the reason i got out of it was the echo chamber effect, combined with the authoritarian power of the written media. but, both of these problems do have a solution - critical thinking skills. it's only when you add the third ingredient of a public school system that has minimized the importance of critical thinking that we end up with the problems we're facing, today.
apparently, studies suggest that people don't read the articles before they share them, but just get the information out of the headlines. headlines are even more authoritarian than stories, partly because they're so short.
what i found was that it was almost impossible to argue with people using facts once they fell down this rabbit hole of accepting headlines as authoritarian sources of knowledge. they would just respond by repeating more authoritarian headlines. or, the lovely "i don't believe your facts because they contradict the memes.".
i had to stop because i was driving myself crazy. my feed was just full of trash, and i had to debunk it, because i'm like that. so i found myself spending hours educating people that refused to be educated, and eventually gave up altogether.
if we can get to the kids then this shall pass. if we can't? it could be a problem.
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-the-pessimists-might-be-right-social-media-may-have-plunged-us-into-a-new-dark-age
Friday, March 23, 2018
what anarchists believe is that our rights end where the rights of others begin.
and, that is simply a statement that respect is the fundamental idea that society should be built around.
nihilism is consequently the anti-thesis of anarchism. and, as much as the new left is increasingly libertarian, the new right is increasingly nihilist...
and, that is simply a statement that respect is the fundamental idea that society should be built around.
nihilism is consequently the anti-thesis of anarchism. and, as much as the new left is increasingly libertarian, the new right is increasingly nihilist...
there's a broad consistency around these positions taken by these alt-right political commentators. on almost every single issue, the thing reduces to a refusal to behave respectfully - and this inherently american idea that freedom means the ability to be disrespectful towards the people around you.
it's this kind of evolution of thatcherism, this neo-randianism, this coalescence of these ideas that selfishness is a virtue and society doesn't exist, into this vehement insistence of the right to be disrespectful as a fundamental speech issue.
and, there probably isn't a solution besides treating these people the way that they insist on treating others, and hoping their nihilism means they die quickly.
it's this kind of evolution of thatcherism, this neo-randianism, this coalescence of these ideas that selfishness is a virtue and society doesn't exist, into this vehement insistence of the right to be disrespectful as a fundamental speech issue.
and, there probably isn't a solution besides treating these people the way that they insist on treating others, and hoping their nihilism means they die quickly.
tory media,
can you write me an essay explaining to me why it is that you have such a hard time understanding why it's disrespectful to gender people without their permission? in the process, can you explain to me what the purpose of nonchalantly gendering people as an irrelevant triviality in unrelated conversations is in the first place?
the last part is important.
thanks,
dtk
can you write me an essay explaining to me why it is that you have such a hard time understanding why it's disrespectful to gender people without their permission? in the process, can you explain to me what the purpose of nonchalantly gendering people as an irrelevant triviality in unrelated conversations is in the first place?
the last part is important.
thanks,
dtk
i'm going to file a formal complaint for the tenants downstairs due to the smoke, but i'm going to wait until they're not expecting it.
i'm not sure when.
i'm not broadcasting it...
they're growing plants in there. i want to make sure the landlord catches them red-handed.
in the mean time, i'm going to be very quiet, and just carefully go about doing things that are designed to upset them - because i'm convinced that their behaviour is malicious, at this point.
i'm not sure when.
i'm not broadcasting it...
they're growing plants in there. i want to make sure the landlord catches them red-handed.
in the mean time, i'm going to be very quiet, and just carefully go about doing things that are designed to upset them - because i'm convinced that their behaviour is malicious, at this point.
it's perhaps useful to enumerate the ways in which a chinese presence exists here, but it's disingenuous to suggest that the russian influence here is much less - or that our own influence in asia is much different.
the fundamental difference is how they see us.
russia views canada as an old british colony - a former ally against the nazis, and, as a descendant of roman christianity, a cultural cousin. russia legitimately wants peace. russia truly wants friendship.
the chinese view canada as a satellite of the united states, and the continent of north america, more broadly, as an open land to colonize - not dissimilarly to how europeans once saw this continent.
so, the russians seek co-existence; the chinese seek control and dominance.
might that change? it's unlikely, really, because it's cultural. the chinese are supremacists. they want to dominate the world, and subjugate everybody else. we were once like that, too, but we only changed by assimilating the conquered peoples - which means that if the chinese are to follow us into cosmopolitanism, they will have to defeat us, first.
i don't think there's some easy solution. china prides itself on the age of it's civilization, but that perception of itself as central to history is exactly what the problem is.
china probably has to be destroyed.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/china-is-a-bigger-threat-than-russia-but-you-wont-hear-trudeau-say-it/
the fundamental difference is how they see us.
russia views canada as an old british colony - a former ally against the nazis, and, as a descendant of roman christianity, a cultural cousin. russia legitimately wants peace. russia truly wants friendship.
the chinese view canada as a satellite of the united states, and the continent of north america, more broadly, as an open land to colonize - not dissimilarly to how europeans once saw this continent.
so, the russians seek co-existence; the chinese seek control and dominance.
might that change? it's unlikely, really, because it's cultural. the chinese are supremacists. they want to dominate the world, and subjugate everybody else. we were once like that, too, but we only changed by assimilating the conquered peoples - which means that if the chinese are to follow us into cosmopolitanism, they will have to defeat us, first.
i don't think there's some easy solution. china prides itself on the age of it's civilization, but that perception of itself as central to history is exactly what the problem is.
china probably has to be destroyed.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/china-is-a-bigger-threat-than-russia-but-you-wont-hear-trudeau-say-it/
Thursday, March 22, 2018
year zero is a come back record, but it's also a coming-back-down-to-earth record.
at that stage in somebody's career, it's usually enough to get a solid record, and that's exactly what it is. it's just hard to put it in the right context, because it reaches so far beyond what it actually accomplishes. so, it kind of gets forgotten...
at that stage in somebody's career, it's usually enough to get a solid record, and that's exactly what it is. it's just hard to put it in the right context, because it reaches so far beyond what it actually accomplishes. so, it kind of gets forgotten...
so, the question du jour in the media is trying to figure out why wynne is so unpopular. and, a lot of people are going to come up with these cause and effect arguments, trying to find some mistake.
but, as everybody keeps pointing out, her policies are popular.
the hydro one thing was stupid, but it was only stupid because it let the opposition frame her so badly. and, i think that's the real crux of the problem: she didn't spin herself well. or, said differently, she doesn't have the media reach required to spin herself well...
this is a big problem in canada. the conservatives own all the media, define the narrative and may be finally starting to elect governments. the only thing that's prevented us from becoming a play thing of murdoch wannabes is the fact that we seem to know better - and, perhaps, the existence of the toronto star.
but, the liberals need to be more media savvy, moving forwards. nobody watches ctv or reads asper media, any more. they can and should be hitting people over the internet, to try and avoid or pervert the dominance of the old tory guard in the traditional media.
in the short run, wynne may end up as a casualty of her refusal to define her own narrative. and, the liberals need to learn from this, not complain about it.
but, as everybody keeps pointing out, her policies are popular.
the hydro one thing was stupid, but it was only stupid because it let the opposition frame her so badly. and, i think that's the real crux of the problem: she didn't spin herself well. or, said differently, she doesn't have the media reach required to spin herself well...
this is a big problem in canada. the conservatives own all the media, define the narrative and may be finally starting to elect governments. the only thing that's prevented us from becoming a play thing of murdoch wannabes is the fact that we seem to know better - and, perhaps, the existence of the toronto star.
but, the liberals need to be more media savvy, moving forwards. nobody watches ctv or reads asper media, any more. they can and should be hitting people over the internet, to try and avoid or pervert the dominance of the old tory guard in the traditional media.
in the short run, wynne may end up as a casualty of her refusal to define her own narrative. and, the liberals need to learn from this, not complain about it.
trump may not really be getting the plot about why china has tariffs on american goods but america doesn't have tariffs on chinese goods (hint: they're largely american goods made in china, rather than chinese goods), but i actually applaud any steps taken to erect trade barriers that put an end to the existing relationship, which is both unjust and unsustainable.
the consequences of his actions might not be what he's thinking, either, but they'll no doubt be for the greater good, in the end.
the consequences of his actions might not be what he's thinking, either, but they'll no doubt be for the greater good, in the end.
i'm not a prophet, i'm a logician.
and, none of this makes any sense - unless the plan was to derail it from the start.
so, don't be a sap and blame the tories. trudeau set this up. it's his fault.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-cannabis-bill-live-die-vote-1.4586113
and, none of this makes any sense - unless the plan was to derail it from the start.
so, don't be a sap and blame the tories. trudeau set this up. it's his fault.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-cannabis-bill-live-die-vote-1.4586113
so, if gender is just a choice, should i be allowed in exclusive gendered spaces, then?
well, it's 2018. why are we still gendering spaces?
so, what i'd actually tell you is this: if you're intent on gendering the space, i can almost guarantee you i don't want to enter it.
but, i believe in democracy, which means i believe it's up to the people that inhabit the space to determine entry on whatever criteria they want, and not up to a legislature to enforce rules from a distance under the threat of coercion or force. i'd just ask them to question the value of their criteria...and to recognize the consequences of being exclusive....
any group that wishes to be exclusive can always be mirrored by a group that aims for inclusion.
now, that said, there's some spaces where exclusion does make some sense, and i would respect whatever decisions exist, should i be excluded, for whatever reason. but, i'd also probably be able to figure that out on my own, without having to be told.
well, it's 2018. why are we still gendering spaces?
so, what i'd actually tell you is this: if you're intent on gendering the space, i can almost guarantee you i don't want to enter it.
but, i believe in democracy, which means i believe it's up to the people that inhabit the space to determine entry on whatever criteria they want, and not up to a legislature to enforce rules from a distance under the threat of coercion or force. i'd just ask them to question the value of their criteria...and to recognize the consequences of being exclusive....
any group that wishes to be exclusive can always be mirrored by a group that aims for inclusion.
now, that said, there's some spaces where exclusion does make some sense, and i would respect whatever decisions exist, should i be excluded, for whatever reason. but, i'd also probably be able to figure that out on my own, without having to be told.
it is the hornone itself that exists in a spectrum. this is the part so few people grasp.
have you ever wondered why some women are curvy bombshells and others look like boys their whole lives? some get more estrogen than others. it's complicated - genetics, environment, experience, diet - but there's not a gene for huge breasts or a gene for manly calves. it's just hormones. it's just chemistry.
all of these questions - not homosexuality, mind you, but gender - revolve around these hormones, what proportion of them we have and what proportion of them we want.
my first shrink tried to get me to answer why i didn't want to just take steroids, if i was unhappy with my body image - and i had no meaningful answer for him, other than that i didn't want to. there isn't one....
have you ever wondered why some women are curvy bombshells and others look like boys their whole lives? some get more estrogen than others. it's complicated - genetics, environment, experience, diet - but there's not a gene for huge breasts or a gene for manly calves. it's just hormones. it's just chemistry.
all of these questions - not homosexuality, mind you, but gender - revolve around these hormones, what proportion of them we have and what proportion of them we want.
my first shrink tried to get me to answer why i didn't want to just take steroids, if i was unhappy with my body image - and i had no meaningful answer for him, other than that i didn't want to. there isn't one....
"so why can't i identify as a chair or a couch?"
so, what you're saying is that you want me to sit on your face, then?
"no, i'm just..."
you're obviously not a chair.
"you're obviously not a woman."
and, why is that obvious?
"well, you've said that you don't have a vagina."
but, that can be altered, if desired. you acknowledge, then, that gender is fluid, rather than fixed.
"but you don't have..."
i can get anything i don't have, alright? and, i can get rid of anything i don't want, too.
"not genes."
we can actually edit our genes, in theory. not much longer. but, you don't know what the genes code for do, you?
*pause*
"not exactly."
it's hormones. that's all.
sex is not innate. it's just chemistry. and, you can swap it back and forth all you want.
so, what you're saying is that you want me to sit on your face, then?
"no, i'm just..."
you're obviously not a chair.
"you're obviously not a woman."
and, why is that obvious?
"well, you've said that you don't have a vagina."
but, that can be altered, if desired. you acknowledge, then, that gender is fluid, rather than fixed.
"but you don't have..."
i can get anything i don't have, alright? and, i can get rid of anything i don't want, too.
"not genes."
we can actually edit our genes, in theory. not much longer. but, you don't know what the genes code for do, you?
*pause*
"not exactly."
it's hormones. that's all.
sex is not innate. it's just chemistry. and, you can swap it back and forth all you want.
the green bonds and the infrastructure bank both just evaporated. they were in the platform, but there's no trace of them, now, anywhere.
no denials. no 'splaining. just nothing.
mulcair would have been as bad as notley....
it's less that i saw trudeau as some kind of saviour; they all supported the pipelines. they were all pro-oil. but, trudeau was at least presenting feasible ideas to shift.
what i was hoping was that we'd get both: we might have to stomach trudeau's support for pipelines (and fight it in court), while they put the money down on a proper transition strategy at the same time. if your goal is profit maximization, there's no contradiction in funding both sides. and, that seemed to be the best option.
instead, we got neither - and a real do-nothing parliament, all-around.
they sent dion packing a few months in and are unlikely to campaign on this again; either way, it would be hard to take them seriously.
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2015/09/ive-been-leading-up-to-this-for-while.html
no denials. no 'splaining. just nothing.
mulcair would have been as bad as notley....
it's less that i saw trudeau as some kind of saviour; they all supported the pipelines. they were all pro-oil. but, trudeau was at least presenting feasible ideas to shift.
what i was hoping was that we'd get both: we might have to stomach trudeau's support for pipelines (and fight it in court), while they put the money down on a proper transition strategy at the same time. if your goal is profit maximization, there's no contradiction in funding both sides. and, that seemed to be the best option.
instead, we got neither - and a real do-nothing parliament, all-around.
they sent dion packing a few months in and are unlikely to campaign on this again; either way, it would be hard to take them seriously.
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.ca/2015/09/ive-been-leading-up-to-this-for-while.html
see, and this is the wildcard in provincial elections - rino is popular, here.
this could be a three-way race. ford will do well with all the recent immigrants, the ndp will hold their own with older voters and rino will do well with the hipsters and students.
i dunno yet..
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/rino-bortolin-liberals-windsor-west-1.4587488
this could be a three-way race. ford will do well with all the recent immigrants, the ndp will hold their own with older voters and rino will do well with the hipsters and students.
i dunno yet..
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/rino-bortolin-liberals-windsor-west-1.4587488
this is something approaching reliable polling, and the first thing i've seen in months - although it appears to have been taken over march break, which no doubt exaggerates the inherent pc bias in phone polling.
but, this is what the poll says:
cons - 40.7
libs - 22.2
undecided - 15.6
ndp - 15.1
greens - 5.3
correcting for the bias puts the conservatives a few points under 40, but it's not clear where it goes.
in our spectrum, conservatives tend to have a very hard time gaining undecided voters and as hard a time keeping leaning voters. their base is solid, but they don't usually move far out of it; the undecideds tend to lean heavily to the left. you can't distribute undecideds in canada. but, i'm willing to take this as the first valid snap shot in months.
and, what it suggests is that traditional liberal voters are currently disengaged. if they swing hard to the ndp, they could win a surprise victory - but, again, it's hard to understand what's taking them so long. if they vote liberal in the end, she has a chance. and, if they split, or stay home, then the conservatives win.
this is not dissimilar to what we saw in the last federal election, where the conservatives polled ahead until the last weeks, when the undecideds finally decided in favour of the liberals. i'm not convinced that we'll see the same end, but it's the same set-up: mass apathy across the spectrum, with two broad camps - the hardcore conservative base, and everybody else (which remains broadly abc in mindset).
https://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/ford-pcs-21-point-lead-wynne-liberals/
but, this is what the poll says:
cons - 40.7
libs - 22.2
undecided - 15.6
ndp - 15.1
greens - 5.3
correcting for the bias puts the conservatives a few points under 40, but it's not clear where it goes.
in our spectrum, conservatives tend to have a very hard time gaining undecided voters and as hard a time keeping leaning voters. their base is solid, but they don't usually move far out of it; the undecideds tend to lean heavily to the left. you can't distribute undecideds in canada. but, i'm willing to take this as the first valid snap shot in months.
and, what it suggests is that traditional liberal voters are currently disengaged. if they swing hard to the ndp, they could win a surprise victory - but, again, it's hard to understand what's taking them so long. if they vote liberal in the end, she has a chance. and, if they split, or stay home, then the conservatives win.
this is not dissimilar to what we saw in the last federal election, where the conservatives polled ahead until the last weeks, when the undecideds finally decided in favour of the liberals. i'm not convinced that we'll see the same end, but it's the same set-up: mass apathy across the spectrum, with two broad camps - the hardcore conservative base, and everybody else (which remains broadly abc in mindset).
https://www.mainstreetresearch.ca/ford-pcs-21-point-lead-wynne-liberals/
grenier is always wrong. he shouldn't have his job, any more.
his weighted average of polls has been wrong, wrong and wronger for years. the reason is that he mixes up good polls and bad polls, which just has the effect of polluting the data. he includes every poll he can find under the argument that it's a crapshoot anyways, and then gets essentially what he assumes.
are the liberals in worse shape than before? i don't know. because i haven't seen any reliable polling. and, that's the actually correct answer right now - we haven't seen any reliable polling so we don't know where the numbers are.
when we finally do get some reliable polling, it could be shocking because you've been conditioned to a foregone conclusion by all this tory media propaganda. but, you shouldn't be shocked - you should just learn the lesson you won't learn, which is that online "polling" isn't polling
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-ontario-polls-comebacks-1.4585921
his weighted average of polls has been wrong, wrong and wronger for years. the reason is that he mixes up good polls and bad polls, which just has the effect of polluting the data. he includes every poll he can find under the argument that it's a crapshoot anyways, and then gets essentially what he assumes.
are the liberals in worse shape than before? i don't know. because i haven't seen any reliable polling. and, that's the actually correct answer right now - we haven't seen any reliable polling so we don't know where the numbers are.
when we finally do get some reliable polling, it could be shocking because you've been conditioned to a foregone conclusion by all this tory media propaganda. but, you shouldn't be shocked - you should just learn the lesson you won't learn, which is that online "polling" isn't polling
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-ontario-polls-comebacks-1.4585921
no.
the ban on smoking near buildings is municipal, and windsor is one of the few cities that doesn't have one.
and, smoking out of a window is most like smoking on a balcony, which is not addressed anywhere - and would be difficult to argue.
there's no such thing as a non-smoking building, here. somebody could put it in a lease, but it's non-enforceable. so, i have no choice but to fight.
at the moment, i don't have an actionable complaint; i will no doubt be told to close the window, which i can't/won't do. i need a large amount of fresh air intake into the unit...
i know this is being done to irk me. so, i've done what i can to mitigate, and i'm going to have to wait them out. they don't want to smoke outside, and will eventually stop doing it.
the ban on smoking near buildings is municipal, and windsor is one of the few cities that doesn't have one.
and, smoking out of a window is most like smoking on a balcony, which is not addressed anywhere - and would be difficult to argue.
there's no such thing as a non-smoking building, here. somebody could put it in a lease, but it's non-enforceable. so, i have no choice but to fight.
at the moment, i don't have an actionable complaint; i will no doubt be told to close the window, which i can't/won't do. i need a large amount of fresh air intake into the unit...
i know this is being done to irk me. so, i've done what i can to mitigate, and i'm going to have to wait them out. they don't want to smoke outside, and will eventually stop doing it.
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
the heat turned on before 11:00.
after i had blocked every hole in the apartment, they started blowing it in the windows. that's just a lack of respect. i mean, it's one thing when we're talking about competing rights and seeking mutual co-existence; it's another when you're taking about an infringement of personal space. so, i had to threaten the crackheads with police action. it seems to have worked, for now.
it's probably the only thing they would have responded to; i probably didn't have another option. i hate cops, but i also hate crackheads. i don't know who i hate more.
the law in ontario is that you need to go eight feet away from a public building. most people don't follow that, but i'm willing to enforce it. does that mean i can force them to close the window? i need to look into that.
if i can get through the night without being bothered, i might change my mind. but, as of right now, i've resolved to filing a complaint with the landlord tomorrow morning.
after i had blocked every hole in the apartment, they started blowing it in the windows. that's just a lack of respect. i mean, it's one thing when we're talking about competing rights and seeking mutual co-existence; it's another when you're taking about an infringement of personal space. so, i had to threaten the crackheads with police action. it seems to have worked, for now.
it's probably the only thing they would have responded to; i probably didn't have another option. i hate cops, but i also hate crackheads. i don't know who i hate more.
the law in ontario is that you need to go eight feet away from a public building. most people don't follow that, but i'm willing to enforce it. does that mean i can force them to close the window? i need to look into that.
if i can get through the night without being bothered, i might change my mind. but, as of right now, i've resolved to filing a complaint with the landlord tomorrow morning.
what a disaster.
i spent all day taping the windows open, only to have the heat turn off this afternoon, which is not legal.
i repeat: the windows are taped open. they won't be closed again until november.
it's just below freezing. so, if the heat doesn't turn on soon, it's going to be cold in here tonight....
i spent all day taping the windows open, only to have the heat turn off this afternoon, which is not legal.
i repeat: the windows are taped open. they won't be closed again until november.
it's just below freezing. so, if the heat doesn't turn on soon, it's going to be cold in here tonight....
again: my experiences with the mental health system aren't that it needs more funding, but that it needs better standards.
all these years later, and i've been unable to get a serious diagnosis. i'm obviously crazy, right? well, i can't get a doctor to acknowledge it. they're all convinced there's nothing wrong with me.
or, to put it in more honest terms: they're all convinced that i'm white. if i'm white, i must be privileged. so, i'm not crazy. i'm just a whiner.
the problem is in the academic system.
all these years later, and i've been unable to get a serious diagnosis. i'm obviously crazy, right? well, i can't get a doctor to acknowledge it. they're all convinced there's nothing wrong with me.
or, to put it in more honest terms: they're all convinced that i'm white. if i'm white, i must be privileged. so, i'm not crazy. i'm just a whiner.
the problem is in the academic system.
some of these people are professors, and have some grounds to claim they are presenting controversial academic topics.
but, the ones like goldy that are just idiot trolls should be told to go speak in an elementary school cafeteria, or a legion hall, instead.
she's making a mockery of academia.
but, this is the school's responsibility to prevent, and it is the school's fault for not stepping in and upholding some concept of rigour.
but, the ones like goldy that are just idiot trolls should be told to go speak in an elementary school cafeteria, or a legion hall, instead.
she's making a mockery of academia.
but, this is the school's responsibility to prevent, and it is the school's fault for not stepping in and upholding some concept of rigour.
i would think that any university willing to host a talk by faith goldy should lose their accreditation.
it's not even because she's a nazi.
it's because she's an idiot.
has she written or published anything in an academic journal? did she even graduate high school? there has to be some concept of academic standards, and even the most lenient concept would tell her to rent a hall off campus.
i have less opposition to her speaking, in general. but, she has no business speaking at a place of learning.
it's not even because she's a nazi.
it's because she's an idiot.
has she written or published anything in an academic journal? did she even graduate high school? there has to be some concept of academic standards, and even the most lenient concept would tell her to rent a hall off campus.
i have less opposition to her speaking, in general. but, she has no business speaking at a place of learning.
listen: regardless of whatever lies other people are saying about me, the fact is that i had quit smoking (except at concerts) for nearly two years before i relapsed over the move, and the only real purpose of the relapse was as a massive stimulant for those couple of weeks, as i needed it. as i've stated repeatedly: i'll always pick nicotine over cocaine when i need the pick up. this was extended by the fact that i couldn't get on the internet for a month and had to walk around outside every day, and then again by my yearly christmas ritual, which was a little longer than normal this year - but needed, given everything that was happening.
i had no intention of starting smoking again. and, the routine had already been broken, so it really wasn't that hard to stop. by the end of the ritual, i was finding myself trying to figure out how to avoid nicotine altogether over the next ritual. i found myself forcing myself to smoke, and then skipping smokes for days altogether. even if i buy another pack next ritual, i could very well not smoke any of it directly...
i haven't smoked anything in well over a month, and i haven't had any difficulty with it, either.
i said something around this time last year about how i wanted to go to zero smoking at concerts as a last step, and concluded a few months later that this was infeasible until legalization happens on both sides of the border. this is probably still true. but, if my concert schedule stays minimal, it's going to mean my habits will, too.
there is absolutely no reason at all to expect me to relapse again any time soon.
i had no intention of starting smoking again. and, the routine had already been broken, so it really wasn't that hard to stop. by the end of the ritual, i was finding myself trying to figure out how to avoid nicotine altogether over the next ritual. i found myself forcing myself to smoke, and then skipping smokes for days altogether. even if i buy another pack next ritual, i could very well not smoke any of it directly...
i haven't smoked anything in well over a month, and i haven't had any difficulty with it, either.
i said something around this time last year about how i wanted to go to zero smoking at concerts as a last step, and concluded a few months later that this was infeasible until legalization happens on both sides of the border. this is probably still true. but, if my concert schedule stays minimal, it's going to mean my habits will, too.
there is absolutely no reason at all to expect me to relapse again any time soon.
the attacks in yemen are aerial. so, it's probably true that the vehicles haven't been used for any atrocities....yet.
if i were dictator of canada, i would have quashed the deal. but, we have to deal with the liberals being rational again, here.
first, the deal was already agreed upon. the tradition in canada - and, indeed, in most parliamentary democracies - is that the incoming government doesn't undo what the previous government did. otherwise, we'd just be spinning around in circles. it may not have been entirely unprecedented, but it would have gone against our own democratic norms and traditions.
second, it is no doubt true that they would have just bought the same thing from somebody else. so, not selling them the weapons wouldn't have spared any lives. this is broadly true across the spectrum of weapons sales - and what it means is that these protests are more about our own egos than they are about the lives of foreign peoples, yemenis or otherwise.
third, it then follows that, if we want to actually influence saudi opinion, we need to sit down and talk to them - not threaten them by demanding they buy weapons from somebody else. and, this is indeed the crux of historical canadian policy: engagement. it's another question if they actually engaged or not...
like i say - i wouldn't have done it.
but, it's harder to come up with a reasonable criticism of this than first appears obvious, unless you're approaching it solely from a position of indignant self-righteousness - which a rational mind would reject.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saudi-lav-deal-1.4585035
if i were dictator of canada, i would have quashed the deal. but, we have to deal with the liberals being rational again, here.
first, the deal was already agreed upon. the tradition in canada - and, indeed, in most parliamentary democracies - is that the incoming government doesn't undo what the previous government did. otherwise, we'd just be spinning around in circles. it may not have been entirely unprecedented, but it would have gone against our own democratic norms and traditions.
second, it is no doubt true that they would have just bought the same thing from somebody else. so, not selling them the weapons wouldn't have spared any lives. this is broadly true across the spectrum of weapons sales - and what it means is that these protests are more about our own egos than they are about the lives of foreign peoples, yemenis or otherwise.
third, it then follows that, if we want to actually influence saudi opinion, we need to sit down and talk to them - not threaten them by demanding they buy weapons from somebody else. and, this is indeed the crux of historical canadian policy: engagement. it's another question if they actually engaged or not...
like i say - i wouldn't have done it.
but, it's harder to come up with a reasonable criticism of this than first appears obvious, unless you're approaching it solely from a position of indignant self-righteousness - which a rational mind would reject.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saudi-lav-deal-1.4585035
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
that was another 18 hours of sleep. almost. i got up to eat. hopefully, i'm awake....
that angus reid online "poll" is a good example of how the media uses "polling" as propaganda to further it's aims.
i can't say if trudeau's approval rating has fallen below 50%. you'd need to do some polling to determine if that is true or not.
but, the media coverage is intense. every paper - and this is distorted by the fact that there are only a handful of media companies in this country - is screaming it across headlines. it is fact. after all, it is a poll.
but, polls are not facts.
and, it is not a poll, either.
i would suspect that it is probably true that trudeau's numbers have been on a downward trend over the last several months, due to many, many factors - including ennui. whether the numbers have crossed 50% or not is not particularly important, either, as one only requires ~35% to win a majority government, in this country. i'm not exactly disputing the narrative.
i'm just pointing out the process.
this is right-wing media propaganda. stated simply.
(and, angus reid 's track record is so bad that they should not even be consulted any more. they have repeatedly not even been close.)
that angus reid online "poll" is a good example of how the media uses "polling" as propaganda to further it's aims.
i can't say if trudeau's approval rating has fallen below 50%. you'd need to do some polling to determine if that is true or not.
but, the media coverage is intense. every paper - and this is distorted by the fact that there are only a handful of media companies in this country - is screaming it across headlines. it is fact. after all, it is a poll.
but, polls are not facts.
and, it is not a poll, either.
i would suspect that it is probably true that trudeau's numbers have been on a downward trend over the last several months, due to many, many factors - including ennui. whether the numbers have crossed 50% or not is not particularly important, either, as one only requires ~35% to win a majority government, in this country. i'm not exactly disputing the narrative.
i'm just pointing out the process.
this is right-wing media propaganda. stated simply.
(and, angus reid 's track record is so bad that they should not even be consulted any more. they have repeatedly not even been close.)
the last thing the turks want is more kurds.
http://www.ibtimes.com/turkey-high-kurdish-birth-rate-raises-questions-about-future-705488
http://www.ibtimes.com/turkey-high-kurdish-birth-rate-raises-questions-about-future-705488
there's a dumb saying from free market idiots:
those that do do, those that can't teach.
or something along those lines.
it's probably an ayn rand quote, or something.
in math, the only structure that exists is the university; those that do have no option but to teach. there's no free market for abstract math; mathematicians just make it up as it comes to them, and put it aside for somebody else.
we pride ourselves in our platonic disinterest in application.
we openly make fun of engineers....
but i may suggest tracking down the works of alexander grothendieck for some alternative views from a distinguished mathematician.
those that do do, those that can't teach.
or something along those lines.
it's probably an ayn rand quote, or something.
in math, the only structure that exists is the university; those that do have no option but to teach. there's no free market for abstract math; mathematicians just make it up as it comes to them, and put it aside for somebody else.
we pride ourselves in our platonic disinterest in application.
we openly make fun of engineers....
but i may suggest tracking down the works of alexander grothendieck for some alternative views from a distinguished mathematician.
it's also a strong argument for a gai.
i mean, this is my vision for who takes the gai: artists seeking escape from markets, academics seeking escape from the university, etc.
if you weigh the pros & cons for an independent researcher, disability is a far better choice than lecturing.
the only substantive con that really jumps out is sex; one is less likely to find a partner on disability than as a lecturer. but, if you don't care about that...or even see a less active sex life as a pro....
i mean, this is my vision for who takes the gai: artists seeking escape from markets, academics seeking escape from the university, etc.
if you weigh the pros & cons for an independent researcher, disability is a far better choice than lecturing.
the only substantive con that really jumps out is sex; one is less likely to find a partner on disability than as a lecturer. but, if you don't care about that...or even see a less active sex life as a pro....
i had profs describe their jobs like living through groundhog day.
they'd show up drunk. lament about how they're wasting their lives with children. complain that they didn't have enough time for their work.
math probably self-selects for introverts, but it can't be much different than other fields.
this is a part of the reason why i'm an advocate of converting the university system into four extra years of high school, and leaving the universities as research institutions: to emancipate professors from the doldrums of teaching.
the most miserable people i've ever met are profs. you spend enough time around them, you learn the lesson: get out while you can.
they'd show up drunk. lament about how they're wasting their lives with children. complain that they didn't have enough time for their work.
math probably self-selects for introverts, but it can't be much different than other fields.
this is a part of the reason why i'm an advocate of converting the university system into four extra years of high school, and leaving the universities as research institutions: to emancipate professors from the doldrums of teaching.
the most miserable people i've ever met are profs. you spend enough time around them, you learn the lesson: get out while you can.
so, am i mathematician or not?
well, it depends on how you define it.
some people will claim that a mathematician is somebody that has a degree in mathematics, and i certainly adhere to that categorization, and then some. my sole awarded degree is a four year b. mathematics (honours) (2006), but i could apply for a graduate degree if i wanted to - although that statement may not be true for much longer, as those extra credits will eventually run out.
others will claim that, to truly be a mathematician, one must work in the field and publish papers. i have not done that and will not be doing that any time soon.
so, if i have a math degree, why don't i get a job as a mathematician? well, it's not exactly something that you apply for online, to start with. that basically means being a math prof. the other option is building weapons, and you know i wouldn't like that. and, let's be real - this is in fact a really shitty job with poor pay, bad benefits, zero security, awful hours and poor career advancement.
the reason i'm not technically a mathematician is in truth because i decided i didn't want to be one. i decided i'd rather be a musician.
if we're having a discussion about deep topics at the graduate level, you can call me on this, and i won't push back. i'm honest about this; i'll defer when necessary. but, you don't have a math degree, do you? and, you don't have a dozen graduate courses under your belt, either, right? or minors in related fields like economics, physics and computer science, either, right? usually, i'm the one that should be deferred to. you'd have to get very specialized to get out of my league...
if we're having a discussion about polling methods, or basic calculus, or introductory game theory, i have all the specialized knowledge you need. and, you can choose not to trust me if you want, but i'd point to my track record on that.
well, it depends on how you define it.
some people will claim that a mathematician is somebody that has a degree in mathematics, and i certainly adhere to that categorization, and then some. my sole awarded degree is a four year b. mathematics (honours) (2006), but i could apply for a graduate degree if i wanted to - although that statement may not be true for much longer, as those extra credits will eventually run out.
others will claim that, to truly be a mathematician, one must work in the field and publish papers. i have not done that and will not be doing that any time soon.
so, if i have a math degree, why don't i get a job as a mathematician? well, it's not exactly something that you apply for online, to start with. that basically means being a math prof. the other option is building weapons, and you know i wouldn't like that. and, let's be real - this is in fact a really shitty job with poor pay, bad benefits, zero security, awful hours and poor career advancement.
the reason i'm not technically a mathematician is in truth because i decided i didn't want to be one. i decided i'd rather be a musician.
if we're having a discussion about deep topics at the graduate level, you can call me on this, and i won't push back. i'm honest about this; i'll defer when necessary. but, you don't have a math degree, do you? and, you don't have a dozen graduate courses under your belt, either, right? or minors in related fields like economics, physics and computer science, either, right? usually, i'm the one that should be deferred to. you'd have to get very specialized to get out of my league...
if we're having a discussion about polling methods, or basic calculus, or introductory game theory, i have all the specialized knowledge you need. and, you can choose not to trust me if you want, but i'd point to my track record on that.
i never got started today and am about to pass out early, yet again.
i thought i had this fixed. almost all the holes were blocked. finally. but, the idiots downstairs thought it would be a good idea to blow smoke into the apartment from outside by blowing up through the window sill.
no joke: they are sticking their head out their window and blowing the smoke up. i guess they expect me to close the window? they may just be trying to irk me.....
...but, obviously, the more smoke they blow in, the longer it takes to clear out. fucking idiots.
it's going to take all night to clear. but, the effects are felt.
so, i am once again crashing early due to the draining effects of second hand thc. ugh.
the next time that happens, i'm going to have to dump water on their heads. but, this is also getting into the realm of something that i could potentially prosecute as harassment...
i thought i had this fixed. almost all the holes were blocked. finally. but, the idiots downstairs thought it would be a good idea to blow smoke into the apartment from outside by blowing up through the window sill.
no joke: they are sticking their head out their window and blowing the smoke up. i guess they expect me to close the window? they may just be trying to irk me.....
...but, obviously, the more smoke they blow in, the longer it takes to clear out. fucking idiots.
it's going to take all night to clear. but, the effects are felt.
so, i am once again crashing early due to the draining effects of second hand thc. ugh.
the next time that happens, i'm going to have to dump water on their heads. but, this is also getting into the realm of something that i could potentially prosecute as harassment...
Monday, March 19, 2018
horwath's biggest advantage, right now, is of course that she's not wynne.
i don't mean that horwath needs to come up with a precise answer that is going to appeal to everybody. that would be impossible.
what i mean is that wynne has already helped horwath tremendously by going out of her way to blur the differences between them. a sitting premier should have an incumbency advantage; wynne has wiped that away, by adopting virtually every position horwath has presented and by going out of her way to have them appear essentially the same.
again: in a situation where a premier is popular, this is a good idea as it makes the change option seem pointless. why vote for a change when they're both the same? but, in a situation where a premier is unpopular, it abolishes the incumbency advantage. why vote for wynne when horwath is basically the same, and represents the change that everybody wants?
this is the thing that wynne will probably never acknowledge.
horwath still must differentiate herself. not on a specific thing like a dental plan, or a marijuana policy. but, overall. she has to convert "basically the same, but a change" into "a change for the better".
where wynne is, right now, she should be campaigning on how much of a dramatic change the scary ndp would be - she wants voters to exaggerate the difference, and be fearful of it.
i don't mean that horwath needs to come up with a precise answer that is going to appeal to everybody. that would be impossible.
what i mean is that wynne has already helped horwath tremendously by going out of her way to blur the differences between them. a sitting premier should have an incumbency advantage; wynne has wiped that away, by adopting virtually every position horwath has presented and by going out of her way to have them appear essentially the same.
again: in a situation where a premier is popular, this is a good idea as it makes the change option seem pointless. why vote for a change when they're both the same? but, in a situation where a premier is unpopular, it abolishes the incumbency advantage. why vote for wynne when horwath is basically the same, and represents the change that everybody wants?
this is the thing that wynne will probably never acknowledge.
horwath still must differentiate herself. not on a specific thing like a dental plan, or a marijuana policy. but, overall. she has to convert "basically the same, but a change" into "a change for the better".
where wynne is, right now, she should be campaigning on how much of a dramatic change the scary ndp would be - she wants voters to exaggerate the difference, and be fearful of it.
to be clear: wynne thinks she can block horwath by copying her.
that only works when you're in a dominant position.
horwath is, in fact, in the dominant position, right now. and, wynne's attempts to block her by copying her are actually going to aid her.
so, horwath now needs to give people a reason to vote ndp instead of liberal.
that only works when you're in a dominant position.
horwath is, in fact, in the dominant position, right now. and, wynne's attempts to block her by copying her are actually going to aid her.
so, horwath now needs to give people a reason to vote ndp instead of liberal.
if they split the vote, is there some way we could repeat 1985, and put the liberals and ndp in coalition?
that's not what happened in 1985; in 1985, the liberals got 37% of the vote.
if we end up in a situation where they both have around 25-30%, the liberals could be wiped off the map as they end up second everywhere. and, kathleen wynne will be personally responsible - not for her policies, which are popular, but for her narcissistic and nihilistic strategies.
she's campaigning from a position of strength, while in a position of abject weakness.
she may be incapable of admitting weakness.
that's not what happened in 1985; in 1985, the liberals got 37% of the vote.
if we end up in a situation where they both have around 25-30%, the liberals could be wiped off the map as they end up second everywhere. and, kathleen wynne will be personally responsible - not for her policies, which are popular, but for her narcissistic and nihilistic strategies.
she's campaigning from a position of strength, while in a position of abject weakness.
she may be incapable of admitting weakness.
wynne is maybe the worst politician i've ever seen.
so, in a scenario where she needs to be drawing contrasts between herself and horwath, she is instead trying to copy her positions and make the choice between them blurry. and, if that reality holds, ford wins by splitting the vote.
and, i'm actually starting to lose patience with her. her incompetency here is really singularly bizarre. and, it's pissing me off enough to consider voting against her out of spite.
i mean, talk about reckless.
horwath needs to define herself differently than wynne, so voters are given a clear choice and don't accidentally elect a mental midget because the premier can't admit that she's - personally - too unpopular to be running.
so, in a scenario where she needs to be drawing contrasts between herself and horwath, she is instead trying to copy her positions and make the choice between them blurry. and, if that reality holds, ford wins by splitting the vote.
and, i'm actually starting to lose patience with her. her incompetency here is really singularly bizarre. and, it's pissing me off enough to consider voting against her out of spite.
i mean, talk about reckless.
horwath needs to define herself differently than wynne, so voters are given a clear choice and don't accidentally elect a mental midget because the premier can't admit that she's - personally - too unpopular to be running.
i decided walking in that it would be a better strategy to be honest about small things (like marijuana, and j-walking - which i'm brutal about), because if i told him i hadn't, and he thought i was lying, i'd be less likely to get approved than if i told him i had.
by being honest about the pot, and denying using other drugs, i established a level of trust that may have been decisive, in the end.
i mean, i don't think he would have believed me if i lied about the pot. he couldn't prove i was lying, but it might not matter. and then i'm in much bigger trouble...
by being honest about the pot, and denying using other drugs, i established a level of trust that may have been decisive, in the end.
i mean, i don't think he would have believed me if i lied about the pot. he couldn't prove i was lying, but it might not matter. and then i'm in much bigger trouble...
i admitted to smoking marijuana in the past when i was doing my nexus interview.
the question was whether i've done "any drugs". i said i'd smoked some marijuana, previously.
the interviewer shrugged.
"any other drugs?"
i lied and said no.
the card showed up in the mail a few weeks later. and, i now have advanced clearance to the united states....
the point is that this is bullshit. it's all discretionary. the reality is that i'm not very scary when sober (and even less so when stoned), and that fact won out in the end.
trudeau is unlikely to face many problems, unless he applies for residency, which is not impossible. if he ends up in hollywood, he may be better off not applying for anything.
i can't believe we let all these war criminal former presidents in our own country, though. the younger bush, especially, should be arrested at the airport.
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/19/trudeau-could-be-barred-from-u-s-after-hes-pm-because-he-smoked-pot-u-s-lawyer/
the question was whether i've done "any drugs". i said i'd smoked some marijuana, previously.
the interviewer shrugged.
"any other drugs?"
i lied and said no.
the card showed up in the mail a few weeks later. and, i now have advanced clearance to the united states....
the point is that this is bullshit. it's all discretionary. the reality is that i'm not very scary when sober (and even less so when stoned), and that fact won out in the end.
trudeau is unlikely to face many problems, unless he applies for residency, which is not impossible. if he ends up in hollywood, he may be better off not applying for anything.
i can't believe we let all these war criminal former presidents in our own country, though. the younger bush, especially, should be arrested at the airport.
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/19/trudeau-could-be-barred-from-u-s-after-hes-pm-because-he-smoked-pot-u-s-lawyer/
how does putin get these ridiculous numbers? aren't they beyond credulity?
in russia, election rig you - which means that if they're going to fuck with it, they'll go all out. 99%.
99.9%.
and, then they'll drag the seventeen poor bastards that dared vote otherwise on to tv, and insult them for it.
russia knows how to rig an election, alright. and, 75% is not a rigged election.
in russia, election rig you - which means that if they're going to fuck with it, they'll go all out. 99%.
99.9%.
and, then they'll drag the seventeen poor bastards that dared vote otherwise on to tv, and insult them for it.
russia knows how to rig an election, alright. and, 75% is not a rigged election.
so, how does this happen, then?
these are the results:
vladimir putin - 75.0 pct (liberal-conservative party - united russia)
pavel grudinin - 13.3 pct (communist party - literally)
vladimir zhirinovsky - 6.3 pct (these are literally fascists)
so, imagine walking into a polling booth and having the following options in front of you:
1) liberal-conservatives (or just 'capitalists')
2) the historical soviet/communist party of russia
3) fascists
which of these options would you prefer?
it's a non-choice. so, 75% is actually absolutely believable, when you recognize the reality of the options.
and, is this so outrageous, in comparison to other democracies?
corbyn & may got over 82% of the vote, together. so, if there was a conservative-labour party in the uk, no doubt led by the ghost of winston churchill, it would have been more popular than putin. a liberal-conservative party would have received over 70% of the vote in the last canadian election. and a democratic-republican party would get over 95% of the vote.
if we stop to consider the nature of our two-headed monsters, it doesn't seem so different does it? and, a little bit of historical knowledge will bring out the following stark truth: liberal-conservative and democratic-republican are real historical entities.
at some point, united russia will split into liberal and conservative factions. for the time being, the capitalist class sees it in it's self interest to remain united, rather than to divide and conquer.
the fascists probably aren't a serious threat.
but, the communists are.
Sunday, March 18, 2018
i have not been keeping up to date on the conflict in mali. africa is such a giant place, and what's happening on the ground is so difficult to get decent information about due to the fact that it remains a technological backwater, that i tend to block it out. i mean, you need to block things out.
these conflicts are all about oil and minerals and diamonds, and there's generally three sides, if you ignore all the complexities between the proxies: the americans and chinese are competing with each for colonial influence, while indigenous voices usually struggle to be heard, at all. the americans have taken over for the british (the french, in some ways, never really left), while the chinese have taken over for the russians. but, it's the same basic conflict.
and, sometimes the nato forces are the lesser evil, while, sometimes, the chinese forces are - although the cubans, when they were active, were legitimately almost always good guys. it was only ever the cubans that were worthy of serious moral support....
what canada has historically done in these situations is try and focus on the humanitarian side of the nato missions. and, sometimes that means being the softer face of something rather nasty and rather evil, which invites a lot of valid criticism. but, the reality is that we often have the choice of trying to minimize the slaughter or doing nothing in the face of it at all - we cannot offer a meaningful front of resistance. we just can't.
on top of that, we have our own mining interests, and they tend to be some of the worst human rights abusers going.
and, we have our own geo-political interests, as well, which i'll get to in a moment.
the last time i checked in to what was happening in mali, you had these rebel groups coming in from the north with weapons stolen from ghadaffi, and they were causing havoc in certain oil-producing regions. these are your typical saudi-backed lunatics that want to implement a strict religious order (including the enslavement or worse of the black africans in the south of the country), but this is really a conflict over who gets to control the supply of oil. so, it's essentially a conflict between arabs and europeans over who gets to steal the oil from the africans. much of the history of western africa is about arabs and europeans competing with each other, to determine who is the more brutal colonizer.
what canada is likely to be doing in this situation is two things. first, canada specializes in protecting civilian populations in these conflicts - which is very important to the nato mission, because the intent is to win hearts & minds. it's really a fluke of history that we managed to make ourselves the hewers of aid supplies and drawers of water like this, but it's what we do - it's what we're trained to do, and we're good at it, too. we'll also no doubt be on the front lines of this, trying to push out the tuareg rebels.
any development that follows from this mission will be created in the broader scope of the military objective of controlling the oil field. but, will anybody remember why the road was built, in the end?
as exporters of oil, is this even in our interest?
well, it is if it lets us duck out of getting too involved in ukraine.
and, that is the real purpose of pearsonian peace-keeping. rather than get bogged down in vietnam, we helped the empire build roads in africa - a no less important task for the projection of global power, but a far more benign one.
i'm consequently going to leave the criticism for historians - so long as the longer term strategy does, in fact, work itself out. if we start invading russia, this negates it's own worth, and all bets are off.
these conflicts are all about oil and minerals and diamonds, and there's generally three sides, if you ignore all the complexities between the proxies: the americans and chinese are competing with each for colonial influence, while indigenous voices usually struggle to be heard, at all. the americans have taken over for the british (the french, in some ways, never really left), while the chinese have taken over for the russians. but, it's the same basic conflict.
and, sometimes the nato forces are the lesser evil, while, sometimes, the chinese forces are - although the cubans, when they were active, were legitimately almost always good guys. it was only ever the cubans that were worthy of serious moral support....
what canada has historically done in these situations is try and focus on the humanitarian side of the nato missions. and, sometimes that means being the softer face of something rather nasty and rather evil, which invites a lot of valid criticism. but, the reality is that we often have the choice of trying to minimize the slaughter or doing nothing in the face of it at all - we cannot offer a meaningful front of resistance. we just can't.
on top of that, we have our own mining interests, and they tend to be some of the worst human rights abusers going.
and, we have our own geo-political interests, as well, which i'll get to in a moment.
the last time i checked in to what was happening in mali, you had these rebel groups coming in from the north with weapons stolen from ghadaffi, and they were causing havoc in certain oil-producing regions. these are your typical saudi-backed lunatics that want to implement a strict religious order (including the enslavement or worse of the black africans in the south of the country), but this is really a conflict over who gets to control the supply of oil. so, it's essentially a conflict between arabs and europeans over who gets to steal the oil from the africans. much of the history of western africa is about arabs and europeans competing with each other, to determine who is the more brutal colonizer.
what canada is likely to be doing in this situation is two things. first, canada specializes in protecting civilian populations in these conflicts - which is very important to the nato mission, because the intent is to win hearts & minds. it's really a fluke of history that we managed to make ourselves the hewers of aid supplies and drawers of water like this, but it's what we do - it's what we're trained to do, and we're good at it, too. we'll also no doubt be on the front lines of this, trying to push out the tuareg rebels.
any development that follows from this mission will be created in the broader scope of the military objective of controlling the oil field. but, will anybody remember why the road was built, in the end?
as exporters of oil, is this even in our interest?
well, it is if it lets us duck out of getting too involved in ukraine.
and, that is the real purpose of pearsonian peace-keeping. rather than get bogged down in vietnam, we helped the empire build roads in africa - a no less important task for the projection of global power, but a far more benign one.
i'm consequently going to leave the criticism for historians - so long as the longer term strategy does, in fact, work itself out. if we start invading russia, this negates it's own worth, and all bets are off.
so, expect the liberals & ndp to start accusing anybody that criticizes their non-plan on emissions reductions as being russian spies.
to me, the biggest story that came out of the russia hoax is the revelation that american liberals are, in fact, as stupid as american conservatives - that the stupidity is an american thing, rather than a conservative thing.
i actually don't expect this to work, here.
notley is done, anyways. her election was a fluke. and, she's blown the one opportunity that the province had to stop itself from imminent collapse due to the resource curse. but, part of me would like to see trudeau fall on his own sword.
go ahead, justin.
call me a russian spy.
i dare you.
http://nationalpost.com/news/world/notorious-russian-troll-farm-also-took-swipes-at-canadian-targets-oil-pm
to me, the biggest story that came out of the russia hoax is the revelation that american liberals are, in fact, as stupid as american conservatives - that the stupidity is an american thing, rather than a conservative thing.
i actually don't expect this to work, here.
notley is done, anyways. her election was a fluke. and, she's blown the one opportunity that the province had to stop itself from imminent collapse due to the resource curse. but, part of me would like to see trudeau fall on his own sword.
go ahead, justin.
call me a russian spy.
i dare you.
http://nationalpost.com/news/world/notorious-russian-troll-farm-also-took-swipes-at-canadian-targets-oil-pm
the functional difference facing society is this: do you want to accept the scientific fact of gender fluidity, or do you want to maintain these arbitrary concepts of gender exclusivity, at the expense of maintaining a large social welfare state?
the idea that you can force boys to be boys and force girls to be girls isn't an actual choice in front of you - because these are not categories that exist in biology, but categories that only exist in disney films.
and, frankly, i'm happy to live a bourgeois life on disability, if you won't let me work. but, you have to allow for this. you can't just tell us to starve. even the christians have a problem with this.
a proper cost-benefit analysis would expose the stupidity of holding to fairy tales. but, the social sciences aren't good at math.
the idea that you can force boys to be boys and force girls to be girls isn't an actual choice in front of you - because these are not categories that exist in biology, but categories that only exist in disney films.
and, frankly, i'm happy to live a bourgeois life on disability, if you won't let me work. but, you have to allow for this. you can't just tell us to starve. even the christians have a problem with this.
a proper cost-benefit analysis would expose the stupidity of holding to fairy tales. but, the social sciences aren't good at math.
i mean, maybe we could have a debate about why the collective should determine jordan's hair cut for him, while we're at it.
maybe we can pick out his clothes for him.
tell him who he should want to have sex with, where he should piss, what he should smoke.
nonono. he has to listen.
because we said so.
maybe we can pick out his clothes for him.
tell him who he should want to have sex with, where he should piss, what he should smoke.
nonono. he has to listen.
because we said so.
i think that this is a part of the disconnect, and it comes out of the fact that christianity is a collectivist and authoritarian system of thought that thinks it can write rules that other people have to follow.
even if the jordan petersons of the world could manage to pass a decree with 95% support, i still don't care - because it's not up for the collective to make these decisions on the behalf of an individual. it's just going to increase the chances that we're going to end up in a court.
so, nothing can come of such a debate. and, it's not worth wasting time over.
that said, you'll notice i'm not out there trying to shut him down, either. i think these people are harming their own cause - which is also my cause. and, i'd rather they let him circle jerk to the choir and find something better to do.
even if the jordan petersons of the world could manage to pass a decree with 95% support, i still don't care - because it's not up for the collective to make these decisions on the behalf of an individual. it's just going to increase the chances that we're going to end up in a court.
so, nothing can come of such a debate. and, it's not worth wasting time over.
that said, you'll notice i'm not out there trying to shut him down, either. i think these people are harming their own cause - which is also my cause. and, i'd rather they let him circle jerk to the choir and find something better to do.
no, listen, i don't know what you think a debate with somebody like jordan peterson would be like.
so long as he didn't make any factual errors, i'd probably let him finish. without interrupting him.
and, i'm not likely to say much besides "that's nice.", or "you're entitled to your opinion."....
...because i ultimately don't have any interest in winning a debate with somebody like this. or really any interest in bothering to listen to him express his viewpoints on the matter at all.
it's of no relevance to me.
in the end, i'd be more likely to make an argument about the uselessness of bourgeois rights - and how rights aren't something that come from a legislature, but something that come from lived experience.
which isn't to say i don't support the amendments, so much as to suggest that i don't think they're going to actually make anybody's lives better.
i made no effort to agitate for these amendments.
because, news flash: i'm not going to follow the law, anyways. i haven't up to now. if the thing gets defeated, or reversed, i'm not going to change my behaviour, either.
so, it's only at the moment that he tries to physically intervene that i have some reason to care what he thinks. and, at that point, i'm more likely to call the police than i am to try and debate with him.
individual rights aren't up for debate like this. we take them for ourselves. and, we fight with those that want to restrict them.
so long as he didn't make any factual errors, i'd probably let him finish. without interrupting him.
and, i'm not likely to say much besides "that's nice.", or "you're entitled to your opinion."....
...because i ultimately don't have any interest in winning a debate with somebody like this. or really any interest in bothering to listen to him express his viewpoints on the matter at all.
it's of no relevance to me.
in the end, i'd be more likely to make an argument about the uselessness of bourgeois rights - and how rights aren't something that come from a legislature, but something that come from lived experience.
which isn't to say i don't support the amendments, so much as to suggest that i don't think they're going to actually make anybody's lives better.
i made no effort to agitate for these amendments.
because, news flash: i'm not going to follow the law, anyways. i haven't up to now. if the thing gets defeated, or reversed, i'm not going to change my behaviour, either.
so, it's only at the moment that he tries to physically intervene that i have some reason to care what he thinks. and, at that point, i'm more likely to call the police than i am to try and debate with him.
individual rights aren't up for debate like this. we take them for ourselves. and, we fight with those that want to restrict them.
i can't have a mid-life crisis, because i never grew up in the first place.
but we'd be better off if more people had more mid-life crises, younger - and stopped snapping out of them.
we should be thinking of mid-life crises as though they're moments of clarity, not moments of insanity.
because, it's our 30s that are always our low points.
that moment of transcendence comes when we realize we've spent our lives running from ourselves, and stop doing it. how many of us never get there?
but we'd be better off if more people had more mid-life crises, younger - and stopped snapping out of them.
we should be thinking of mid-life crises as though they're moments of clarity, not moments of insanity.
because, it's our 30s that are always our low points.
that moment of transcendence comes when we realize we've spent our lives running from ourselves, and stop doing it. how many of us never get there?
to all you grown-ups, let me ask: where did you find all of these things that are real and true?
was it under your bed?
in your closet?
at your place of employment?
in your sex life?
or did you, in truth, just delude yourself into living in denial - like your parents did.
for that's what being an adult is really about, isn't it?
was it under your bed?
in your closet?
at your place of employment?
in your sex life?
or did you, in truth, just delude yourself into living in denial - like your parents did.
for that's what being an adult is really about, isn't it?
the idea that we're going to throw away music, poetry or culture by discarding religion is just ignorant. dawkins tends to argue we should keep it, but he's maybe not aware of the actual history.
most of the art we connect to christianity is absurdly over-rated. and, there's no deficit of secular art since the renaissance, either. it's a false binary.
which isn't to say we should burn down the sistine chapel, so much as it is to suggest we should approach it like a museum. i'd rather hang out at the parthenon, myself.
today is reznor day....
i only got halfway through machina I on the corgan kick before i had to stop. machina II was better. but, it gets spotty after the stigmata ost.
the air is clearing out in the bedroom, if perhaps even getting worse in the living room. i'm going to have to really clear out the cabinets, as it's coming up behind them. but i need to be sure i've fixed the bedroom up, first.
it's warm today. finally...
most of the art we connect to christianity is absurdly over-rated. and, there's no deficit of secular art since the renaissance, either. it's a false binary.
which isn't to say we should burn down the sistine chapel, so much as it is to suggest we should approach it like a museum. i'd rather hang out at the parthenon, myself.
today is reznor day....
i only got halfway through machina I on the corgan kick before i had to stop. machina II was better. but, it gets spotty after the stigmata ost.
the air is clearing out in the bedroom, if perhaps even getting worse in the living room. i'm going to have to really clear out the cabinets, as it's coming up behind them. but i need to be sure i've fixed the bedroom up, first.
it's warm today. finally...
Saturday, March 17, 2018
see, the thing is that the liberal & ndp platforms are almost the same.
ontario has a strange loophole: we have dental & drug benefits for people on disability (and welfare...), but not for people making minimum wage. so, it puts people in the difficult decision of having to lose their benefits in order to take a job. free market type economists have been pointing this out as inefficient for years, which is no doubt the actual reason the liberals are moving on this.
americans may be interested to know that the actual reason we have a single-payer health care is to attract investment. single payer is more efficient, and therefore cheaper for employers. it's a job creation strategy.
we're lucky to have a smart liberal party that is very, very good at economics - and willing to take on specific industries for the benefit of the larger economy.
likewise, these loans are toxic. the state needs to get rid of them before they start taking things down. cancelling the loans is not a loss of revenue, so much as it's a savings in administration. and, this is something the liberals have targeted, based on class - which is arguably even better.
so, from a distance it seems like this is populist, welfare state type stuff, but it's actually just the smart version of liberalism that is missing in action through much of the world. and, it follows that both wynne and horwath can take these policies to the banks and convince them that it's in their interests to move on them.
i don't think that the ndp can reverse the hydro one sale, nor do i think it would get to the crux of anything meaningful. the hydro problem is complicated; i've posted about it here before. but, the only meaningful things we can do, at this point, are actually to encourage an increase in total use [the basic problem is that the grid was built for electric vehicles, and they're not here - that is the reason costs are high], and try to nationalize some of these private wind farms, that are taking advantage of very good deals as a consequence of lower than expected demand.
when the situation is as it is, and the platforms are nearly identical, i'm tempted to stick with what exists. horwath is more likely to collaborate with notley on oil. and, i remain apprehensive about a so-called socialist party that has no union support; will they force cuts to balance the budget, as the ndp so often do?
but, horwath is certainly a better option than ford.
and, we may have to accept that.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-ndp-universal-health-care-1.4581129
ontario has a strange loophole: we have dental & drug benefits for people on disability (and welfare...), but not for people making minimum wage. so, it puts people in the difficult decision of having to lose their benefits in order to take a job. free market type economists have been pointing this out as inefficient for years, which is no doubt the actual reason the liberals are moving on this.
americans may be interested to know that the actual reason we have a single-payer health care is to attract investment. single payer is more efficient, and therefore cheaper for employers. it's a job creation strategy.
we're lucky to have a smart liberal party that is very, very good at economics - and willing to take on specific industries for the benefit of the larger economy.
likewise, these loans are toxic. the state needs to get rid of them before they start taking things down. cancelling the loans is not a loss of revenue, so much as it's a savings in administration. and, this is something the liberals have targeted, based on class - which is arguably even better.
so, from a distance it seems like this is populist, welfare state type stuff, but it's actually just the smart version of liberalism that is missing in action through much of the world. and, it follows that both wynne and horwath can take these policies to the banks and convince them that it's in their interests to move on them.
i don't think that the ndp can reverse the hydro one sale, nor do i think it would get to the crux of anything meaningful. the hydro problem is complicated; i've posted about it here before. but, the only meaningful things we can do, at this point, are actually to encourage an increase in total use [the basic problem is that the grid was built for electric vehicles, and they're not here - that is the reason costs are high], and try to nationalize some of these private wind farms, that are taking advantage of very good deals as a consequence of lower than expected demand.
when the situation is as it is, and the platforms are nearly identical, i'm tempted to stick with what exists. horwath is more likely to collaborate with notley on oil. and, i remain apprehensive about a so-called socialist party that has no union support; will they force cuts to balance the budget, as the ndp so often do?
but, horwath is certainly a better option than ford.
and, we may have to accept that.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-ndp-universal-health-care-1.4581129
the liberals should be more concerned about a resurgent bloc than a resurgent ndp.
the ndp will lose seats in quebec....
again: it's not the hat. they won't even vote for white anglos.
it's going to be trudeau v. the bloc, whether anybody likes it or not. and, if the bloc is dead, trudeau will sweep.
the ndp will lose seats in quebec....
again: it's not the hat. they won't even vote for white anglos.
it's going to be trudeau v. the bloc, whether anybody likes it or not. and, if the bloc is dead, trudeau will sweep.
there were only two issues in front of quebeckers to differentiate the ndp and liberals.
1) marijuana.
2) sovereigntism.
and, quebec voted federalist over sovereigntist.
it's probably not more complex than this.
so, why did layton get the break through? it was probably simply due to ignatieff's immense unpopularity, and the fact that layton had better bonafides than ignatieff in terms of being a quebecker.
quebec votes quebecker, first and foremost. layton was from montreal. i think ignatieff was from britain, or transylvania, or something...
1) marijuana.
2) sovereigntism.
and, quebec voted federalist over sovereigntist.
it's probably not more complex than this.
so, why did layton get the break through? it was probably simply due to ignatieff's immense unpopularity, and the fact that layton had better bonafides than ignatieff in terms of being a quebecker.
quebec votes quebecker, first and foremost. layton was from montreal. i think ignatieff was from britain, or transylvania, or something...
i think an underestimated factor in the ndp's collapse last election was mulcair's position on the clarity act, and the general feeling that the ndp were bloc-light.
i know that the party attributed a lot of layton's success to this, but i don't think that holds up, either.
forget about jagmeet's funny hat. the ndp didn't fall due to the hijab issue - that's incoherent. and, if they don't address this, it's going to continue to drag them down long past jagmeet's imminent resignation.
i know that the party attributed a lot of layton's success to this, but i don't think that holds up, either.
forget about jagmeet's funny hat. the ndp didn't fall due to the hijab issue - that's incoherent. and, if they don't address this, it's going to continue to drag them down long past jagmeet's imminent resignation.
see, and i've long argued that secular groups need to step into this vacuum and help people out of the cult.
for, that is what islam is - a dangerous cult.
https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21738904-yet-even-land-free-apostasy-isnt-easy-number-ex-muslims-america
for, that is what islam is - a dangerous cult.
https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21738904-yet-even-land-free-apostasy-isnt-easy-number-ex-muslims-america
well, he can have the big bang. it's kind of more on his side of things, anyways.
but, i don't think that this other thing, evolution, is what he thinks it is. at all.
the bottom line is that theologians with funny hats have no business making statements about physics or biology. and what he says on these topics is essentially irrelevant.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html
but, i don't think that this other thing, evolution, is what he thinks it is. at all.
the bottom line is that theologians with funny hats have no business making statements about physics or biology. and what he says on these topics is essentially irrelevant.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html
i mean, i don't know much about the details of sikh self-determination.
but, i am, in general, in favour of self-determination.
because i'm a leftist. and we tend to favour that.
you're surprised, for some reason.
i read something about a bombing in the 80s in a history book, but i don't know the details, and it's hardly of any relevance to me.
but, i am, in general, in favour of self-determination.
because i'm a leftist. and we tend to favour that.
you're surprised, for some reason.
i read something about a bombing in the 80s in a history book, but i don't know the details, and it's hardly of any relevance to me.
i think jesus would be more like to present his image to her in the potato side of the weight watchers meal.
i noticed when i was at the hospital last week that oprah is fat again. you know that the weight loss is what her run is going to really be about. and, then she's going to upset the "body positivists".
stop appropriating the term positivism, you freaks.
this is just more proof that america is insane.
....the einstein-turing thesis.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/03/16/maine-resident-jesus-christ-sends-letter-to-oprah-is-it-the-sign-shes-been-looking-for.html
i noticed when i was at the hospital last week that oprah is fat again. you know that the weight loss is what her run is going to really be about. and, then she's going to upset the "body positivists".
stop appropriating the term positivism, you freaks.
this is just more proof that america is insane.
....the einstein-turing thesis.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/03/16/maine-resident-jesus-christ-sends-letter-to-oprah-is-it-the-sign-shes-been-looking-for.html
this is not a poll, it's propaganda.
"if it were a poll, it would have a margin of error of 2.5%...."
well, if it were a poll, maybe.
but it's not one.
if your aunt had balls, sir.
news organizations really need to stop reporting on propaganda as though it's science. but, it's the culture we live in right now, and the culture we need to change...
i'm not saying that this isn't accidentally right - and i'm not saying it's necessarily totally wrong, either. what i'm saying is that it's not a poll.
you would expect these online "polls" to skew all over the place, and that's ignoring the fact that there's no sampling in the process.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/03/17/ontario-voters-to-cast-ballot-for-doug-ford-poll-says.html
"if it were a poll, it would have a margin of error of 2.5%...."
well, if it were a poll, maybe.
but it's not one.
if your aunt had balls, sir.
news organizations really need to stop reporting on propaganda as though it's science. but, it's the culture we live in right now, and the culture we need to change...
i'm not saying that this isn't accidentally right - and i'm not saying it's necessarily totally wrong, either. what i'm saying is that it's not a poll.
you would expect these online "polls" to skew all over the place, and that's ignoring the fact that there's no sampling in the process.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/03/17/ontario-voters-to-cast-ballot-for-doug-ford-poll-says.html
are they smoking heroin?
listen: i don't and never did have anything in common with kurt cobain. i never idolized him. i was never even that much of a fan.
i'm too young, frankly. he killed himself when i was 13.
corgan & reznor. those were the archetypes.
i even kind of looked a little like a young corgan, who is part cherokee, before i went on hormones.
i have no interest in drugs.
i never had any interest in drugs.
i've never broadcasted an interest in drugs; to the contrast, i've been pretty explicit in my condemnation of them.
and, all i can report is that i feel sick, that i want to be sober and clear-headed and that i don't understand what anybody gets out of this.
listen: i don't and never did have anything in common with kurt cobain. i never idolized him. i was never even that much of a fan.
i'm too young, frankly. he killed himself when i was 13.
corgan & reznor. those were the archetypes.
i even kind of looked a little like a young corgan, who is part cherokee, before i went on hormones.
i have no interest in drugs.
i never had any interest in drugs.
i've never broadcasted an interest in drugs; to the contrast, i've been pretty explicit in my condemnation of them.
and, all i can report is that i feel sick, that i want to be sober and clear-headed and that i don't understand what anybody gets out of this.
Friday, March 16, 2018
i've been clear enough about this.
i'm cusp.
but, gen y, to me, is gen yawn - the kids are fucking boring.
mid 30s, right now, is that demographic dip. we kind of don't exist. so, i need to make that choice. and, you're more likely to find me at a 40+ event than at a 20-something one - even if i'm more likely to blend in at the latter.
i'm cusp.
but, gen y, to me, is gen yawn - the kids are fucking boring.
mid 30s, right now, is that demographic dip. we kind of don't exist. so, i need to make that choice. and, you're more likely to find me at a 40+ event than at a 20-something one - even if i'm more likely to blend in at the latter.
so, i haven't been going out and doing much.
it's been cold and dreary. i don't want to go out anywhere until it warms up.
but, there's also not anything of interest happening around town.
it'll be a snap decision, but i'm probably going to skip gybe! next week. they haven't done anything i care about in almost 20 years. i'm holding out for another mt. zion disc...
it might be april before i head out again.
but, i said this last year: last summer was probably my last summer spent partying. i'm 37 years old. it's not even about my age, exactly, it's more about my interests. i haven't been shy in pointing out that i'm not exactly fond of the younger generation, and it's to the point that they've taken over all of the spaces - there's not a lot of places left for somebody my age to go, and not be bored.
i hate folk music. gen y rock culture is lame. and, even their techno is boring.
so, getting out to things is going to rely on recognizing an older band, or on identifying something going on at the dso, or finding a jazz band, or catching an aging dj. it's going to happen, periodically. but, less and less...
last winter, i skipped a few things due to the cold.
this winter, i'm just not interested.
we'll see if that opens up or not.
it's been cold and dreary. i don't want to go out anywhere until it warms up.
but, there's also not anything of interest happening around town.
it'll be a snap decision, but i'm probably going to skip gybe! next week. they haven't done anything i care about in almost 20 years. i'm holding out for another mt. zion disc...
it might be april before i head out again.
but, i said this last year: last summer was probably my last summer spent partying. i'm 37 years old. it's not even about my age, exactly, it's more about my interests. i haven't been shy in pointing out that i'm not exactly fond of the younger generation, and it's to the point that they've taken over all of the spaces - there's not a lot of places left for somebody my age to go, and not be bored.
i hate folk music. gen y rock culture is lame. and, even their techno is boring.
so, getting out to things is going to rely on recognizing an older band, or on identifying something going on at the dso, or finding a jazz band, or catching an aging dj. it's going to happen, periodically. but, less and less...
last winter, i skipped a few things due to the cold.
this winter, i'm just not interested.
we'll see if that opens up or not.
it's just gotten to a crisis point.
if you're going to break the social contract in refusing to take care of yourself, why should society take care of you at the expense of taking care of others?
every second spent treating an obese person's third heart attack is a second spent not treating somebody else.
we're talking about 30% of the population, and rising. no health care system can accommodate this.
people have to take care better care of themselves.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/28/doctors-treatment-denial-smokers-obese
if you're going to break the social contract in refusing to take care of yourself, why should society take care of you at the expense of taking care of others?
every second spent treating an obese person's third heart attack is a second spent not treating somebody else.
we're talking about 30% of the population, and rising. no health care system can accommodate this.
people have to take care better care of themselves.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/28/doctors-treatment-denial-smokers-obese
this is a kind of american exceptionalism that americans don't seem to realize.
we're not quite here in canada, yet, but we might be fairly soon.
most countries in the world look at this rationally, and understand the need to preserve scarce resources; they don't tell their citizens it's ok to stuff themselves with cheeseburgers, howl that the world is wrong and oppressive to criticize them for their anti-social behaviour and then grossly maximize the profit from the catastrophe.
and, most citizens don't claim the right to stuff their faces with cheeseburgers, or uphold it as some warped concept of "freedom".
usa! usa!
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/health/smokers-obese-no-surgery-nhs-uk/index.html
we're not quite here in canada, yet, but we might be fairly soon.
most countries in the world look at this rationally, and understand the need to preserve scarce resources; they don't tell their citizens it's ok to stuff themselves with cheeseburgers, howl that the world is wrong and oppressive to criticize them for their anti-social behaviour and then grossly maximize the profit from the catastrophe.
and, most citizens don't claim the right to stuff their faces with cheeseburgers, or uphold it as some warped concept of "freedom".
usa! usa!
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/health/smokers-obese-no-surgery-nhs-uk/index.html
i guess what i'm getting at is that i never looked to punk rock as something that was fun, or nihilistic, or party-driven. i was attracted to it because it was "rock music for smart kids", and not because it was some kind of expression of rage or nihilism or angst.
it was nerd rock.
i got my angst from alternative rock, in the sense that it was an expansion of prog. that was the status quo. that was axl rose. i didn't like that; i wanted something different from punk rock...
it was nerd rock.
i got my angst from alternative rock, in the sense that it was an expansion of prog. that was the status quo. that was axl rose. i didn't like that; i wanted something different from punk rock...
i mean, you could argue that graffin & jello were the smartest of the bunch - with rollins & then the offspring appearing later, and that what i'm doing is pulling out the vocalists with viewpoints worth taking note of, while ignoring what was otherwise really just an aimless party scene.
but, i was just a kid. a smart kid. but just a kid.
but, i was just a kid. a smart kid. but just a kid.
the socal punk acts i really liked were the offspring, the dead kennedys and bad religion.
i didn't have much patience for the goofier stuff, like nofx. and, while i had a brief interest in green day when i was very young, it didn't last long. nor did i develop any interest in the "punk rock" that developed after '94.
i liked rollins' spoken word better than i ever liked black flag....
i didn't have much patience for the goofier stuff, like nofx. and, while i had a brief interest in green day when i was very young, it didn't last long. nor did i develop any interest in the "punk rock" that developed after '94.
i liked rollins' spoken word better than i ever liked black flag....
chopin ended up on the cutting room floor.
just didn't feel right.
so, i'm listening to glass this afternoon, instead.
it's the 1998 cd with the full version of the grid.
i remember picking up the cd up in high school, and everybody in my family thinking i'd lost my mind. but, it's great for reading....
https://archive.org/details/Koyaanisqatsi
just didn't feel right.
so, i'm listening to glass this afternoon, instead.
it's the 1998 cd with the full version of the grid.
i remember picking up the cd up in high school, and everybody in my family thinking i'd lost my mind. but, it's great for reading....
https://archive.org/details/Koyaanisqatsi
we're going with some classic rach, this morning.
but, i'm not going to insult you by posting some masturbatory, bourgeois americanized version of either of these.
you gotta let the russians do rach. they do it best. it's no comparison. unfortunately, the closest you'll find to somebody doing this right, online, is some polish tart using it as an outlet for teenage angst.
hope it paid off well, at least.
we're not even at war yet, and i have to link to amazon. fuck...
i've done a lot of sleeping, recently. hopefully, i last the day.
https://www.amazon.ca/Rachmaninoff-Piano-Concerto-No/dp/B000025LJW
but, i'm not going to insult you by posting some masturbatory, bourgeois americanized version of either of these.
you gotta let the russians do rach. they do it best. it's no comparison. unfortunately, the closest you'll find to somebody doing this right, online, is some polish tart using it as an outlet for teenage angst.
hope it paid off well, at least.
we're not even at war yet, and i have to link to amazon. fuck...
i've done a lot of sleeping, recently. hopefully, i last the day.
https://www.amazon.ca/Rachmaninoff-Piano-Concerto-No/dp/B000025LJW
with the singular exception of democracy, i do not have any attachment to the historical values of the west. capitalism, christianity, imperialism, colonialism - i have no attachment to these things.
but, what i do have an attachment to is the promise of a fully secularized, progressive society that the western vanguard once so compellingly aspired to - and that the old left rejected, beginning in the 60s.
if you're a little older, get used to being confounded. we're going to be calling each other regressive, accusing each other of being stuck in the past and convinced that we're each conservatives.
the difference is that i'm consistent, and you're a typical magical thinking baby boomer that thinks they can resolve contradictions through positive thinking.
but, what i do have an attachment to is the promise of a fully secularized, progressive society that the western vanguard once so compellingly aspired to - and that the old left rejected, beginning in the 60s.
if you're a little older, get used to being confounded. we're going to be calling each other regressive, accusing each other of being stuck in the past and convinced that we're each conservatives.
the difference is that i'm consistent, and you're a typical magical thinking baby boomer that thinks they can resolve contradictions through positive thinking.
i don't have a lot of trouble accepting the premise that the russians poisoned a treasonous spy; it's a reasonous position, on their behalf. i just don't think it's much to get upset about.
i mean, do you think nato forces don't kill double agents when they find them?
why do you think edward snowden is so afraid to come home? he likely faces a firing squad.
but, this isn't even really about not being a hypocrite. i really don't see much objectionable in the russians' alleged behaviour. and, i might suggest to intelligence agents intent on defecting that they think what they're doing through carefully, before they do it.
if i'm willing to offer up a criticism, it is to the british for failing to protect their assets. and, this is not the first time the british have failed at this, either.
i mean, do you think nato forces don't kill double agents when they find them?
why do you think edward snowden is so afraid to come home? he likely faces a firing squad.
but, this isn't even really about not being a hypocrite. i really don't see much objectionable in the russians' alleged behaviour. and, i might suggest to intelligence agents intent on defecting that they think what they're doing through carefully, before they do it.
if i'm willing to offer up a criticism, it is to the british for failing to protect their assets. and, this is not the first time the british have failed at this, either.
i don't think that food sustainability should be conflated with veganism or vegetarianism; at it's core, this is an anti-science position, that ignores the reality that we evolved to eat meat, and cannot turn it off via a decision, whether we agree on the moral conclusions or not.
i'm empathetic to arguments about the kind of animals we eat. we eat advanced mammals, and advanced birds; the birds may really not be that smart, truly, but pigs and cows and sheep or not any less intelligent than dogs, and probably mostly far more intelligent than your average cat. these are animals that are advanced enough to develop personalities, to have independent wills and to have some fundamental concept of language. can't we be eating something a little less advanced?
i'd be happy to swap out the salami for some synthetically grown meat, and i think that's the future, rather than veganism. we can grow meat in test tubes.. i'd buy it.
but, another idea is moving to insects, who technically don't actually have brains. they have some concept of pain, but that bothers me less - pain is inherent to existence. i'm not going to sit around trying to prevent myself from breathing in flies. what about the paramecia?
insects don't have identities. some of them are literally clones that will kill themselves off to protect the queens. they're fascinating little robots, sure, but i don't feel bad about eating them.
i'm empathetic to arguments about the kind of animals we eat. we eat advanced mammals, and advanced birds; the birds may really not be that smart, truly, but pigs and cows and sheep or not any less intelligent than dogs, and probably mostly far more intelligent than your average cat. these are animals that are advanced enough to develop personalities, to have independent wills and to have some fundamental concept of language. can't we be eating something a little less advanced?
i'd be happy to swap out the salami for some synthetically grown meat, and i think that's the future, rather than veganism. we can grow meat in test tubes.. i'd buy it.
but, another idea is moving to insects, who technically don't actually have brains. they have some concept of pain, but that bothers me less - pain is inherent to existence. i'm not going to sit around trying to prevent myself from breathing in flies. what about the paramecia?
insects don't have identities. some of them are literally clones that will kill themselves off to protect the queens. they're fascinating little robots, sure, but i don't feel bad about eating them.
i actually eat very little meat.
by weight, i'm guessing that my diet would be over 50% fruit, 10% dairy (cheese, ice cream), 10% vegetables and with the balance being mostly grains - including a lot of soy milk, both in daily smoothies and in the perpetually suckling cup of coffee.
i eat eggs once or twice a week, usually once, which works out to 4-8 eggs a week - usually four. it's about every five days or so.
at this point, i'm still technically a vegetarian. and, i kind of wish i was, but my doctor told me when i was a kid that i need a little red meat.
the idea that you can just take vitamins is wrong. the studies on this are conclusive; it's about absorption, and you just can't absorb a lot of what you get in the fortified foods, or b-complexes. see, and this is the fundamental flaw with veganism - they don't study what your body can actually use. they just look at charts and come to wrong conclusions from them.
take flax seed, for instance. it's actually useless to you - your body can't do a damned thing with it. there's lots of stuff in it that your body would like to be able to use, but it simply just doesn't understand the chemistry required to actually use it. so, it just passes right through. that's not what they told you, is it?
that said, i don't buy raw meat. ever. it's not allowed in the house, under any circumstance. so, you'll never see me buy anything like hamburger, or a ham - or even a turkey. the only meat i will ever purchase is pre-cooked, and i'll microwave it before i touch it, just to make sure.
i'll sometimes buy a pre-cooked bird around thanksgiving (i prefer pizza for christmas, and i generally don't celebrate easter at all). and, i'll get a burger at a fast food restaurant once in a while.
but, the only meat i buy habitually is salami - which tends to get groans. isn't that the worst?
it could be. you're not thinking about this right, though.
see, your body is concerned about total inputs, not relative ones. so, the only reason a tomato is better for you than a chocolate bar is due to the concentration of the sugar - the chocolate bar is just too much. but, you could flip it around the other way, too. a little bit of chocolate is like eating a lot of tomatoes, so if you could fortify the chocolate, it would be a wash.
this is basically thinking like an astronaut. that's what they do with their high tech space food - they condense everything into a few bites.
so, the question of whether salami is actually bad for you or not reduces to how much of it you eat. because salami is highly concentrated, eating a small amount of it is equivalent to eating much more of something else. it follows that if you're also concerned about calories, it makes more sense to eat a little bit of salami than a lot of chicken. you just have to be strict about it.
i just want to add that salami isn't hot dogs. it's not really a processed meat, in that sense. think of it like this: hot dogs are 70% corn starch, but salami is actually 70% meat.
by weight, i'm guessing that my diet would be over 50% fruit, 10% dairy (cheese, ice cream), 10% vegetables and with the balance being mostly grains - including a lot of soy milk, both in daily smoothies and in the perpetually suckling cup of coffee.
i eat eggs once or twice a week, usually once, which works out to 4-8 eggs a week - usually four. it's about every five days or so.
at this point, i'm still technically a vegetarian. and, i kind of wish i was, but my doctor told me when i was a kid that i need a little red meat.
the idea that you can just take vitamins is wrong. the studies on this are conclusive; it's about absorption, and you just can't absorb a lot of what you get in the fortified foods, or b-complexes. see, and this is the fundamental flaw with veganism - they don't study what your body can actually use. they just look at charts and come to wrong conclusions from them.
take flax seed, for instance. it's actually useless to you - your body can't do a damned thing with it. there's lots of stuff in it that your body would like to be able to use, but it simply just doesn't understand the chemistry required to actually use it. so, it just passes right through. that's not what they told you, is it?
that said, i don't buy raw meat. ever. it's not allowed in the house, under any circumstance. so, you'll never see me buy anything like hamburger, or a ham - or even a turkey. the only meat i will ever purchase is pre-cooked, and i'll microwave it before i touch it, just to make sure.
i'll sometimes buy a pre-cooked bird around thanksgiving (i prefer pizza for christmas, and i generally don't celebrate easter at all). and, i'll get a burger at a fast food restaurant once in a while.
but, the only meat i buy habitually is salami - which tends to get groans. isn't that the worst?
it could be. you're not thinking about this right, though.
see, your body is concerned about total inputs, not relative ones. so, the only reason a tomato is better for you than a chocolate bar is due to the concentration of the sugar - the chocolate bar is just too much. but, you could flip it around the other way, too. a little bit of chocolate is like eating a lot of tomatoes, so if you could fortify the chocolate, it would be a wash.
this is basically thinking like an astronaut. that's what they do with their high tech space food - they condense everything into a few bites.
so, the question of whether salami is actually bad for you or not reduces to how much of it you eat. because salami is highly concentrated, eating a small amount of it is equivalent to eating much more of something else. it follows that if you're also concerned about calories, it makes more sense to eat a little bit of salami than a lot of chicken. you just have to be strict about it.
i just want to add that salami isn't hot dogs. it's not really a processed meat, in that sense. think of it like this: hot dogs are 70% corn starch, but salami is actually 70% meat.
Thursday, March 15, 2018
nafta is not about reducing tariffs.
and, abolishing nafta will not erect tariffs.
that was dealt with by the fta and by the wto, as well as by specific bilateral deals like the auto pact.
this study is propagandistic garbage.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/ontario-new-brunswick-most-impacted-if-nafta-implodes-b-c-least-impacted-moodys
and, abolishing nafta will not erect tariffs.
that was dealt with by the fta and by the wto, as well as by specific bilateral deals like the auto pact.
this study is propagandistic garbage.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/ontario-new-brunswick-most-impacted-if-nafta-implodes-b-c-least-impacted-moodys
there's even an argument that being pro-alcohol liberalization & anti-marijuana liberalization, together, is racist and white supremacist.
alcohol's supposed primacy - long displaced, in reality - in western culture is due solely to it's association with christianity. there was no alcohol in native culture, and it's been banned in many other cultures, including islam.
the reality is that marijuana is the preferred drug of choice in most non-white cultures. by showing a preference to alcohol, you are in turn showing a preference to whiteness.
it may be unconscious, but the criticism is legit.
alcohol's supposed primacy - long displaced, in reality - in western culture is due solely to it's association with christianity. there was no alcohol in native culture, and it's been banned in many other cultures, including islam.
the reality is that marijuana is the preferred drug of choice in most non-white cultures. by showing a preference to alcohol, you are in turn showing a preference to whiteness.
it may be unconscious, but the criticism is legit.
i repeat: what wynne wants to do is take the issue off the table, by mimicking ford's positions.
she does not want to run an anti-pot campaign.
if this is a ballot issue, she will lose.
and, while i'd rather see the liberals win, i'm not sinking on this ship: i'm going to bolt to the ndp immediately, to prevent the vote from splitting.
she does not want to run an anti-pot campaign.
if this is a ballot issue, she will lose.
and, while i'd rather see the liberals win, i'm not sinking on this ship: i'm going to bolt to the ndp immediately, to prevent the vote from splitting.
liberals may vote for the right-wing parties from time to time out of protest or general disgust.
and, there's a socially moderate swing in the middle that the liberals can get out of protest, if they think the conservatives are leaning too far to the right.
but, conservatives do not vote liberal out of solidarity. ever.
and, when liberals try to attract conservatives, the end result is that the vote simply caves.
i pointed this out months ago: this party's anti-marijuana zealotry is a weakness that is going to backfire. because, when you try to hug this imaginary "mushy middle", you just end up repelling both sides of the spectrum.
ask thomas mulcair. or michael ignatieff.
it doesn't work.
worse, wynne has actually recently allowed alcohol sales at grocery stores and made a big deal about it - this is simply rank hypocrisy at it's worst.
nobody is talking about putting pot out in the candy bars, although i might suggest that the candy bars are actually more dangerous than the pot. pot doesn't give you diabetes. it's just hard right scare mongering.
she's completely out of touch.
it's not too late for a caucus revolt...
if ford pushes the issue, she will not win the election without moderating her position. it would be wise to get out ahead of it, take the issue off the table and change the topic.
and, there's a socially moderate swing in the middle that the liberals can get out of protest, if they think the conservatives are leaning too far to the right.
but, conservatives do not vote liberal out of solidarity. ever.
and, when liberals try to attract conservatives, the end result is that the vote simply caves.
i pointed this out months ago: this party's anti-marijuana zealotry is a weakness that is going to backfire. because, when you try to hug this imaginary "mushy middle", you just end up repelling both sides of the spectrum.
ask thomas mulcair. or michael ignatieff.
it doesn't work.
worse, wynne has actually recently allowed alcohol sales at grocery stores and made a big deal about it - this is simply rank hypocrisy at it's worst.
nobody is talking about putting pot out in the candy bars, although i might suggest that the candy bars are actually more dangerous than the pot. pot doesn't give you diabetes. it's just hard right scare mongering.
she's completely out of touch.
it's not too late for a caucus revolt...
if ford pushes the issue, she will not win the election without moderating her position. it would be wise to get out ahead of it, take the issue off the table and change the topic.
this is a stupid position to take, and she's going to end up in third place if she holds to it. she should not have taken the bait...
it's going to be unfortunate to see her undo her own legacy by holding to a puritanical view on marijuana. but, so be it.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/03/15/news/ontario-premier-wynne-calls-tory-leader-doug-fords-comments-pot-reckless
it's going to be unfortunate to see her undo her own legacy by holding to a puritanical view on marijuana. but, so be it.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/03/15/news/ontario-premier-wynne-calls-tory-leader-doug-fords-comments-pot-reckless
when is our political leadership going to clue-in to the reality around this guy and just stopping wasting their time with him?
he might not even survive out his term. what i mean is that he could very well die in office; he's in bad shape.
just wait the guy out.
better yet - pull out of nafta, revert to the fta and set the ball rolling for a new bilateral deal with the next president.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/15/politics/trump-trudeau-trade-meeting/index.html
he might not even survive out his term. what i mean is that he could very well die in office; he's in bad shape.
just wait the guy out.
better yet - pull out of nafta, revert to the fta and set the ball rolling for a new bilateral deal with the next president.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/15/politics/trump-trudeau-trade-meeting/index.html
when old news shows up in the suggested pile.
this is bannon cracking under pressure. nobody is going to believe he accused the wrong guy.
people would have been far more likely to believe he meant to say that trump jr was reasonous. the t was just misheard. as in, like, really smart. just like his dad.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/07/steve-bannon-treason-donald-trump-jr-michael-wolff-fire-fury
my bed is reassembled, at least; i guess i needed some sleep, as i've spent the better part of the last 30 hours passed out.
i'm going to need to air out and smoke proof the bedroom first, and then slowly expand to the rest of the apartment. but, i'd like to spend the night working, primarily.
this is bannon cracking under pressure. nobody is going to believe he accused the wrong guy.
people would have been far more likely to believe he meant to say that trump jr was reasonous. the t was just misheard. as in, like, really smart. just like his dad.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/07/steve-bannon-treason-donald-trump-jr-michael-wolff-fire-fury
my bed is reassembled, at least; i guess i needed some sleep, as i've spent the better part of the last 30 hours passed out.
i'm going to need to air out and smoke proof the bedroom first, and then slowly expand to the rest of the apartment. but, i'd like to spend the night working, primarily.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)