Wednesday, March 14, 2018
from context to context, city to city, annoyance to annoyance, person to person, i've only ever wanted one thing out of life:
for everybody to just go away and leave me alone.
i don't know why it is, exactly, that this is such a difficult request for people to adhere to - or why it is that this is so universally difficult for people to understand.
for everybody to just go away and leave me alone.
i don't know why it is, exactly, that this is such a difficult request for people to adhere to - or why it is that this is so universally difficult for people to understand.
i'm slow to get started again today, but here i am.
i'm waiting for the guy to come to finish the last little bit of painting...
i really don't enjoy the smoke coming up from downstairs, or living life in a fog. again: i can't understand how anybody enjoys this on a daily basis. it's maybe making me understand why so many drug addicts kill themselves.
i feel like shit.
but, i have to wait until i can get things out of here before i can finish taping the walls over.
i finished august last night, and, again, it took some time, but it was the heaviest month, so far. hopefully, september is a little faster....
i'm waiting for the guy to come to finish the last little bit of painting...
i really don't enjoy the smoke coming up from downstairs, or living life in a fog. again: i can't understand how anybody enjoys this on a daily basis. it's maybe making me understand why so many drug addicts kill themselves.
i feel like shit.
but, i have to wait until i can get things out of here before i can finish taping the walls over.
i finished august last night, and, again, it took some time, but it was the heaviest month, so far. hopefully, september is a little faster....
i've identified dawkins for a reason, and it's that his arguments push atheism into a different era. early hitchens falls into the same category, although hitch enjoyed pushing buttons in ways dawkins doesn't bother with. religious thinkers will accuse him of missing points, but in doing so they are the ones missing the point: the points dawkins supposedly misses are, in truth, discarded as anachronisms. he doesn't have time for that nonsense. whether consciously or not, dawkins tosses entire swaths of argumentation in the trash heap where they belong, and then absolutely correctly just shrugs his critics off when they point it out. that's what science calls progress, no matter how loudly the theologians may howl, otherwise.
what's the use in debating aristotlean physics every time we want to talk about quantum mechanics? you maybe do it for five minutes at the start of the course. but, you don't dwell on failed theories. this is obvious to a scientist, but very difficult for a theologian, that wants to carry on ancient arguments into perpetuity.
but, the ideas of the new atheism are going to be connected more to an undiscovering of the past. asimov. russell. these were thinkers far ahead of their time, that were unfairly forgotten in the "new left" of the 60s, partially as a reaction to stalinism. what's going to unfold to future historians is how reactionary the baby boomer generation was. as they die off, their rejection of science is going to fade away, and we're going to pick up where we left off.
there will be new authors. we don't know who they are yet. but, they will be approaching atheism as a renaissance, and the new left will consequently be a kind of rediscovering of who it is that we once were - as we chart a path forward for who we wish to become.
what's the use in debating aristotlean physics every time we want to talk about quantum mechanics? you maybe do it for five minutes at the start of the course. but, you don't dwell on failed theories. this is obvious to a scientist, but very difficult for a theologian, that wants to carry on ancient arguments into perpetuity.
but, the ideas of the new atheism are going to be connected more to an undiscovering of the past. asimov. russell. these were thinkers far ahead of their time, that were unfairly forgotten in the "new left" of the 60s, partially as a reaction to stalinism. what's going to unfold to future historians is how reactionary the baby boomer generation was. as they die off, their rejection of science is going to fade away, and we're going to pick up where we left off.
there will be new authors. we don't know who they are yet. but, they will be approaching atheism as a renaissance, and the new left will consequently be a kind of rediscovering of who it is that we once were - as we chart a path forward for who we wish to become.
bill maher is broadly new left, but he's not a leading figure, and not an intellectual.
maher's biggest claim to fame is that he has a habit of thinking he's really smart, and having it blow up in his face when it's demonstrated that he's not. he's right once in a while, granted - makes the odd point worth taking note of. but, broadly speaking, he's a dolt.
he's on the new left's side of the spectrum, though. mostly.
maher's biggest claim to fame is that he has a habit of thinking he's really smart, and having it blow up in his face when it's demonstrated that he's not. he's right once in a while, granted - makes the odd point worth taking note of. but, broadly speaking, he's a dolt.
he's on the new left's side of the spectrum, though. mostly.
so, how's this for a real world choice.
party A - you can buy it at the corner store, and smoke it wherever you want.
party B - you can only buy it at specific places with restricted hours, and you're not allowed to smoke it inside.
i'd actually go with party B. keeping it out of my breathing space is more important to me than liberalizing access.
unfortunately, the liberal party position is that you can only buy it at specific places with restricted hours, and you're obligated to smoke it inside - which i disagree with on both planks. i think everybody was expecting the conservatives to offer minimal changes on this policy, so i was hoping this wouldn't be a ballot issue.
i will not be voting for doug ford in this election. i have too many disagreements with him.
but, let's hope the ndp have a better set of ideas than the liberals do, on this.
party A - you can buy it at the corner store, and smoke it wherever you want.
party B - you can only buy it at specific places with restricted hours, and you're not allowed to smoke it inside.
i'd actually go with party B. keeping it out of my breathing space is more important to me than liberalizing access.
unfortunately, the liberal party position is that you can only buy it at specific places with restricted hours, and you're obligated to smoke it inside - which i disagree with on both planks. i think everybody was expecting the conservatives to offer minimal changes on this policy, so i was hoping this wouldn't be a ballot issue.
i will not be voting for doug ford in this election. i have too many disagreements with him.
but, let's hope the ndp have a better set of ideas than the liberals do, on this.
to be clear: i think marijuana should be sold at corner stores. the rules should be somewhere between the rules for nicotine and the rules for caffeine; it is in theory as dangerous as nicotine, but in practice closer to caffeine in it's negative effects.
i remember buying jolt colas at the store when i was a kid, and maybe i should have had to flash an id to do it. some owners wouldn't sell it to me.
but, i'd also like to see laws restricting smoking in apartments.
so i'm in favour of very easy access, but stronger restrictions on where it can be used.
i remember buying jolt colas at the store when i was a kid, and maybe i should have had to flash an id to do it. some owners wouldn't sell it to me.
but, i'd also like to see laws restricting smoking in apartments.
so i'm in favour of very easy access, but stronger restrictions on where it can be used.
the truth is that the wide swath of sitting politicians, right now, really has no future besides retirement. the new spectrum is going to make very little sense to most of them, and they're not going to make sense within it, either.
i really wish that wynne would have stepped down while she had the chance.
what she's up against is a generational overturn as much as it is anything else.
and, the only reason that this generation didn't see this overturn coming is that it thought history ended when they assumed power. this isn't ahistorical; but stagnation in the face of generational overturn sure would be.
i really wish that wynne would have stepped down while she had the chance.
what she's up against is a generational overturn as much as it is anything else.
and, the only reason that this generation didn't see this overturn coming is that it thought history ended when they assumed power. this isn't ahistorical; but stagnation in the face of generational overturn sure would be.
the new right is a synthesis of religious ideas. it is going to be very brown. you want to look towards people like tariq ali reza aslan.
and, the new left is being constricted by people like richard dawkins. it is going to be very white.
maybe you're going to have to switch sides.
a lot of people are gong to have to switch sides.
*i imagined reza aslan, but typed tariq ali. brain freeze.
and, the new left is being constricted by people like richard dawkins. it is going to be very white.
maybe you're going to have to switch sides.
a lot of people are gong to have to switch sides.
*i imagined reza aslan, but typed tariq ali. brain freeze.
stop.
your vision of a pluralistic, liberal utopia is nonsense.
brown people don't want this. not muslims, not hindus, not sikhs - not anybody else. leftists don't want this. not anarchists, not socialists and not even liberals, either. market advocates don't want this. queers don't want this. christians don't want this.
nobody wants this.
the only people that want this are burkean conservatives - because the vision of pluralistic liberalism is in truth the same thing as the vision of class harmony.
but, the divisions are collapsing.
white people abandoned conservatism generations ago; the conservative block of the future is first and second generation religious conservatives and free market advocates. ford is going to realign this.
and, the new liberal base is educated white atheists that think markets are empty intellectual abstractions.
get with it, or be swept aside.
because nobody wants what anybody's been selling.
your vision of a pluralistic, liberal utopia is nonsense.
brown people don't want this. not muslims, not hindus, not sikhs - not anybody else. leftists don't want this. not anarchists, not socialists and not even liberals, either. market advocates don't want this. queers don't want this. christians don't want this.
nobody wants this.
the only people that want this are burkean conservatives - because the vision of pluralistic liberalism is in truth the same thing as the vision of class harmony.
but, the divisions are collapsing.
white people abandoned conservatism generations ago; the conservative block of the future is first and second generation religious conservatives and free market advocates. ford is going to realign this.
and, the new liberal base is educated white atheists that think markets are empty intellectual abstractions.
get with it, or be swept aside.
because nobody wants what anybody's been selling.
i never told anyone's kids to be quiet.
i pointed out that buddy's 50 year old, 300 pound mentally retarded niece was going to damage the floors if she kept running across it like a stampeding elephant - that you could hear the entire building shaking and it clearly was bad for the structure.
she actually literally damaged the light fixtures in the hallway with her girth coming down from above.
they told me they would keep the noise down.
but, i was clear - i told them at least 20 times after that that it wasn't a noise complaint, it was concern about the amount of weight coming down on the floor and how it was damaging the structure.
their insistence on interpreting it as a noise complaint, despite my repeated insistence to the contrary, was almost some kind of political correctness, as they couldn't believe i was complaining about fat people coming through the floor.
but, i was, in fact, complaining about fat people coming through the floor.
this woman is retarded. she stomps when she walks. she needs some training to teach her not to do that, but nobody wanted to address it.
i pointed out that buddy's 50 year old, 300 pound mentally retarded niece was going to damage the floors if she kept running across it like a stampeding elephant - that you could hear the entire building shaking and it clearly was bad for the structure.
she actually literally damaged the light fixtures in the hallway with her girth coming down from above.
they told me they would keep the noise down.
but, i was clear - i told them at least 20 times after that that it wasn't a noise complaint, it was concern about the amount of weight coming down on the floor and how it was damaging the structure.
their insistence on interpreting it as a noise complaint, despite my repeated insistence to the contrary, was almost some kind of political correctness, as they couldn't believe i was complaining about fat people coming through the floor.
but, i was, in fact, complaining about fat people coming through the floor.
this woman is retarded. she stomps when she walks. she needs some training to teach her not to do that, but nobody wanted to address it.
i'm far from a market advocate. it's not the point.
if ford is smart, he'll tone the "free market" rhetoric down, because it's going to alienate people that otherwise agree with the crux of further liberalizing access.
i mean, we have an lcbo monopoly, but we don't have access problems to alcohol. the issue is less who and more how.
the reality is that liberals' legalization plan is designed to restrict access, not to liberalize it. it's as close as a continuation of prohibition as they could have gotten way with - it's really just a step away from restricting sales to the internet. and, the hurdles to get pot in the store (including having to sit through an anti-drug lecture - not joking) are so outrageous that online purchase could very well be preferable to most people.
nobody voted for that kind of nonsense. and, even a strict fiscal conservative is just going to interpret it as a waste of money.
they could have just sold it at liquor stores. they could have let bartenders sell it. they could have done a million things differently - but they took the most conservative approach possible.
and, i worried about this.
it's going to backfire. the question is how badly, and how well the ndp can help mitigate.
if ford is smart, he'll tone the "free market" rhetoric down, because it's going to alienate people that otherwise agree with the crux of further liberalizing access.
i mean, we have an lcbo monopoly, but we don't have access problems to alcohol. the issue is less who and more how.
the reality is that liberals' legalization plan is designed to restrict access, not to liberalize it. it's as close as a continuation of prohibition as they could have gotten way with - it's really just a step away from restricting sales to the internet. and, the hurdles to get pot in the store (including having to sit through an anti-drug lecture - not joking) are so outrageous that online purchase could very well be preferable to most people.
nobody voted for that kind of nonsense. and, even a strict fiscal conservative is just going to interpret it as a waste of money.
they could have just sold it at liquor stores. they could have let bartenders sell it. they could have done a million things differently - but they took the most conservative approach possible.
and, i worried about this.
it's going to backfire. the question is how badly, and how well the ndp can help mitigate.
i don't know why the liberals took such a foolish position on this issue.
this was the wildcard conservative position i was worried about...and only ford was likely to have seriously taken it....
if the conservatives seriously run on this - and are the only party running on it - then they will probably win a majority.
on this particular issue, the wynne government has prioritized the narrow interests of the conservative minority over the interests of the majority. as far as i can tell, it's a consequence of the inner party being out of touch with the concerns of real voters. but, this is entirely self-inflicted - they could have legislated open access. they decided not to.
let's hope that the ndp doesn't let them bogart this. but, i suspect they're going to be just as clueless, and just as concerned about appealing to middle-of-the-road conservative voters.
ontario leans left 3:1, and has for forty years.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/pc-leader-doug-ford-cannabis-ottawa-morning-1.4573790
this was the wildcard conservative position i was worried about...and only ford was likely to have seriously taken it....
if the conservatives seriously run on this - and are the only party running on it - then they will probably win a majority.
on this particular issue, the wynne government has prioritized the narrow interests of the conservative minority over the interests of the majority. as far as i can tell, it's a consequence of the inner party being out of touch with the concerns of real voters. but, this is entirely self-inflicted - they could have legislated open access. they decided not to.
let's hope that the ndp doesn't let them bogart this. but, i suspect they're going to be just as clueless, and just as concerned about appealing to middle-of-the-road conservative voters.
ontario leans left 3:1, and has for forty years.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/pc-leader-doug-ford-cannabis-ottawa-morning-1.4573790
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
i want to address a silly point, just so it's written somewhere.
when i copied all of my comments off of the internet, i wasn't able to get exact dates and times for many of them, and didn't make the effort to be careful about it for others. so, as i'm reconstructing the comments, i'm making approximations as to the exact dates and exact times.
i assure you that i'm not making up new comments. i frankly have better things to do. and, i'll remind you that the point of this is actually to build the liner notes for my aleph-discs: this is a music project. but, a very keen individual could no doubt point out that certain things are not in the right order...
sure.
first - get a life.
second - i'm doing this as best as i can.
all i can do is acknowledge the defect and carry on...
there's a point a little later on where this shifts, and i make a stronger point to record the time and date as i'm archiving.
when i copied all of my comments off of the internet, i wasn't able to get exact dates and times for many of them, and didn't make the effort to be careful about it for others. so, as i'm reconstructing the comments, i'm making approximations as to the exact dates and exact times.
i assure you that i'm not making up new comments. i frankly have better things to do. and, i'll remind you that the point of this is actually to build the liner notes for my aleph-discs: this is a music project. but, a very keen individual could no doubt point out that certain things are not in the right order...
sure.
first - get a life.
second - i'm doing this as best as i can.
all i can do is acknowledge the defect and carry on...
there's a point a little later on where this shifts, and i make a stronger point to record the time and date as i'm archiving.
what i will say is this: i had problems with skater/thug bullies in high school, but the jocks mostly left me alone. not entirely; i had to dump a full bottle of water (actually, his bottle of water - it's not an exciting story, that's all there is to it) over the head of the star hockey player as he was sitting in class in front of everybody at one point in grade eleven because he kept spraying me, but mostly.
i just took the bottle of water off his desk, took it to the bathroom, filled it up (full.) and slowly drained it over top of his head, as he sat there in shock, and the rest of the class gasped. detention. but, he left me alone after that.
the fact that i made the football team in grade nine probably had something to do with the fact that i was mostly left alone.
i just took the bottle of water off his desk, took it to the bathroom, filled it up (full.) and slowly drained it over top of his head, as he sat there in shock, and the rest of the class gasped. detention. but, he left me alone after that.
the fact that i made the football team in grade nine probably had something to do with the fact that i was mostly left alone.
my dad was a high school sports hero, so he had some expectations that i had no intention of ever living up to. i never learned to skate, but he had his way in forcing me into playing football for a couple of years. grades 8-9.
i made the football team in grade 9. i didn't even try, really - but i did show up to one of the tryouts kind of pissed off about something, and in need of winning a race. i was legitimately fit, if not muscular - not tall, but thin and in good cardio-vascular health. so, i could beat most of the jocks at 100m, 200m, 500m - really any distance.
they pencilled me in as a defensive back. the job was to be as fast as the receivers, and that was a job i could do.
but, i had more interceptions than tackles.
that was kind of a problem, in the end.
i just didn't have the aggression to hit people, and wasn't interested in developing it.
but, if i was more angry and less apathetic, i might have been a decent safety.
i didn't bother trying out in grade 10.
i made the football team in grade 9. i didn't even try, really - but i did show up to one of the tryouts kind of pissed off about something, and in need of winning a race. i was legitimately fit, if not muscular - not tall, but thin and in good cardio-vascular health. so, i could beat most of the jocks at 100m, 200m, 500m - really any distance.
they pencilled me in as a defensive back. the job was to be as fast as the receivers, and that was a job i could do.
but, i had more interceptions than tackles.
that was kind of a problem, in the end.
i just didn't have the aggression to hit people, and wasn't interested in developing it.
but, if i was more angry and less apathetic, i might have been a decent safety.
i didn't bother trying out in grade 10.
i may prefer the qatari vision over the saudi one, but al jazeera is state propaganda, and speaks for nobody besides the qatari ruling class.
the idea that it's some kind of genuine voice of the arab street is laughable.
but, more poignantly, it points to the ideological errors that are taking over the contemporary left, which is being tricked by identity politics into latching on to a mouthpiece for an aspect of the ruling petrostate. it is placing religious and ethnic identity ahead of a coherent class analysis. and, that can never be anything besides deeply reactionary.
as a consequence, you have these people out there running around spewing this turko-qatari propaganda as some kind of indigenous narrative.
these people should be treated as laughingstocks.
they're useful idiots.
the idea that it's some kind of genuine voice of the arab street is laughable.
but, more poignantly, it points to the ideological errors that are taking over the contemporary left, which is being tricked by identity politics into latching on to a mouthpiece for an aspect of the ruling petrostate. it is placing religious and ethnic identity ahead of a coherent class analysis. and, that can never be anything besides deeply reactionary.
as a consequence, you have these people out there running around spewing this turko-qatari propaganda as some kind of indigenous narrative.
these people should be treated as laughingstocks.
they're useful idiots.
even if she loses, it would be divine to watch naomi smack down trudeau in the debates.
and, historically, the purpose of the ndp has been less to actually win, and more to change the narrative. the current ndp is just another status quo neo-liberal party.
she might have to take over the greens, instead.
so, it's easy to come up with a convincing argument that running for - or, unfortunately, against - the ndp would be in line with advancing a social revolution - and even that it's a necessary step in order to really advance it.
and, historically, the purpose of the ndp has been less to actually win, and more to change the narrative. the current ndp is just another status quo neo-liberal party.
she might have to take over the greens, instead.
so, it's easy to come up with a convincing argument that running for - or, unfortunately, against - the ndp would be in line with advancing a social revolution - and even that it's a necessary step in order to really advance it.
if the nep had been a failure, it wouldn't be as reviled as it is in alberta.
the only failure that i see is justin trudeau.
i don't exactly want to bring back the nep. climate change was not a pressing problem in the early 1980s, and one would hope that the elder trudeau would react to the evidence differently today, given his insistence on "reason over passion". i don't know if he publicly commented on climate change in his time out of office.
but, bringing back the basic idea of the nep - which was to utilize the country's national resources for the benefit of the national interest, rather than the benefit of foreign interests, and in particular foreign capital, which is the status quo - would certainly be a step in the right direction.
we are unlikely to make serious steps towards transition so long as the industry is in the hands of the private sector.
the closest thing to a political voice that we have in canada today, towards that direction, is naomi klein - who heads a faction of the ndp that has been completely ignored by the party's politburo.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/03/13/Kinder-Morgan-Make-Trudeau-One-Term-PM/
the only failure that i see is justin trudeau.
i don't exactly want to bring back the nep. climate change was not a pressing problem in the early 1980s, and one would hope that the elder trudeau would react to the evidence differently today, given his insistence on "reason over passion". i don't know if he publicly commented on climate change in his time out of office.
but, bringing back the basic idea of the nep - which was to utilize the country's national resources for the benefit of the national interest, rather than the benefit of foreign interests, and in particular foreign capital, which is the status quo - would certainly be a step in the right direction.
we are unlikely to make serious steps towards transition so long as the industry is in the hands of the private sector.
the closest thing to a political voice that we have in canada today, towards that direction, is naomi klein - who heads a faction of the ndp that has been completely ignored by the party's politburo.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/03/13/Kinder-Morgan-Make-Trudeau-One-Term-PM/
Monday, March 12, 2018
i'm going to say this clearly.
if trudeau & singh end up in a hipster war, scheer will win in a landslide.
this is an example of bubble-thinking. political strategists don't get out much, and when they do, they don't talk to real people.
the reality is that hipsters are below apple users in the hierarchy of uncoolness.
if trudeau & singh end up in a hipster war, scheer will win in a landslide.
this is an example of bubble-thinking. political strategists don't get out much, and when they do, they don't talk to real people.
the reality is that hipsters are below apple users in the hierarchy of uncoolness.
i understand that there is a certain type of woman that is going to be attracted to jagmeet singh.
but, you have to understand that the vast majority of women are going to find him to be absolutely disgusting looking.
it's not the headgear. it's not the skin colour. it's not even the aroma, that you can no doubt smell through the screen.
it's the beard.
it's gross.
but, you have to understand that the vast majority of women are going to find him to be absolutely disgusting looking.
it's not the headgear. it's not the skin colour. it's not even the aroma, that you can no doubt smell through the screen.
it's the beard.
it's gross.
.jpg)
i'm a 6.66.
and, hitch would at least give himself an epsilon.
7.0 is just another type of fundamentalism, and hitch wasn't that, not even in his psychotic later years.
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/atheism-easter-atheister
and, hitch would at least give himself an epsilon.
7.0 is just another type of fundamentalism, and hitch wasn't that, not even in his psychotic later years.
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/atheism-easter-atheister
this idea of talking about what people in the past thought about god is deeply flawed.
would you ask aristotle what he thought about relativity? then why ask him what he thinks about god? it's just as foolish.
why would we think newton's theology is less flawed than his physics? and, that is ignoring the threat of harm he was under for deviating from orthodoxy.
we need to look at the evidence that exists today, not the arguments that existed in the past, before much of that evidence was available.
i would rather ask the question of what past thinkers might think if presented with the evidence we have today than ask the question of what they thought given the evidence available to them. while this can only be speculative, it's far more useful.
would you ask aristotle what he thought about relativity? then why ask him what he thinks about god? it's just as foolish.
why would we think newton's theology is less flawed than his physics? and, that is ignoring the threat of harm he was under for deviating from orthodoxy.
we need to look at the evidence that exists today, not the arguments that existed in the past, before much of that evidence was available.
i would rather ask the question of what past thinkers might think if presented with the evidence we have today than ask the question of what they thought given the evidence available to them. while this can only be speculative, it's far more useful.
atheism is going to win in the end.
it would probably win right now, if the issue were forced.
the moment it is forced? watch out.
this is a sleeping elephant, waiting to be stirred.
listen: i'm the one that wants this done as humanely as possible, but it's going to be done. we have to secularize the laws further, not continue to work in these loopholes for ideas that are being left in the trash heap.
religious plurality is not progress. progress is the discarding of religion as an anachronism. and, the progress inherent in the atheist and humanist movements is not going to be held back by some burkean conservatives masquerading as liberals.
do not fall for these "progressives". they are trojan horses for stagnation, or backwardness.
so, i say this to the liberal political class: go ahead and choose plurality over atheism, in a situation where they are in direct conflict. see how that works out for you.
i dare you.
leave that for the conservatives. as, that will be their role, in the end.
it would probably win right now, if the issue were forced.
the moment it is forced? watch out.
this is a sleeping elephant, waiting to be stirred.
listen: i'm the one that wants this done as humanely as possible, but it's going to be done. we have to secularize the laws further, not continue to work in these loopholes for ideas that are being left in the trash heap.
religious plurality is not progress. progress is the discarding of religion as an anachronism. and, the progress inherent in the atheist and humanist movements is not going to be held back by some burkean conservatives masquerading as liberals.
do not fall for these "progressives". they are trojan horses for stagnation, or backwardness.
so, i say this to the liberal political class: go ahead and choose plurality over atheism, in a situation where they are in direct conflict. see how that works out for you.
i dare you.
leave that for the conservatives. as, that will be their role, in the end.
also, bach was more of a mathematician than a composer.
and, while i can appreciate his work as a mathematician - as well as a classical guitarist - i do find that he gets prodding rather quickly, as the lack of emotional investment quickly reduces the artistic value of the work.
so, it is perhaps worth pointing out that so much of his work was commissioned - that is, purchased for a sum - rather than produced for purely artistic motives. it's rather obvious.
that said, the novelty saves it from the kind of artistic death one hears in a rossini or a mozart. bach may have been working for profit, but he was exploring a new system of tonality, and so there is this playful dimension to much of it. but, this is the appreciation of a mathematician, and not of an artist.
i would give him a fields medal before i gave him a grammy.
and, john williams was better at guitar than at film music, too.
and, while i can appreciate his work as a mathematician - as well as a classical guitarist - i do find that he gets prodding rather quickly, as the lack of emotional investment quickly reduces the artistic value of the work.
so, it is perhaps worth pointing out that so much of his work was commissioned - that is, purchased for a sum - rather than produced for purely artistic motives. it's rather obvious.
that said, the novelty saves it from the kind of artistic death one hears in a rossini or a mozart. bach may have been working for profit, but he was exploring a new system of tonality, and so there is this playful dimension to much of it. but, this is the appreciation of a mathematician, and not of an artist.
i would give him a fields medal before i gave him a grammy.
and, john williams was better at guitar than at film music, too.
could we become the majority by 2030?
there's still way more of us than there are muslims, even if muslims have a faster growth rate. in canada, islam is atheism's greatest threat - clearly. but it's going to be a while before we have to act on it.
https://www.crop.ca/en/blog/2017/169/
there's still way more of us than there are muslims, even if muslims have a faster growth rate. in canada, islam is atheism's greatest threat - clearly. but it's going to be a while before we have to act on it.
https://www.crop.ca/en/blog/2017/169/
listen.
why did tommy douglas do?
why is he famous?
why does the ndp even exist?
he took on the doctors. and, he won.
so, asking the ndp to fight the doctors on a point of providing access - in this case in helping open the way for the coming secularization of society, as atheism becomes the dominant religion in canada - is absolutely in the party's tradition.
why did tommy douglas do?
why is he famous?
why does the ndp even exist?
he took on the doctors. and, he won.
so, asking the ndp to fight the doctors on a point of providing access - in this case in helping open the way for the coming secularization of society, as atheism becomes the dominant religion in canada - is absolutely in the party's tradition.
the ndp took a hard swing to the right in the last election and got nailed for it.
it's the same party. same leader. but, they're falling back to their traditional messaging, which is about education & healthcare.
trust issues aside, i've spent a lot of time at the hospital over the last few years, and i don't have much to complain about regarding things like wait times. and i don't exactly live in a booming economy, either.
the only problems i've had with the system over the last few years are around the question of access. i've had some problems with doctors - both christians and muslims - that feel that they have some right to enforce their religious views on their patients. if i were to make tweaks to the system, it would be to ensure that there are stronger rules put in place to ensure that doctors are prevented from denying access, based on their religious beliefs.
the issues i've had have been around my gender identity. but, this is also an issue for people seeking assisted suicide (or, i guess, for their remaining family members), for women seeking abortion and for other medical services that ontarians ought to have total, open access to - but may be seen negatively through various religious filters.
i would like to see doctors told very clearly that if they are going to deny services then they are going to have their licenses revoked.
more money is always good, don't get me wrong. but, the liberals themselves campaigned on this many years ago, and i'm not, personally, feeling like there's a lot of work necessary to do, here.
the ndp will, of course, make it seem like we're facing a crisis. that's good politics. i just don't think it's true...
http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/ontario-ndp-leader-horwath-commits-dedicated-mental-health-and-addition-ministry
it's the same party. same leader. but, they're falling back to their traditional messaging, which is about education & healthcare.
trust issues aside, i've spent a lot of time at the hospital over the last few years, and i don't have much to complain about regarding things like wait times. and i don't exactly live in a booming economy, either.
the only problems i've had with the system over the last few years are around the question of access. i've had some problems with doctors - both christians and muslims - that feel that they have some right to enforce their religious views on their patients. if i were to make tweaks to the system, it would be to ensure that there are stronger rules put in place to ensure that doctors are prevented from denying access, based on their religious beliefs.
the issues i've had have been around my gender identity. but, this is also an issue for people seeking assisted suicide (or, i guess, for their remaining family members), for women seeking abortion and for other medical services that ontarians ought to have total, open access to - but may be seen negatively through various religious filters.
i would like to see doctors told very clearly that if they are going to deny services then they are going to have their licenses revoked.
more money is always good, don't get me wrong. but, the liberals themselves campaigned on this many years ago, and i'm not, personally, feeling like there's a lot of work necessary to do, here.
the ndp will, of course, make it seem like we're facing a crisis. that's good politics. i just don't think it's true...
http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/ontario-ndp-leader-horwath-commits-dedicated-mental-health-and-addition-ministry
i don't really have a problem with this, so long as the library actually gets moved - although i might suggest prioritizing new housing over more mission space. my main concern would be that we need somewhere to store local records.
one good idea would be to put the new library in the wave pool building.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/library-branch-sold-downtown-mission-1.4559616
one good idea would be to put the new library in the wave pool building.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/library-branch-sold-downtown-mission-1.4559616
see, i'm hoping that ontarians are able to see rachel notley for the disaster that she is and not make the same mistake.
i mean, we're smarter than albertans...
....right?
http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/alberta-diary/2018/03/andrea-horwath-will-be-ontarios-next-premier-remember-where-you
i mean, we're smarter than albertans...
....right?
http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/alberta-diary/2018/03/andrea-horwath-will-be-ontarios-next-premier-remember-where-you
the election here could end up the other way, you know.
the ndp could get off to a fast start, forcing liberal voters to make the choice that ndp voters usually have to make. and, ford is going to be harder to vote for than harper for most liberals in the gta.
but, horwath has spent her career campaigning in the middle, and she's going to be a very hard sell. on top of that, as soon as she gets the spotlight on her, she's no doubt going to pull a mulcair - or have to deal with muckracking liberals convincingly painting her as the neo-conservative that she truthfully really actually is. even if she does get off to a good start, that doesn't mean she can hold it.
like every other conservative at ever other level in this country, ford has to split the vote somehow.
also: they said women hated trump, and they probably did. but, in the end, trump actually won white women, who appear to have been whipped by their husbands. numerically speaking, they decided the election (although i'm convinced that it was actually decided by voter suppression laws). let us hope that if anything is different in canada, it's that this doesn't happen here.
the ndp could get off to a fast start, forcing liberal voters to make the choice that ndp voters usually have to make. and, ford is going to be harder to vote for than harper for most liberals in the gta.
but, horwath has spent her career campaigning in the middle, and she's going to be a very hard sell. on top of that, as soon as she gets the spotlight on her, she's no doubt going to pull a mulcair - or have to deal with muckracking liberals convincingly painting her as the neo-conservative that she truthfully really actually is. even if she does get off to a good start, that doesn't mean she can hold it.
like every other conservative at ever other level in this country, ford has to split the vote somehow.
also: they said women hated trump, and they probably did. but, in the end, trump actually won white women, who appear to have been whipped by their husbands. numerically speaking, they decided the election (although i'm convinced that it was actually decided by voter suppression laws). let us hope that if anything is different in canada, it's that this doesn't happen here.
i'm a morning person. well, so long as i don't have to be anywhere, in the morning, anyways; i guess i'm more of a night owl, but i am usually awake when the sun comes up, and rather enjoy it when it does appear.
i want my hour of sunlight in the morning back :(.
i mean, if there's ever been an argument for anarchism, it's this. i didn't vote to make the sun come up an hour later. nor is there any good reason for this. this is just purely arbitrary. how did we end up with an institution that thinks it has enough power to decide when the sun should come up?
i want my hour of sunlight in the morning back :(.
i mean, if there's ever been an argument for anarchism, it's this. i didn't vote to make the sun come up an hour later. nor is there any good reason for this. this is just purely arbitrary. how did we end up with an institution that thinks it has enough power to decide when the sun should come up?
i was up a little later tonight, and am now done eating and ready to start the day.
i haven't smelled any drugs wafting up here yet tonight, so hopefully the adjustments i made yesterday afternoon are good enough to allow me to focus for the day. i've also left the cabinets open. so long as it's cold out, the cold air flowing down should both clear out the passageways a little bit and keep any smoke down there from rising up.
there are other explanations, but let's hope i've got a handle on this.
i haven't smelled any drugs wafting up here yet tonight, so hopefully the adjustments i made yesterday afternoon are good enough to allow me to focus for the day. i've also left the cabinets open. so long as it's cold out, the cold air flowing down should both clear out the passageways a little bit and keep any smoke down there from rising up.
there are other explanations, but let's hope i've got a handle on this.
i think said's point was basically correct, but he's maybe making too much of it.
you still see this kind of thing. canada's sitting prime minister, justin trudeau, took a recent trip to india and what followed was an example of orientalism taken to it's most ridiculous extremes. everybody involved - the prime minister, his wife and his advisors - appear to have been living in the same fantasy reality, with this. his father was actually quite keenly aware of this sort of nonsense and would have barfed if he were alive to see this (although he would have never allowed it to happen, either).
but, i also have a sneaking suspicion that the root cause of this was that a young justin found some kipling on a book shelf somewhere, and never fully undid it's effects.
and, i think that this is really all that said is truly pointing out - that western perspectives of the east remain startlingly out of date. it's less that those stereotypes are completely wrong and more that they're anachronistic, and little attempt was made by western intellectuals to stay up to date on changes happening in other parts of the world.
one could imagine that a barbary pirate making a stop on the coast of new england in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries may have had some colourful stories to bring back to north africa about the new england puritans. reading those stories today wouldn't be wrong, exactly. but, it would certainly be wrong to apply that concept of puritan protestantism to modern boston. i mean, the irish hadn't even shown up, yet.
one can only imagine how the ancient inhabitants of providence would react to lightning bolt.
so, i mean, it's a valid point, and everything. but, it's maybe overblown.
you still see this kind of thing. canada's sitting prime minister, justin trudeau, took a recent trip to india and what followed was an example of orientalism taken to it's most ridiculous extremes. everybody involved - the prime minister, his wife and his advisors - appear to have been living in the same fantasy reality, with this. his father was actually quite keenly aware of this sort of nonsense and would have barfed if he were alive to see this (although he would have never allowed it to happen, either).
but, i also have a sneaking suspicion that the root cause of this was that a young justin found some kipling on a book shelf somewhere, and never fully undid it's effects.
and, i think that this is really all that said is truly pointing out - that western perspectives of the east remain startlingly out of date. it's less that those stereotypes are completely wrong and more that they're anachronistic, and little attempt was made by western intellectuals to stay up to date on changes happening in other parts of the world.
one could imagine that a barbary pirate making a stop on the coast of new england in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries may have had some colourful stories to bring back to north africa about the new england puritans. reading those stories today wouldn't be wrong, exactly. but, it would certainly be wrong to apply that concept of puritan protestantism to modern boston. i mean, the irish hadn't even shown up, yet.
one can only imagine how the ancient inhabitants of providence would react to lightning bolt.
so, i mean, it's a valid point, and everything. but, it's maybe overblown.
so, it's true that the iranians - for example - are not arabs, but they have been arabized through the process of islamification.
there was a time when there were more arabs in iran (by percentage of the population) than there are today, too.
so, iran would be a good example of a culture where decolonization means dearabization, which is the same thing as demuslimification, or deislamicization.
if you're not following, it's because you're confusing colonialism with westernization, and what you're really calling for is dewesternization, not decolonization. and, you can think whatever the fuck you want. you can go live in the forest, if you can find one, for all i care. i just want you to be honest and concise about it, so i can demonstrate that you're wrong, properly.
i mean, it's the most frustrating fucking thing in the world to get into a debate with somebody that can't even define what they're proposing, leaving me with the task of having to construct their argument for them, before i'm able to disassemble it. do you want me to decolonize you for yourself , too? fuck...
there was a time when there were more arabs in iran (by percentage of the population) than there are today, too.
so, iran would be a good example of a culture where decolonization means dearabization, which is the same thing as demuslimification, or deislamicization.
if you're not following, it's because you're confusing colonialism with westernization, and what you're really calling for is dewesternization, not decolonization. and, you can think whatever the fuck you want. you can go live in the forest, if you can find one, for all i care. i just want you to be honest and concise about it, so i can demonstrate that you're wrong, properly.
i mean, it's the most frustrating fucking thing in the world to get into a debate with somebody that can't even define what they're proposing, leaving me with the task of having to construct their argument for them, before i'm able to disassemble it. do you want me to decolonize you for yourself , too? fuck...
if you're going to have a conversation about decolonization without including dearabization - or demuslimification, whatever - then what you're really talking about is dewesternization - and, implicitly, re-muslimification.
it would just be useful if you were transparent and honest.
because, i'm in your side about decolonization, but i'm not on your side about re-muslimification.
it would just be useful if you were transparent and honest.
because, i'm in your side about decolonization, but i'm not on your side about re-muslimification.
historically speaking, as tools for imperialism and expansion and slavery and colonialism, christianity and islam have really always been pretty much exactly the same thing.
they copied each other, relentlessly.
the idea of jihad, for example, was invented by a roman emperor, heraclius, to rescue the "true cross" and restore it to jerusalem. the muslims then stole that idea, flat out, and used it to further their own interests.
on the other hand, the papal bull that authorized christians to enslave pagans and 'saracens' and set off the period of european colonialism was modelled after the muslim practice of enslaving non-muslims, and was something the christian world hadn't really done, previously. in fact, the english word for slave is etymologically derived from the english word for russian - slav. and, we know the russians were both white and christian, at least in the period of time since william the conqueror.
so, how can we talk about decolonization without including dearabization along with implied dechristianization?
i'm not blaming anything or anyone besides an incomplete understanding of history, which is so often the problem on the left.
they copied each other, relentlessly.
the idea of jihad, for example, was invented by a roman emperor, heraclius, to rescue the "true cross" and restore it to jerusalem. the muslims then stole that idea, flat out, and used it to further their own interests.
on the other hand, the papal bull that authorized christians to enslave pagans and 'saracens' and set off the period of european colonialism was modelled after the muslim practice of enslaving non-muslims, and was something the christian world hadn't really done, previously. in fact, the english word for slave is etymologically derived from the english word for russian - slav. and, we know the russians were both white and christian, at least in the period of time since william the conqueror.
so, how can we talk about decolonization without including dearabization along with implied dechristianization?
i'm not blaming anything or anyone besides an incomplete understanding of history, which is so often the problem on the left.
listen.
i'm just as into phoenicianism, and coptism - and, berberism, too!
the historical record is pretty clear that the initial arab conquerors were so dark-skinned as to nearly be black, and that is something that you only really see today in the very south of the arabian peninsula. just on purely logical grounds, it's hard to take this idea that a couple of million arabs - if that - were able to depopulate and displace two thirds of the roman empire, and the entirety of the persian one in a couple of decades. nor does history uphold the idea that the arabs carried out the kind of rape and mass slaughter that the mongols did (and that explains why such a huge percentage of the historically persian areas are today majority turkic).
the arabs followed mallory's "elite dominance" model. they took over the government, and they certainly left some genetic evidence behind, but they did not replace the existing populations. they didn't even enforce their religion, at first. arabization was a slow, cultural process driven by carrots and sticks. so, the libyans are berbers, and the egyptians are copts and the lebanese are phonenicians and the syrians are just that, too - they've just all been colonized by arabs and lost their identities.
this is why decolonization also means dearabization.
to suggest something different for the palestinians would be inconsistent, to present a special case. and, the evidence is perhaps even stronger for jewish continuity than it is for, say, babylonian continuity, given that there was a stage of persian colonization in mesopotamia, as well.
i'm just as into phoenicianism, and coptism - and, berberism, too!
the historical record is pretty clear that the initial arab conquerors were so dark-skinned as to nearly be black, and that is something that you only really see today in the very south of the arabian peninsula. just on purely logical grounds, it's hard to take this idea that a couple of million arabs - if that - were able to depopulate and displace two thirds of the roman empire, and the entirety of the persian one in a couple of decades. nor does history uphold the idea that the arabs carried out the kind of rape and mass slaughter that the mongols did (and that explains why such a huge percentage of the historically persian areas are today majority turkic).
the arabs followed mallory's "elite dominance" model. they took over the government, and they certainly left some genetic evidence behind, but they did not replace the existing populations. they didn't even enforce their religion, at first. arabization was a slow, cultural process driven by carrots and sticks. so, the libyans are berbers, and the egyptians are copts and the lebanese are phonenicians and the syrians are just that, too - they've just all been colonized by arabs and lost their identities.
this is why decolonization also means dearabization.
to suggest something different for the palestinians would be inconsistent, to present a special case. and, the evidence is perhaps even stronger for jewish continuity than it is for, say, babylonian continuity, given that there was a stage of persian colonization in mesopotamia, as well.
it's one of those deep, esoteric historical points that reveals itself to me slowly over time, and so i'm going to keep going back to it, but this just came to me as i was doing the dishes - a summary of previous points, but perhaps worth stating in it's own terms.
what the state of israel is doing in the levant, today, is finishing the job that the romans started 2000 years ago. for, the palestinians are the true descendants of biblical israel, insofar as it ever existed at all. they have forgotten their identity, forgotten their beliefs and forgotten their history. this has all been taken from them. today, they are told they are not jews at all - and they believe it. the very last step of the roman genocide is to remove them from the land, altogether.
what the state of israel is doing in the levant, today, is finishing the job that the romans started 2000 years ago. for, the palestinians are the true descendants of biblical israel, insofar as it ever existed at all. they have forgotten their identity, forgotten their beliefs and forgotten their history. this has all been taken from them. today, they are told they are not jews at all - and they believe it. the very last step of the roman genocide is to remove them from the land, altogether.
Sunday, March 11, 2018
regarding bernie sanders and the russian hoax...
why is he doing this? does it prove he's compromised?
i think you want to flip it around: it proves how important the narrative is to the deep state. and, this isn't the only example of bernie going along with status quo foreign policy, despite probably not actually believing it.
i mean, maybe he fell for it. but, he has a pretty good track record of not falling for things, doesn't he? so, why fall for this?
the truth is that it doesn't matter, from any reasonable leftist domestic perspective. and, i think bernie himself has been pretty clear that he's not an anti-imperialist candidate, never has been and never will be; he's about domestic policies first and foremost, and willing to ignore these tricky foreign policy issues that could turn global oligarchs against him....
so, the way to look at is this.
1) if sanders goes along with the russia hoax, he doesn't create powerful enemies. and, what harm does this actually do? why would anybody actually care?
2) but, if sanders goes against the russia hoax, the cia goes out of their way to destroy him - and millions of voters think he's in kahoots, too.
3) so, the rational choice is to play stupid, until it works itself out.
see, and this is why i think the deep state didn't just abandon him, but came to see him as the greatest threat. it's not his policies that scared them. it was his willingness to subvert the subversion - to make a deal with people that aren't using to making deals.
you and i know better. millions don't.
i'd just drop it.
why is he doing this? does it prove he's compromised?
i think you want to flip it around: it proves how important the narrative is to the deep state. and, this isn't the only example of bernie going along with status quo foreign policy, despite probably not actually believing it.
i mean, maybe he fell for it. but, he has a pretty good track record of not falling for things, doesn't he? so, why fall for this?
the truth is that it doesn't matter, from any reasonable leftist domestic perspective. and, i think bernie himself has been pretty clear that he's not an anti-imperialist candidate, never has been and never will be; he's about domestic policies first and foremost, and willing to ignore these tricky foreign policy issues that could turn global oligarchs against him....
so, the way to look at is this.
1) if sanders goes along with the russia hoax, he doesn't create powerful enemies. and, what harm does this actually do? why would anybody actually care?
2) but, if sanders goes against the russia hoax, the cia goes out of their way to destroy him - and millions of voters think he's in kahoots, too.
3) so, the rational choice is to play stupid, until it works itself out.
see, and this is why i think the deep state didn't just abandon him, but came to see him as the greatest threat. it's not his policies that scared them. it was his willingness to subvert the subversion - to make a deal with people that aren't using to making deals.
you and i know better. millions don't.
i'd just drop it.
95% of strategists will see it otherwise, i concur.
but, nobody wants to have a beer with a political strategist.
to, 95% of voters, this logo screams DOUCHE.
...and it should be avoided like the plague.
now, if you don't like windows - or are afraid somebody is going to make you pay licensing - a much safer choice than a mac would be linux, because while people may raise an eyebrow, it's more likely to leave a positive impression - it's going to broadcast a level of technical intelligence, whereas the apple logo just broadcasts "this is somebody i don't want to spend time with".
but, nobody wants to have a beer with a political strategist.
to, 95% of voters, this logo screams DOUCHE.
...and it should be avoided like the plague.
now, if you don't like windows - or are afraid somebody is going to make you pay licensing - a much safer choice than a mac would be linux, because while people may raise an eyebrow, it's more likely to leave a positive impression - it's going to broadcast a level of technical intelligence, whereas the apple logo just broadcasts "this is somebody i don't want to spend time with".
politicians with macs.....
i see this all of the time. they probably think it's trendy.
but, you know that apple has like a 2% market share, right?
what that says is "i am an out of touch elitist".
you are literally broadcasting yourself as a member of the 1%.
stop doing it...
normal people use windows machines.
i see this all of the time. they probably think it's trendy.
but, you know that apple has like a 2% market share, right?
what that says is "i am an out of touch elitist".
you are literally broadcasting yourself as a member of the 1%.
stop doing it...
normal people use windows machines.
if the ndp ever win a federal election, it will be the most right-wing government that we've ever seen.
i don't when they swung the other way. the 80s, probably. just another victim of neo-liberalism.
but, they're absolute frauds, and have been for as long as i can remember.
canada needs a new left, and has needed a new left for decades.
i don't when they swung the other way. the 80s, probably. just another victim of neo-liberalism.
but, they're absolute frauds, and have been for as long as i can remember.
canada needs a new left, and has needed a new left for decades.
i had to ask myself.
"is she farting this shit out, or what?"
it's just the sheer volume of smoke coming up from down there.
and, i couldn't avoid the mental image of a bong with an anus as mouthpiece.
google revealed some pornographic bongs, but i was really looking for something a little nastier.
i bet anus hair would be a good way to trap resin....
"is she farting this shit out, or what?"
it's just the sheer volume of smoke coming up from down there.
and, i couldn't avoid the mental image of a bong with an anus as mouthpiece.
google revealed some pornographic bongs, but i was really looking for something a little nastier.
i bet anus hair would be a good way to trap resin....
this is getting you closer to understanding doug ford than anything trump has said or done.
i'm going to say this, though: ford could probably campaign against nafta to great benefit. it may guarantee a win. see, that is what let trump flip those states (well, that and voter suppression). and, people arguing that ford can flip the crumbling industrial heartland - you will see many articles like this - are kind of missing the point, without taking that policy position into account.
wynne is certainly strongly pro-nafta.
he won't do it, though.
well, not unless he does it by quoting pierre trudeau, and arguing for a real free trade deal.
i'm going to say this, though: ford could probably campaign against nafta to great benefit. it may guarantee a win. see, that is what let trump flip those states (well, that and voter suppression). and, people arguing that ford can flip the crumbling industrial heartland - you will see many articles like this - are kind of missing the point, without taking that policy position into account.
wynne is certainly strongly pro-nafta.
he won't do it, though.
well, not unless he does it by quoting pierre trudeau, and arguing for a real free trade deal.
and, why do the fords do so well with black and brown voters?
we can all speculate.
my guess is that, to a jamaican or muslim immigrant in toronto, ford's rhetoric about "taking on the elites" translates roughly to "fighting the white man". and, the fact that he's so gruff and macho and plain spoken makes him more culturally similar to something they can identify with than a posh, liberal white dude in an expensive suit - who they may speculate is secretly gay.
the reasons may not be clear yet.
but, ford will win immigrants in wide sections of the province.
we can all speculate.
my guess is that, to a jamaican or muslim immigrant in toronto, ford's rhetoric about "taking on the elites" translates roughly to "fighting the white man". and, the fact that he's so gruff and macho and plain spoken makes him more culturally similar to something they can identify with than a posh, liberal white dude in an expensive suit - who they may speculate is secretly gay.
the reasons may not be clear yet.
but, ford will win immigrants in wide sections of the province.
in analysing canadian elections, you need to begin with the understanding that we have a 3+ party system - at least three parties, and there's always a chance a fourth may appear in any election. we still have five at the federal level...
this is the first problem in trying to apply the last american election to the upcoming election in ontario: there are three parties in contention, and it is likely that they will all receive more than 20% of the vote.
of course, a provincial election is not like a presidential election, either - because we are building a house of representatives and not electing a leader of the executive branch.
is this a change election? probably. but, what wynne v. elliot does is open up a space for andrea horwath - because elliot doesn't represent much of a change. it's a different hair cut. but, horwath at least looks younger. the pcs really rely on uninformed voters; we call them "tim horton's conservatives". i think they'd have bolted to the ndp under elliot....
conversely, doug ford presents a much starker contrast, and that is going to make it harder for horwath to gain traction.
i'm not willing to call it yet, because wynne is in such a poor position. it seems obvious; it isn't. ford will effectively and believably campaign on change, for better or worse. he will dominate the immigrant communities in toronto, as he and his brother have always done - which is going to be a big problem for both of the other parties, as they're used to taking these voters for granted. that's the scary wildcard, here. his very strong appeal to immigrants could flip some seats in the gta - and other urban areas, perhaps including windsor - that are not normally competitive.
doug ford is what the indo-canadians want - not jagmeet singh. his success with groups like jamaicans, hispanics, hindus and muslims should open some eyes in ottawa. but, i told you this was coming, and you didn't listen.
white moderate conservatives, on the other hand, will come running to wynne. so, this is the trade-off: ford will be able to steal a substantial amount of multicultural voters from the liberals and ndp, but he's going to lose white middle class support in the middle of the spectrum in the process.
the battle for the left between wynne and horwath will, as always, be crucial, because wynne may need to cut deep into the ndp base to fully make up for the losses.
this election could in some ways be realigning. both wynne and horwath may be tempted to float illiberal positions to try and prevent the bleed (flood) of immigrant voters to ford - and it probably won't work. whether it works or not, it will certainly backfire. i'm in the group of (culturally) white liberal voters that is going to flip out over certain overtures.
we'll have to see where everybody aligns once the dust settles before i'm willing to make stronger predictions. but, i'm going to guess that wynne pulls this off - at the expense of the ndp.
a good model may be the last toronto mayoral race, where john tory beat doug ford by eating into olivia chow's support base - who willingly rallied to defeat him.
this is the first problem in trying to apply the last american election to the upcoming election in ontario: there are three parties in contention, and it is likely that they will all receive more than 20% of the vote.
of course, a provincial election is not like a presidential election, either - because we are building a house of representatives and not electing a leader of the executive branch.
is this a change election? probably. but, what wynne v. elliot does is open up a space for andrea horwath - because elliot doesn't represent much of a change. it's a different hair cut. but, horwath at least looks younger. the pcs really rely on uninformed voters; we call them "tim horton's conservatives". i think they'd have bolted to the ndp under elliot....
conversely, doug ford presents a much starker contrast, and that is going to make it harder for horwath to gain traction.
i'm not willing to call it yet, because wynne is in such a poor position. it seems obvious; it isn't. ford will effectively and believably campaign on change, for better or worse. he will dominate the immigrant communities in toronto, as he and his brother have always done - which is going to be a big problem for both of the other parties, as they're used to taking these voters for granted. that's the scary wildcard, here. his very strong appeal to immigrants could flip some seats in the gta - and other urban areas, perhaps including windsor - that are not normally competitive.
doug ford is what the indo-canadians want - not jagmeet singh. his success with groups like jamaicans, hispanics, hindus and muslims should open some eyes in ottawa. but, i told you this was coming, and you didn't listen.
white moderate conservatives, on the other hand, will come running to wynne. so, this is the trade-off: ford will be able to steal a substantial amount of multicultural voters from the liberals and ndp, but he's going to lose white middle class support in the middle of the spectrum in the process.
the battle for the left between wynne and horwath will, as always, be crucial, because wynne may need to cut deep into the ndp base to fully make up for the losses.
this election could in some ways be realigning. both wynne and horwath may be tempted to float illiberal positions to try and prevent the bleed (flood) of immigrant voters to ford - and it probably won't work. whether it works or not, it will certainly backfire. i'm in the group of (culturally) white liberal voters that is going to flip out over certain overtures.
we'll have to see where everybody aligns once the dust settles before i'm willing to make stronger predictions. but, i'm going to guess that wynne pulls this off - at the expense of the ndp.
a good model may be the last toronto mayoral race, where john tory beat doug ford by eating into olivia chow's support base - who willingly rallied to defeat him.
Saturday, March 10, 2018
here's a little advice from the other side, pc party.
christine elliot is a loser. and wynne has her dominated.
voting purely on experience? wynne wins. are you a red tory? wynne wins. elliot has no upside over wynne whatsoever.
you're better off with ford.
and, while ford is not trump, you're clearly learning the wrong lesson from the last american election, aren't you?
personally? i just want an excuse to make fun of doug ford for three months.
christine elliot is a loser. and wynne has her dominated.
voting purely on experience? wynne wins. are you a red tory? wynne wins. elliot has no upside over wynne whatsoever.
you're better off with ford.
and, while ford is not trump, you're clearly learning the wrong lesson from the last american election, aren't you?
personally? i just want an excuse to make fun of doug ford for three months.
so, it seems as though doug ford won in more or less the way i suggested, and the party leadership won't accept it...?
?
the system is exaggerating rural support. it was predictable, for that reason.
you can't change the rules because you don't like the results. or, maybe, the real message the party is sending is that you actually can.
?
the system is exaggerating rural support. it was predictable, for that reason.
you can't change the rules because you don't like the results. or, maybe, the real message the party is sending is that you actually can.
and, i need to reiterate that ford isn't much like trump at all.
he's more like a chris christie: very fiscally conservative, kind of 'colour blind' (at least in public) and sort of quasi-libertarian rather than social conservative.
ford would be opposed to tariffs, in favour of immigration and largely disinterested in war.
they would agree on little, besides tax cuts.
he's more like a chris christie: very fiscally conservative, kind of 'colour blind' (at least in public) and sort of quasi-libertarian rather than social conservative.
ford would be opposed to tariffs, in favour of immigration and largely disinterested in war.
they would agree on little, besides tax cuts.
huge sample size, but funny methods.
both email and ivr are going to skew towards the moderate voters; tga is also going to do very well in the rural areas.
i'm not changing my call on this. and, whether ford wins comfortably or barely is really going to come down to whether granic-allen can beat mulroney or not...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ontario-pc-leadership-poll-1.4569420
both email and ivr are going to skew towards the moderate voters; tga is also going to do very well in the rural areas.
i'm not changing my call on this. and, whether ford wins comfortably or barely is really going to come down to whether granic-allen can beat mulroney or not...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ontario-pc-leadership-poll-1.4569420
so, how am i doing?
those nose bleeds are lingering. they're not active bleeds; it's more bloody boogers. and, it's not entirely unheard of - i'm used to getting a little blood in my snot when it's dry, which it is, right now. cold or hot, what i really hate is dry air. the smoke is no doubt a factor. once i get the holes blocked off in here, that's going to need to be something i'll want to deal with. humidifier, maybe. as it is, my last brita filter died on me the other day, so i'm just drinking coffee.
the guy was supposed to come finish the work yesterday, but didn't. so, i've been stuck in the house all week. i'll be able to get out and grab some things - duct tape, steel wool, brita filter - in the morning.
i'm otherwise relatively alert. the headaches have mostly subsided, and there's only two or three places left to tape, for now.
i want to be clear: i'm feeling better because i've blocked most of the smoke. it didn't go away on it's own, i took steps to counter the problem. and i think i'm not at 100% because it's not done, yet.
those nose bleeds are lingering. they're not active bleeds; it's more bloody boogers. and, it's not entirely unheard of - i'm used to getting a little blood in my snot when it's dry, which it is, right now. cold or hot, what i really hate is dry air. the smoke is no doubt a factor. once i get the holes blocked off in here, that's going to need to be something i'll want to deal with. humidifier, maybe. as it is, my last brita filter died on me the other day, so i'm just drinking coffee.
the guy was supposed to come finish the work yesterday, but didn't. so, i've been stuck in the house all week. i'll be able to get out and grab some things - duct tape, steel wool, brita filter - in the morning.
i'm otherwise relatively alert. the headaches have mostly subsided, and there's only two or three places left to tape, for now.
i want to be clear: i'm feeling better because i've blocked most of the smoke. it didn't go away on it's own, i took steps to counter the problem. and i think i'm not at 100% because it's not done, yet.
yes.
yes, it is kent.
but, trudeau will stick with the girl he brought to the dance, regardless of how disinterested she is, or how drunk she gets, or how many times he has to ask her why she's been hanging around outside the men's room all night.
if we want to get rid of the puppet masters, you will need to get rid of the puppet, too.
http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-it-time-to-change-up-team-trudeau/
yes, it is kent.
but, trudeau will stick with the girl he brought to the dance, regardless of how disinterested she is, or how drunk she gets, or how many times he has to ask her why she's been hanging around outside the men's room all night.
if we want to get rid of the puppet masters, you will need to get rid of the puppet, too.
http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-it-time-to-change-up-team-trudeau/
Friday, March 9, 2018
nafta was the absolute last thing that the elder trudeau set in motion before he was forced to resign (the open secret in canada is that reagan was convinced he was a communist and forced him to step down over his opposition to missile defence). he set up a commission in the last months of his rule - called the macdonald commission, as it was head by a liberal bureaucrat called donald macdonald (condolences for the name.) - that recommended that canada aggressively seek a new reciprocity deal with the united states.
trudeau himself was picking up the legacy of wilfrid laurier, who was his biggest ideological influence in governing.
the macdonald commission's report was eventually picked up by the next elected prime minister (brian mulroney), who tends to be the popular face of free trade in canada. but, this was continuity: he was carrying forward with something that trudeau put in motion.
the immensely superior bilateral fta was signed first, and then nafta superseded it afterwards. it was jean chretien that signed nafta, but he was clear that he felt he had no choice. the elder trudeau was vociferously opposed to all of this, as he felt that what mulroney came up with was the literal opposite thing of what he intended.
the liberals in general - not just the elder trudeau - presented a large number of very cogent criticisms of the fta and then nafta through the 80s and early 90s, while maintaining support for actual reciprocity. most of what they said has proven rather prophetic, although they weren't ever able to find a way out of what mulroney left around our collective necks.
nobody expected that trudeau would be his father. but, it would be nice if his handlers would at least bother to read what he wrote about free trade with the united states, as it is quite lengthy and rather insightful.
as it is, trudeau 2.0 is under serious threat of going down in history as mulroney the younger.
trudeau himself was picking up the legacy of wilfrid laurier, who was his biggest ideological influence in governing.
the macdonald commission's report was eventually picked up by the next elected prime minister (brian mulroney), who tends to be the popular face of free trade in canada. but, this was continuity: he was carrying forward with something that trudeau put in motion.
the immensely superior bilateral fta was signed first, and then nafta superseded it afterwards. it was jean chretien that signed nafta, but he was clear that he felt he had no choice. the elder trudeau was vociferously opposed to all of this, as he felt that what mulroney came up with was the literal opposite thing of what he intended.
the liberals in general - not just the elder trudeau - presented a large number of very cogent criticisms of the fta and then nafta through the 80s and early 90s, while maintaining support for actual reciprocity. most of what they said has proven rather prophetic, although they weren't ever able to find a way out of what mulroney left around our collective necks.
nobody expected that trudeau would be his father. but, it would be nice if his handlers would at least bother to read what he wrote about free trade with the united states, as it is quite lengthy and rather insightful.
as it is, trudeau 2.0 is under serious threat of going down in history as mulroney the younger.
what's starting to unfold is that the trudeau government is going to sell out certain industries in exchange for further investment rights, which will lead to further job losses, a further decrease in the standard of living, further cuts to services, further environmental degradation and a general attack on the working class, in exchange for higher profits for trust fund babies and other people reliant on hedge funds.
and, nobody should have expected anything different.
and, nobody should have expected anything different.
given that all that the government cares about is alberta anyways, why don't we try this: if we abolish nafta, they'll get a market price for oil, which will negate the need to export to asia. that would be good for them....
it's really not an agreement that gives us much, besides rights to invest. and, what's unfolding is starting to look like theatre.
what trump is really doing is characteristic - he's tilting at windmills with this, by threatening us with something that's in our own interests, to begin with - because he doesn't remotely understand what he's talking about. the business press is aligning with their class interests.
but, speaking of emperors with no clothes...
and, i've said this over and over again: we should have offered to pull out in exchange for concessions. we can throw this deal in the trash overnight; we don't have to go through congress.
but, what trump wants is to extract concessions, so he's trying to build "leverage". that's not a negotiation amongst equals, it's a threat from an imperialist tyrant.
and, we need to straight up tell him to fuck off.
let's throw their imports in the sea.
it's really not an agreement that gives us much, besides rights to invest. and, what's unfolding is starting to look like theatre.
what trump is really doing is characteristic - he's tilting at windmills with this, by threatening us with something that's in our own interests, to begin with - because he doesn't remotely understand what he's talking about. the business press is aligning with their class interests.
but, speaking of emperors with no clothes...
and, i've said this over and over again: we should have offered to pull out in exchange for concessions. we can throw this deal in the trash overnight; we don't have to go through congress.
but, what trump wants is to extract concessions, so he's trying to build "leverage". that's not a negotiation amongst equals, it's a threat from an imperialist tyrant.
and, we need to straight up tell him to fuck off.
let's throw their imports in the sea.
abolishing nafta is generally expected to make a different of about .2% of gdp, or something.
the reason is twofold:
1) nafta is not a free trade agreement.
2) abolishing nafta would not erect any tariffs (with the united states.), because that's been dealt with through various bilateral agreements, and the wto.
so, this idea that tearing down nafta is going to create a trade barrier between canada and the united states is just wrong. that barrier was removed long before nafta. and, nafta was not about removing barriers anyways - it was about creating rights for investors.
what abolishing nafta would harm would be people with large investments in the united states. we're talking about a very small bourgeois upper class that trudeau belongs to.
but who cares about them?
the reason is twofold:
1) nafta is not a free trade agreement.
2) abolishing nafta would not erect any tariffs (with the united states.), because that's been dealt with through various bilateral agreements, and the wto.
so, this idea that tearing down nafta is going to create a trade barrier between canada and the united states is just wrong. that barrier was removed long before nafta. and, nafta was not about removing barriers anyways - it was about creating rights for investors.
what abolishing nafta would harm would be people with large investments in the united states. we're talking about a very small bourgeois upper class that trudeau belongs to.
but who cares about them?
it can be calculated how often a broken clock is wrong - and then accurately predicted.
and, one of the few things that harper did that i thought was quite positive was putting more money into local greenhouses for the purposes of food sovereignty. he made this a priority. surprising, but welcome.
this is a sustainable future: automated local food production in greenhouses, using aquaculture rather than pesticides.
there is no future in continuing to ship all this food in from the south at such great environmental costs.
and, one of the few things that harper did that i thought was quite positive was putting more money into local greenhouses for the purposes of food sovereignty. he made this a priority. surprising, but welcome.
this is a sustainable future: automated local food production in greenhouses, using aquaculture rather than pesticides.
there is no future in continuing to ship all this food in from the south at such great environmental costs.
don't believe the reports arguing that nafta termination will cost jobs.
in the short run, it will certainly lead to job losses, as export markets dry up. but, what it would really lead to in the end is a reorganization, as domestic markets further open up. and, this is an issue where the trade deficit is actually relevant, because it is a rough measure of the amount of jobs that can be created by increasing local consumption.
here in ontario, we'd lose jobs in the export industries, like softwood. but, we'd gain jobs in agriculture and services.
but, the environment is more important than jobs. and, that's basically the argument i'd throw out there: we should be doing whatever we can to try and localize production, so we're not wasting so much carbon unnecessarily shipping things around all over the place to undercut labour markets.
anything that stops us from burning all this carbon shipping all this food in from california and mexico is a good thing.
but, it's also worth noting that cancelling nafta is not an end but a means to an end, that end being the much preferable option of a bilateral treaty with the united states, and something less than that with mexico.
in the short run, it will certainly lead to job losses, as export markets dry up. but, what it would really lead to in the end is a reorganization, as domestic markets further open up. and, this is an issue where the trade deficit is actually relevant, because it is a rough measure of the amount of jobs that can be created by increasing local consumption.
here in ontario, we'd lose jobs in the export industries, like softwood. but, we'd gain jobs in agriculture and services.
but, the environment is more important than jobs. and, that's basically the argument i'd throw out there: we should be doing whatever we can to try and localize production, so we're not wasting so much carbon unnecessarily shipping things around all over the place to undercut labour markets.
anything that stops us from burning all this carbon shipping all this food in from california and mexico is a good thing.
but, it's also worth noting that cancelling nafta is not an end but a means to an end, that end being the much preferable option of a bilateral treaty with the united states, and something less than that with mexico.
"but my laws come to me from god."
i know that a lot of americans will turn into bleeding hearts when they hear this, and bleed all over everybody as they fall down convulsing. it's a match point for a certain group of people.
i'm going to ask you to think about it.
because, is the premise of democracy not that we can make our own laws?
and, if so, is this attitude not fundamentally incompatible with democracy - and something that should be resisted immediately, torn out at the root, rather than accommodated for in the name of 'tolerance'?
i'll say it again: we cannot tolerate the intolerant. and, the idea that laws are made by gods - and not by humans - is at the absolute root of intolerance. it's not an argument that should be validated by the court.
and, so i would actually take some pleasure in watching the judge strike down her gavel.
where's your god now?
i know that a lot of americans will turn into bleeding hearts when they hear this, and bleed all over everybody as they fall down convulsing. it's a match point for a certain group of people.
i'm going to ask you to think about it.
because, is the premise of democracy not that we can make our own laws?
and, if so, is this attitude not fundamentally incompatible with democracy - and something that should be resisted immediately, torn out at the root, rather than accommodated for in the name of 'tolerance'?
i'll say it again: we cannot tolerate the intolerant. and, the idea that laws are made by gods - and not by humans - is at the absolute root of intolerance. it's not an argument that should be validated by the court.
and, so i would actually take some pleasure in watching the judge strike down her gavel.
where's your god now?
i've been clear that i don't think that 'religious freedom' should be a charter right. putting religious freedom in the charter is the biggest error that pierre trudeau made, while in office. i believe this is attributable to that asshole, lougheed. it's become a loophole to escape the rule of law, and get special treatment for trivial reasons.
i believe in one law for everybody.
sorry.
that said, the judicial system in canada tends to lean the other way. and, that's something that the majority ought to be fighting to change, ourselves.
i believe in one law for everybody.
sorry.
that said, the judicial system in canada tends to lean the other way. and, that's something that the majority ought to be fighting to change, ourselves.
i understand that people come from different cultures and accept different norms and even different legal standards.
but, in a democracy, you're not supposed to be able to say "i have different beliefs, so the rules don't apply to me.".
the rules need to apply to everybody the same way - regardless of their culture or beliefs.
but, in a democracy, we can also change the rules, if we can generate enough popular support to do so. and, this would be the task ahead of religious muslims.
but, it's a difficult battle, up hill.
and, i'm certainly not on their side, on this.
...although i don't care what you wear in your private life.
but, in a democracy, you're not supposed to be able to say "i have different beliefs, so the rules don't apply to me.".
the rules need to apply to everybody the same way - regardless of their culture or beliefs.
but, in a democracy, we can also change the rules, if we can generate enough popular support to do so. and, this would be the task ahead of religious muslims.
but, it's a difficult battle, up hill.
and, i'm certainly not on their side, on this.
...although i don't care what you wear in your private life.
i'm willing to accept the argument that this is inappropriate attire for court.
but, what the judge would need to demonstrate is a consistent approach - that she didn't single the hijab out for special treatment.
and, is a hijab inappropriate attire in court? i wouldn't make the case too strenuously. but, i wouldn't argue against it too strenuously, either.
i think i'd like to hear arguments on it.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4050966/quebec-judge-who-refused-to-hear-woman-in-hijab-loses-appeal-to-quash-investigation/
but, what the judge would need to demonstrate is a consistent approach - that she didn't single the hijab out for special treatment.
and, is a hijab inappropriate attire in court? i wouldn't make the case too strenuously. but, i wouldn't argue against it too strenuously, either.
i think i'd like to hear arguments on it.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4050966/quebec-judge-who-refused-to-hear-woman-in-hijab-loses-appeal-to-quash-investigation/
there's clearly multiple people down there smoking.
but, they couldn't fit enough people in the room to overpower the cold air pushing down from 6 wide open bay windows, 24/7. and, they'd choke to death, if they were to try.
if there's any damage done to the floor, it will be from the smoke, not the temperature.
but, they couldn't fit enough people in the room to overpower the cold air pushing down from 6 wide open bay windows, 24/7. and, they'd choke to death, if they were to try.
if there's any damage done to the floor, it will be from the smoke, not the temperature.
so, it's no surprise that the crackheads downstairs aren't good at physics.
i have enough of the holes patched that i'm clear-headed enough that i'm getting some work done; if i've been a little slow the last few days, it's more that i've been distracted, and partly by the need to patch holes..
so, here's how the physics with this works.
so long as it's relatively cool out, opening the window above a smoker will flush the cold air downwards. further, the smoke will escape out the window.
the end result is that i get fresh air, and they get cold. perhaps very cold. but, i can't care, so long as they're blowing smoke through the electrical fixtures in an obvious attempt to piss me off.
i'm perfectly happy to sit here in a sweater with the windows open for the next month. the air in here is clear enough, right now, and just going to clear out further, as i patch up more and more holes.
and, the more i'm annoyed the colder it will get downstairs.
that said, the maintenance person should be here today to finish sanding the bedroom, at which point i can start smoke-proofing that space and moving things in, which will let me smoke-proof the larger space, next.
i don't feel like my time is being wasted, because i have to work this out, anyways. but, it's unclear to me why they're wasting their time with such obviously childish behaviour.
i have enough of the holes patched that i'm clear-headed enough that i'm getting some work done; if i've been a little slow the last few days, it's more that i've been distracted, and partly by the need to patch holes..
so, here's how the physics with this works.
so long as it's relatively cool out, opening the window above a smoker will flush the cold air downwards. further, the smoke will escape out the window.
the end result is that i get fresh air, and they get cold. perhaps very cold. but, i can't care, so long as they're blowing smoke through the electrical fixtures in an obvious attempt to piss me off.
i'm perfectly happy to sit here in a sweater with the windows open for the next month. the air in here is clear enough, right now, and just going to clear out further, as i patch up more and more holes.
and, the more i'm annoyed the colder it will get downstairs.
that said, the maintenance person should be here today to finish sanding the bedroom, at which point i can start smoke-proofing that space and moving things in, which will let me smoke-proof the larger space, next.
i don't feel like my time is being wasted, because i have to work this out, anyways. but, it's unclear to me why they're wasting their time with such obviously childish behaviour.
now, people will yell and scream at me for expressing this.
but, look at who is yelling and screaming at me.
no; do this - it's an excellent exercise in independent, critical thinking.
why are these specific people making these specific criticisms? why are they so upset about it? why are they reacting with vitriol instead of logic?
but, look at who is yelling and screaming at me.
no; do this - it's an excellent exercise in independent, critical thinking.
why are these specific people making these specific criticisms? why are they so upset about it? why are they reacting with vitriol instead of logic?
i want to be clear: anybody that argues for the existence of white privilege is a racist, and needs to be smashed.
that is the definition of being a racist.
white privilege = white supremacism. so, arguing that white privilege exists is the same thing as being a white supremacist.
all the fancy language is just meant to confuse and brainwash you into upholding the status quo.
that is the definition of being a racist.
white privilege = white supremacism. so, arguing that white privilege exists is the same thing as being a white supremacist.
all the fancy language is just meant to confuse and brainwash you into upholding the status quo.
what those posters are teaching kids is that a racial hierarchy exists, and that they will need to adapt to their correct place within it.
the people that did the actual postering are no doubt completely brainwashed, and at little fault. and, you can't argue with people that are under the control of these methods, either.
what this is is a psy-op. it's an evolution of the tools that people like edward bernays invented a hundred years ago. and, if they have their way, we will all be placed in our right places, in this neo-burkean structure - with white people as rulers, and everybody else as slaves.
the people that did the actual postering are no doubt completely brainwashed, and at little fault. and, you can't argue with people that are under the control of these methods, either.
what this is is a psy-op. it's an evolution of the tools that people like edward bernays invented a hundred years ago. and, if they have their way, we will all be placed in our right places, in this neo-burkean structure - with white people as rulers, and everybody else as slaves.
so, i don't see any difference between putting up a sign that asks white people to acknowledge their privilege and putting up a sign that asks white people to acknowledge their superiority - and black people to acknowledge their inferiority.
so, when i say this is racist, i don't mean "reverse racism".
this is systemic racism.
this is white supremacism.
it follows that when i deny white privilege, i am denying white superiority, and fighting against systemic racism.
but, our ignorance is our strength, today.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/racism-campaign-school-district-74-1.4566779
so, when i say this is racist, i don't mean "reverse racism".
this is systemic racism.
this is white supremacism.
it follows that when i deny white privilege, i am denying white superiority, and fighting against systemic racism.
but, our ignorance is our strength, today.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/racism-campaign-school-district-74-1.4566779
so, i expect that protective services are on their way to take these kids out of the abusive environment they're living in....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/harrow-mom-walk-school-sign-bus-1.4568266
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/harrow-mom-walk-school-sign-bus-1.4568266
have another drink, rachel.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-throne-speech-2018-1.4567873
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-throne-speech-2018-1.4567873
so, we're 15 years from fusion, huh?
lol.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/09/nuclear-fusion-on-brink-of-being-realised-say-mit-scientists
lol.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/09/nuclear-fusion-on-brink-of-being-realised-say-mit-scientists
you gotta be careful when you see something like this at the washington post.
but, this is where my solidarity lies - in principle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/women-in-iran-are-pulling-off-their-headscarves--and-hoping-for-a-turning-point/2018/03/08/bb238a96-217c-11e8-946c-9420060cb7bd_story.html
but, this is where my solidarity lies - in principle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/women-in-iran-are-pulling-off-their-headscarves--and-hoping-for-a-turning-point/2018/03/08/bb238a96-217c-11e8-946c-9420060cb7bd_story.html
so, what are all the countries that obama lost?
- russia [who, up until mid mandate, sought a reset and friendship]
- iran
- india
- pakistan
- iraq
- afghanistan
and, which countries are in the process of being lost as a consequence of obama's lingering policy influence?
- turkey
- japan
- south korea
- germany
what did he gain?
- ukraine
- libya
these are serious losses that historians will need to seriously account for.
- russia [who, up until mid mandate, sought a reset and friendship]
- iran
- india
- pakistan
- iraq
- afghanistan
and, which countries are in the process of being lost as a consequence of obama's lingering policy influence?
- turkey
- japan
- south korea
- germany
what did he gain?
- ukraine
- libya
these are serious losses that historians will need to seriously account for.
it's true that he was handed a difficult plate.
but, regardless, obama was really a historically poor president. his economic policies were outstanding, but his foreign policy legacy was merely to accelerate the collapse created by bush. his major error was letting hillary take control of the state department; in the end, he was outsmarted by putin over and over again. and, he really left little domestic legislation that will survive the current administration, with perhaps the sole exception being the heritage foundation's health care plan - which is what the republicans always wanted, anyways.
i've said this before: look at a list of presidents from the second half of the nineteenth century.
you can't name anything they did, can you?
that's obamas future.
...except that he will be remembered for setting various things in motion, that will lead to the collapse of american hegemony.
those sanctions on russia will be remembered for time immemorial as one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the history of the world - on par with french armies starving in the russian winter, or germany foolishly overextending itself deep into the russian steppes.
but, regardless, obama was really a historically poor president. his economic policies were outstanding, but his foreign policy legacy was merely to accelerate the collapse created by bush. his major error was letting hillary take control of the state department; in the end, he was outsmarted by putin over and over again. and, he really left little domestic legislation that will survive the current administration, with perhaps the sole exception being the heritage foundation's health care plan - which is what the republicans always wanted, anyways.
i've said this before: look at a list of presidents from the second half of the nineteenth century.
you can't name anything they did, can you?
that's obamas future.
...except that he will be remembered for setting various things in motion, that will lead to the collapse of american hegemony.
those sanctions on russia will be remembered for time immemorial as one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the history of the world - on par with french armies starving in the russian winter, or germany foolishly overextending itself deep into the russian steppes.
on it's face, this is a level of incompetence that has not been seen in any western democracy. ever. it brings up memories of incompetent boy kings, or monarchs gone mad with power. and, this is the real lesson, here - we need to stop underestimating the threat inherent to electing the children of former leaders.
what trudeau has done to the senate is exactly the kind of thing that democracy was supposed to make impossible.
what trudeau has done to the senate is exactly the kind of thing that democracy was supposed to make impossible.
can we get the senate to arrange itself in a way that the majority controls the committees?
i'm still convinced that this is a ploy by the liberals to avoid passing the legislation - which they never intended to pass. but, the way the senate exists right now is really nothing short of retarded.
how can the government sit there and allow the opposition to control the senate, when it has a majority in the chamber? it's beyond absurd, it's contempt. is it even unconstitutional? is it grounds to remove the prime minister from power?
i'm still convinced that this is a ploy by the liberals to avoid passing the legislation - which they never intended to pass. but, the way the senate exists right now is really nothing short of retarded.
how can the government sit there and allow the opposition to control the senate, when it has a majority in the chamber? it's beyond absurd, it's contempt. is it even unconstitutional? is it grounds to remove the prime minister from power?
the liberals have a majority in the senate.
this is a cruel joke....
(this link is paywalled)
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/senate-adds-new-delay-to-ottawas-cannabis-legalization-plan/article38227907/
....and is available for free here:
this is a cruel joke....
(this link is paywalled)
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/senate-adds-new-delay-to-ottawas-cannabis-legalization-plan/article38227907/
....and is available for free here:
Thursday, March 8, 2018
was there some shady force aiding sanders in the primaries?
yeah, i think there was. at least at first.
and, was sanders aware of it?
to some extent, but perhaps not clearly.
i don't know what happened, in the end. maybe bernie tricked me along with everybody else - although i'm hard to trick. trump didn't trick me. obama didn't trick me. trudeau didn't trick me, either. maybe sanders got me when the rest couldn't....
maybe, they decided that supporting him was a bad idea, after all - because he seemed as willing to play them as they were to play him. maybe he seemed to understand the game, and it freaked them out. i'm leaning there.
but, it never crossed my mind that this shady force was russian, nor do i think that it was, looking back. and, i'm keyed into russian media and russian narratives. i'd see it if it was there.
the deep state hates hillary clinton. i can only say that so many times....but nobody wants to see the obvious.
yeah, i think there was. at least at first.
and, was sanders aware of it?
to some extent, but perhaps not clearly.
i don't know what happened, in the end. maybe bernie tricked me along with everybody else - although i'm hard to trick. trump didn't trick me. obama didn't trick me. trudeau didn't trick me, either. maybe sanders got me when the rest couldn't....
maybe, they decided that supporting him was a bad idea, after all - because he seemed as willing to play them as they were to play him. maybe he seemed to understand the game, and it freaked them out. i'm leaning there.
but, it never crossed my mind that this shady force was russian, nor do i think that it was, looking back. and, i'm keyed into russian media and russian narratives. i'd see it if it was there.
the deep state hates hillary clinton. i can only say that so many times....but nobody wants to see the obvious.
i think engler is generally a little too hard on pearson, who wasn't jesus, but did articulate a vision worth striving for.
he's right about may being a problem, though.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/12/canadian-greens-vs-us-greens/
he's right about may being a problem, though.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/12/canadian-greens-vs-us-greens/
to be clear: i'm not denying that trudeau may be seen as being weak on foreign policy.
i'd agree that his foreign policy has been pretty amateurish, and in truth more of an extension of harper's than a return to liberal principles.
but, this is the same error that clinton made: she ran on foreign policy, despite polls making it clear that foreign policy is simply not a ballot question to americans.
(and, as a hard leftist, i preferred what trump said on foreign policy, anyways.)
when people sit down to vote, the question of whether trudeau is making the country look good or bad to indians is simply not going to be top of mind, or middle of mind, or even bottom of mind.
nobody is going to care at all.
he could build a shrine to vishnu in his office, for all i care, so long as he does something substantial on the climate, between now and then - and, if he doesn't, it's not likely i'll support him, even if the indians love him, after all.
and, i'm more concerned about what our indians think of him - which is currently not very much.
i'd agree that his foreign policy has been pretty amateurish, and in truth more of an extension of harper's than a return to liberal principles.
but, this is the same error that clinton made: she ran on foreign policy, despite polls making it clear that foreign policy is simply not a ballot question to americans.
(and, as a hard leftist, i preferred what trump said on foreign policy, anyways.)
when people sit down to vote, the question of whether trudeau is making the country look good or bad to indians is simply not going to be top of mind, or middle of mind, or even bottom of mind.
nobody is going to care at all.
he could build a shrine to vishnu in his office, for all i care, so long as he does something substantial on the climate, between now and then - and, if he doesn't, it's not likely i'll support him, even if the indians love him, after all.
and, i'm more concerned about what our indians think of him - which is currently not very much.
the abacus poll may seem relatively reasonable upon first glance, but don't let that distract you from the fact that they are not doing scientific polling, and should essentially be ignored by serious observers.
if the poll is picking something up, it's by accident.
nor would there be any reason to draw a causal relationship between trudeau's trip to india - which nobody actually cares about besides the tory media - and any decrease in support, given that there are plenty of better reasons to see his support slip. if he was trying to stop movement to the ndp, such a thing is beyond rational deconstruction, and it's not going to stop something that was never going to happen in the first place.
it's like lisa's rock that keeps away lions.
the actual movement in the poll is to the greens and not the conservatives or ndp, which would suggest that the movement (if real, by accident) is due to distaste over trudeau's lack of a serious policy on climate change. and, it may be partially connected to the mulroneyesque bait and switch in the budget, which appears to be putting funding into conservation at the expense of transition.
but, i'm going to vote for variation.
don't expect the national post to skip a good yarn, though.
just typical tory media nonsense...
http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/john-ivison-trudeaus-blunder-filled-india-trip-sinks-liberals-in-the-polls
if the poll is picking something up, it's by accident.
nor would there be any reason to draw a causal relationship between trudeau's trip to india - which nobody actually cares about besides the tory media - and any decrease in support, given that there are plenty of better reasons to see his support slip. if he was trying to stop movement to the ndp, such a thing is beyond rational deconstruction, and it's not going to stop something that was never going to happen in the first place.
it's like lisa's rock that keeps away lions.
the actual movement in the poll is to the greens and not the conservatives or ndp, which would suggest that the movement (if real, by accident) is due to distaste over trudeau's lack of a serious policy on climate change. and, it may be partially connected to the mulroneyesque bait and switch in the budget, which appears to be putting funding into conservation at the expense of transition.
but, i'm going to vote for variation.
don't expect the national post to skip a good yarn, though.
just typical tory media nonsense...
http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/john-ivison-trudeaus-blunder-filled-india-trip-sinks-liberals-in-the-polls
again: throw away that pseudo-scientific claptrap you call "business literature" or "negotiation theory" and watch the dawkins video.
trump is not being a "tough negotiator".
he's being a parasite.
defect.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1jprgh
trump is not being a "tough negotiator".
he's being a parasite.
defect.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1jprgh
you know, i wasn't alive in the 70s, let alone old enough to be following politics, and the historical literature i've read has only cursorily examined the trudeau-sinclair "marriage", but i have to wonder just how long people sat and wondered....
when is she just going to get up and walk out?
he's more like his mother every day, isn't he?
when is she just going to get up and walk out?
he's more like his mother every day, isn't he?
no.
there can be no "conditions" on exemptions for steel and aluminium.
we have a free trade agreement.
and, trump is just wasting everybody's time in acting out, like a child having a temper tantrum.
when children act out, you need to correct their behaviour.
nafta is a farce. end it. now.
we can re-enter negotiations for a bilateral agreement with the next president, on the condition that it is actually a free trade agreement.
in the mean time, let's start shipping oil to china.
there can be no "conditions" on exemptions for steel and aluminium.
we have a free trade agreement.
and, trump is just wasting everybody's time in acting out, like a child having a temper tantrum.
when children act out, you need to correct their behaviour.
nafta is a farce. end it. now.
we can re-enter negotiations for a bilateral agreement with the next president, on the condition that it is actually a free trade agreement.
in the mean time, let's start shipping oil to china.
so, if the real reason that trudeau won is that people rejected mulcair the same way they rejected ignatieff, does that mean singh comes in and save the day?
no.
he's not what anybody wants, either.
again: this is going to be a strange cycle, and nobody dare predict the outcome at this point. the only thing i'm predicting is disturbingly low turnout - like, the low turnout will be a major news story, kind of thing. the lowest turnout anybody's ever seen...
but, the demographics are changing, because the conservative base is dying. where low turnout once guaranteed a conservative win, today it's just a flag for unpredictability.
it could be anything from a conservative minority to a breakthrough for the greens to a return of the bloc.....
no.
he's not what anybody wants, either.
again: this is going to be a strange cycle, and nobody dare predict the outcome at this point. the only thing i'm predicting is disturbingly low turnout - like, the low turnout will be a major news story, kind of thing. the lowest turnout anybody's ever seen...
but, the demographics are changing, because the conservative base is dying. where low turnout once guaranteed a conservative win, today it's just a flag for unpredictability.
it could be anything from a conservative minority to a breakthrough for the greens to a return of the bloc.....
this is the first evidence that i've got this thing.
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2015/08/it-was-leading-question-on-tpp.html
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2015/08/it-was-leading-question-on-tpp.html
i loved loved loved loved loved loved jim carrey for a few years, at a certain age.
i don't talk about him much.
but he's actually probably my biggest influence.
it wasn't just jim carrey it was robin williams. it was bill murray. that kind of character actor that can do drama as well or better than comedy - i always drew a lot of inspiration from that.
not that i ever wanted to be an actor; or, at least, not formally. i saw that more as an optimal way to actually live, to actually exist.
because it's the drama that makes life worthwhile, and the comedy that makes the drama manageable.
it's more fun when nobody is sure if you're acting.
i don't talk about him much.
but he's actually probably my biggest influence.
it wasn't just jim carrey it was robin williams. it was bill murray. that kind of character actor that can do drama as well or better than comedy - i always drew a lot of inspiration from that.
not that i ever wanted to be an actor; or, at least, not formally. i saw that more as an optimal way to actually live, to actually exist.
because it's the drama that makes life worthwhile, and the comedy that makes the drama manageable.
it's more fun when nobody is sure if you're acting.
Wednesday, March 7, 2018
if what you're thinking is..
if we make it so that marijuana users have to stay inside, then they'll stop having fun and stop doing it.
...then that's completely wrong, and based on a total misunderstanding of what marijuana is all about.
that might work for cocaine, or meth. but, marijuana users hate people, anyways, and would rather smoke alone, and pout by themselves - that's why they pick the stone, rather than the high.
what you will end up with is chronic, paranoid marijuana users stuck on disability for life.
but, if you encourage them to come outside and meet people and be more social, you might even help them break the habit a little.
if we make it so that marijuana users have to stay inside, then they'll stop having fun and stop doing it.
...then that's completely wrong, and based on a total misunderstanding of what marijuana is all about.
that might work for cocaine, or meth. but, marijuana users hate people, anyways, and would rather smoke alone, and pout by themselves - that's why they pick the stone, rather than the high.
what you will end up with is chronic, paranoid marijuana users stuck on disability for life.
but, if you encourage them to come outside and meet people and be more social, you might even help them break the habit a little.
potheads are not, never have been and never will be the archetypal cool kids.
potheads have always been and always will be the introverts, the ostracised and the socially inept. see, realizing that the data shows that marijuana doesn't create inept behaviour is only getting half of the picture: it misses that these things have become correlated in the popular (mis)conception for the precise reason that people that are already socially retarded are so heavily drawn to it.
so, part of a marijuana legalization strategy should be to stop people that are already losers from using the drug as an excuse to reinforce their anti-social behaviour.
in the end, your average pothead might not become a gregarious social butterfly. but, helping them connect with each other could at least minimize the arresting behavioural habits.
potheads have always been and always will be the introverts, the ostracised and the socially inept. see, realizing that the data shows that marijuana doesn't create inept behaviour is only getting half of the picture: it misses that these things have become correlated in the popular (mis)conception for the precise reason that people that are already socially retarded are so heavily drawn to it.
so, part of a marijuana legalization strategy should be to stop people that are already losers from using the drug as an excuse to reinforce their anti-social behaviour.
in the end, your average pothead might not become a gregarious social butterfly. but, helping them connect with each other could at least minimize the arresting behavioural habits.
so, if marijuana doesn't belong inside peoples' homes, where does it belong?
i think there's two places where marijuana should be smoked:
1) outside, in dark alleyways.
2) at bars.
where it belongs is in the back patio at a dive bar, shared amongst patrons enjoying a beer. and, it should be available for purchase at said bar.
if people prefer to avoid alcohol, there are always coffee bars, as well.
but, like alcohol, there should be a focus on designated consumption sites and a policy to get it out of the home - partly because smoking alone, like drinking alone, is going to contribute to mental health problems, not help resolve them.
these are people that you want to encourage to go outside and meet friends, not encourage to stay inside and fester in a state of arrested development.
i think there's two places where marijuana should be smoked:
1) outside, in dark alleyways.
2) at bars.
where it belongs is in the back patio at a dive bar, shared amongst patrons enjoying a beer. and, it should be available for purchase at said bar.
if people prefer to avoid alcohol, there are always coffee bars, as well.
but, like alcohol, there should be a focus on designated consumption sites and a policy to get it out of the home - partly because smoking alone, like drinking alone, is going to contribute to mental health problems, not help resolve them.
these are people that you want to encourage to go outside and meet friends, not encourage to stay inside and fester in a state of arrested development.
i would support an outright ban on first-person shooter games, regardless of whether or not it leads to gun violence, on the basis that it's destroying lives and wasting potential.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/trump-reopens-a-seemingly-settled-video-game-debate-1.3832555
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/trump-reopens-a-seemingly-settled-video-game-debate-1.3832555
i can't believe that the government put a policy of reducing the wage gap for cancer researchers in it's updated tobacco reduction strategy, which is no strategy at all, but the worst written policy document i've ever seen; this is not a professional report, but an undergraduate paper that any competent prof would grade with an F.
minus.
this is a government that is fundamentally unserious about anything.
and, i'd never thought i'd say it, but at least harper was serious.
minus.
this is a government that is fundamentally unserious about anything.
and, i'd never thought i'd say it, but at least harper was serious.
no, changing tax rates doesn't affect people's behaviour.
so, tax cuts don't create jobs. and, they don't increase gdp, either. nor will tax increases reduce carbon emissions - or smokers.
the idea that taxes affect behaviour is just a bunch of right-wing propaganda.
we've made good progress in reducing the number of smokers, here. but, it wasn't due to taxation. it was due to a combination of restrictive policies that made it hard to smoke, a lot of public health information and a lot of social coercion that rejected smokers as untouchables. we made smoking socially unacceptable - that is what worked.
personally, i'm strongly in favour of utilizing peer pressure as an informal mechanism of social control to carry out social engineering goals - and getting smoking out of apartment buildings would be a desirable end that peer pressure could be effectively used as a means for.
we're going to have to replicate this with marijuana smokers - and, god forbid, crack smokers, too.
so, tax cuts don't create jobs. and, they don't increase gdp, either. nor will tax increases reduce carbon emissions - or smokers.
the idea that taxes affect behaviour is just a bunch of right-wing propaganda.
we've made good progress in reducing the number of smokers, here. but, it wasn't due to taxation. it was due to a combination of restrictive policies that made it hard to smoke, a lot of public health information and a lot of social coercion that rejected smokers as untouchables. we made smoking socially unacceptable - that is what worked.
personally, i'm strongly in favour of utilizing peer pressure as an informal mechanism of social control to carry out social engineering goals - and getting smoking out of apartment buildings would be a desirable end that peer pressure could be effectively used as a means for.
we're going to have to replicate this with marijuana smokers - and, god forbid, crack smokers, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)