienate both constituencies.
there is no "political middle". it's a fantasy created by conservatives to co-opt the left.
the liberals played this game in the 90s and lost. the lesson they should have learned is that they can't balance the left and right, and that they're only deluding themselves in pretending that they can.
the reason is that nobody actually wants this compromise. there's no victory in getting pipelines built, while you address climate change. that's not something i want, or something i'll celebrate. it's just feet-dragging and weak tea.
i know it's coming. i never pretended it wasn't. i knew he was going to approve pipelines, and i knew they would need to be fought in court and on the ground. but, i'm not looking forward to it, and nobody else is, either.
that's delusional. simply. plainly.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/were-about-to-see-just-how-ruthless-trudeau-can-be/article33065655/
Sunday, November 27, 2016
i actually really don't like the idea of posting pictures with your partner in your profile pic, whatever the site is. it broadcasts a lack of individuality. and, i'll never see the upside to that, no matter how you try and explain it. your profile is yours, it's never your partner's. and, no, you can't share it.
it's kind of like going to the bathroom with the door open. you're going to do it. and, everybody knows you're going to do it. but, it's never ok.
it's kind of like going to the bathroom with the door open. you're going to do it. and, everybody knows you're going to do it. but, it's never ok.
publishing inri019
this is the final section of the last proper inri demo, which was written as somewhat of a suite, but only in a fleeting moment, and then forgotten. it's a sort of sardonic take on the jesus story, in that it follows a persecuted person through a suicide and a resurrection, with tongue in cheek commentary.
initially, it was a song suite about being young and not listened to, culminating in a rather dramatic overreaction - that i ridiculed as counter-productive, partly by reference to kurt cobain, whose suicide is an event that hangs over the childhood of my generation. people that were adults at the time might want to think of it in the same way that they interpreted watching kennedy get his brains blown out on live tv. as i grew up (stated loosely - i was still 17/18, here), i realized this is a general condition of society that is not limited to young people. so, i generalized it to reflect the illusion of what we call "democracy", and gave it an exaggerated persecution complex. the cynicism was targeted at the clinton administration, but in a broader sense i'm sort of ridiculing the rather cartoonish perception of generation x as this kind of raelian mass of fatalist children....
my final vocal edit for viewless focused on a small part of the verse and cut the chorus out altogether. i then distributed that small part into the rest of the song by cutting into parts and pasting it in where i wanted. this drops the more general commentary, which seems like an anachronism, in favour of refocusing the listener on the direct storyline of individual persecution. for suicide, i left the vocal track largely in tact, except to remove the suicide note, which in hindsight also seems like a giant distraction from the satirical storyline. what's left is more direct.
i also want to note that there was a conscious decision to move to a more recited vocal style on the 1999 rerecording (and subsequent 2016 reconstruction), rather than the screamy style that dominates the initial 1996 demo. at the time, i considered screaming to be sort of contrived and passe. the recitation is actually a very considered reaction to something i interpreted as largely cartoonish. i was certainly still heavily influenced by the screamy stuff i grew up with, but it wasn't a characteristic of much of anything i was attracted to after about '97 or so and actually something that i really wanted to distance myself from.
i've pulled back from insisting on recited vocals in order to minimize that contrivedness, but the truth is that the vast majority of music released after about '97 that has screamed vocals very much *is* contrived. time has only cemented my rejection of falsely emotionalized vocals in punk-derived genres.
written and demoed from 1996-1999. initially constructed in this form in january, 1999. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. compiled on nov 13, 2016. sequenced on nov 22-24, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2013-2016. audio permanently closed on nov 24, 2016. release finalized on nov 27, 2016. this is my second symphony; as always, please use headphones.
section one ("epilag"): initially created in early 1999. remastered on nov 23, 2016.
section two ("viewless"): initially written in 1996. recreated over 1998 and finalized in dec, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 19, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 29, 2015. sequenced nov 22, 2016. vocals added on nov 23, 2016. corrected to remove an errand click on nov 24, 2016.
section three ("anticipation"): background noise built in 1996. rebuilt in late 1998. edited in late 2013. remastered on nov 24, 2016.
section four ("suicide"): initially written in 1996. recreated over 1998 and finalized in dec, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 20, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 27, 2015. sequenced nov 22, 2016. vocals added on nov 23, 2016.
section five ("resurrection"): initially written and recorded on january 4, 1999.
the album version of this track appears on my second record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
this release is compiled in the following places:
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1996, 1998, 1999, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016).
*download only
initially, it was a song suite about being young and not listened to, culminating in a rather dramatic overreaction - that i ridiculed as counter-productive, partly by reference to kurt cobain, whose suicide is an event that hangs over the childhood of my generation. people that were adults at the time might want to think of it in the same way that they interpreted watching kennedy get his brains blown out on live tv. as i grew up (stated loosely - i was still 17/18, here), i realized this is a general condition of society that is not limited to young people. so, i generalized it to reflect the illusion of what we call "democracy", and gave it an exaggerated persecution complex. the cynicism was targeted at the clinton administration, but in a broader sense i'm sort of ridiculing the rather cartoonish perception of generation x as this kind of raelian mass of fatalist children....
my final vocal edit for viewless focused on a small part of the verse and cut the chorus out altogether. i then distributed that small part into the rest of the song by cutting into parts and pasting it in where i wanted. this drops the more general commentary, which seems like an anachronism, in favour of refocusing the listener on the direct storyline of individual persecution. for suicide, i left the vocal track largely in tact, except to remove the suicide note, which in hindsight also seems like a giant distraction from the satirical storyline. what's left is more direct.
i also want to note that there was a conscious decision to move to a more recited vocal style on the 1999 rerecording (and subsequent 2016 reconstruction), rather than the screamy style that dominates the initial 1996 demo. at the time, i considered screaming to be sort of contrived and passe. the recitation is actually a very considered reaction to something i interpreted as largely cartoonish. i was certainly still heavily influenced by the screamy stuff i grew up with, but it wasn't a characteristic of much of anything i was attracted to after about '97 or so and actually something that i really wanted to distance myself from.
i've pulled back from insisting on recited vocals in order to minimize that contrivedness, but the truth is that the vast majority of music released after about '97 that has screamed vocals very much *is* contrived. time has only cemented my rejection of falsely emotionalized vocals in punk-derived genres.
written and demoed from 1996-1999. initially constructed in this form in january, 1999. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. compiled on nov 13, 2016. sequenced on nov 22-24, 2016 from parts that were rebuilt over 2013-2016. audio permanently closed on nov 24, 2016. release finalized on nov 27, 2016. this is my second symphony; as always, please use headphones.
section one ("epilag"): initially created in early 1999. remastered on nov 23, 2016.
section two ("viewless"): initially written in 1996. recreated over 1998 and finalized in dec, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 19, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 29, 2015. sequenced nov 22, 2016. vocals added on nov 23, 2016. corrected to remove an errand click on nov 24, 2016.
section three ("anticipation"): background noise built in 1996. rebuilt in late 1998. edited in late 2013. remastered on nov 24, 2016.
section four ("suicide"): initially written in 1996. recreated over 1998 and finalized in dec, 1998. a failed rescue was attempted in 2013. reclaimed july 20, 2015. corrected to control for malfunctioning electronics on dec 27, 2015. sequenced nov 22, 2016. vocals added on nov 23, 2016.
section five ("resurrection"): initially written and recorded on january 4, 1999.
the album version of this track appears on my second record:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
this release is compiled in the following places:
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1996, 1998, 1999, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016).
*download only
credits
released January 13, 1999
j - guitars, effects, bass, synthesizers, electric piano, vocals, drum kit, drum programming, sequencing, cool edit synthesis, sampling, light-wave synthesis, noise generators, sound design, loops, tapes, digital wave editing, production
j - guitars, effects, bass, synthesizers, electric piano, vocals, drum kit, drum programming, sequencing, cool edit synthesis, sampling, light-wave synthesis, noise generators, sound design, loops, tapes, digital wave editing, production
pot, kettle.
but, is he worried? see, i don't think he should be. i think his handlers cleaned up.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38121264
but, is he worried? see, i don't think he should be. i think his handlers cleaned up.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38121264
guys, listen - zizek is a troll. i mean, he calls himself a stalinist. isn't that the first clue that you shouldn't take him seriously? but, he's not actually a stalinist. he's just a smart capitalist. he knows what sells, and he says ridiculous things for profit.
this is not new, either. it's good that this is chomsky, because he's the go-to guy to expose that entire school of sophistry. but, there have always been sophists. and there have always been fools willing to give those sophists their money.
you should have listened to chomsky.
and, in the end that might be the chapter in the history book on the era of the american empire. you can imagine it in the table of contents...
the british empire.............................10063
the american empire........................26575
the new chinese empire...................26576
shouldda listened to chomsky.
-
i remember an old friend showing up at my place with a zizek video sometime in the mid 00s, thinking i'd enjoy it. my reaction was the standard reaction one gets from actual smart and actual educated people that are not easily hypnotized by his psycho-babble: he just rambled for an hour without actually saying anything.
rather than take my far more educated opinion on the topic seriously, he gave me the standard kneejerk, which i suspect is a part of the orientation material (no doubt sold separately, or perhaps free with orders of a certain magnitude):
"you just didn't understand it."
sure. right. went right over my head, man.
he's not a stalinist, but he does flirt with the worst tendencies on the right. and, he should not be taken seriously by anybody that is remotely left of center.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/08/zize-f08.html
no, honestly, though. you might think a zizek "concert" is full of philosophy students. but, ask around. my experience is that your average zizek "fan" is actually somebody that thought they were too smart for school and may or may not have bothered to finish grade 12.
that's the ruse: he sells nonsense to idiots that spend their whole lives failing, who then get to feel superior because they understand things that the smart kids don't. and, the more that actual academics smack this nonsense down, the more elite the failures get to feel.
there's maybe something to all the reverse psychology. but, what that something is is a tactic to sell shit to the people that are buying it. nor is this particularly novel. as mentioned: there have always been sophists, and there have always been people willing to give them money.
it's just as simple as giving losers a way out of feeling inferior. that's always a good business model. they're not stupid, after all. they get the secret knowledge. they're the special ones. it's the kids that went to school that are stupid, and don't get it.
and, political movements have always had to find a way to inoculate themselves against this kind of anti-intellectualism, under threat of collapse into absurdity.
this is not new, either. it's good that this is chomsky, because he's the go-to guy to expose that entire school of sophistry. but, there have always been sophists. and there have always been fools willing to give those sophists their money.
you should have listened to chomsky.
and, in the end that might be the chapter in the history book on the era of the american empire. you can imagine it in the table of contents...
the british empire.............................10063
the american empire........................26575
the new chinese empire...................26576
26575
The American Empire
shouldda listened to chomsky.
-
i remember an old friend showing up at my place with a zizek video sometime in the mid 00s, thinking i'd enjoy it. my reaction was the standard reaction one gets from actual smart and actual educated people that are not easily hypnotized by his psycho-babble: he just rambled for an hour without actually saying anything.
rather than take my far more educated opinion on the topic seriously, he gave me the standard kneejerk, which i suspect is a part of the orientation material (no doubt sold separately, or perhaps free with orders of a certain magnitude):
"you just didn't understand it."
sure. right. went right over my head, man.
he's not a stalinist, but he does flirt with the worst tendencies on the right. and, he should not be taken seriously by anybody that is remotely left of center.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/08/zize-f08.html
no, honestly, though. you might think a zizek "concert" is full of philosophy students. but, ask around. my experience is that your average zizek "fan" is actually somebody that thought they were too smart for school and may or may not have bothered to finish grade 12.
that's the ruse: he sells nonsense to idiots that spend their whole lives failing, who then get to feel superior because they understand things that the smart kids don't. and, the more that actual academics smack this nonsense down, the more elite the failures get to feel.
there's maybe something to all the reverse psychology. but, what that something is is a tactic to sell shit to the people that are buying it. nor is this particularly novel. as mentioned: there have always been sophists, and there have always been people willing to give them money.
it's just as simple as giving losers a way out of feeling inferior. that's always a good business model. they're not stupid, after all. they get the secret knowledge. they're the special ones. it's the kids that went to school that are stupid, and don't get it.
and, political movements have always had to find a way to inoculate themselves against this kind of anti-intellectualism, under threat of collapse into absurdity.
Saturday, November 26, 2016
re: the fake news. not the norm macdonald fake news, the facebook stuff.
it was late 2013 that i just got fed up and unplugged.
so, i wasn't paying attention to facebook over the election. i haven't had a feed to check in around three years.
feb 25, 2015
this somewhat ironically explains why i discarded social media and went back to traditional media.
the cat pictures were admittedly bad. the memes were worse. but what really permanently turned me off was the lack of filters, combined with a disturbing level of mass ignorance.
i was hooked up to a number of "libertarian" type political movements, most leaning towards the socialist brand of libertarianism (anarchism). occupy, idle no more, groups against tar sands development and other protest groups with similar purposes that organized large protests and generated substantial interest.
i'd guess that roughly 75% of the articles that i'd read that had gone "viral" within that political spectrum were absolute nonsense. the stuff on gmos was particularly illiterate. and, it would just get shared by dumb hippie after dumb hippie after dumb hippie. it's the perfect example of how lies can become truth if they're repeated often enough - which in this case means if they're shared over enough feeds.
i reacted, of course. you send out crap in your feed, i'm going to correct you. but, what it lead to was a lot of interpersonal tension, accusations that i wasn't on "their side" and just general close-mindedness to criticism. the meme was authoritarian truth; how dare i challenge it with my puny citations!
what i learned was that social media isn't a replacement for anything - it's merely an evolution of the mob mentality. it reminded me of how important good journalism really is, and why it can't be tossed aside as a relic of the past.
i think that free-thinking people ought to be very cautious of how social media might shape social movements in the future, mostly for the worst. it really pushes a conformist mob mentality, with little interest in fact checking.
i think we can probably blame the anti-vaccine campaign on social media.
i fear it's just the beginning.
it was late 2013 that i just got fed up and unplugged.
so, i wasn't paying attention to facebook over the election. i haven't had a feed to check in around three years.
feb 25, 2015
this somewhat ironically explains why i discarded social media and went back to traditional media.
the cat pictures were admittedly bad. the memes were worse. but what really permanently turned me off was the lack of filters, combined with a disturbing level of mass ignorance.
i was hooked up to a number of "libertarian" type political movements, most leaning towards the socialist brand of libertarianism (anarchism). occupy, idle no more, groups against tar sands development and other protest groups with similar purposes that organized large protests and generated substantial interest.
i'd guess that roughly 75% of the articles that i'd read that had gone "viral" within that political spectrum were absolute nonsense. the stuff on gmos was particularly illiterate. and, it would just get shared by dumb hippie after dumb hippie after dumb hippie. it's the perfect example of how lies can become truth if they're repeated often enough - which in this case means if they're shared over enough feeds.
i reacted, of course. you send out crap in your feed, i'm going to correct you. but, what it lead to was a lot of interpersonal tension, accusations that i wasn't on "their side" and just general close-mindedness to criticism. the meme was authoritarian truth; how dare i challenge it with my puny citations!
what i learned was that social media isn't a replacement for anything - it's merely an evolution of the mob mentality. it reminded me of how important good journalism really is, and why it can't be tossed aside as a relic of the past.
i think that free-thinking people ought to be very cautious of how social media might shape social movements in the future, mostly for the worst. it really pushes a conformist mob mentality, with little interest in fact checking.
i think we can probably blame the anti-vaccine campaign on social media.
i fear it's just the beginning.
j reacts to the possibility of toll booths in canada
you might expect me to be opposed to toll booths, and i am. but not really.
"isn't that why we pay taxes?"
well, maybe that's what you'd like your tax money to be spent on. but you're being a little presumptuous. not everybody that uses the roads pays taxes, and not everybody that pays taxes uses the roads.
reality check: while i'm not currently paying taxes (i get way more back in rebates than i pay), i have paid taxes in the past. i don't even have a driver's license. and, i think this is becoming a lot more common with younger people, especially younger people in the cities.
if i were to stand up and say "i pay taxes. shouldn't i get on the bus and the subway and the light rail for free? i mean, that's why i pay taxes, isn't it?", i'd likely get eye rolls. but, it is fundamentally the same argument. i use public transportation and am expected to pay for it. i'm also expected to subsidize highways that i don't use. where's the reciprocity in this?
i think a just solution can happen in one of two ways:
1) we neither have toll booths on highways nor do we have toll booths on subways or buses or light rail.
2) we have toll booths on highways, just like we have toll booths on subways and buses and light rail.
i prefer the first option. but, my opposition to the second is not going to be so high - not so long as i have to pay to get on the bus.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/news/trans-canada-highway/road-tolls-will-they-actually-reduce-congestion/article32974843/
if, in the end, we end up using toll booth revenue to fund public transit? that's some wealth redistribution in the right direction...
"isn't that why we pay taxes?"
well, maybe that's what you'd like your tax money to be spent on. but you're being a little presumptuous. not everybody that uses the roads pays taxes, and not everybody that pays taxes uses the roads.
reality check: while i'm not currently paying taxes (i get way more back in rebates than i pay), i have paid taxes in the past. i don't even have a driver's license. and, i think this is becoming a lot more common with younger people, especially younger people in the cities.
if i were to stand up and say "i pay taxes. shouldn't i get on the bus and the subway and the light rail for free? i mean, that's why i pay taxes, isn't it?", i'd likely get eye rolls. but, it is fundamentally the same argument. i use public transportation and am expected to pay for it. i'm also expected to subsidize highways that i don't use. where's the reciprocity in this?
i think a just solution can happen in one of two ways:
1) we neither have toll booths on highways nor do we have toll booths on subways or buses or light rail.
2) we have toll booths on highways, just like we have toll booths on subways and buses and light rail.
i prefer the first option. but, my opposition to the second is not going to be so high - not so long as i have to pay to get on the bus.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/news/trans-canada-highway/road-tolls-will-they-actually-reduce-congestion/article32974843/
if, in the end, we end up using toll booth revenue to fund public transit? that's some wealth redistribution in the right direction...
j reacts to the reports of the demise of nafta being greatly exaggerated (from canada)
i think that what trudeau is trying to say, here, is that he doesn't expect that trump will actually ask to renegotiate nafta, so he's not going to comment on a theoretical that he doesn't expect to actually happen. it's a pretty standard public relations tactic when faced with a lack of clarity in events happening around you.
it's consistent with what he said earlier, too: that he'd love to sit down with the president and talk about renegotiating nafta. sure. pull up a seat, don. because the liberal party always loved nafta, right? it wasn't something that mulroney fucked up hard and that chretien had no realistic means of escape from and had to eat whether he liked it or not. what trudeau was doing was calling his bluff.
sure. let's renegotiate nafta! there's this list of stuff, here, that we've been waiting for 25 years to squirm out of...
trudeau is not going to get along with trump. and, it may be the best thing he can hope for, too: because nothing unites canadians behind the liberal party like an asshole republican in the white house.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3072173/justin-trudeau-canada-will-only-respond-to-concrete-proposals-from-donald-trump/
to be clear: i'd love to renegotiate nafta, and i couldn't ask for a more clueless idiot than trump to renegotiate it with. how's that for playing a hand?
free trade with the united states - reciprocity - has always been in the canadian interest. the liberals have always supported it. but, the agreement was negotiated and signed by the worst prime minister that the country has ever had. he sold the country off. he threw away our sovereignty. he caved on everything imaginable. so, of course the liberals opposed it - and they were right to oppose it.
but, then they win the election in 1993 and they can't escape it. if they sign it, we're fucked. but clinton knows he can't get a renegotiation through congress, and he's not interested in opening it up. so, if they don't sign it, we're even more fucked because we're poking the eyes of our biggest export market. it's a brutal cost-benefit analysis. but, they were right to sign it, even after they were right to oppose it.
so, they signed a deal they opposed because they didn't have a choice. and, they've been waiting for the opportunity to renegotiate ever since.
so, yeah - let's sit down and talk. you've twisted our arm.
if the liberals had the opportunity in 1993, they would have scrapped nafta and started from scratch. that wasn't an option, then. we got sucked into an agreement that was primarily between the us and mexico. the fta was bad, but it was better because it was actually about us. so, i would strongly support this, still, today. remember: if we trash nafta, the fta still exists. that would be a good start. but don't count on it....
"NAFTA was built upon CUSFTA. The text of CUSFTA was used during negotiations with Mexico and there were some new provisions. For example, trading automobiles had to be adjusted because Mexico’s investment rules were also somehow adjusted and one of the big changes connected with NAFTA and Canada-US free trade agreement is the Investment Chapter. NAFTA has also chapter 11 which deals with dispute settlement connected with the protection of investment. The CUSFTA did not have this chapter. There was no particular investment dispute settlement, there was only some general dispute settlement between government, but in the case of NAFTA, US Government was very concern of protection of US Investments. Mexican court system was adequate for the US and Canadian investments so the part be of Chapter 11 was added and NAFTA became the first RTA which contains an investment arbitration."
so, if trump were to come in and trash nafta, reverting back to the fta, i'd be about 95% of the way there, in terms of supporting a free trade agreement with the united states, specifically.
chances of that happening? i'd say close to zero.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/introduction-north-american-free-trade-agreement-isds-khachatryan
it's consistent with what he said earlier, too: that he'd love to sit down with the president and talk about renegotiating nafta. sure. pull up a seat, don. because the liberal party always loved nafta, right? it wasn't something that mulroney fucked up hard and that chretien had no realistic means of escape from and had to eat whether he liked it or not. what trudeau was doing was calling his bluff.
sure. let's renegotiate nafta! there's this list of stuff, here, that we've been waiting for 25 years to squirm out of...
trudeau is not going to get along with trump. and, it may be the best thing he can hope for, too: because nothing unites canadians behind the liberal party like an asshole republican in the white house.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3072173/justin-trudeau-canada-will-only-respond-to-concrete-proposals-from-donald-trump/
to be clear: i'd love to renegotiate nafta, and i couldn't ask for a more clueless idiot than trump to renegotiate it with. how's that for playing a hand?
free trade with the united states - reciprocity - has always been in the canadian interest. the liberals have always supported it. but, the agreement was negotiated and signed by the worst prime minister that the country has ever had. he sold the country off. he threw away our sovereignty. he caved on everything imaginable. so, of course the liberals opposed it - and they were right to oppose it.
but, then they win the election in 1993 and they can't escape it. if they sign it, we're fucked. but clinton knows he can't get a renegotiation through congress, and he's not interested in opening it up. so, if they don't sign it, we're even more fucked because we're poking the eyes of our biggest export market. it's a brutal cost-benefit analysis. but, they were right to sign it, even after they were right to oppose it.
so, they signed a deal they opposed because they didn't have a choice. and, they've been waiting for the opportunity to renegotiate ever since.
so, yeah - let's sit down and talk. you've twisted our arm.
if the liberals had the opportunity in 1993, they would have scrapped nafta and started from scratch. that wasn't an option, then. we got sucked into an agreement that was primarily between the us and mexico. the fta was bad, but it was better because it was actually about us. so, i would strongly support this, still, today. remember: if we trash nafta, the fta still exists. that would be a good start. but don't count on it....
"NAFTA was built upon CUSFTA. The text of CUSFTA was used during negotiations with Mexico and there were some new provisions. For example, trading automobiles had to be adjusted because Mexico’s investment rules were also somehow adjusted and one of the big changes connected with NAFTA and Canada-US free trade agreement is the Investment Chapter. NAFTA has also chapter 11 which deals with dispute settlement connected with the protection of investment. The CUSFTA did not have this chapter. There was no particular investment dispute settlement, there was only some general dispute settlement between government, but in the case of NAFTA, US Government was very concern of protection of US Investments. Mexican court system was adequate for the US and Canadian investments so the part be of Chapter 11 was added and NAFTA became the first RTA which contains an investment arbitration."
so, if trump were to come in and trash nafta, reverting back to the fta, i'd be about 95% of the way there, in terms of supporting a free trade agreement with the united states, specifically.
chances of that happening? i'd say close to zero.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/introduction-north-american-free-trade-agreement-isds-khachatryan
j reacts to the death of fidel castro
ah, fidel. things could have been so much different. but it was largely not your fault, and history will acknowledge that. the modern mithridates. may you rest in the peace you never had.
j reacts to the recounts in wisconsin & pennsylvania (and michigan)
i don't expect that the recounts in wisconsin or michigan will change the tallies much. you'll note that i never argued that the elections were being rigged by a foreign power, or that the voting machines were suspect or that data was being altered (with the possible exception of early voters calling in to change their votes, which i think should be investigated). what i argued was that the polls were obviously being manipulated to exaggerate white voter turnout and minimize turnout from non-white voters, and this indicated that there was an understanding in the background (and the sources suggested deep state intelligence collusion) that voter suppression tactics were going to swing the outcome of the election. the media used terms like "likely voters" as code words and jargon; what they meant was that they expected that the minority vote was going to be suppressed.
i didn't argue that the tactics weren't used in north carolina or florida or arizona, either. what i argued is that the margins in these states make the manipulation less obvious, and that it would consequently be a lot harder to prove. resources should be focused on the places where the fraud is most obvious, and that would be in wisconsin & pennsylvania & michigan.
(put another way, the polls predicted that the results in north carolina & arizona & florida were going to be close enough that a systemic bias could be explained solely in the margin of error. basically, they could cheat in these states and get away with it because polling is not perfect. that was not true in pennsylvania or wisconsin or michigan, where clinton was ahead by margins that exceeded any reasonable error. you have to rely on not just a systemic bias but also on an unreasonably large shy trump voter effect in these states that was consistent through all polling and even the exit polling. either people were lying to the polling firms consistently for months and the data reflected it or they weren't and votes were destroyed.)
i initially just thought they were using bad modelling. it took me time to realize that what should have been bad modelling was actually at the least predictive due to the understanding that the election was going to be stolen through voter intimidation and discarded ballots. they were modelling voter suppression, and that voter suppression that they modelled actually happened.
what that means is that the paper trail is probably in provisional ballots if it exists, but that there's no guarantee that it's there at all. a proper accounting would no doubt yield a correct result, but it would take a long time and probably break privacy laws. and, those ballots may have very well just been discarded.
i don't expect that there's going to be any way to prove that it was stolen, other than to point at the polling discrepancies and argue that this is fishy (and to point out that the media seems to have seen it coming). this was an inside job and these guys are pros. they know what they're doing. they didn't leave a smoking gun at the polling booth.
it's not that trump's vote totals are higher. they're not. he underperformed romney.
it's that millions and millions of votes for clinton seem to have just disappeared. and, if they disappeared then they disappeared. you're not going to find them hiding somewhere in a school gym in scranton.
i don't think this was trump's cronies showing up with baseball bats and giving people offers they can't refuse. i think this was highly co-ordinated. and i think they cleaned up - i think they destroyed the evidence.
if you're lucky, you might be able to find data that indicates that ballots were destroyed and that might be useful in passing reforms. but, i say that like it's some kind of accident, right?
-
yes, i'm saying that the united states is in truth a military dictatorship with a fraudulent veneer of fake elections designed to trick people into thinking they live in a democracy in order to prevent a real revolution. i've been saying that for years.
look at american foreign policy. it destroys democracy everywhere it finds it. but, you think it wants it at home?
-
but, i want to be clear: what makes this election different is not that it was stolen. the 2000 election was stolen. the 1980 election was stolen. the 1968 election was stolen. and the 1960 election was stolen, too. what makes this election different is that they stole states that were obviously not even in play. the difference is how brazen they were, and how much contempt they showed for voters in the process.
i didn't argue that the tactics weren't used in north carolina or florida or arizona, either. what i argued is that the margins in these states make the manipulation less obvious, and that it would consequently be a lot harder to prove. resources should be focused on the places where the fraud is most obvious, and that would be in wisconsin & pennsylvania & michigan.
(put another way, the polls predicted that the results in north carolina & arizona & florida were going to be close enough that a systemic bias could be explained solely in the margin of error. basically, they could cheat in these states and get away with it because polling is not perfect. that was not true in pennsylvania or wisconsin or michigan, where clinton was ahead by margins that exceeded any reasonable error. you have to rely on not just a systemic bias but also on an unreasonably large shy trump voter effect in these states that was consistent through all polling and even the exit polling. either people were lying to the polling firms consistently for months and the data reflected it or they weren't and votes were destroyed.)
i initially just thought they were using bad modelling. it took me time to realize that what should have been bad modelling was actually at the least predictive due to the understanding that the election was going to be stolen through voter intimidation and discarded ballots. they were modelling voter suppression, and that voter suppression that they modelled actually happened.
what that means is that the paper trail is probably in provisional ballots if it exists, but that there's no guarantee that it's there at all. a proper accounting would no doubt yield a correct result, but it would take a long time and probably break privacy laws. and, those ballots may have very well just been discarded.
i don't expect that there's going to be any way to prove that it was stolen, other than to point at the polling discrepancies and argue that this is fishy (and to point out that the media seems to have seen it coming). this was an inside job and these guys are pros. they know what they're doing. they didn't leave a smoking gun at the polling booth.
it's not that trump's vote totals are higher. they're not. he underperformed romney.
it's that millions and millions of votes for clinton seem to have just disappeared. and, if they disappeared then they disappeared. you're not going to find them hiding somewhere in a school gym in scranton.
i don't think this was trump's cronies showing up with baseball bats and giving people offers they can't refuse. i think this was highly co-ordinated. and i think they cleaned up - i think they destroyed the evidence.
if you're lucky, you might be able to find data that indicates that ballots were destroyed and that might be useful in passing reforms. but, i say that like it's some kind of accident, right?
-
yes, i'm saying that the united states is in truth a military dictatorship with a fraudulent veneer of fake elections designed to trick people into thinking they live in a democracy in order to prevent a real revolution. i've been saying that for years.
look at american foreign policy. it destroys democracy everywhere it finds it. but, you think it wants it at home?
-
but, i want to be clear: what makes this election different is not that it was stolen. the 2000 election was stolen. the 1980 election was stolen. the 1968 election was stolen. and the 1960 election was stolen, too. what makes this election different is that they stole states that were obviously not even in play. the difference is how brazen they were, and how much contempt they showed for voters in the process.
Friday, November 25, 2016
see, actually, the thing is that most of the time a gender transition isn't shocking to the people around the transitioner. and, that's kind of the point. in situations where it is a surprise, it should maybe be questioned extra rigorously.
my sister's response, verbatim: "obviously. what took you so long?". not only was there not an expression of shock, but there was actually an expectation that it was coming.
my dad was initially confused, but he admitted afterwards that he just didn't know a thing about it and that he would have probably seen it coming if he did. he did admit to being aware that i was queer in some way.....but he didn't want to make assumptions, either. he had some expectation, but he didn't really know how to frame it.
i had guy friends admit that they basically always saw me as a female friend. it was stuff like "well, you were basically always a chick and we did realize it, we just never really thought about whether you were going to like actually be a chick. you were just being j." . this idea that "j is different because j is j and j is different" was cemented across a network of people, and just not questioned. again: the concept was blurry, but the realization was apparent. and, it wasn't a shock so much as it was an explanation.
that's the point, right. one does not become somebody that never existed on the other side of it, like it's a metamorphosis. rather, one aligns with what they always were in the first place.
my sister's response, verbatim: "obviously. what took you so long?". not only was there not an expression of shock, but there was actually an expectation that it was coming.
my dad was initially confused, but he admitted afterwards that he just didn't know a thing about it and that he would have probably seen it coming if he did. he did admit to being aware that i was queer in some way.....but he didn't want to make assumptions, either. he had some expectation, but he didn't really know how to frame it.
i had guy friends admit that they basically always saw me as a female friend. it was stuff like "well, you were basically always a chick and we did realize it, we just never really thought about whether you were going to like actually be a chick. you were just being j." . this idea that "j is different because j is j and j is different" was cemented across a network of people, and just not questioned. again: the concept was blurry, but the realization was apparent. and, it wasn't a shock so much as it was an explanation.
that's the point, right. one does not become somebody that never existed on the other side of it, like it's a metamorphosis. rather, one aligns with what they always were in the first place.
whenever i hear somebody call somebody a "cuck", i think of al bundy going after marcy. and, isn't that show strangely prophetic? isn't the alt-right really just no ma'am?
don't al and trump actually even look kind of similar, really?
today's moment of surreal truth: america just basically elected al bundy president.
this was basically the debates.
see, she would have beat him if she used this tactic instead of the one she used.
reverend al will make america great again!
don't al and trump actually even look kind of similar, really?
today's moment of surreal truth: america just basically elected al bundy president.
this was basically the debates.
see, she would have beat him if she used this tactic instead of the one she used.
reverend al will make america great again!
i was with you up until the very end. there is a reason - this is a backdoor to slavery, like the jim crow laws were before them. that is the correct, longterm historical view of the drug war: the drug war is the current way that we capture blacks and convert them back into slaves.
the drug war needs to end and everything. but, the actual issue here is related to the 13th amendment. and, until the country is able to pass a real abolition amendment that abolishes all slavery, you will continue to see these kinds of laws assert themselves.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
that's why jim crow laws were possible. it's why the drug war exists. and, you're a fool to think it was an accident of language.
that amendment needs to be amended, or the horrors will continue.
it's an easy fix, in principle: .
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
i've never even heard anybody else even suggest it.
i suppose that such is the power of the myth of lincoln.
the drug war needs to end and everything. but, the actual issue here is related to the 13th amendment. and, until the country is able to pass a real abolition amendment that abolishes all slavery, you will continue to see these kinds of laws assert themselves.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
that's why jim crow laws were possible. it's why the drug war exists. and, you're a fool to think it was an accident of language.
that amendment needs to be amended, or the horrors will continue.
it's an easy fix, in principle: .
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
i've never even heard anybody else even suggest it.
i suppose that such is the power of the myth of lincoln.
this is a subtle psychological tactic - deep state propaganda. cnn is an arm of the intelligence establishment. what you're supposed to do is empathize with her, take the black trump supporter's side and conclude that the guy that was calling out trump's racism is the actual racist.
because you're supposed to be a mindless automaton with no critical thinking skills.
this is how fascism works.
fascism is only partly about corporate dominance over the state. what fascism is really about is media. what fascism is really about is control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfhMDt92F8Q
if you understand your history properly, you should understand that the accusation that the media is run by jews is always a deflection tactic, and always perpetuated by those with real media control. the purpose is to ensure that those that can at least see through the immediate charade and can intuit the existence of a background organizing force are not allowed to become aware of it's true nature.
"you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
the media is controlled by the people that tell you that the media is controlled by the jews.
the conspiracy is the conspiracy theory, itself.
-
nazism and white supremacism and racism and chauvinism are not errant viruses, or subversive thought patterns. they are tools of control by the state. and, they are very carefully fostered by the state through intelligence contacts.
the person at the protest that is most likely to be a cop is the one that self-identifies as a nazi.
-
so, when you see the media claiming that trump is nailing the media, that's the trick: you need to be distracted from the truth that the media has been pushing trump as it's preferred candidate the whole time.
the lie: the jews are giving trump bad media.
the truth: the media is controlled by the military-industrial-intelligence complex deep state and has been pushing trump from the start.
i should be listening. i'm just wasting my time.
because you're supposed to be a mindless automaton with no critical thinking skills.
this is how fascism works.
fascism is only partly about corporate dominance over the state. what fascism is really about is media. what fascism is really about is control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfhMDt92F8Q
if you understand your history properly, you should understand that the accusation that the media is run by jews is always a deflection tactic, and always perpetuated by those with real media control. the purpose is to ensure that those that can at least see through the immediate charade and can intuit the existence of a background organizing force are not allowed to become aware of it's true nature.
"you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
the media is controlled by the people that tell you that the media is controlled by the jews.
the conspiracy is the conspiracy theory, itself.
-
nazism and white supremacism and racism and chauvinism are not errant viruses, or subversive thought patterns. they are tools of control by the state. and, they are very carefully fostered by the state through intelligence contacts.
the person at the protest that is most likely to be a cop is the one that self-identifies as a nazi.
-
so, when you see the media claiming that trump is nailing the media, that's the trick: you need to be distracted from the truth that the media has been pushing trump as it's preferred candidate the whole time.
the lie: the jews are giving trump bad media.
the truth: the media is controlled by the military-industrial-intelligence complex deep state and has been pushing trump from the start.
i should be listening. i'm just wasting my time.
j reacts tactically to the need to save data & research from trump
i don't think you can reverse science. you can forget it. you can put it on hold. you can't destroy it. some other power will fill the vacuum.
but, you need to get sneaky with trump. he's the ceo, now. he's the boss. and government is just like a business.
so, wouldn't it be more profitable to sell the technology to europe or china than shut it down? and, that's fine. they can have their decline if that's what they really want. let's just try to salvage what we can.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research
i bet the donald would go for this. it's a great deal. he can sell the weather monitors to china and use the money to pay down the debt. everybody wins, right?
he likes to make deals. he's great at making deals. he makes the best deals. nobody makes better deals than him.
so, let's all take advantage of the situation and make some wonderful deals.
just remember: paying the debt is the most important thing. so, there's probably all kinds of things for sale, if you inquire.
and, if you have an ear somewhere, let's get him nudging in that direction, k? why shut it down when you can make a deal for a profit?
america is going to have a wonderful, beautiful decline. it will be such a great decline, you won't even believe it. believe me. you should really be looking forward for this decline.
but, you need to get sneaky with trump. he's the ceo, now. he's the boss. and government is just like a business.
so, wouldn't it be more profitable to sell the technology to europe or china than shut it down? and, that's fine. they can have their decline if that's what they really want. let's just try to salvage what we can.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research
i bet the donald would go for this. it's a great deal. he can sell the weather monitors to china and use the money to pay down the debt. everybody wins, right?
he likes to make deals. he's great at making deals. he makes the best deals. nobody makes better deals than him.
so, let's all take advantage of the situation and make some wonderful deals.
just remember: paying the debt is the most important thing. so, there's probably all kinds of things for sale, if you inquire.
and, if you have an ear somewhere, let's get him nudging in that direction, k? why shut it down when you can make a deal for a profit?
america is going to have a wonderful, beautiful decline. it will be such a great decline, you won't even believe it. believe me. you should really be looking forward for this decline.
Thursday, November 24, 2016
i'm going to spend a little time listening to inri019 this afternoon, and hopefully get the cover art mostly done. it's probably going to be the extent of labour completed for the day.
i've got running around to do for tomorrow. but, inri20 and the remaining three tracks for inri021 are what is up, next.
http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2016/11/it-turns-out-that-i-had-click-in-track.html
i've got running around to do for tomorrow. but, inri20 and the remaining three tracks for inri021 are what is up, next.
http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.ca/2016/11/it-turns-out-that-i-had-click-in-track.html
i'd actually like to see them omnibus everything harper ever did into a giant "undo" button and then set it on fire in a public ceremony.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896
due to our universal health care system, obtaining voter id in canada is not the same kind of problem that is for some low income people in the united states. but, anything that makes it easier to vote is a step forwards and should be applauded.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-liberals-voting-rules-1.3863896
meh.
if you walk into an intersection chasing a pokemon, you shouldn't get a fine - unless it's a standard negligence tort. you should get a darwin award.
"distracted walking" is kind of like "drunk in public". it happens. it's part of living in a free society.
but, dui is inexcusable. so, likewise, go after the people texting and driving.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/majority-of-canadians-support-legislation-to-ban-distracted-walking-poll-suggests-1.3822086
if you walk into an intersection chasing a pokemon, you shouldn't get a fine - unless it's a standard negligence tort. you should get a darwin award.
"distracted walking" is kind of like "drunk in public". it happens. it's part of living in a free society.
but, dui is inexcusable. so, likewise, go after the people texting and driving.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/majority-of-canadians-support-legislation-to-ban-distracted-walking-poll-suggests-1.3822086
it was an inside job, though.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3083800/hillary-clinton-urged-to-demand-vote-recounts-over-claims-polls-were-rigged/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015
if you were paying close enough attention, you saw this coming from a good ways away. the fbi leak. wikileaks. kellyanne conway was on tv 24/7. it was rigged, alright - but not by russia. this was an inside job. cia, and the whole network subterranean to it. and, clinton is being ordered to stand down.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3083800/hillary-clinton-urged-to-demand-vote-recounts-over-claims-polls-were-rigged/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=Outbrain&utm_campaign=2015
if you were paying close enough attention, you saw this coming from a good ways away. the fbi leak. wikileaks. kellyanne conway was on tv 24/7. it was rigged, alright - but not by russia. this was an inside job. cia, and the whole network subterranean to it. and, clinton is being ordered to stand down.
your brother is trying to pressure me into signing a document with false information on it
i don't know what he's up to.
but, it obviously doesn't matter if i sign it if it has false information on it. false information is false information. signing it doesn't make it true. and, a court isn't going to uphold it if it's false.
as we both know, and as can be easily demonstrated, i signed an all-inclusive lease in the summer of 2013. i did not sign a utility-dependent lease in 2010.
(pause)
seems like a misunderstanding. nevermind.
although i should also point out that he threatened to initial for me if i didn't sign it.
it was explained to me incorrectly the first time and i didn't sign it because it said six years instead of three. when i read the full thing, i was not opposed to it; she told me it said i paid my utilities, but when i read it it said that the utilities were included. so, i initialled it.
but, he should be aware that signing for a tenant is not only legally invalid but can get him in a lot of trouble.
i would highly suggest you call him.
j
but, it obviously doesn't matter if i sign it if it has false information on it. false information is false information. signing it doesn't make it true. and, a court isn't going to uphold it if it's false.
as we both know, and as can be easily demonstrated, i signed an all-inclusive lease in the summer of 2013. i did not sign a utility-dependent lease in 2010.
(pause)
seems like a misunderstanding. nevermind.
although i should also point out that he threatened to initial for me if i didn't sign it.
it was explained to me incorrectly the first time and i didn't sign it because it said six years instead of three. when i read the full thing, i was not opposed to it; she told me it said i paid my utilities, but when i read it it said that the utilities were included. so, i initialled it.
but, he should be aware that signing for a tenant is not only legally invalid but can get him in a lot of trouble.
i would highly suggest you call him.
j
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
tues at 4:30pm
sister
santa
http://www.cpr.ca/holiday-train/schedule-canada
jessica
i'm sorry, but i don't understand this email.
sister
you live in windsor? the train is coming through on tues at 4:30.
jessica
ok. but, like...so...?
sister
lol, are you so bah humbug? thought it might be fun to see so sent it to you.
nothing deep or profound to understand otherwise.
jessica
are you going to be on the train, or are you just informing me of the existence of said train?
(pause)
ok. so the train exists. thank you for the information.
i haven't celebrated christmas in something like 20 years. and even then it wasn't really a thing.
sister
would you like us to visit?
jessica
frankly, not really.
listen: you asked that question.
(pause)
i'm finishing a major discography update that's taken me far too long.
i completed two synth-pop records in the late 90s. unfortunately, they had awful vocals that make listening to them difficult. i've spent the last two years stripping the vocals out of them and reconstructing them as best as i can. that, and fighting with environmental noise.
first (1998/2016 - inri015):
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-3
second(1999/2016 - inri021):
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
there's an elaborate sequence of singles to accompany these releases.
santa
http://www.cpr.ca/holiday-train/schedule-canada
jessica
i'm sorry, but i don't understand this email.
sister
you live in windsor? the train is coming through on tues at 4:30.
jessica
ok. but, like...so...?
sister
lol, are you so bah humbug? thought it might be fun to see so sent it to you.
nothing deep or profound to understand otherwise.
jessica
are you going to be on the train, or are you just informing me of the existence of said train?
(pause)
ok. so the train exists. thank you for the information.
i haven't celebrated christmas in something like 20 years. and even then it wasn't really a thing.
sister
would you like us to visit?
jessica
frankly, not really.
listen: you asked that question.
(pause)
i'm finishing a major discography update that's taken me far too long.
i completed two synth-pop records in the late 90s. unfortunately, they had awful vocals that make listening to them difficult. i've spent the last two years stripping the vocals out of them and reconstructing them as best as i can. that, and fighting with environmental noise.
first (1998/2016 - inri015):
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-3
second(1999/2016 - inri021):
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched
there's an elaborate sequence of singles to accompany these releases.
j reacts to the supreme congressional authority on trade deals (not trump's choice...)
you need to understand that the president doesn't decide whether a trade deal goes through or not. this is a congressional responsibility. and, they can override him. and, he can't veto it.
as mentioned: he may be setting up a make believe fight, where he feigns opposition, only to be defeated by a supermajority - or decides in the end not to fight it. that's how clinton did his make believe fight against the repeal of glass-steagall. they had a supermajority; he couldn't have stopped it. so, he didn't bother fighting it. and, now everybody blames him for it...
i still think he's going to come around to it.
but, you have to understand that it doesn't mean anything for the president to declare he's going to pull out of the tpp on day one - and that itself should be instructive that this is a pr stunt. he can't do that. he's not the dictator, yet.
likewise, when he says he's not going to pursue charges against clinton, that is completely meaningless because he couldn't have pursued charges against clinton, anyways. there's an independent judicial system in the united states.
almost everything he said was nonsense. just about the only thing he said that isn't nonsense is that he wants to start a war with china. and, that's what the tpp is about.
-
it is not donald trump that will determine the fate of the tpp. a senate supermajority is already all but certain. the major player is actually paul ryan.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/paul-ryan-standing-ovation-koch-donors-retreat/
it's not unheard of for the president to disagree with congress on international agreements, either. clinton couldn't get kyoto through congress. or the rome statute, either. there may be a broader precedent to look for there, in understanding what trump's relationship with his congress is going to be like.
somebody else that had huge problems with his congress on international agreements was woodrow wilson.
but, like i say: i expect him to come around on this.
as mentioned: he may be setting up a make believe fight, where he feigns opposition, only to be defeated by a supermajority - or decides in the end not to fight it. that's how clinton did his make believe fight against the repeal of glass-steagall. they had a supermajority; he couldn't have stopped it. so, he didn't bother fighting it. and, now everybody blames him for it...
i still think he's going to come around to it.
but, you have to understand that it doesn't mean anything for the president to declare he's going to pull out of the tpp on day one - and that itself should be instructive that this is a pr stunt. he can't do that. he's not the dictator, yet.
likewise, when he says he's not going to pursue charges against clinton, that is completely meaningless because he couldn't have pursued charges against clinton, anyways. there's an independent judicial system in the united states.
almost everything he said was nonsense. just about the only thing he said that isn't nonsense is that he wants to start a war with china. and, that's what the tpp is about.
-
it is not donald trump that will determine the fate of the tpp. a senate supermajority is already all but certain. the major player is actually paul ryan.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/paul-ryan-standing-ovation-koch-donors-retreat/
it's not unheard of for the president to disagree with congress on international agreements, either. clinton couldn't get kyoto through congress. or the rome statute, either. there may be a broader precedent to look for there, in understanding what trump's relationship with his congress is going to be like.
somebody else that had huge problems with his congress on international agreements was woodrow wilson.
but, like i say: i expect him to come around on this.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)