i just want to point something out about what mmt advocates and other broadly new left, keynesian type economic advocates don't argue for in order to clarify a point.
keynesians have a reputation for supporting "tax and spend" economic positions, which are supposed to be opposed by free market advocates. so, what is this about mmt supporting the abolition of taxes? it's a caricature created by this army of zombie followers that mmt has developed, because they think it gives them an academic argument to just let the printing press run forever. i don't have this research, but i'd strongly suspect that your average mmt cheerleader is somebody who spent a large amount of their childhood being told that they can't have things due to the existence of artificial financial restraints imposed by parents who thought they were teaching them "values". i'm not talking about poor kids. i'm talking about parents that had means and denied it to their kids in order to "build character". this kind of parenting always fails. and, what happened to these kids? they became these mmt zombies, convinced that we can have everything in exchange for nothing...
if the government can create as much money as it wants, what do we need taxes for? and, yeah: mmt does make this argument, so long as it's at the federal level. but, it also argues that adjusting tax rates is a useful way to stimulate the economy, or to slow it down. i think the evidence does uphold this, but only on the condition that it is targeted. so, a policy of adjusting tax rates to stop or start the economy should be geared mostly at the middle class, not at the rich. this isn't a free market position, it's a realist position around the value of fiat money: yeah, we can just print it at will in order to pay for stuff. sure. so, if your concern is around spending, there's no reason at all to think you need to collect the money in order to spend it - and if your argument is that taxes need to be high in order to pay for spending, or that we cannot increase spending without increasing taxes, then that argument is invalid.
but, even that is not an argument for the total abolition of taxes. it is at best an argument for the abolition of federal taxes. while it is theoretically possible that the federal government could oversee all spending in the country, that it is not the way that any modern country works. existing, real-life countries mostly fund social services out of money that is taxed at the state/provincial or municipal level. mmt does not in any way advocate for the abolition of these taxes. in fact, the left has historically seen property taxes as one of the most progressive types of taxation.
Sunday, June 11, 2017
the narrative that john mccain is senile is actually intended to protect
him from more direct criticism. his intent was transparently to carry
out a bait and switch, to make it seem like comey is biased towards the
democrats and that the investigation consequently carries no value.
now, it may be the case that mccain has lost a few steps, sure; if you
are informed, you need to do some mental gymnastics, sure, but if
you're not informed, or perhaps don't know much about the process, you
could conceivably be confused by the obfuscation. the thing is that this
is so transparent relative to the reality that it exposes mccain as
hopelessly and unworkably dishonest. so, you should not give him a pass
on this - you should call him out for his malicious level of dishonesty,
rather than pretend he doesn't know what he's doing.
Saturday, June 10, 2017
as these incidents build, it's becoming more and more obvious - beyond dispute - that when "russian hackers" are blamed, the real perpetrators are always in the united states intelligence appratus - cia, fbi, nsa, etc.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-07/russian-hacking-in-qatar-and-putin-s-ambitions
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-07/russian-hacking-in-qatar-and-putin-s-ambitions
the qataris just rejected an invitation to meet with trump.
you should jump to conclusions.
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201706091054466060-russia-qatar-talks-issues/
you should jump to conclusions.
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201706091054466060-russia-qatar-talks-issues/
Friday, June 9, 2017
america...
you need to have an advisor with the president at all times. you can't let him go and talk to the saudis - or the israelis or the russians - by himself. there has to be somebody there to help him.
yeah, well, i didn't vote for him.
get some funding passed for primary education, for fuck's sake.
you need to have an advisor with the president at all times. you can't let him go and talk to the saudis - or the israelis or the russians - by himself. there has to be somebody there to help him.
yeah, well, i didn't vote for him.
get some funding passed for primary education, for fuck's sake.
see, this was my initial intuition. after so many years of multidimensional chess - itself often overanalysed - analysts want to come up with some kind of plan.
i don't think there's any evidence for this, or at least not on the us side. everybody else has an agenda. for trump, i think it's as simple as the article presents it.
trump wanted to know who was funding extremists. the saudis told him the qataris are. he believed them. so, they tricked him into isolating the qataris. then, when he got home, he was told they weren't honest and he's changing his mind.
...because trump is not a ruthless dictator. he's a hapless fool.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/trump-may-not-have-known-us-has-11000-troops-in-qatar-when-he-bashed-country-on-twitter-report/
i don't think there's any evidence for this, or at least not on the us side. everybody else has an agenda. for trump, i think it's as simple as the article presents it.
trump wanted to know who was funding extremists. the saudis told him the qataris are. he believed them. so, they tricked him into isolating the qataris. then, when he got home, he was told they weren't honest and he's changing his mind.
...because trump is not a ruthless dictator. he's a hapless fool.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/trump-may-not-have-known-us-has-11000-troops-in-qatar-when-he-bashed-country-on-twitter-report/
they're at -14 and it's looking like it's going to be more like -20 by the end of the night.
the sinn fein seats do not exist, as they will not sit in parliament - unless corbyn can convince them to, which is highly unlikely. that's 7.
so, they need to get to -22 before they can consider voting in corbyn as prime minister. that would be a labour government with support from the scottish & welsh parties (which i think is proper...and would think an irish party would be proper, too, if they wanted to be in the uk in the first place), as well as the lib dems and one wayward irish unionist mp that leans left.
-22.
i actually think it's going to happen.
anything between -15 and -22 will give the lib dems the balance of power, unless corbyn can convince sinn fein to sit.
the sinn fein seats do not exist, as they will not sit in parliament - unless corbyn can convince them to, which is highly unlikely. that's 7.
so, they need to get to -22 before they can consider voting in corbyn as prime minister. that would be a labour government with support from the scottish & welsh parties (which i think is proper...and would think an irish party would be proper, too, if they wanted to be in the uk in the first place), as well as the lib dems and one wayward irish unionist mp that leans left.
-22.
i actually think it's going to happen.
anything between -15 and -22 will give the lib dems the balance of power, unless corbyn can convince sinn fein to sit.
Thursday, June 8, 2017
you know, turnout may be up absolutely, but it's relatively low at under 70%, so i think it's reasonable to suggest that a lot of these soft tory but really undecided voters that they got over the phone just stayed at home, in addition to a clear shy labour bias.
the online polling may not be scientific, but it at least controls for apathy better than the phone polling does. i mean, you can imagine how this goes.
you get the voter on the phone, and she's watching the telly, barely listening.
"yeah."
"tory, i guess. that's what the papers say."
"i dunno."
"listen, i'm watching the telly, so bugger off."
*click*
then you get these 10% tory leads in the polls that are based on frustrated people trying to hang up the phone.
randomization is irreplaceable, and you're going to eventually run into online polls that get it horribly wrong (we've already had some in canada) because they aren't random. but, if you're lucky, the online polls are at least self-selecting for likely voters. it's one of those situations where something is wrong by method, but in being wrong by method is also accidentally consistently right in outcome.
the online polling may not be scientific, but it at least controls for apathy better than the phone polling does. i mean, you can imagine how this goes.
you get the voter on the phone, and she's watching the telly, barely listening.
"yeah."
"tory, i guess. that's what the papers say."
"i dunno."
"listen, i'm watching the telly, so bugger off."
*click*
then you get these 10% tory leads in the polls that are based on frustrated people trying to hang up the phone.
randomization is irreplaceable, and you're going to eventually run into online polls that get it horribly wrong (we've already had some in canada) because they aren't random. but, if you're lucky, the online polls are at least self-selecting for likely voters. it's one of those situations where something is wrong by method, but in being wrong by method is also accidentally consistently right in outcome.
just to clarify for those unclear...
this graphic they're using is bollocks. media claimed the tories had a 13 seat majority, but that only includes the 8 from the irish conservatives. in fact, they only had a 5 seat majority (including the speaker). but, then the guardian goes and daftly places the irish conservatives on the left, as though the irish cannot figure it out or something.
the tories have currently lost a net of 11 seats, but the irish conservatives have gained 2. that means they've lost a total of 9. the magic number is 13. if the irish numbers hold, that means you need to see the british at -15 or greater, which is still plausible.
otherwise, the tories will be able to form a government with the support of the irish conservatives, and it will probably be stable enough.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/jun/08/live-uk-election-results-in-full-2017
this graphic they're using is bollocks. media claimed the tories had a 13 seat majority, but that only includes the 8 from the irish conservatives. in fact, they only had a 5 seat majority (including the speaker). but, then the guardian goes and daftly places the irish conservatives on the left, as though the irish cannot figure it out or something.
the tories have currently lost a net of 11 seats, but the irish conservatives have gained 2. that means they've lost a total of 9. the magic number is 13. if the irish numbers hold, that means you need to see the british at -15 or greater, which is still plausible.
otherwise, the tories will be able to form a government with the support of the irish conservatives, and it will probably be stable enough.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/jun/08/live-uk-election-results-in-full-2017
actually, what i hope that i've demonstrated is that reading the polls is not at all complex, it's just that you cannot believe the way the media has spun them. yes: the aptitude tests tell me i'm brilliant, and i will not deny that. but, i haven't done anything more complex than check the source. you could have done the same thing with credentials that are no more complex than grade 10 math.
my insight is simply that you cannot trust the media. but, that is not the insight of a genius. it should be common knowledge, at this point.
polling firms need to get the point: the undecideds do not necessarily distribute. they may distribute, or they may not. it is a poor assumption, at any rate. you need to provide an argument one way or the other. and, you can determine these biases empirically by simply looking at the polling differentials that appear between who provides full results and who tries to force undecided voters to pick a choice.
my insight is simply that you cannot trust the media. but, that is not the insight of a genius. it should be common knowledge, at this point.
polling firms need to get the point: the undecideds do not necessarily distribute. they may distribute, or they may not. it is a poor assumption, at any rate. you need to provide an argument one way or the other. and, you can determine these biases empirically by simply looking at the polling differentials that appear between who provides full results and who tries to force undecided voters to pick a choice.
but, who is a typical member of this 13%?
a large percentage of them actually voted neither tory nor labour but ukip in the last election, but historically voted for labour. so, the potentiality of a shy socialist effect is that much more exaggerated. they've been carefully steered from ukip to tory, but are they just telling the pollsters what they want to hear?
but, it follows that the "shy" here may be neither tory nor socialist but ukip itself.
this is all speculation. i'm just pointing out that it appears that enough people are undecided and merely leaning tory to conclude that the decision will be made by people in the ballot box - or by people that decided in the end that they would rather do something else.
a large percentage of them actually voted neither tory nor labour but ukip in the last election, but historically voted for labour. so, the potentiality of a shy socialist effect is that much more exaggerated. they've been carefully steered from ukip to tory, but are they just telling the pollsters what they want to hear?
but, it follows that the "shy" here may be neither tory nor socialist but ukip itself.
this is all speculation. i'm just pointing out that it appears that enough people are undecided and merely leaning tory to conclude that the decision will be made by people in the ballot box - or by people that decided in the end that they would rather do something else.
this was predictable, actually.
the survation poll - the one where the tories are only up by 1% - is the only one with an undecided option. whether that is good or not is a tricky question.
so, the polls where you can't pick "undecided" have the tories up by as much as 13 points, whereas the polls that allow you to pick 'undecided', and track 'refused', only have the tories up by a few points. one even has labour winning by 2.
polling companies tend to dislike the 'undecided' response because it decreases confidence in the results. but, this is a business consideration. they are scientifically superior.
the survation poll, then, and it's only one poll, but what it actually says is:
tories: 33.9%
labour: 32.6%
undecided: 12.1%
lib dem 6.4%
refused: 6.3 %
what that means is that 18.4% of the sample did not answer.
"but it distributes!"
well, it might seem a reasonable suggestion that it might, but then why is this poll so different? let's at least distribute the refuseds:
tories: 36%
labour: 34.6%
undecided: 12.9%
lib dem: 6.8%
the biggest difference in the other polls was 13%.
so, there is a bigger consistency here than initially apparent.
but, these swings usually exist on the left. certainly, they always do in canada. so, this is a bit of a reversal of the expectations and may confuse some models.
see, the "shy tory" effect was identified in a period where the media and broad society was clearly on the soft left. tories were afraid to speak in public, lest they be outed as such. but, i think the situation has reversed. the same conditions would instead apply to a "shy socialist" effect, as it is the less socially acceptable position in the uk as of today. and, this is consistent with the results - when you force people to answer, the undecided voters claim they will vote tory in disproportionately higher numbers, no doubt because that is what the media is implying they ought to do.
i've identified this problem elsewhere: the election is in the hands of the least capable voters. what this 13% is telling pollsters is that they don't know who they should vote for, but are leaning towards doing what they're told to do by establishment media. they could, of course, be lying. but, we have to assume that they aren't.
i think that this election may actually work the opposite way in turnout, as well. if a lot of these very soft tory voters stay home, it could end up closer than expected.
i think there is reason to expect a hung parliament, or something close to it. i do not expect a landslide, at least.
the survation poll - the one where the tories are only up by 1% - is the only one with an undecided option. whether that is good or not is a tricky question.
so, the polls where you can't pick "undecided" have the tories up by as much as 13 points, whereas the polls that allow you to pick 'undecided', and track 'refused', only have the tories up by a few points. one even has labour winning by 2.
polling companies tend to dislike the 'undecided' response because it decreases confidence in the results. but, this is a business consideration. they are scientifically superior.
the survation poll, then, and it's only one poll, but what it actually says is:
tories: 33.9%
labour: 32.6%
undecided: 12.1%
lib dem 6.4%
refused: 6.3 %
what that means is that 18.4% of the sample did not answer.
"but it distributes!"
well, it might seem a reasonable suggestion that it might, but then why is this poll so different? let's at least distribute the refuseds:
tories: 36%
labour: 34.6%
undecided: 12.9%
lib dem: 6.8%
the biggest difference in the other polls was 13%.
so, there is a bigger consistency here than initially apparent.
but, these swings usually exist on the left. certainly, they always do in canada. so, this is a bit of a reversal of the expectations and may confuse some models.
see, the "shy tory" effect was identified in a period where the media and broad society was clearly on the soft left. tories were afraid to speak in public, lest they be outed as such. but, i think the situation has reversed. the same conditions would instead apply to a "shy socialist" effect, as it is the less socially acceptable position in the uk as of today. and, this is consistent with the results - when you force people to answer, the undecided voters claim they will vote tory in disproportionately higher numbers, no doubt because that is what the media is implying they ought to do.
i've identified this problem elsewhere: the election is in the hands of the least capable voters. what this 13% is telling pollsters is that they don't know who they should vote for, but are leaning towards doing what they're told to do by establishment media. they could, of course, be lying. but, we have to assume that they aren't.
i think that this election may actually work the opposite way in turnout, as well. if a lot of these very soft tory voters stay home, it could end up closer than expected.
i think there is reason to expect a hung parliament, or something close to it. i do not expect a landslide, at least.
maybe i can join the below. i mean, i don't want to join the top....
(recycled line: reaching for the top means i must have left my beer on my bookshelf)
the underneath? the underground?
ffs. and, max is right: these are not high school dropouts. they can spell things on their signs. and, in normal circumstances, they can put together complete sentences.
get me out of here.
get
me
out....
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
it's not about iran. it's about turkey.
see, what most of the media coverage missed is that there were actually three sides in the syrian conflict.
1) syria-iran-russia-hezbollah
2) saudis-israelis-isis-nato
ok...but...
3) turkey-qatar-al nusra
(& of course you had the kurds as a purely american front, and break-in-case-of-emergency plan)
it's the third faction that everybody assumed was just an arm of the second, but that was actually at the crux of the conflict. most of the fighting was between turkish/qatari-backed forces and saudi-backed forces, in a race to depose assad.
as it turns out, the russians stepped in and put an end to this. isis is now done; this is closing down. and, assad is still in power.
who is responsible for this failure?
well, you could reasonably argue that the saudis are responsible because they backed the most barbaric group of fighters you could comprehend might exist, and in the process united the syrian people against regime change. that's the correct narrative: the syrian people saw the alternative to assad, and firmly decided upon assad. they needed the russian muscle to finish the job, but that's what actually happened. had the saudis backed less extreme revolutionaries, the syrian people may have picked a revolution over the status quo.
but, trump is instead choosing to back the saudi argument that it was the qataris that prevented isis from deposing assad, and must be punished for their insolence and treason. this comes amidst a growing turkish alliance with russia, which is subsuming the third faction in the first one, rather than the second.
it is not clear what russia's long term plans are with syria. assad does not want to be dictator, and the russians have made it clear that they are willing to help him stand down, so long as he is replaced with a friendly faction. but, if the fundamental conflict was between arabs and turks for control over a region they've fought over for a thousand years, it's valid to wonder if the russians may in the end back turkish claims to the region, as it would serve their interests to have an expanded turkish buffer state to contain the clearly expansionist saudis with.
not iran. turkey.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/gulf-tension-more-threats-qatar-russia-us-dragged-crisis-892649938
see, what most of the media coverage missed is that there were actually three sides in the syrian conflict.
1) syria-iran-russia-hezbollah
2) saudis-israelis-isis-nato
ok...but...
3) turkey-qatar-al nusra
(& of course you had the kurds as a purely american front, and break-in-case-of-emergency plan)
it's the third faction that everybody assumed was just an arm of the second, but that was actually at the crux of the conflict. most of the fighting was between turkish/qatari-backed forces and saudi-backed forces, in a race to depose assad.
as it turns out, the russians stepped in and put an end to this. isis is now done; this is closing down. and, assad is still in power.
who is responsible for this failure?
well, you could reasonably argue that the saudis are responsible because they backed the most barbaric group of fighters you could comprehend might exist, and in the process united the syrian people against regime change. that's the correct narrative: the syrian people saw the alternative to assad, and firmly decided upon assad. they needed the russian muscle to finish the job, but that's what actually happened. had the saudis backed less extreme revolutionaries, the syrian people may have picked a revolution over the status quo.
but, trump is instead choosing to back the saudi argument that it was the qataris that prevented isis from deposing assad, and must be punished for their insolence and treason. this comes amidst a growing turkish alliance with russia, which is subsuming the third faction in the first one, rather than the second.
it is not clear what russia's long term plans are with syria. assad does not want to be dictator, and the russians have made it clear that they are willing to help him stand down, so long as he is replaced with a friendly faction. but, if the fundamental conflict was between arabs and turks for control over a region they've fought over for a thousand years, it's valid to wonder if the russians may in the end back turkish claims to the region, as it would serve their interests to have an expanded turkish buffer state to contain the clearly expansionist saudis with.
not iran. turkey.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/gulf-tension-more-threats-qatar-russia-us-dragged-crisis-892649938
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
it's more than disappointing, it's disheartening.
but, it's not unexpected; this is a very right-wing government.
put it in the pile of things that the ndp ought to run against, if they can ever get their shit together.
i would specifically vote against increases in military spending.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-must-re-invest-in-military-as-us-withdraws-from-world-freeland-says/article35212024/
but, it's not unexpected; this is a very right-wing government.
put it in the pile of things that the ndp ought to run against, if they can ever get their shit together.
i would specifically vote against increases in military spending.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-must-re-invest-in-military-as-us-withdraws-from-world-freeland-says/article35212024/
Monday, June 5, 2017
to expand upon what i was saying earlier...
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn-general-election-result-brexit-economic-crash-recession-praying-they-lose-a7773166.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn-general-election-result-brexit-economic-crash-recession-praying-they-lose-a7773166.html
again: while i may be slightly skeptical about the scientific validity of these yougov polls, i think this probably a correct prediction.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-poll-latest-tories-majority-miss-seats-yougov-survey-labour-theresa-may-a7773106.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-poll-latest-tories-majority-miss-seats-yougov-survey-labour-theresa-may-a7773106.html
this is one of those media spots that i keep an eye out for.
so, she's got people in her own party calling for her resignation and the media asking corbyn if she is "in any way" responsible for the attacks.
the insinuation is clear. and, i'll give some credit to the elite in the uk for drawing a line on this, as it is....what exists between these lines is a series of war crimes. this cannot be condemned strongly enough.
can the voters read between these lines? but, it might not matter.
it may take two elections to get finished, but there's a shift in power underway in the uk.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-resign-prime-minister-police-cuts-london-terror-attack-election-2017-a7773286.html
so, she's got people in her own party calling for her resignation and the media asking corbyn if she is "in any way" responsible for the attacks.
the insinuation is clear. and, i'll give some credit to the elite in the uk for drawing a line on this, as it is....what exists between these lines is a series of war crimes. this cannot be condemned strongly enough.
can the voters read between these lines? but, it might not matter.
it may take two elections to get finished, but there's a shift in power underway in the uk.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-resign-prime-minister-police-cuts-london-terror-attack-election-2017-a7773286.html
a vlog update...
it's taken me off time over the last two months, believe it or not, to catch up to the end of april for the vlogs, but the process was complicated by the need to compile evidence for the court date, as well as my broken laptop, and i consequently can't come down too hard on the process. but, this machine does not have enough ram to render and have a browser open at the same time, so i'm going to have to shut down for the next render process, which should take me up until the middle of may.
i should be able to finally take a final look at the broken laptop while that is working, and determine if i think i can salvage it or not.
when i come out of this process, i should finally be caught up, and able to put the vlogging aside until the camera fills back up. another day or two...
it's taken me off time over the last two months, believe it or not, to catch up to the end of april for the vlogs, but the process was complicated by the need to compile evidence for the court date, as well as my broken laptop, and i consequently can't come down too hard on the process. but, this machine does not have enough ram to render and have a browser open at the same time, so i'm going to have to shut down for the next render process, which should take me up until the middle of may.
i should be able to finally take a final look at the broken laptop while that is working, and determine if i think i can salvage it or not.
when i come out of this process, i should finally be caught up, and able to put the vlogging aside until the camera fills back up. another day or two...
again: there is an authoritarian coalition between progressives and conservatives developing, and anti-authoritarian liberals need to find a way to stand outside of it, while rejecting the duality presented by libertarians, who are not allies.
this is going to be a very difficult decade for liberals, as we watch the progressive movement be absorbed by the conservative movement (the primary vehicle for this will probably be the democratic party). what emerges from this process will be a natural expression of the authoritarian tendencies within progressivism, but will not be acceptable to liberals. what emerges will consequently be a permanent schism between progressives and liberals on authoritarian lines, which means issues where progressives and liberals diverge along the authoritarian axis - things like speech and approaches to crime prevention and law enforcement.
this is going to be a very difficult decade for liberals, as we watch the progressive movement be absorbed by the conservative movement (the primary vehicle for this will probably be the democratic party). what emerges from this process will be a natural expression of the authoritarian tendencies within progressivism, but will not be acceptable to liberals. what emerges will consequently be a permanent schism between progressives and liberals on authoritarian lines, which means issues where progressives and liberals diverge along the authoritarian axis - things like speech and approaches to crime prevention and law enforcement.
when the government goes after you for "body shaming", that is a legitimate speech issue and you should expect to win a constitutional rights challenge, so long as you are not breaking some other law in the process.
put another way: laws against "body shaming" are certainly unconstitutional and will be struck down at the earliest opportunity. but, that doesn't mean that it's ok to do things like film people in dressing rooms, or otherwise infringe on an individual's personality rights.
put another way: laws against "body shaming" are certainly unconstitutional and will be struck down at the earliest opportunity. but, that doesn't mean that it's ok to do things like film people in dressing rooms, or otherwise infringe on an individual's personality rights.
btw, i think this link details the correct explanation of the headaches i was having at the end of february, and why the aspirin solved the problem when nothing else did:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3469735
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3469735
at the crux of it may be an inability to experience empathy for strangers.
so, i'll watch a documentary because i'm learning something, which makes me feel like i'm not wasting my time. but, if you sit me down and try and force me to watch a "movie", my most likely reaction is going to be something along the lines of "why am i supposed to give a fuck about these imbeciles?". there's almost no tactic to get me to care - and, if you can be robotically logical like i am for a moment, it's not hard to see the basic correctness of this position. is it not even kind of pathetic to engage yourself in the lives of strangers on film? what reason do you provide for this behaviour?
really grasping my rejection of the medium means realizing that i'm truly some kind of cyborg, but i'm more likely to argue in favour of being a cyborg than recoil at the accusation.
another way to look at is that i don't like following the lead of others. that's what you're doing when you put on a film: you're letting somebody else take control of your mind for a little while. not only does that not sound like a good time, to me, but it sounds utterly repugnant to me. i seek to be in control of my thoughts at all times. so, you'd rather see me doing something intellectual like typing or something physical like recording, or perhaps dancing, as it keeps me in control of myself. to lose control is to in some way subvert your individuality, and there's no scenario where i'd want to do that.
so, i'll watch a documentary because i'm learning something, which makes me feel like i'm not wasting my time. but, if you sit me down and try and force me to watch a "movie", my most likely reaction is going to be something along the lines of "why am i supposed to give a fuck about these imbeciles?". there's almost no tactic to get me to care - and, if you can be robotically logical like i am for a moment, it's not hard to see the basic correctness of this position. is it not even kind of pathetic to engage yourself in the lives of strangers on film? what reason do you provide for this behaviour?
really grasping my rejection of the medium means realizing that i'm truly some kind of cyborg, but i'm more likely to argue in favour of being a cyborg than recoil at the accusation.
another way to look at is that i don't like following the lead of others. that's what you're doing when you put on a film: you're letting somebody else take control of your mind for a little while. not only does that not sound like a good time, to me, but it sounds utterly repugnant to me. i seek to be in control of my thoughts at all times. so, you'd rather see me doing something intellectual like typing or something physical like recording, or perhaps dancing, as it keeps me in control of myself. to lose control is to in some way subvert your individuality, and there's no scenario where i'd want to do that.
i can't even remember the last film i saw. i mean like fiction kind of film. i watch plenty of documentaries, still.
it would have been 2002-2003ish.
i'm not exaggerating.
i can't even argue that the quality of film has declined, because i don't actually know whether it has or not. it probably has, but i can't make the argument. i'm that disinterested, really. and, that's really not even what the aversion is about. the blunt truth is that i simply have absolutely no interest in sitting in front of a screen and watching a narrative for two hours. it's the activity that bores me. i'd rather be engaging with something than tuning out.
sorry.
it would have been 2002-2003ish.
i'm not exaggerating.
i can't even argue that the quality of film has declined, because i don't actually know whether it has or not. it probably has, but i can't make the argument. i'm that disinterested, really. and, that's really not even what the aversion is about. the blunt truth is that i simply have absolutely no interest in sitting in front of a screen and watching a narrative for two hours. it's the activity that bores me. i'd rather be engaging with something than tuning out.
sorry.
so, putin's actual argument is that he didn't try and get trump elected because he knew that trump would have been the same as clinton, anyways, because the parties are basically the same. it's the two-headed monster bipartisan washington consensus - a ruling elite dominated by lobbyists that have widely convergent interests and don't care about what voters want. trump, clinton - what's the difference?
and, the argument is that the russians don't understand american politics?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8AeBAV4EIY
and, the argument is that the russians don't understand american politics?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8AeBAV4EIY
Sunday, June 4, 2017
yeah.
it's not that the polls have shifted. or at least, not enough to change an outcome. the polls suggest a likely tory majority, and at best a tory minority. a labour minority would be a very wide miss, and a labour majority is just not in the data.
it's the other factors - the ones outside of a fair electoral process - that are starting to lead me towards corbyn. but, corbyn advocates should not get too excited, as the win may be short-lived.
it does not appear as though the tories want to deal with brexit. you have to keep in mind that labour are the patsies in the british system, so they get stuck with the unpleasant business. in canada, it's the tories that are the patsies, and in the united states it's the democrats. the system ensures that it is these parties that pass unpopular legislation, in order to protect the reputations of the true ruling parties, relative to the ideological persuasions of the local ruling classes.
in fact, jeremy corbyn is the patsy of the patsies. if it is to fall on labour to negotiate an inevitably bad brexit deal, corbyn is the perfect one to do it as he can then be scapegoated for the certain failures in negotiation, thereby allowing labour to safely distance itself from him, and the tories to sweep back in as soon as the issue is dealt with.
i don't wish to ape the tory line, but much of what corbyn is suggesting is not likely to get through the parliament in much of any scenario. it's almost impossible to imagine the house of lords signing off on abolishing tuition fees, for example. but, the broader truth is that corbyn's time is likely to be so consumed by failed brexit negotiations that he won't have time to deal with much else.
i need to be clear: there is currently no polling support for a corbyn victory. but, i think they're going to give him one, anyways - or at least set him up for a win the next time around with a tenuous conservative minority.
expect those headlines to appear almost immediately.
it's not that the polls have shifted. or at least, not enough to change an outcome. the polls suggest a likely tory majority, and at best a tory minority. a labour minority would be a very wide miss, and a labour majority is just not in the data.
it's the other factors - the ones outside of a fair electoral process - that are starting to lead me towards corbyn. but, corbyn advocates should not get too excited, as the win may be short-lived.
it does not appear as though the tories want to deal with brexit. you have to keep in mind that labour are the patsies in the british system, so they get stuck with the unpleasant business. in canada, it's the tories that are the patsies, and in the united states it's the democrats. the system ensures that it is these parties that pass unpopular legislation, in order to protect the reputations of the true ruling parties, relative to the ideological persuasions of the local ruling classes.
in fact, jeremy corbyn is the patsy of the patsies. if it is to fall on labour to negotiate an inevitably bad brexit deal, corbyn is the perfect one to do it as he can then be scapegoated for the certain failures in negotiation, thereby allowing labour to safely distance itself from him, and the tories to sweep back in as soon as the issue is dealt with.
i don't wish to ape the tory line, but much of what corbyn is suggesting is not likely to get through the parliament in much of any scenario. it's almost impossible to imagine the house of lords signing off on abolishing tuition fees, for example. but, the broader truth is that corbyn's time is likely to be so consumed by failed brexit negotiations that he won't have time to deal with much else.
i need to be clear: there is currently no polling support for a corbyn victory. but, i think they're going to give him one, anyways - or at least set him up for a win the next time around with a tenuous conservative minority.
expect those headlines to appear almost immediately.
i've been kind of torn on this.
if this neo-mccarthyist witch hunt is just a play for low information voters, i have to be pragmatic in giving the democrats some space - so long as the truth doesn't get lost in the charade. i mean, get it out of my face. and, don't expect me to take you seriously ever again. but, i'll be quiet.
however, if they're trying to use it to justify further foreign interventionism, then it needs to be nipped. immediately.
also, let's give max a round of applause, here. that's a hard position to take, right now.
if this neo-mccarthyist witch hunt is just a play for low information voters, i have to be pragmatic in giving the democrats some space - so long as the truth doesn't get lost in the charade. i mean, get it out of my face. and, don't expect me to take you seriously ever again. but, i'll be quiet.
however, if they're trying to use it to justify further foreign interventionism, then it needs to be nipped. immediately.
also, let's give max a round of applause, here. that's a hard position to take, right now.
Saturday, June 3, 2017
for the slow kids at the back of the bus, i'll repeat myself again:
my opposition to religion is rooted in a stringent conception of social liberalism that rejects the authority of clerical bodies to make arbitrary rules governing the conduct of individuals. put another way, religion is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and must be monolithically opposed on those grounds. while religions may co-exist with each other, those that claim that religion may co-exist with freedom are either acting as apologists for tyranny or are too stupid to work through the dissonance and understand what they're actually saying and doing.
religion is never a personal choice and always a social one. religion does not act at the individual level, but at the community level. it follows that engaging in religion is necessarily engaging in a subversion of democracy.
the same social liberalism that leads me to abhor religion on civil rights grounds leads me to abhor racism on the same terms. race is not a biological idea, but a construct of the ruling class to justify the exploitation of whole classes of labour. as such, the concept of race has a lot in common with the concept of religion, and they should be opposed together. certainly, opposing religion in no way implies any kind of adherence to any concept of race.
there is consequently a deep consistency in opposing religion and race (or racism, same thing) at the same time, and a contradiction in opposing one while supporting the other.
further, this is a standard left-wing position that has been held by almost all leftists for as long as there's been a left.
please try and keep up.
my opposition to religion is rooted in a stringent conception of social liberalism that rejects the authority of clerical bodies to make arbitrary rules governing the conduct of individuals. put another way, religion is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and must be monolithically opposed on those grounds. while religions may co-exist with each other, those that claim that religion may co-exist with freedom are either acting as apologists for tyranny or are too stupid to work through the dissonance and understand what they're actually saying and doing.
religion is never a personal choice and always a social one. religion does not act at the individual level, but at the community level. it follows that engaging in religion is necessarily engaging in a subversion of democracy.
the same social liberalism that leads me to abhor religion on civil rights grounds leads me to abhor racism on the same terms. race is not a biological idea, but a construct of the ruling class to justify the exploitation of whole classes of labour. as such, the concept of race has a lot in common with the concept of religion, and they should be opposed together. certainly, opposing religion in no way implies any kind of adherence to any concept of race.
there is consequently a deep consistency in opposing religion and race (or racism, same thing) at the same time, and a contradiction in opposing one while supporting the other.
further, this is a standard left-wing position that has been held by almost all leftists for as long as there's been a left.
please try and keep up.
Friday, June 2, 2017
is corbyn really in contention?
i should begin by pointing out that it wouldn't be so crazy if he were. i pointed out a while back that the tories are going to eventually lose power, and theresa may is so awful that you almost wonder if she wants to get out of the way in order to avoid dealing with brexit. she's just about the worst candidate you could possibly imagine. what i was thinking at the time was that the election has the potential for a strong third party showing given the continuing broad cynicism over new labour, but i guess the cynicism around the lib dems is even worse, and paul nuttall seems more bnp than ukip. for all the talk of corbyn being unelectable, the situation seems to have been reversed; it is may that is clearly unelectable, and corbyn that seems to actually be benefiting from being the only sane choice - he's just in the right place at the right time to capitalize off of a clearly incompetent prime minister bumbling her way into an unnecessary election.
maybe you have to be outside of the country, sometimes, to see the obvious. and, despite what the pundits are saying, the fact that may is losing support was obvious from the start - if corbyn's associated rise wasn't, necessarily. and, i do believe that a strong third party could have performed very well in this election, so long as they didn't lack credibility (lib dems) or sanity (ukip). again: corbyn is lucky that he's become the clear default.
but, are the polls really suggesting a tight race?
well, these yougov polls are interesting things. they have gigantic sample sizes, which is a good thing in principle. but, there's no meaningful way to understand whether or not the respondents are representative. there's going to come a time in the near future where you can no longer argue that online polls exclude certain demographics, like pensioners and the very poor. but, it's still the truth of it, right now. and, it's not hard to understand why you should be skeptical when an online poll produces better results for corbyn than anybody else.
the telephone polls are suggesting that he's about 5 points behind, perhaps a bit more.
that said, you have to realize that labour doesn't need to win the popular vote in order to win the most seats, largely due to the regional dominance of the snp in scotland. you would need a good seat projection model to figure this complexities of this out.
my own understanding is that if he can get close to 5 points, he could reasonably expect to keep the conservatives to a minority, and if he can get it under 5 points he has a reasonable chance of winning a minority, himself. but, this is tricky math, and i don't have the intricate insights into it that i did for the canadian election in 2015.
so, is he really in contention? probably not. but, he could hold her to a minority, and set up another election relatively soon.
i should begin by pointing out that it wouldn't be so crazy if he were. i pointed out a while back that the tories are going to eventually lose power, and theresa may is so awful that you almost wonder if she wants to get out of the way in order to avoid dealing with brexit. she's just about the worst candidate you could possibly imagine. what i was thinking at the time was that the election has the potential for a strong third party showing given the continuing broad cynicism over new labour, but i guess the cynicism around the lib dems is even worse, and paul nuttall seems more bnp than ukip. for all the talk of corbyn being unelectable, the situation seems to have been reversed; it is may that is clearly unelectable, and corbyn that seems to actually be benefiting from being the only sane choice - he's just in the right place at the right time to capitalize off of a clearly incompetent prime minister bumbling her way into an unnecessary election.
maybe you have to be outside of the country, sometimes, to see the obvious. and, despite what the pundits are saying, the fact that may is losing support was obvious from the start - if corbyn's associated rise wasn't, necessarily. and, i do believe that a strong third party could have performed very well in this election, so long as they didn't lack credibility (lib dems) or sanity (ukip). again: corbyn is lucky that he's become the clear default.
but, are the polls really suggesting a tight race?
well, these yougov polls are interesting things. they have gigantic sample sizes, which is a good thing in principle. but, there's no meaningful way to understand whether or not the respondents are representative. there's going to come a time in the near future where you can no longer argue that online polls exclude certain demographics, like pensioners and the very poor. but, it's still the truth of it, right now. and, it's not hard to understand why you should be skeptical when an online poll produces better results for corbyn than anybody else.
the telephone polls are suggesting that he's about 5 points behind, perhaps a bit more.
that said, you have to realize that labour doesn't need to win the popular vote in order to win the most seats, largely due to the regional dominance of the snp in scotland. you would need a good seat projection model to figure this complexities of this out.
my own understanding is that if he can get close to 5 points, he could reasonably expect to keep the conservatives to a minority, and if he can get it under 5 points he has a reasonable chance of winning a minority, himself. but, this is tricky math, and i don't have the intricate insights into it that i did for the canadian election in 2015.
so, is he really in contention? probably not. but, he could hold her to a minority, and set up another election relatively soon.
i woke up today with something unexpected: a sunburn.
what? i don't burn...
...or at least i didn't burn...
i'm wondering if this is a consequence of quitting smoking. see, for years i'd go outside for a few minutes a dozen or so times a day. is that why i didn't burn? and, is taking that out of the equation why i am burning, now?
what? i don't burn...
...or at least i didn't burn...
i'm wondering if this is a consequence of quitting smoking. see, for years i'd go outside for a few minutes a dozen or so times a day. is that why i didn't burn? and, is taking that out of the equation why i am burning, now?
something else i did yesterday as i was walking was that i spent some time with a new record by an old favourite.
after such a long wait, i was a little worried that i was going to get something geared more towards the broken social scene crowd. those fears are unrealized; this is a do make record, through and through.
none of their records really sound the same, and this carries it on. what i might suggest jumps out is a new set of influences. there are nods to acts like 65daysofstatic, yann tiersen and perhaps tim hecker buried into the mix. this a useful facelift, but....
what i'm left to wonder is what might have been had they been releasing all of these years.
this is not as strong as their 2009 disc, which i expected even at the time it was released to be their last and which i've interpreted as a fitting farewell for all of these years, but it's certainly stronger than their 2007 disc. it doesn't sound like an appendage, though. it sounds like a start of something new.
let's hope they keep releasing.
after such a long wait, i was a little worried that i was going to get something geared more towards the broken social scene crowd. those fears are unrealized; this is a do make record, through and through.
none of their records really sound the same, and this carries it on. what i might suggest jumps out is a new set of influences. there are nods to acts like 65daysofstatic, yann tiersen and perhaps tim hecker buried into the mix. this a useful facelift, but....
what i'm left to wonder is what might have been had they been releasing all of these years.
this is not as strong as their 2009 disc, which i expected even at the time it was released to be their last and which i've interpreted as a fitting farewell for all of these years, but it's certainly stronger than their 2007 disc. it doesn't sound like an appendage, though. it sounds like a start of something new.
let's hope they keep releasing.
these companies that are saying that they want to invest in mexico are actually wrong.
the single biggest thing that made mexico such a corporate paradise was the state-owned oil company, which kept inflation and rent low, which is what allowed american manufacturers to make a profit off of the wage differential.
but, the decision to break up the state-owned oil company is unravelling all of that. inflation is kicking in, which is going to increase property values and exert upward pressure on wages. mexico has very draconian labour laws. this is a tinderbox waiting to happen.
those looking to invest in mexico should do so expecting the return of long term labour unrest in the next few years. and, people will look back on the privatization of oil as the country's single largest mistake - much as canadians do.
the single biggest thing that made mexico such a corporate paradise was the state-owned oil company, which kept inflation and rent low, which is what allowed american manufacturers to make a profit off of the wage differential.
but, the decision to break up the state-owned oil company is unravelling all of that. inflation is kicking in, which is going to increase property values and exert upward pressure on wages. mexico has very draconian labour laws. this is a tinderbox waiting to happen.
those looking to invest in mexico should do so expecting the return of long term labour unrest in the next few years. and, people will look back on the privatization of oil as the country's single largest mistake - much as canadians do.
but, what we assign to muslims in this period was always tenuous to begin with - you had what were basically romans in spain, and basically persians in baghdad (which let us not forget was just a renamed babylon), as well as egyptians, doing the bulk of the actual work. there were no great discoveries made in the peninsula.
to use an example that readers can understand, consider isaac newton. isaac newton actually wrote volumes of work on theology - not because he wanted to, but because he had to. christians today will even argue that newton was a true believer. but, this was all a political necessity, given that he was overturning the christian world. how much more could we have gotten out of newton had he not wasted so much time writing theology in order to prevent himself from being executed?
the reality of the so-called islamic golden age is something much more like that. the religion was at best irrelevant, and in fact measurably worse than that.
here's a question for neil: does he think it's a coincidence that this interest in astronomy happened in babylon, the world's ancient centre of astronomy? the constellation names are greek and roman, but they're converted names. all of this work was initially done in babylon. so, what allowed the babylonians, the assyrians, the mesopotamians, the sumerians, to refind themselves in this period of arab military dominance?
the answer is peace. that is, the absence of war. what the arab armies brought was an end to a thousand years of war between persia and rome, fought in exactly the areas in question. when the war lifted, the people found their ancient roots - which were neither persian, nor roman, nor arab.
for the culture to flourish again, it needs to escape the consequences of being a culture of war. and, does religion help or hinder this?
to use an example that readers can understand, consider isaac newton. isaac newton actually wrote volumes of work on theology - not because he wanted to, but because he had to. christians today will even argue that newton was a true believer. but, this was all a political necessity, given that he was overturning the christian world. how much more could we have gotten out of newton had he not wasted so much time writing theology in order to prevent himself from being executed?
the reality of the so-called islamic golden age is something much more like that. the religion was at best irrelevant, and in fact measurably worse than that.
here's a question for neil: does he think it's a coincidence that this interest in astronomy happened in babylon, the world's ancient centre of astronomy? the constellation names are greek and roman, but they're converted names. all of this work was initially done in babylon. so, what allowed the babylonians, the assyrians, the mesopotamians, the sumerians, to refind themselves in this period of arab military dominance?
the answer is peace. that is, the absence of war. what the arab armies brought was an end to a thousand years of war between persia and rome, fought in exactly the areas in question. when the war lifted, the people found their ancient roots - which were neither persian, nor roman, nor arab.
for the culture to flourish again, it needs to escape the consequences of being a culture of war. and, does religion help or hinder this?
the "islamic golden age" construct is not just reactionary, it's also revisionist in the sense that it's meant to counter biases in european history. i don't think it's particularly controversial, at this point, to acknowledge that european historians have historically been hostile to islam - as greek and roman historians were hostile to persia, and islamic historians were in turn hostile to europe. there were large, civilizational conflicts at play over huge time periods.
but, what the "islamic golden age" construct does is wrongheaded in attempting to remove disdain for reverence. it is a myth-based approach to history designed to counter the established european biases, and in doing so just converts the problem into a narrative that is no less wrong.
the arabs were thuggish despots that rapidly conquered a large area that was weakly defended due to centuries of war and then dominated it under heavy taxation. what you call islam today developed as a means to facilitate and organize these conquests. in time, they became weak and were defeated by a superior foe (the mongols).
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/17192/beyond-tolerance-and-intolerance_deconstructing-th
but, what the "islamic golden age" construct does is wrongheaded in attempting to remove disdain for reverence. it is a myth-based approach to history designed to counter the established european biases, and in doing so just converts the problem into a narrative that is no less wrong.
the arabs were thuggish despots that rapidly conquered a large area that was weakly defended due to centuries of war and then dominated it under heavy taxation. what you call islam today developed as a means to facilitate and organize these conquests. in time, they became weak and were defeated by a superior foe (the mongols).
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/17192/beyond-tolerance-and-intolerance_deconstructing-th
Thursday, June 1, 2017
i got a compost run in today and finished my grocery shopping for the month, minus a few top-ups near the end.
i got lucky with good prices on tomatoes and cheese. she could still give me the $58, but i doubt it's going to happen. in fact, i think she's going to insist i dismantle the fans, and eat the $50.
they're not smart people.
it was tight, but i'm clear, and with $8 to spare until next friday, when the ontario tax credit comes in. that will give me $69, total, for the rest of the month - which is probably enough to get out once. but, i'm not sure i'm going to even want to, yet.
july should offset for me into a normal month because it's a gst month. but, of the years i've been here, july tends to be weak for concerts, too - or at least weak for my tastes. i guess it's festival season, and i'm just not a festival person.
what i'm actually thinking is that i should be more productive over the summer, hopefully. but we'll see what i can find.
right now, my feet are sore again from walking and i still have cleaning to do tomorrow, so i won't be back to doing anything until saturday, probably.
i got lucky with good prices on tomatoes and cheese. she could still give me the $58, but i doubt it's going to happen. in fact, i think she's going to insist i dismantle the fans, and eat the $50.
they're not smart people.
it was tight, but i'm clear, and with $8 to spare until next friday, when the ontario tax credit comes in. that will give me $69, total, for the rest of the month - which is probably enough to get out once. but, i'm not sure i'm going to even want to, yet.
july should offset for me into a normal month because it's a gst month. but, of the years i've been here, july tends to be weak for concerts, too - or at least weak for my tastes. i guess it's festival season, and i'm just not a festival person.
what i'm actually thinking is that i should be more productive over the summer, hopefully. but we'll see what i can find.
right now, my feet are sore again from walking and i still have cleaning to do tomorrow, so i won't be back to doing anything until saturday, probably.
so, how do we even try to understand what trump is saying about the paris agreement?
he seems to be of the opinion that the regulations are going to hurt business, which is probably sort of true. but, he wants to specifically argue that it's going to make the country less competitive.
what this clearly implies is that he sees pulling out of the agreement as an opportunity to gain a competitive advantage over the rest of the world. while all of the other dumb countries are trying to reduce emissions, america will eliminate regulations, thereby bringing back the jobs.
of course, that won't work, anyway.
but, this is equivalent to assigning america as the world's pollution dump. what he's saying is he wants to import the world's pollution, by bringing back the dirtiest production, and not putting any restrictions on it.
and, he thinks he's outsmarting the rest of the world by doing it.
so, when he's talking about making a better deal, what that means is creating a new agreement that allows america to be more competitive by giving polluters more space to pollute.
this whole thing about needing to work together to reduce emissions just isn't a part of the calculus. he's solely concerned with trying to find ways to trick other countries into taking on a greater burden, and ways for american companies to pollute more. so, he's at least in favour of emissions targets in other countries - because that will make america more attractive for polluters.
that donald. he's smart, all right.
what can the rest of the world do but start to consider real sanctions against this government? this is beyond absurd. if trump's only concern is making america more attractive to polluters, the rest of the world has to boycott those polluters.
there's not another choice.
he seems to be of the opinion that the regulations are going to hurt business, which is probably sort of true. but, he wants to specifically argue that it's going to make the country less competitive.
what this clearly implies is that he sees pulling out of the agreement as an opportunity to gain a competitive advantage over the rest of the world. while all of the other dumb countries are trying to reduce emissions, america will eliminate regulations, thereby bringing back the jobs.
of course, that won't work, anyway.
but, this is equivalent to assigning america as the world's pollution dump. what he's saying is he wants to import the world's pollution, by bringing back the dirtiest production, and not putting any restrictions on it.
and, he thinks he's outsmarting the rest of the world by doing it.
so, when he's talking about making a better deal, what that means is creating a new agreement that allows america to be more competitive by giving polluters more space to pollute.
this whole thing about needing to work together to reduce emissions just isn't a part of the calculus. he's solely concerned with trying to find ways to trick other countries into taking on a greater burden, and ways for american companies to pollute more. so, he's at least in favour of emissions targets in other countries - because that will make america more attractive for polluters.
that donald. he's smart, all right.
what can the rest of the world do but start to consider real sanctions against this government? this is beyond absurd. if trump's only concern is making america more attractive to polluters, the rest of the world has to boycott those polluters.
there's not another choice.
the judge was initially pushing me to provide an empirical basis, but in the end she shifted the burden of proof to them, which is actually in accordance with the existing case law: the premise of second hand smoke affecting my enjoyment of the premises is a purely subjective/experiential thing, by definition, so it falls on them to demonstrate that the air is free of smoke if they wish to justify their interference with my enjoyment of the space. it's the correct legal answer to the question, as i posed it.
so, i'm allowed to run the fan unless they can prove i'm making the whole thing up.
so, i'm allowed to run the fan unless they can prove i'm making the whole thing up.
the property owners are, in fact, resisting the court order - which is why i requested the wall.
maybe she can call the cops and have them threaten me, again?
the judge seemed to realize the inevitability of this. the actual order is as follows:
1) they need to either
a) get the air professionally checked or
b) just install a fan.
2) if they don't do either of these things, i can deduct $50 a month from the rent indefinitely, until they do. a little less effective than the wall, but so be it.
3) i also get costs, at $58. that is, $50 for the app and $8 for the coal. if they don't pay me costs before june 15th, i can deduct it from july's rent.
i'm just as happy to leave the fan as it is, so i won't deduct the $50 over july unless they demand i dismantle it, without checking the air to demonstrate it's clarity (and the ruling did not provide for a ppm, so i'll accept trace amounts as justification). the smokers are moving out, as it is. so, as long as they don't bother me for the next month, it should blow over just fine.
but, they're pushing back on costs - they want a receipt for the coal, as though they think this is some kind of negotiation and they get to make a "deal".
it's a fucking court order to pay costs, you goddamned idiots. you can let me take it off june or you can give me cash or i can unilaterally take it off july.
"that's unacceptable. i need a receipt."
you need to learn how to fucking read, actually, is what it looks like to me.
ugh.
so, i'm apparently out the $58 until july 1st. *shrug*. i'll survive just fine.
maybe she can call the cops and have them threaten me, again?
the judge seemed to realize the inevitability of this. the actual order is as follows:
1) they need to either
a) get the air professionally checked or
b) just install a fan.
2) if they don't do either of these things, i can deduct $50 a month from the rent indefinitely, until they do. a little less effective than the wall, but so be it.
3) i also get costs, at $58. that is, $50 for the app and $8 for the coal. if they don't pay me costs before june 15th, i can deduct it from july's rent.
i'm just as happy to leave the fan as it is, so i won't deduct the $50 over july unless they demand i dismantle it, without checking the air to demonstrate it's clarity (and the ruling did not provide for a ppm, so i'll accept trace amounts as justification). the smokers are moving out, as it is. so, as long as they don't bother me for the next month, it should blow over just fine.
but, they're pushing back on costs - they want a receipt for the coal, as though they think this is some kind of negotiation and they get to make a "deal".
it's a fucking court order to pay costs, you goddamned idiots. you can let me take it off june or you can give me cash or i can unilaterally take it off july.
"that's unacceptable. i need a receipt."
you need to learn how to fucking read, actually, is what it looks like to me.
ugh.
so, i'm apparently out the $58 until july 1st. *shrug*. i'll survive just fine.
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
today was only half as productive as i really wanted, but it was good.
1) i got my pill cycle reset back to the start of the month, which is great news for me.
2) i finished about half of my grocery shopping.
3) i won the court case, and got $58 in costs. i'm still waiting to see if the landlord will accept it on this month's rent, or make me wait until next month.
4) i paid down half of the loan. the other half is due at the end of june.
5) i had the company remove authorization to debit my account, and provide it in writing - meaning they're the ones breaking the law if it happens, and i can prove it. retaliation will be brutal.
i'm going to nap for the evening. i want to at least pay the rent tonight, even if i have to wait until tomorrow morning to finish shopping. so, i can't fall asleep too long.
i'm only budgeted for $30 spending this month, so getting the other $58 is going to be helpful, to say the least. they're in their rights to make me wait until july due to the wording of the case, but it seems rather obtuse to do so if i'm offering to deal with it up front.
1) i got my pill cycle reset back to the start of the month, which is great news for me.
2) i finished about half of my grocery shopping.
3) i won the court case, and got $58 in costs. i'm still waiting to see if the landlord will accept it on this month's rent, or make me wait until next month.
4) i paid down half of the loan. the other half is due at the end of june.
5) i had the company remove authorization to debit my account, and provide it in writing - meaning they're the ones breaking the law if it happens, and i can prove it. retaliation will be brutal.
i'm going to nap for the evening. i want to at least pay the rent tonight, even if i have to wait until tomorrow morning to finish shopping. so, i can't fall asleep too long.
i'm only budgeted for $30 spending this month, so getting the other $58 is going to be helpful, to say the least. they're in their rights to make me wait until july due to the wording of the case, but it seems rather obtuse to do so if i'm offering to deal with it up front.
the idea that trump pulling out of the climate accord is going to make a big difference in emissions is rooted in the false premise that the accord was ever going to reduce emissions in the first place.
and, what the politicians of the world that bought into this - trudeau, perhaps more than any other - are pissed off about is that they (falsely) perceived paris as a way to quiet down the discussion, and trump as opening a can of worms.
activists should actually thank trump for stopping the issue from being sidelined. i keep going back to this point: trump is going to do a lot of really stupid things that are against his own interests, because he's not smart enough to realize it and he doesn't have the staff (which he wouldn't listen to anyways...) to shut him down.
trump's self-interest is to just be quiet and let everybody think the issue is solved. instead, his insistence on fighting the issue is giving activists a new opportunity to push for actually meaningful, binding targets.
but, let's be honest. if paris was the best we could do, we were doomed, anyways. activists should be focusing less on international climate agreements and more on direct action in shutting down specific emissions sources.
we might get some breaks in the courts, but there is not a federal government anywhere that is truly committed to emissions reductions. not canada. not the normally reliable swedens or norways. there's no country on the right side of history, here.
we have to do this ourselves.
and, what the politicians of the world that bought into this - trudeau, perhaps more than any other - are pissed off about is that they (falsely) perceived paris as a way to quiet down the discussion, and trump as opening a can of worms.
activists should actually thank trump for stopping the issue from being sidelined. i keep going back to this point: trump is going to do a lot of really stupid things that are against his own interests, because he's not smart enough to realize it and he doesn't have the staff (which he wouldn't listen to anyways...) to shut him down.
trump's self-interest is to just be quiet and let everybody think the issue is solved. instead, his insistence on fighting the issue is giving activists a new opportunity to push for actually meaningful, binding targets.
but, let's be honest. if paris was the best we could do, we were doomed, anyways. activists should be focusing less on international climate agreements and more on direct action in shutting down specific emissions sources.
we might get some breaks in the courts, but there is not a federal government anywhere that is truly committed to emissions reductions. not canada. not the normally reliable swedens or norways. there's no country on the right side of history, here.
we have to do this ourselves.
the scare-mongering around minimum wage hikes seems intuitive, but it is actually rooted in the irrational premise that increasing the costs of labour will decrease the demand for it. that's the crux of it. if we want to be technical, we should be talking in terms of poor modelling. more specifically, the scare-mongerers are modelling labour as perfectly or strongly elastic, when they should be modelling it as nearly perfectly inelastic! but, you almost lose something in context by getting technical.
think about the argument: increasing the cost of labour will decrease the demand for it. that's ridiculous. why would you think that?
it's the same kind of goofy thinking that wants to conceptualize a government budget the same as a household budget. it's really not intuitive at all, it's ridiculous on it's face.
but, this is the crux of the junk economics on the right. they throw ideas at you that are barely comprehensible enough to even be wrong, then they repeat them so often that you take them as obvious. of course increasing wages will reduce jobs - i've heard that every day of my whole life. why? well, because increasing the cost of labour will decrease demand for it. obviously.
this link explains.
https://jonmalesic.com/2013/03/10/the-minimum-wage-and-elasticity-of-labor-demand/
think about the argument: increasing the cost of labour will decrease the demand for it. that's ridiculous. why would you think that?
it's the same kind of goofy thinking that wants to conceptualize a government budget the same as a household budget. it's really not intuitive at all, it's ridiculous on it's face.
but, this is the crux of the junk economics on the right. they throw ideas at you that are barely comprehensible enough to even be wrong, then they repeat them so often that you take them as obvious. of course increasing wages will reduce jobs - i've heard that every day of my whole life. why? well, because increasing the cost of labour will decrease demand for it. obviously.
this link explains.
https://jonmalesic.com/2013/03/10/the-minimum-wage-and-elasticity-of-labor-demand/
i wrote this out more technically somewhere or other some time ago, so we'll just do the short version.
suppose you're a walmart. hey, walmart. how's it going? k. so, you're a walmart.
how many people do you choose to hire when the minimum wage is $10/hr? the answer is the least amount that you possibly can. i know, you're thinking "i'm a job creator!"....but you know you're full of shit. i know you're full of shit, too. so, let's drop the bs. you're a walmart, and the minimum wage is $10/hr, and you're already staffed with the smallest number of people that you can possibly staff and still manage to actually run your business.
the gummamint is threatening to increase the minimum wage to $15/hr. wow. holy shit. $15/hr? so, you as a walmart, are threatening to fire people....because you're a job creator, and that's what job creators do: fire people when they get too expensive. obviously.
so, which one of the minimum number of employees required to run your business do you plan on firing?
yeah, that's right - you can't fire them, can you? because you've already hired the absolute minimum number of people that you possibly can - because you're a walmart, and that's how a walmart works.
so, you get grumpy and threaten to shut the whole store down! and release all of the video vaults of employees fucking in the back, too! don't act like you don't know that's a characteristic of every single fucking walmart on the planet, either. but, let's not dwell on this or visualize it too much. right. anyways..
as you're literally rolling a cart of beach balls out of the building, one of your managers runs towards you with a set of print outs, yelling - wait! wait! look!...
you stop. you look at the printouts. sales are up. by a lot.
"i think i understand", says the manager. "our customers are mostly low wage earners. they just got a 30-50% raise. so, they came here to spend a lot of money. stuff like clothes for their kids. that created a big increase in demand, all at the same time. but, come over here i want to show you something..."
the manager then takes you through the store. the line-ups are longer than they should be.
"we may need some extra cashiers."
she then takes you to the back, where you notice that there is a giant backlog.
"we need more stockers, too."
you realize that the minimum amount of staff you require to stay in business has now increased.
after a walk, you decide to roll your cart of beach balls back into the store. things will be fine, after all.
suppose you're a walmart. hey, walmart. how's it going? k. so, you're a walmart.
how many people do you choose to hire when the minimum wage is $10/hr? the answer is the least amount that you possibly can. i know, you're thinking "i'm a job creator!"....but you know you're full of shit. i know you're full of shit, too. so, let's drop the bs. you're a walmart, and the minimum wage is $10/hr, and you're already staffed with the smallest number of people that you can possibly staff and still manage to actually run your business.
the gummamint is threatening to increase the minimum wage to $15/hr. wow. holy shit. $15/hr? so, you as a walmart, are threatening to fire people....because you're a job creator, and that's what job creators do: fire people when they get too expensive. obviously.
so, which one of the minimum number of employees required to run your business do you plan on firing?
yeah, that's right - you can't fire them, can you? because you've already hired the absolute minimum number of people that you possibly can - because you're a walmart, and that's how a walmart works.
so, you get grumpy and threaten to shut the whole store down! and release all of the video vaults of employees fucking in the back, too! don't act like you don't know that's a characteristic of every single fucking walmart on the planet, either. but, let's not dwell on this or visualize it too much. right. anyways..
as you're literally rolling a cart of beach balls out of the building, one of your managers runs towards you with a set of print outs, yelling - wait! wait! look!...
you stop. you look at the printouts. sales are up. by a lot.
"i think i understand", says the manager. "our customers are mostly low wage earners. they just got a 30-50% raise. so, they came here to spend a lot of money. stuff like clothes for their kids. that created a big increase in demand, all at the same time. but, come over here i want to show you something..."
the manager then takes you through the store. the line-ups are longer than they should be.
"we may need some extra cashiers."
she then takes you to the back, where you notice that there is a giant backlog.
"we need more stockers, too."
you realize that the minimum amount of staff you require to stay in business has now increased.
after a walk, you decide to roll your cart of beach balls back into the store. things will be fine, after all.
i'm going to tell you a little secret about the minimum wage hike in ontario, which is on it's way to $15/hr by the beginning of 2018.
*psstt*
lean in now, as the papers won't tell you this, and you don't need to know what they don't tell you, right?
the minimum wage in ontario is tied to inflation.
so, you can imagine that the press is yelling and screaming that the hike is meaningless because it will just raise prices, and in the end balance out.
not in this particular jurisdiction, it won't. right here, in this place, business owners can't get out of the increase that easily, because if they raise prices to compensate they'll just get hit with an equally sized increase in wages the next year.
they're going to be forced to actually pay out.
that's the trick - the secret. it's how you win this game.
and, what are the outcomes? will businesses close? will the economy collapse?
a few businesses may close, but that will be because they were barely profitable to begin with. and, it's funny to hear the so-called market advocates complain that unprofitable businesses will be forced to close, isn't it?
as workers will now have more disposable income, because capital cannot take it back via inflation, we should see an increase in gdp and a stronger economy, over all. when you fix increases to inflation, you can get a true shift in wealth.
i've stated this repeatedly: i actually like this government. i hope that they can turn things around before the next election.
*psstt*
lean in now, as the papers won't tell you this, and you don't need to know what they don't tell you, right?
the minimum wage in ontario is tied to inflation.
so, you can imagine that the press is yelling and screaming that the hike is meaningless because it will just raise prices, and in the end balance out.
not in this particular jurisdiction, it won't. right here, in this place, business owners can't get out of the increase that easily, because if they raise prices to compensate they'll just get hit with an equally sized increase in wages the next year.
they're going to be forced to actually pay out.
that's the trick - the secret. it's how you win this game.
and, what are the outcomes? will businesses close? will the economy collapse?
a few businesses may close, but that will be because they were barely profitable to begin with. and, it's funny to hear the so-called market advocates complain that unprofitable businesses will be forced to close, isn't it?
as workers will now have more disposable income, because capital cannot take it back via inflation, we should see an increase in gdp and a stronger economy, over all. when you fix increases to inflation, you can get a true shift in wealth.
i've stated this repeatedly: i actually like this government. i hope that they can turn things around before the next election.
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
eye-twitching is meth. common side-effect.
when you go through a meth overdose, your body starts attacking itself. your blood pressure gets so high that you're literally under risk of your cardio-vascular system exploding. in the end, you usually die of mass organ failure.
if you survive, you can expect recurring hallucinations for up to a year.
i'm in full support of legalizing marijuana and everything, but legalizing mdma would certainly save a lot more people's lives - and prevent a lot of people from the side effects of meth abuse.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/angel-loyer-lawrence-teen-overdose-new-westminster-alberta-edmonton-mdma-drugs-1.4138235
when you go through a meth overdose, your body starts attacking itself. your blood pressure gets so high that you're literally under risk of your cardio-vascular system exploding. in the end, you usually die of mass organ failure.
if you survive, you can expect recurring hallucinations for up to a year.
i'm in full support of legalizing marijuana and everything, but legalizing mdma would certainly save a lot more people's lives - and prevent a lot of people from the side effects of meth abuse.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/angel-loyer-lawrence-teen-overdose-new-westminster-alberta-edmonton-mdma-drugs-1.4138235
i actually think that christy clark is doing the right thing in playing out the motions, in order to help voters understand what's happening. i'm not old enough to remember the peterson/rae coalition in ontario, but the failed dion/layton coalition clearly exposed severe deficits in the public's understanding of how the legislature functions. by going through the motions in real-time - losing a confidence vote and allowing the opposition an ability to form government - she's forcing the right-wing press to cover the process. hopefully, voters will walk away from the transfer of power with a better understanding of how the system works.
the worst thing that she can do is emulate what harper did - which was to basically go on tv and lie to people and confuse them into thinking he was being ousted.
to make the situation clear: a green-ndp coalition is about to remove the liberals from power.
...and i'll be keeping an eye on the way that the ndp-green coalition unfolds. these left/centre coalitions are a kind of a special aspect of canadian politics, and the crux of the reason why canada is what it is. the ndp are going to be tempted to moderate, but they will not be able to do so without forcing an election and probably handing over power. the ndp's position is, in fact, exceedingly weak. the greens are going to have tremendous influence. what we'll have to see is how hard the ndp push back, and what they agree to.
the ndp need a litmus test, right now. this might be it. and, because the ndp is a national party, the positions that the greens can get the ndp to hold to may have national implications, too.
british columbians should be ecstatic about this outcome and optimistic for it to be extremely productive in passing legislation to protect both the coast and the interior, as well as to block carbon exports to china.
the worst thing that she can do is emulate what harper did - which was to basically go on tv and lie to people and confuse them into thinking he was being ousted.
to make the situation clear: a green-ndp coalition is about to remove the liberals from power.
...and i'll be keeping an eye on the way that the ndp-green coalition unfolds. these left/centre coalitions are a kind of a special aspect of canadian politics, and the crux of the reason why canada is what it is. the ndp are going to be tempted to moderate, but they will not be able to do so without forcing an election and probably handing over power. the ndp's position is, in fact, exceedingly weak. the greens are going to have tremendous influence. what we'll have to see is how hard the ndp push back, and what they agree to.
the ndp need a litmus test, right now. this might be it. and, because the ndp is a national party, the positions that the greens can get the ndp to hold to may have national implications, too.
british columbians should be ecstatic about this outcome and optimistic for it to be extremely productive in passing legislation to protect both the coast and the interior, as well as to block carbon exports to china.
this is kind of a backdoor, isn't it?
i don't think the college should be making decisions of this sort in the first place. this college needs to be put under democratic control, with it's rules determined by the broader society, and not merely by the doctors.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/quebec-abortion-guidelines-under-review-after-woman-denied-procedure-at-30-weeks-1.3211209
i don't think the college should be making decisions of this sort in the first place. this college needs to be put under democratic control, with it's rules determined by the broader society, and not merely by the doctors.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/quebec-abortion-guidelines-under-review-after-woman-denied-procedure-at-30-weeks-1.3211209
we have different justifications today than they did then, but this is still the right system to use and we should be bringing ourselves back to it's principles, not opening the borders further.
http://www.pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/white-paper-on-immigration-1966
http://www.pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/white-paper-on-immigration-1966
this line about the "perversion of islam". it's been recycled. it's corbyn that's using it now.
maybe corbyn would like to explain to me which school he studied islam in, if he's so convinced that isis is such a perversion of it?
listen: i get the point. most muslims aren't intent on world domination, or at least not for most of the week. it's just buried in their psyche, as code, waiting to be turned on, manchurian-like. it's a substantive difference, i don't disagree.
but, when you say that isis is a perversion of islam, you mean a perversion of what, exactly? the absurdly revisionist brands of islam that most muslims follow nowadays? because to use an analogy that most people can understand, that's like arguing that the evangelists in the united states are a perversion of anglicanism - which isn't even a coherently formed thought.
the brand of islam that isis promotes may be very different than the kind that most muslims prefer. but, it is in truth much closer to the source of the religion, as a brainwashing tool of a warrior cult.
....and the reality is therefore that it is actually more accurate to argue that the moderate forms are the perversion on the fundamental ideas that the religion initially expressed.
i would prefer the term fundamentalist muslim, fully aware of the difficulties with it.
to suggest they're not muslims makes him sound like he's pandering, and flatly foolish.
maybe corbyn would like to explain to me which school he studied islam in, if he's so convinced that isis is such a perversion of it?
listen: i get the point. most muslims aren't intent on world domination, or at least not for most of the week. it's just buried in their psyche, as code, waiting to be turned on, manchurian-like. it's a substantive difference, i don't disagree.
but, when you say that isis is a perversion of islam, you mean a perversion of what, exactly? the absurdly revisionist brands of islam that most muslims follow nowadays? because to use an analogy that most people can understand, that's like arguing that the evangelists in the united states are a perversion of anglicanism - which isn't even a coherently formed thought.
the brand of islam that isis promotes may be very different than the kind that most muslims prefer. but, it is in truth much closer to the source of the religion, as a brainwashing tool of a warrior cult.
....and the reality is therefore that it is actually more accurate to argue that the moderate forms are the perversion on the fundamental ideas that the religion initially expressed.
i would prefer the term fundamentalist muslim, fully aware of the difficulties with it.
to suggest they're not muslims makes him sound like he's pandering, and flatly foolish.
maybe i should bring some black friends with me next time i go, that'll distract them.
and, i'm not even being intentionally crude. there used to be blacker people at this place, but they've all disappeared. it's not an accident. but, it's not a reflection of individual prejudice, either. it's the nature of the job - when security is proactive, it will always target minorities, and you're just lost in space if you insist otherwise.
and, i'm not even being intentionally crude. there used to be blacker people at this place, but they've all disappeared. it's not an accident. but, it's not a reflection of individual prejudice, either. it's the nature of the job - when security is proactive, it will always target minorities, and you're just lost in space if you insist otherwise.
and, to address the most absurd and naive point of all: shouldn't i be looking for a "safe space" given that i'm an openly queer jew stumbling around smashed by myself?
but, what liberals have been saying since the beginning of time is that when you give an entity power of surveillance or control, that entity always goes after the most vulnerable. this idea that expanded powers will protect us is preposterous: there is absolutely no empirical basis for it whatsoever, and rather mountains of evidence that implies the opposite.
minorities like myself will always be targeted, as soon as you let anybody target us. and, so, the way you keep us safe is that you take away the watchers, and let a kind of concept of group immunity kick in. this operates at every level, from the very top to the very bottom.
i'm, in fact, upholding a well understood and time-tested truth. and, if you were to sit down and analyse the situation carefully from the start, the idea that the tranny jew would get targeted by security is so obvious as to be unavoidable - which, to be clear, is not a personal attack on the individual security personnel, but a broader critique of security, to begin with.
i want to be clear as possible: you should not have expected a bar with heavy security to protect the tranny jew. you should have, from the start, expected such an arrangement to have no other outcome but targeting the tranny jew - and other minorities it's supposed to be shielding. you don't even need to cite milgram's or something. it's something liberals have understood since the renaissance, and is scattered across centuries of writing on authority: they always go after the minorities. and, you can't avoid that, it's systemic.
but, what liberals have been saying since the beginning of time is that when you give an entity power of surveillance or control, that entity always goes after the most vulnerable. this idea that expanded powers will protect us is preposterous: there is absolutely no empirical basis for it whatsoever, and rather mountains of evidence that implies the opposite.
minorities like myself will always be targeted, as soon as you let anybody target us. and, so, the way you keep us safe is that you take away the watchers, and let a kind of concept of group immunity kick in. this operates at every level, from the very top to the very bottom.
i'm, in fact, upholding a well understood and time-tested truth. and, if you were to sit down and analyse the situation carefully from the start, the idea that the tranny jew would get targeted by security is so obvious as to be unavoidable - which, to be clear, is not a personal attack on the individual security personnel, but a broader critique of security, to begin with.
i want to be clear as possible: you should not have expected a bar with heavy security to protect the tranny jew. you should have, from the start, expected such an arrangement to have no other outcome but targeting the tranny jew - and other minorities it's supposed to be shielding. you don't even need to cite milgram's or something. it's something liberals have understood since the renaissance, and is scattered across centuries of writing on authority: they always go after the minorities. and, you can't avoid that, it's systemic.
i've made clear what i'm looking for, but i'll be that much more terse: give me a space that offers a dance floor until 8:00 on sunday mornings and lets people flail around as much as they want, so long as they don't get into anybody's face.
the only rule you need is the non-aggression principle.
i'm not going to buy energy drinks, because they contain testosterone. i probably won't buy water, either. but, i'll be glad to get a coffee on the way out. and, i'd take a shot of espresso at 4:19 if it was there for me to take, too.
that's something i can't grasp: of all the all night parties i've been to, i've never found one that sells coffee. they sell red bull. why not coffee?
it ought to be the most obvious thing. there ought to one on every corner. surely, there ought to be one somewhere in detroit....
the only rule you need is the non-aggression principle.
i'm not going to buy energy drinks, because they contain testosterone. i probably won't buy water, either. but, i'll be glad to get a coffee on the way out. and, i'd take a shot of espresso at 4:19 if it was there for me to take, too.
that's something i can't grasp: of all the all night parties i've been to, i've never found one that sells coffee. they sell red bull. why not coffee?
it ought to be the most obvious thing. there ought to one on every corner. surely, there ought to be one somewhere in detroit....
it's actually a bit more sinister than this. what neo-liberal identity politics really does is offer a hand to minorities: you, too, can be a part of the oppressing classes. it then claims that this is a type of progress. in doing so, it converts what should be broader race-based struggles into purely class struggles. the key thing is the next point: it manages to convince people that a society rooted in class divisions is "normal" or "natural", due to this concept of "human nature", which is not derived empirically but via the convenient process of construction in order to justify what it's supposed to prove is inevitable. the neo-liberals might not all miss the circularity of it, but the masses often do, as they're only capable of knowing what they're taught. if they're taught that our nature implies the inevitability of class, then it's enforcement is justified, and opening up a class-based society to minorities becomes a kind of progress, rather than a kind of oppression. so, the class struggle ends up co-opted by an idea of an "american dream": minorities compete against each other for status, rather than work with each other (and with others) for freedom. so, the capitalist class is converted from a source of oppression that needs to be struggled against into an ideal to aspire to. the result is that the same oppression carries on as it always had, it's just somehow better because the racial components within the classes are more evened out.
in the long run, this is unsustainable, but for the time being it gives capitalism enough support from the people that should be opposing it to allow it to kind of limp along at 1% growth.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/24/beyond-neoliberal-identity-politics/
in the long run, this is unsustainable, but for the time being it gives capitalism enough support from the people that should be opposing it to allow it to kind of limp along at 1% growth.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/24/beyond-neoliberal-identity-politics/
it's tuesday, now.
it turns out that both april and may were really over the top, for me. as mentioned, i'm expecting a much quieter month. maybe not too quiet. i could maybe get one weekend out...
i'm going to want to make a pact with security in that bar. it's not like it's the greatest bar - all i've done is complain about it - but there often isn't really any other choice. i mean, i can't walk from mexicantown to gratiot - or grand. and one of the rock bars i frequent is a block from it, making it absurdly convenient. so, this is what i need:
a) i don't like bars with heavy security. i'm an anarchist. fuck the police. but, i will acknowledge that the bar is security-minded....if...
b) security agrees that i make choices about whether i'm too drunk to dance or not, so long as
c) i promise to be honest in my assessment and sit down or leave if i'm truly too drunk to dance. and, in fact, i have done this from time to time, in the past - i've needed to sit down for a few minutes before i get back up. i haven't allowed myself to pass out.
d) it follows that when i tell security i'm fine that i am and they should immediately fuck off and leave me alone.
as i mentioned, i happened to be just about to leave, anyways. they were going to close in a few minutes. but, i actually have every right to be irritated with their refusal to listen, and with the bruise on my knee that is their fault. i mean, how do they know if i'm drunk or not? that's crazy. i think this whole discussion is ridiculous, but they ultimately must concede that i get to decide whether i'm drunk or not, or i'm going to have to permanently boycott.
i don't want to put myself into spaces that are heavily policed, like that. i need a truce, or i'll have to avoid it.
it could be a few weeks, or even a few months, before i get in there to talk, though. the only thing i really have planned for june is on a sunday, a good ways from the place in question.
but, i am, in fact, currently officially banned from the works in detroit, for the apparent reason of dancing too hard. i'm going to have little choice but to wear it as a badge of honour for as long as they insist upon it. create a meme: too hardcore for the works in detroit! yeah. well, of course it's preposterous, and of course they're going to have to eventually admit it's preposterous. i honestly don't want to go back in there until i get an assurance that i have agency and autonomy, and they'll back off and leave me alone.
what am i doing about this $320 that i owe the legal loan sharking company?
well, i'm just going to finish my regular monthly scheduling stuff, first. i guess i'm going to have to test my feet on wednesday, at least enough to get to the various stores. once i've done my budgeting and shopping for the month, i'll take a look at what the balance is.
i think i mentioned here that i'd like to put down half in the next few days and the other half on june 30th. i need to verify i'm not walking into a trap with it. but, that's probably how this is going to work, and it should let me get out to a show or two mid-month. functionally speaking, it will be my gst cheque that will pay down the bulk of the second half of the loan, albeit a few days prematurely.
if they don't let me split it, i'm going to have to put it aside somewhere.
right now, i'm finally awake enough to get a coffee so i'm going to focus on editing until the sun comes up and then spend the day cleaning. i'm back to the list of things for the next few days.
it turns out that both april and may were really over the top, for me. as mentioned, i'm expecting a much quieter month. maybe not too quiet. i could maybe get one weekend out...
i'm going to want to make a pact with security in that bar. it's not like it's the greatest bar - all i've done is complain about it - but there often isn't really any other choice. i mean, i can't walk from mexicantown to gratiot - or grand. and one of the rock bars i frequent is a block from it, making it absurdly convenient. so, this is what i need:
a) i don't like bars with heavy security. i'm an anarchist. fuck the police. but, i will acknowledge that the bar is security-minded....if...
b) security agrees that i make choices about whether i'm too drunk to dance or not, so long as
c) i promise to be honest in my assessment and sit down or leave if i'm truly too drunk to dance. and, in fact, i have done this from time to time, in the past - i've needed to sit down for a few minutes before i get back up. i haven't allowed myself to pass out.
d) it follows that when i tell security i'm fine that i am and they should immediately fuck off and leave me alone.
as i mentioned, i happened to be just about to leave, anyways. they were going to close in a few minutes. but, i actually have every right to be irritated with their refusal to listen, and with the bruise on my knee that is their fault. i mean, how do they know if i'm drunk or not? that's crazy. i think this whole discussion is ridiculous, but they ultimately must concede that i get to decide whether i'm drunk or not, or i'm going to have to permanently boycott.
i don't want to put myself into spaces that are heavily policed, like that. i need a truce, or i'll have to avoid it.
it could be a few weeks, or even a few months, before i get in there to talk, though. the only thing i really have planned for june is on a sunday, a good ways from the place in question.
but, i am, in fact, currently officially banned from the works in detroit, for the apparent reason of dancing too hard. i'm going to have little choice but to wear it as a badge of honour for as long as they insist upon it. create a meme: too hardcore for the works in detroit! yeah. well, of course it's preposterous, and of course they're going to have to eventually admit it's preposterous. i honestly don't want to go back in there until i get an assurance that i have agency and autonomy, and they'll back off and leave me alone.
what am i doing about this $320 that i owe the legal loan sharking company?
well, i'm just going to finish my regular monthly scheduling stuff, first. i guess i'm going to have to test my feet on wednesday, at least enough to get to the various stores. once i've done my budgeting and shopping for the month, i'll take a look at what the balance is.
i think i mentioned here that i'd like to put down half in the next few days and the other half on june 30th. i need to verify i'm not walking into a trap with it. but, that's probably how this is going to work, and it should let me get out to a show or two mid-month. functionally speaking, it will be my gst cheque that will pay down the bulk of the second half of the loan, albeit a few days prematurely.
if they don't let me split it, i'm going to have to put it aside somewhere.
right now, i'm finally awake enough to get a coffee so i'm going to focus on editing until the sun comes up and then spend the day cleaning. i'm back to the list of things for the next few days.
Monday, May 29, 2017
i'm also going to share my thoughts on this point because it may clear up a misperception. this isn't the first time i've posted these thoughts.
ecstasy. as a drug. do i take it? not a fucking chance.
it's not quite what you think...
safe drugs: marijuana. mdma. mushrooms.
iffy drugs: alcohol. lsd.
stupid drugs: meth, cocaine, heroin.
if you know a little about how the process works, you know what i'm getting at.
i would buy and take and consume pure mdma. but, you will never find pure mdma on the street. ever. what you will find is some kind of concoction of meth and coke that might have trace mdma, if you're lucky.
it's probably meth.
and, if you try to give me meth, i'm going to punch you in the face.
ecstasy. as a drug. do i take it? not a fucking chance.
it's not quite what you think...
safe drugs: marijuana. mdma. mushrooms.
iffy drugs: alcohol. lsd.
stupid drugs: meth, cocaine, heroin.
if you know a little about how the process works, you know what i'm getting at.
i would buy and take and consume pure mdma. but, you will never find pure mdma on the street. ever. what you will find is some kind of concoction of meth and coke that might have trace mdma, if you're lucky.
it's probably meth.
and, if you try to give me meth, i'm going to punch you in the face.
andrew scheer is more like stockwell day than he is like stephen harper. somebody get him a wetsuit.
oh, look - trudeau is wearing one through the press availability.
the conservatives were nearly bottomed out last election. the next time around, it's not likely that they'll do much worse than they did the last time around. but, he has almost no chance of winning. in fact, i'd expect some crossings and resignations over the next week as the more moderate and opportunistic wing of the party realizes what just happened and seeks to get out.
trudeau always had more to worry about with the ndp race.
oh, look - trudeau is wearing one through the press availability.
the conservatives were nearly bottomed out last election. the next time around, it's not likely that they'll do much worse than they did the last time around. but, he has almost no chance of winning. in fact, i'd expect some crossings and resignations over the next week as the more moderate and opportunistic wing of the party realizes what just happened and seeks to get out.
trudeau always had more to worry about with the ndp race.
but, the mexicans don't care about a rules-based order, either. that's actually the root of the problem: workers don't have any rights in mexico. we even put down some labour agreements in nafta, and nobody talks about them because they're "unenforceable".
it goes back to the dawkins film, again. cooperation is good. but, the only party in nafta that wants to cooperate is the canadian government; the americans and mexicans are both driven by violent self-interest. and, we will be badly taken advantage of if we don't wake up to that.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3484283/justin-trudeau-donald-trump-g7-summit-crossroads
it goes back to the dawkins film, again. cooperation is good. but, the only party in nafta that wants to cooperate is the canadian government; the americans and mexicans are both driven by violent self-interest. and, we will be badly taken advantage of if we don't wake up to that.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3484283/justin-trudeau-donald-trump-g7-summit-crossroads
what is a realistic expectation from canada? 2% of gdp is a demand from american industry, not a substantive defence consideration.
the europeans have every right to prefer to maintain their own force, and if the americans want to insist on it, i'm sure they'll be happy to oblige.
canada's contribution should be entirely defensive. coast guard. norad. immigration. i'd be almost willing to provide a blank cheque on norad in return for an agreement to avoid further colonialism.
but, remember: the canadian oligarchs wants high oil prices, right now.
the europeans have every right to prefer to maintain their own force, and if the americans want to insist on it, i'm sure they'll be happy to oblige.
canada's contribution should be entirely defensive. coast guard. norad. immigration. i'd be almost willing to provide a blank cheque on norad in return for an agreement to avoid further colonialism.
but, remember: the canadian oligarchs wants high oil prices, right now.
to begin with, i'm glad they're writing white papers again. i've kind of felt deprived. i might not read this one, but if they keep coming in areas i'm more interested in, i will.
what about canada and the 2%? well, the truth is that we're good at sneaking out of it. trudeau is pushing a line about being a reliable member of the alliance, which is true enough, but like a lot of what he says there's this kind of child-like naivete to it - as though lockheed martin is driven by concepts of fraternal bonds of friendship and patriotic fervour rather than cynically driven by greed and profit, and as though trump isn't in the pockets of the defence lobby.
i've been over this a few times. we have historically avoided involving ourselves in conflicts we're not excited about, and sometimes downright opposed to, by putting resources into occupying strategic cold war regions, which had the happy coincidence of doing things like building hospitals. and, we're proud of that, up here. but, that world no longer exists. now, they're demanding that we buy weapons. maybe, we could get some of those data wizards on the point of why defence jobs have shitty multipliers and you'd create more jobs with green energy? but, how do we get out of this, this time?
"we're spending money on veterans" seems entirely insufficient, granted. but, that level of insufficiency is also consistent, dare i even say characteristic, of the current pmo.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-defence-policy-1.4131623
what about canada and the 2%? well, the truth is that we're good at sneaking out of it. trudeau is pushing a line about being a reliable member of the alliance, which is true enough, but like a lot of what he says there's this kind of child-like naivete to it - as though lockheed martin is driven by concepts of fraternal bonds of friendship and patriotic fervour rather than cynically driven by greed and profit, and as though trump isn't in the pockets of the defence lobby.
i've been over this a few times. we have historically avoided involving ourselves in conflicts we're not excited about, and sometimes downright opposed to, by putting resources into occupying strategic cold war regions, which had the happy coincidence of doing things like building hospitals. and, we're proud of that, up here. but, that world no longer exists. now, they're demanding that we buy weapons. maybe, we could get some of those data wizards on the point of why defence jobs have shitty multipliers and you'd create more jobs with green energy? but, how do we get out of this, this time?
"we're spending money on veterans" seems entirely insufficient, granted. but, that level of insufficiency is also consistent, dare i even say characteristic, of the current pmo.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-defence-policy-1.4131623
the trump administration wants to present the arrangement as though they're doing europe a favour, rather than continuing a 70 year occupation force. the europeans should not have to pay for their own occupation. but, why would they send blank cheques to washington when they can build their own army, anyways?
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-europe-as-a-stronger-global-actor/file-european-defence-union
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-europe-as-a-stronger-global-actor/file-european-defence-union
the germans have always been a reluctant ally. you don't build allies through foreign occupation; ask the iraqis. so, the americans had to know it was a matter of time, after reunification, before the germans reasserted themselves. they couldn't have been delusional enough to think otherwise. it's just too obvious.
so, it always followed that the americans would eventually have to relinquish some sovereignty to a more assertive europe.
but, not the uk.
the uk is a part of the empire.
so, it always followed that the americans would eventually have to relinquish some sovereignty to a more assertive europe.
but, not the uk.
the uk is a part of the empire.
see, my take on brexit was that it was a reaction to german realignment.
i stated repeatedly leading up to the vote that what brexit passing signalled was that the americans were pulling the uk out of europe, because the germans were reorienting themselves towards the russians. what brexit failing would imply would be american confidence in german participation in the alliance.
nice try, merk.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/angela-merkel-donald-trump-germany-us-no-longer-rely-european-union-climate-change-g7-a7760486.html
i stated repeatedly leading up to the vote that what brexit passing signalled was that the americans were pulling the uk out of europe, because the germans were reorienting themselves towards the russians. what brexit failing would imply would be american confidence in german participation in the alliance.
nice try, merk.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/angela-merkel-donald-trump-germany-us-no-longer-rely-european-union-climate-change-g7-a7760486.html
Nicola Sturgeon has defended Jeremy Corbyn's view that there is a
link between the deadly attack in Manchester and UK foreign policy.
they state it like there's some kind of controversy around the claim.
why do you think they bomb you, uk? is it because you think they hate your freedom? because they're barbarians, and it's just what barbarians do? because they want to take over the world, one subway bombing at a time? or maybe just to piss you off?
they know bono is from ireland, right?
yes, obviously, the bombings are a consequence of your foreign policy. and, propaganda aside, it's hard to believe there is a properly oxygenated brain in the united kingdom that is defective enough to fail to grasp this.
they state it like there's some kind of controversy around the claim.
why do you think they bomb you, uk? is it because you think they hate your freedom? because they're barbarians, and it's just what barbarians do? because they want to take over the world, one subway bombing at a time? or maybe just to piss you off?
they know bono is from ireland, right?
yes, obviously, the bombings are a consequence of your foreign policy. and, propaganda aside, it's hard to believe there is a properly oxygenated brain in the united kingdom that is defective enough to fail to grasp this.
Sunday, May 28, 2017
i don't want to hang out in places that organize people into hierarchies or judge people according to status. in fact, i would prefer to avoid these kinds of spaces. if your bar has a vip section, i don't want to go to it.
i don't want to hang out in booty bars or meat markets that people go to in order to pick up and get laid. i'm not into disco...
what i seek is a traditional rave environment where people are into the music and a set of basic democratic principles: equality, acceptance and respect. the basic premise of electronic music culture is that we're all equal on the floor; entities contradicting this principle, for profit or for status, are co-opting the culture for their own ends and should be denounced and boycotted. the reason that people go to the kind of parties i want to go to is not to be seen in the right place or to find somebody to have sex with but to do drugs and dance in an introverted daze. the ideal is for a room that is full of people lost in their own heads, happy to be stuck in there and disinterested in escaping.
the first bar that i went to this weekend is somewhere i'd been to previously and seemed to be a moderately open rave hangout, but has proven itself otherwise over the last several weeks. they've actually been giving me a hard time for a while. it may seem absurd on it's face for security at an all-night dance club to ask you to leave because you're dancing while drunk, but perhaps this absurdity is actually rooted in a contradiction of capitalism. i initially rejected the claim as preposterous, but perhaps i was giving the bar too much credit in the process of doing so. that is, perhaps the space is intended to be a more conservative environment than initially seemed apparent. that said, i still believe that the reason i've been harassed at this bar by security is related primarily to gender expression. when you realize that the space is intended to promote a conservative atmosphere, these factors are reinforcing rather than contradictory: an inebriated transsexual busting a move on the dance floor is an expected sight at a rave, but remains taboo in a business-normalized, corporatized environment where everybody is expected to be predicable and fall into defined roles. i just would have never gone to this space in the first place if i realized it was meant to uphold a business-normal atmosphere. in my defence, the place has a reputation for being a dingy dive bar, not somewhere teeming with security intent on enforcing hierarchy. i suppose that the bar is transitioning; my experience may be a harbinger for others.
the second bar that i went to was more like the kind of place i'd rather be at. it's a shame that it's geographically located on the other side of downtown. it's also a shame that the police are keying on the place that has a more open atmosphere, forcing it to close early while the business-friendly bar can stay open seemingly indefinitely. but, this is again consistent: the reality is that security at the works is giving me a hard time for exactly the same reason that the cops are trying to shut down grenadier.
i state in my vlog that i should have ended up at grenadier or marble anyways; the works was just more attractive due to cost, hours and location. so, i took my chances, there. and, to be clear: i enjoyed both nights i was there - except the part where security told me to stop dancing.
but, i've got the hint. and i'll adjust.
i don't want to hang out in booty bars or meat markets that people go to in order to pick up and get laid. i'm not into disco...
what i seek is a traditional rave environment where people are into the music and a set of basic democratic principles: equality, acceptance and respect. the basic premise of electronic music culture is that we're all equal on the floor; entities contradicting this principle, for profit or for status, are co-opting the culture for their own ends and should be denounced and boycotted. the reason that people go to the kind of parties i want to go to is not to be seen in the right place or to find somebody to have sex with but to do drugs and dance in an introverted daze. the ideal is for a room that is full of people lost in their own heads, happy to be stuck in there and disinterested in escaping.
the first bar that i went to this weekend is somewhere i'd been to previously and seemed to be a moderately open rave hangout, but has proven itself otherwise over the last several weeks. they've actually been giving me a hard time for a while. it may seem absurd on it's face for security at an all-night dance club to ask you to leave because you're dancing while drunk, but perhaps this absurdity is actually rooted in a contradiction of capitalism. i initially rejected the claim as preposterous, but perhaps i was giving the bar too much credit in the process of doing so. that is, perhaps the space is intended to be a more conservative environment than initially seemed apparent. that said, i still believe that the reason i've been harassed at this bar by security is related primarily to gender expression. when you realize that the space is intended to promote a conservative atmosphere, these factors are reinforcing rather than contradictory: an inebriated transsexual busting a move on the dance floor is an expected sight at a rave, but remains taboo in a business-normalized, corporatized environment where everybody is expected to be predicable and fall into defined roles. i just would have never gone to this space in the first place if i realized it was meant to uphold a business-normal atmosphere. in my defence, the place has a reputation for being a dingy dive bar, not somewhere teeming with security intent on enforcing hierarchy. i suppose that the bar is transitioning; my experience may be a harbinger for others.
the second bar that i went to was more like the kind of place i'd rather be at. it's a shame that it's geographically located on the other side of downtown. it's also a shame that the police are keying on the place that has a more open atmosphere, forcing it to close early while the business-friendly bar can stay open seemingly indefinitely. but, this is again consistent: the reality is that security at the works is giving me a hard time for exactly the same reason that the cops are trying to shut down grenadier.
i state in my vlog that i should have ended up at grenadier or marble anyways; the works was just more attractive due to cost, hours and location. so, i took my chances, there. and, to be clear: i enjoyed both nights i was there - except the part where security told me to stop dancing.
but, i've got the hint. and i'll adjust.
Saturday, May 27, 2017
hi.
i've been at your bar a few times over the last few months, and i seem to be a magnet for security, who has repeatedly ask that i leave and which tossed me out a little bit roughly this morning. i'm getting the point. but, i'm just trying to better understand what the concern is, and am seeking an honest response.
sure: i'll acknowledge that when i go to your bar, my intent is to consume alcohol and dance. see, i kind of thought that was the point of having a bar that serves alcohol and plays dance music. maybe i'm missing something?
i've never been into a physical altercation, nor am i the kind of person that would get in one. i don't bring weapons or drugs. i keep to my own space when i'm dancing, and don't interfere with the space of others. the fact is that the only answer i've ever been given as to why security is basically harassing me is that i'm actually having a good time. i've literally been pulled of the dance floor and asked to leave, and when i ask why they seriously tell me that i have to leave because i'm dancing under the influence. and, yeah - of course i am.
i'm just seeking an honest reaction, because i'm feeling like there is an underlying reason why i'm being targeted, and it's beginning to make me feel unwelcome in your bar. perhaps i've misunderstood. but, i don't want to go where i'm not welcome.
i've been at your bar a few times over the last few months, and i seem to be a magnet for security, who has repeatedly ask that i leave and which tossed me out a little bit roughly this morning. i'm getting the point. but, i'm just trying to better understand what the concern is, and am seeking an honest response.
sure: i'll acknowledge that when i go to your bar, my intent is to consume alcohol and dance. see, i kind of thought that was the point of having a bar that serves alcohol and plays dance music. maybe i'm missing something?
i've never been into a physical altercation, nor am i the kind of person that would get in one. i don't bring weapons or drugs. i keep to my own space when i'm dancing, and don't interfere with the space of others. the fact is that the only answer i've ever been given as to why security is basically harassing me is that i'm actually having a good time. i've literally been pulled of the dance floor and asked to leave, and when i ask why they seriously tell me that i have to leave because i'm dancing under the influence. and, yeah - of course i am.
i'm just seeking an honest reaction, because i'm feeling like there is an underlying reason why i'm being targeted, and it's beginning to make me feel unwelcome in your bar. perhaps i've misunderstood. but, i don't want to go where i'm not welcome.
my position is this: if you find somebody's gender expression upsetting, then you're better off hanging out in a church than at an all-night dance party. i was at the right place. it is you, yourself that was at the wrong bar. given your worldview, maybe you shouldn't have been at a bar at all. and, the staff made the wrong decision.
it's not likely that i'll go back there.
it's not likely that i'll go back there.
the biggest threat to liberalism today is not conservativism. conservatism has been largely discredited. the biggest threats to liberalism come from these people that call themselves progressives, as they're trojan horses for the church - friendly fascists that want to enforce the same worldview that conservatives do, but prefer to use more collectivist methods.
that is the difference between a conservative and a progressive: conservatives are pragmatists that want to enforce religion with a gun, whereas progressives are idealists that want us to come to religion together and live it out via free will.
liberals that want to overthrow the religious order altogether need to step away and see them as two sides of the same coin.
that is the difference between a conservative and a progressive: conservatives are pragmatists that want to enforce religion with a gun, whereas progressives are idealists that want us to come to religion together and live it out via free will.
liberals that want to overthrow the religious order altogether need to step away and see them as two sides of the same coin.
this is what is happening: "progressives" and conservatives are merging into a bipartisan consensus that wants to push down a kind of deist religious order that strips out the specifics and upholds the general rules. and, if you reject the rules, they call you a racist. the result is that the society is renormalizing the messianic order under the cover of an acceptance of islam. we're to have these judaic value systems pushed down on us, one way or another. and, they've spun you around and got you standing up for christian values at all-night industrial dance parties and other spaces that should be safe from the influence of the authorities.
so, my argument in favour of rejecting and resisting so-called religious allies on the left is that, if allowed to occur unchecked, the renormalization of religion is going to undermine liberal value systems and lead to a more conservative society, where things like gender roles end up strictly enforced, as the christian society that we successfully destroyed once did in the past.
you don't see the irony, do you?
you don't see the irony, do you?
Thursday, May 25, 2017
the loan is actually due at the end of june. as expected, it's $320 to pay on the $300. so long as i pay it on time, it will only cost me $20.
obviously, i want to deal with this asap. the staff there were absurdly slimy; they made it abundantly clear that the business model is generating interest on repeat loans by taking advantage of people that aren't getting enough from assistance. luckily, i just need some quick cash to go dancing. i'll be happy if i never go back in there. but, i'm just going to have fun this weekend and figure out what the best way to juggle it is, afterwards.
i expect to pay it off right away on the 31st. but, i could technically put aside $150 this month and pay in full using $150 from the july check, as well. the thing is that i'm used to living with nothing, so paying it upfront will not harm me as much as it might harm others. it would obviously be more leisurely to soften it over two checks, but i may prioritize getting rid of the issue, instead. it will depend on what's left at the end of the weekend. if i run through everything, i'll probably split it over the two months. if i end up with more than $50 left, i'll probably pay it in full.
i need to nap.
obviously, i want to deal with this asap. the staff there were absurdly slimy; they made it abundantly clear that the business model is generating interest on repeat loans by taking advantage of people that aren't getting enough from assistance. luckily, i just need some quick cash to go dancing. i'll be happy if i never go back in there. but, i'm just going to have fun this weekend and figure out what the best way to juggle it is, afterwards.
i expect to pay it off right away on the 31st. but, i could technically put aside $150 this month and pay in full using $150 from the july check, as well. the thing is that i'm used to living with nothing, so paying it upfront will not harm me as much as it might harm others. it would obviously be more leisurely to soften it over two checks, but i may prioritize getting rid of the issue, instead. it will depend on what's left at the end of the weekend. if i run through everything, i'll probably split it over the two months. if i end up with more than $50 left, i'll probably pay it in full.
i need to nap.
i just want to stress the point.
i don't need this loan. i could stay in this weekend. i had three overnights already this month, although the first was unintentional. i had a good month, already. i merely want this loan.
there's no need for systemic reforms to allow me to party in detroit. this is frivolous. i'm well taken care of.
but, so long as it's really only going to cost me 20 bucks, i'm going to do it.
if i walk in there and get a different story, i'll walk right out. i mean, that's the difference between my circumstance and the circumstance of somebody getting taken advantage of: i can read the terms and walk out. i'm not in a day-at-a-time situation, where i need to take a gamble and hope for the best.
i don't need this loan. i could stay in this weekend. i had three overnights already this month, although the first was unintentional. i had a good month, already. i merely want this loan.
there's no need for systemic reforms to allow me to party in detroit. this is frivolous. i'm well taken care of.
but, so long as it's really only going to cost me 20 bucks, i'm going to do it.
if i walk in there and get a different story, i'll walk right out. i mean, that's the difference between my circumstance and the circumstance of somebody getting taken advantage of: i can read the terms and walk out. i'm not in a day-at-a-time situation, where i need to take a gamble and hope for the best.
there wasn't any really serious chance i was going to hitch to the dte to see tool in the summer of 2017, and pay a sum to get in that i don't even want to know about. i hope people that go have a good time.
i might have seen tera melos on the 13th, but i'd probably have walked out critical of it.
more likely would be noveller on the 14th, but i saw her here a few years ago, already. and, that show is cheap enough that i could maybe sell some cds....
it was just a quick run through, granted. i will need to do a more serious run next week. but, i did not immediately see any reason why i'd want to save my june spending money.
and, i'm consequently cleared to run this through.
i will need to put the $320 down on the 31st, first thing in the morning. with the $670 for rent, $30 for internet and $60 for hormones, that's going to leave me with about $50 for food for the first two weeks - unless i spend less than $300, of course. i'll get $60 in around the 10th. so, that's a little over $100. i budget for $200, but can eat well on $150 for one month. i have backups of most things. i'm really only going to need to buy perishables like fruit, bread, cheese and eggs - and i can do that for $130, if not $100. so, if i spend $250 instead of $300 this weekend, that will work itself out.
at the end of the day, i'm only throwing away $20 to do this. and, it doesn't seem like i'm throwing anything away in june...
yeah.
i'm doing it..
they're open at 8:00.
i might have seen tera melos on the 13th, but i'd probably have walked out critical of it.
more likely would be noveller on the 14th, but i saw her here a few years ago, already. and, that show is cheap enough that i could maybe sell some cds....
it was just a quick run through, granted. i will need to do a more serious run next week. but, i did not immediately see any reason why i'd want to save my june spending money.
and, i'm consequently cleared to run this through.
i will need to put the $320 down on the 31st, first thing in the morning. with the $670 for rent, $30 for internet and $60 for hormones, that's going to leave me with about $50 for food for the first two weeks - unless i spend less than $300, of course. i'll get $60 in around the 10th. so, that's a little over $100. i budget for $200, but can eat well on $150 for one month. i have backups of most things. i'm really only going to need to buy perishables like fruit, bread, cheese and eggs - and i can do that for $130, if not $100. so, if i spend $250 instead of $300 this weekend, that will work itself out.
at the end of the day, i'm only throwing away $20 to do this. and, it doesn't seem like i'm throwing anything away in june...
yeah.
i'm doing it..
they're open at 8:00.
i'm really just ordering my thoughts...
there's a payday loan company in windsor with a $300 for $20 deal on.
yes, i'll make sure there's nothing hidden.
that's going to get me to 3 of 4 days, at least. it'll be 4 if i stretch it to the max possible; more realistic is that it's three days, andi only spend something like $250.
if i do this, i'll be in for june, and probably need to cut my diet down a little - although that extra $50 is probably the difference.
i'm not sure it's worth it, yet. i have a few hours, still...
worst case, i could try and sell a few cds mid-month. or maybe try the same trick again. yeah, i know that that's how they get you, but so long as it's a $20 fee and i'm confident i'll catch up in a month or two, it's not so terrible. the thing you have to stop yourself from doing is not realizing fees. i'm too smart to get tricked, and too humble to get done in by arrogance. they won't get me on this.
and, i'll sue if anybody gets dishonest.
i'm seriously considering exploring it, anyways. i mean, i get paid on wednesday at midnight. and i can make my budget work for $320, even though i know i probably won't spend it all. it's really honestly just an advance for a week - although it's also going to honestly take away the whole of june, too.
hrmmn.
i guess i need to check june listings, too.
there's a payday loan company in windsor with a $300 for $20 deal on.
yes, i'll make sure there's nothing hidden.
that's going to get me to 3 of 4 days, at least. it'll be 4 if i stretch it to the max possible; more realistic is that it's three days, andi only spend something like $250.
if i do this, i'll be in for june, and probably need to cut my diet down a little - although that extra $50 is probably the difference.
i'm not sure it's worth it, yet. i have a few hours, still...
worst case, i could try and sell a few cds mid-month. or maybe try the same trick again. yeah, i know that that's how they get you, but so long as it's a $20 fee and i'm confident i'll catch up in a month or two, it's not so terrible. the thing you have to stop yourself from doing is not realizing fees. i'm too smart to get tricked, and too humble to get done in by arrogance. they won't get me on this.
and, i'll sue if anybody gets dishonest.
i'm seriously considering exploring it, anyways. i mean, i get paid on wednesday at midnight. and i can make my budget work for $320, even though i know i probably won't spend it all. it's really honestly just an advance for a week - although it's also going to honestly take away the whole of june, too.
hrmmn.
i guess i need to check june listings, too.
this is a very strong set.
unfortunately, it may be the only set worth attending tomorrow. well, tonight.
and, i don't actually know that the set tomorrow will be like this one, either.
the update on the weather is that it's not the best night, although it actually seems like the overnights are all comparable, it's the days that are going to be different temperatures.
not lining up well... but i have a few more hours to think about it...
unfortunately, it may be the only set worth attending tomorrow. well, tonight.
and, i don't actually know that the set tomorrow will be like this one, either.
the update on the weather is that it's not the best night, although it actually seems like the overnights are all comparable, it's the days that are going to be different temperatures.
not lining up well... but i have a few more hours to think about it...
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
i don't expect that a corbyn government would be much different from a may government.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/john-mcdonnell-shadow-chancellor-is-the-new-voice-of-fiscal-responsibility-a6927926.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/john-mcdonnell-shadow-chancellor-is-the-new-voice-of-fiscal-responsibility-a6927926.html
in north america, balanced budget amendments are associated with the extreme right - and portend crushing austerity when floated before or during elections.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2016/03/thinking-behind-john-mcdonnell-s-new-fiscal-credibility-rule
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2016/03/thinking-behind-john-mcdonnell-s-new-fiscal-credibility-rule
what does it mean to support the "freedom to pass things to your children" when you don't believe in property at all? or in the family, for that matter.
any support for inheritance is a propertarian position, clearly.
so, as an anti-propertarian (a necessary ideological position to hold in order to exist on the left) in a propertarian system, i'm left with a choice to make in which policy i think is less harmful: is it more tyrannical to seize property, or more tyrannical to uphold it?
you might think that's a silly question, but that's because you're a propertarian, and you've probably never read the critiques of property. property is freedom, but only at the expense of others; property is theft, but in being so enriches the individual that has it.....and, property is therefore impossible in a truly free society.
in a truly free society, the issue consequently wouldn't exist. that is, you wouldn't debate inheritance, because we wouldn't own anything to pass down to our children to begin with. it would simply be understood that the property would go to somebody that needs it. we would all recognize the logic in it, and nobody would push back against it.
in the short term, i have to make a pragmatic choice in the presence of the existence of property. which option more closely emulates my actual position on property? clearly, seizing it does. allowing property to pass across family lines is upholding the basis of feudalism, after all, and putting state support behind the concept of class. seizing property and redistributing it is an inevitable step in the abolition of property, anyways.
any support for inheritance is a propertarian position, clearly.
so, as an anti-propertarian (a necessary ideological position to hold in order to exist on the left) in a propertarian system, i'm left with a choice to make in which policy i think is less harmful: is it more tyrannical to seize property, or more tyrannical to uphold it?
you might think that's a silly question, but that's because you're a propertarian, and you've probably never read the critiques of property. property is freedom, but only at the expense of others; property is theft, but in being so enriches the individual that has it.....and, property is therefore impossible in a truly free society.
in a truly free society, the issue consequently wouldn't exist. that is, you wouldn't debate inheritance, because we wouldn't own anything to pass down to our children to begin with. it would simply be understood that the property would go to somebody that needs it. we would all recognize the logic in it, and nobody would push back against it.
in the short term, i have to make a pragmatic choice in the presence of the existence of property. which option more closely emulates my actual position on property? clearly, seizing it does. allowing property to pass across family lines is upholding the basis of feudalism, after all, and putting state support behind the concept of class. seizing property and redistributing it is an inevitable step in the abolition of property, anyways.
at least he's consistent in his views about reducing estate taxes....
https://www.ft.com/content/dc8a98fa-64ff-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2
https://www.ft.com/content/dc8a98fa-64ff-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2
this 'dementia tax' strikes me as a good idea, actually - and is similar to things i've suggested here. the answer to "who should pay for the boomer?" is the boomers, themselves.
i would broadly support taxes on inheritance. i would support any and all death and estate taxes. if the concern is that the tax will reduce inheritance, not only does that not concern me, but i'm actually in favour of that.
it's certainly strange that the conservatives are supporting a tax on inheritance, while the various parties that claim they are on the left are opposing it. conservatives are always strange creatures, in that they can come around from time to time. but, what leftist can stand in front of you with a straight face and oppose a tax on inheritance?
i would broadly support taxes on inheritance. i would support any and all death and estate taxes. if the concern is that the tax will reduce inheritance, not only does that not concern me, but i'm actually in favour of that.
it's certainly strange that the conservatives are supporting a tax on inheritance, while the various parties that claim they are on the left are opposing it. conservatives are always strange creatures, in that they can come around from time to time. but, what leftist can stand in front of you with a straight face and oppose a tax on inheritance?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)