no.
i'm still stoned.
still need to sleep it off.
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
the secondhand smoke knocked me out cold again this morning, this time for twelve hours; splitting headache, sore threat, no energy & hot rage - i was unable to do anything but sleep.
it still smells disgusting in here, and i still feel terrible, but i think she's gone for the night, so i need to take advantage of it to try and finish up to the hookup, between coughs and wheezes. i'll have to fill that ventolin prescription next time i'm out.
a part of the problem is the weather. despite the fact that the windows are open and the fans are running, i'm not getting any circulation. we should be back to normal temperatures again on thursday. let's hope it stays nice and hot. this cold weather is depressing...
it still smells disgusting in here, and i still feel terrible, but i think she's gone for the night, so i need to take advantage of it to try and finish up to the hookup, between coughs and wheezes. i'll have to fill that ventolin prescription next time i'm out.
a part of the problem is the weather. despite the fact that the windows are open and the fans are running, i'm not getting any circulation. we should be back to normal temperatures again on thursday. let's hope it stays nice and hot. this cold weather is depressing...
i know i sound like a broken record.
but, there's a big difference between saying the conservatives are running at 38% and saying they're running at 35% - regardless of where the ndp is.
i think the danger inherent here is actually that there's a shy liberal effect, and with the media coverage, it's not impossible. the only way that ford is going to win is if that undecided vote goes to the liberals. it's in two days. why haven't they committed to the ndp yet?
if most of that 10% goes ndp. there's an ndp majority. if most of it goes to the liberals, it's a conservative majority - unless it's distributed almost impossibly well.
so, i'm less concerned about where the tories are here and more concerned about the softness of the ndp vote.
but, there's a big difference between saying the conservatives are running at 38% and saying they're running at 35% - regardless of where the ndp is.
i think the danger inherent here is actually that there's a shy liberal effect, and with the media coverage, it's not impossible. the only way that ford is going to win is if that undecided vote goes to the liberals. it's in two days. why haven't they committed to the ndp yet?
if most of that 10% goes ndp. there's an ndp majority. if most of it goes to the liberals, it's a conservative majority - unless it's distributed almost impossibly well.
so, i'm less concerned about where the tories are here and more concerned about the softness of the ndp vote.
the liberals did not propose a proportional representation system, or an mmp system, but an av - that is, ranked ballots.
the ndp, however, has long proposed proportional representation - and lost several referenda on the topic.
sadly, many journalists in the media were unable to understand the differences in the party proposals, and this created a confused electorate that thought voting liberal would lead to pr. but, that was never actually promoted or presented in any remote way by anybody in the liberal party.
http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/proportional-representation-is-great-for-unelectable-apparatchiks-jean-chretien-says
the ndp, however, has long proposed proportional representation - and lost several referenda on the topic.
sadly, many journalists in the media were unable to understand the differences in the party proposals, and this created a confused electorate that thought voting liberal would lead to pr. but, that was never actually promoted or presented in any remote way by anybody in the liberal party.
http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/proportional-representation-is-great-for-unelectable-apparatchiks-jean-chretien-says
yeah, but that doesn't mean turnout overall is up, it means more people are voting early.
if turnout is high, it's probably going to help the ndp.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4253292/advance-voter-turnout-high/
if turnout is high, it's probably going to help the ndp.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4253292/advance-voter-turnout-high/
this is probably my final analysis of the polling in the upcoming election.
first, let us acknowledge that there has been a deficit of quality polling, and i'm less confident than i was in previous elections as a consequence of it. the aggregates are badly polluted with bad data, and the models are using poorly thought out approaches. it appears that the primary idea in this election is going to be a 20 point shift between the liberals and the ndp, and near stasis in the conservative vote. a swing model based on aggregating data is designed for small proportional changes and is going to completely fail at understanding how this is going to work with such a large shift between two parties.
what the models are going to do is apply the shift everywhere; if they're very good, they may frame a little, but they're all going to miss the point. you should not expect twenty point swings from the liberals to the ndp in every riding. there are plenty of rural ridings where the liberals were barely running at 20 in the first place. rather, what you should expect is minimal swing in rural ridings and exaggerated swings in urban ridings. so, you should expect little change where it doesn't matter - seats conservatives always win anyways - and 30+ percent shifts in downtown toronto.
if the liberals & ndp were both running in the high 20s, we'd have a nightmare scenario where liberal seats turn blue on a 15-20 point swing in the urban centres. but, the propaganda was too effective: we're rather looking at 30+ percent swings, and that should be enough to prevent the conservatives from making gains much of anywhere at all.
so, while it's dangerous to look at the data from a distance and conclude the ndp & liberals will simply switch places in the legislature, the balance of evidence suggests pretty much that. at this point, i expect the ndp to win almost all of the seats in toronto and most of the seats in the 905, as well as the urban seats in the southwest and potentially a few upsets in the rural southwest. but, exact numbers are going to depend on turnout.
the liberals appear to be polling strongly in a few unexpected places, and it may be exposing a new base. they've always done well in ottawa and will likely keep a few seats there. but, i think they're going to keep a few seats around the waterloo area, as well. these are the places where the new economy has asserted itself strongest, and the places where the liberals will need to rebuild from if they want to retake toronto.
this is my prediction:
1) conservatives: i think they'll come in under 35% of the vote, and that should be good for about 35 seats - all the seats they have right now, and a couple more around brampton, + the odd fluke.
2) ndp: i think they'll come in pushing 40% of the vote, but not quite. that should be good for at least 70 seats - all the ones they have now, and at least 50 of the ones the liberals have now.
3) liberals: they're going to beat the models, but it's not clear by how much. it would be absurdly optimistic to suggest they'll get to 25%, but i do think they'll beat 20%. and, i can come up with at least 10 seats they should be able to hang on to.
4) the greens could win a seat, too, but it doesn't look like their vote is going to hit 5% province wide. if they win the seat, they could be a factor in four years.
so, something like the following is plausible:
ndp: 38%, 76 seats
conservatives: 33%, 35 seats
liberals: 23%, 12 seats
greens: 4%, 1 seat
first, let us acknowledge that there has been a deficit of quality polling, and i'm less confident than i was in previous elections as a consequence of it. the aggregates are badly polluted with bad data, and the models are using poorly thought out approaches. it appears that the primary idea in this election is going to be a 20 point shift between the liberals and the ndp, and near stasis in the conservative vote. a swing model based on aggregating data is designed for small proportional changes and is going to completely fail at understanding how this is going to work with such a large shift between two parties.
what the models are going to do is apply the shift everywhere; if they're very good, they may frame a little, but they're all going to miss the point. you should not expect twenty point swings from the liberals to the ndp in every riding. there are plenty of rural ridings where the liberals were barely running at 20 in the first place. rather, what you should expect is minimal swing in rural ridings and exaggerated swings in urban ridings. so, you should expect little change where it doesn't matter - seats conservatives always win anyways - and 30+ percent shifts in downtown toronto.
if the liberals & ndp were both running in the high 20s, we'd have a nightmare scenario where liberal seats turn blue on a 15-20 point swing in the urban centres. but, the propaganda was too effective: we're rather looking at 30+ percent swings, and that should be enough to prevent the conservatives from making gains much of anywhere at all.
so, while it's dangerous to look at the data from a distance and conclude the ndp & liberals will simply switch places in the legislature, the balance of evidence suggests pretty much that. at this point, i expect the ndp to win almost all of the seats in toronto and most of the seats in the 905, as well as the urban seats in the southwest and potentially a few upsets in the rural southwest. but, exact numbers are going to depend on turnout.
the liberals appear to be polling strongly in a few unexpected places, and it may be exposing a new base. they've always done well in ottawa and will likely keep a few seats there. but, i think they're going to keep a few seats around the waterloo area, as well. these are the places where the new economy has asserted itself strongest, and the places where the liberals will need to rebuild from if they want to retake toronto.
this is my prediction:
1) conservatives: i think they'll come in under 35% of the vote, and that should be good for about 35 seats - all the seats they have right now, and a couple more around brampton, + the odd fluke.
2) ndp: i think they'll come in pushing 40% of the vote, but not quite. that should be good for at least 70 seats - all the ones they have now, and at least 50 of the ones the liberals have now.
3) liberals: they're going to beat the models, but it's not clear by how much. it would be absurdly optimistic to suggest they'll get to 25%, but i do think they'll beat 20%. and, i can come up with at least 10 seats they should be able to hang on to.
4) the greens could win a seat, too, but it doesn't look like their vote is going to hit 5% province wide. if they win the seat, they could be a factor in four years.
so, something like the following is plausible:
ndp: 38%, 76 seats
conservatives: 33%, 35 seats
liberals: 23%, 12 seats
greens: 4%, 1 seat
it was bad enough on the evening of the 4th that it knocked me out cold.
now, i'm going to have close the windows for the next several hours due to the rain and shiver under the influence of unnecessary air conditioning and powerful second-hand drugs.
i'm not going to sit here, shit-faced on drugs i don't want, trying to sort through data. what a sad proposition. rather, i'm going to hide under the covers until the rain passes. which means i'm going to lose another day. sadly.
i'll be glad to get the fuck out of here.
now, i'm going to have close the windows for the next several hours due to the rain and shiver under the influence of unnecessary air conditioning and powerful second-hand drugs.
i'm not going to sit here, shit-faced on drugs i don't want, trying to sort through data. what a sad proposition. rather, i'm going to hide under the covers until the rain passes. which means i'm going to lose another day. sadly.
i'll be glad to get the fuck out of here.
Monday, June 4, 2018
once again: i don't have depression.
i'm not a depressed person.
i don't need treatment for depression.
what i have is a social disorder that makes me exceedingly agitated around fucking idiots, and unable to deal with people. i get angry when i'm agitated in this way and can potentially get violent.
i just need to be left alone.
and i can't deal with this fucking pothead. i'm on the brink of going down there and beating the shit of her.
i'm not a depressed person.
i don't need treatment for depression.
what i have is a social disorder that makes me exceedingly agitated around fucking idiots, and unable to deal with people. i get angry when i'm agitated in this way and can potentially get violent.
i just need to be left alone.
and i can't deal with this fucking pothead. i'm on the brink of going down there and beating the shit of her.
i mean, this is what i had to say about the last american election: it was clear that the polling put clinton ahead, but just as clear that trump was going to steal the election. so, i predicted that clinton would win if the polls were fair, but stated clearly that trump was going to win because i knew they weren't.
it's not nearly as clear that ford has the power to do this, but there's clearly something fishy afoot.
it's not nearly as clear that ford has the power to do this, but there's clearly something fishy afoot.
there is of course also a possibility that these companies are all paid off and pushing fake numbers to split the vote.
i have to read the data as it is, i can't imagine it says something else.
but, if the liberals come back from the dead at the last minute, we should be pointing fingers at the pollsters for manipulating data to split the vote.
i have to read the data as it is, i can't imagine it says something else.
but, if the liberals come back from the dead at the last minute, we should be pointing fingers at the pollsters for manipulating data to split the vote.
so, what's the narrative here?
it seems like the tory media intended to do the following:
1) attack wynne.
2) prop up the ndp.
together, this would split the vote, and allow the conservatives to win in ridings they normally aren't competitive in.
but, what has happened instead is that this has backfired - the liberal vote has moved entirely to the ndp, and we're going to get an ndp majority.
maybe a huge one.
that said...
i've seen some articles where ford is criticizing the voting machines, and this is often done to deflect an attempt to cheat. if we start seeing the conservatives win in downtown toronto...
it seems like the tory media intended to do the following:
1) attack wynne.
2) prop up the ndp.
together, this would split the vote, and allow the conservatives to win in ridings they normally aren't competitive in.
but, what has happened instead is that this has backfired - the liberal vote has moved entirely to the ndp, and we're going to get an ndp majority.
maybe a huge one.
that said...
i've seen some articles where ford is criticizing the voting machines, and this is often done to deflect an attempt to cheat. if we start seeing the conservatives win in downtown toronto...
forum is always sketchy.
but, those numbers aren't very different than what was projected for the pcs four years ago, and in the end they only got 30 seats. due to systemic bias in telephone polling, you always need to take the pcs down to the bottom of the error bar and then some, so they're probably running around 34-35.
the big difference is movement from the liberals to the ndp, and it seems to be really monolithic. the numbers in the 905 - which is where the conservatives were supposed to win seats - are most surprising. with a decent sample size, and some consistency, it's starting to look the ndp could be making a huge breakthrough.
i understand that the firms are using likely voter data, but they're undoing their own numbers. why are so many liberals claiming they'll vote ndp if they aren't going to?
again: despite the commentary, i'm looking at this and not seeing any good reason to think the conservatives will win more than 40 seats.
the ndp could be on track to win 80 seats.
but, those numbers aren't very different than what was projected for the pcs four years ago, and in the end they only got 30 seats. due to systemic bias in telephone polling, you always need to take the pcs down to the bottom of the error bar and then some, so they're probably running around 34-35.
the big difference is movement from the liberals to the ndp, and it seems to be really monolithic. the numbers in the 905 - which is where the conservatives were supposed to win seats - are most surprising. with a decent sample size, and some consistency, it's starting to look the ndp could be making a huge breakthrough.
i understand that the firms are using likely voter data, but they're undoing their own numbers. why are so many liberals claiming they'll vote ndp if they aren't going to?
again: despite the commentary, i'm looking at this and not seeing any good reason to think the conservatives will win more than 40 seats.
the ndp could be on track to win 80 seats.
there she goes again.
9:00 am on a monday morning. high as a kite. place smells like a dead skunk's asshole. it's truly absolutely revolting. thankfully, i've got some air flow this morning.
i need to reiterate that the reason i can't just deal with this is that i need to be recording in here, eventually, and i need to be clear-headed to do it. i know there's a popular mythology that musicians do drugs in the studio, but it's just completely wrong - it's a complete myth, a complete fantasy.
the ability to ensure sobriety when recording is paramount; this place is worthless to me if i can't do that.
9:00 am on a monday morning. high as a kite. place smells like a dead skunk's asshole. it's truly absolutely revolting. thankfully, i've got some air flow this morning.
i need to reiterate that the reason i can't just deal with this is that i need to be recording in here, eventually, and i need to be clear-headed to do it. i know there's a popular mythology that musicians do drugs in the studio, but it's just completely wrong - it's a complete myth, a complete fantasy.
the ability to ensure sobriety when recording is paramount; this place is worthless to me if i can't do that.
i'm a little slow to get started today, but i'm back at it, now.
i've got a breeze blowing directly in, which is nice. this apartment only has windows on one side, so i only get a breeze when the wind blows one way. so, that's helped with ventilation. the stench has come up a few times, but i'm not feeling any effects from it just right now.
i'm going to lose the day, but hopefully i'll be past this tomorrow.
i've got a breeze blowing directly in, which is nice. this apartment only has windows on one side, so i only get a breeze when the wind blows one way. so, that's helped with ventilation. the stench has come up a few times, but i'm not feeling any effects from it just right now.
i'm going to lose the day, but hopefully i'll be past this tomorrow.
well, this is less contentious than wynne's statement, but equally less realistic, as well.
i am hoping he wins this seat, but my vote is more about helping the party with funding next time around.
i'll be clear that my riding is probably going to go ndp by a large margin. if local polling is to be believed, the greens may actually beat the liberals in this region - harsh considering they won two elections ago.
i was worried about ford controlling the muslim vote here, they are running muslims in all of the ridings around here, but there doesn't appear to be any actual evidence that this is happening. or, perhaps i overestimated the size of the muslim minority, here.
https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-news/mike-schreiner-says-best-way-to-hold-ndp-or-pcs-accountable-is-to-elect-green-mpps-942770
i am hoping he wins this seat, but my vote is more about helping the party with funding next time around.
i'll be clear that my riding is probably going to go ndp by a large margin. if local polling is to be believed, the greens may actually beat the liberals in this region - harsh considering they won two elections ago.
i was worried about ford controlling the muslim vote here, they are running muslims in all of the ridings around here, but there doesn't appear to be any actual evidence that this is happening. or, perhaps i overestimated the size of the muslim minority, here.
https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-news/mike-schreiner-says-best-way-to-hold-ndp-or-pcs-accountable-is-to-elect-green-mpps-942770
the idea is that the best thing i can do is help the greens oppose the ndp on the left. if the ndp are as.....disappointing.....as i expect, the liberals will gain a lot of support back. but, that opens up a space for the greens on the left of the ndp.
i've written this essay elsewhere; ontario is deindustrializing, and i follow malatesta in his view that workers really have the same interests as capital, which we've seen in the ndp's behaviour over and over, so we need a new concept of the left - and i think it's a libertarian left that seeks distributive justice over things like food and land, seeking to put them in common, while abolishing obsolete concepts like currency. in some ways, it's a retreat to a peasant left, but that's why it's important to ensure it's paired with support for automation and green energy production.
i don't think there's any future in workers politics, when unionized workers are such a small percentage of the population. and, as mentioned, it's hard to get excited about standing up for people that are making products that are wrecking the planet.
we'll have to see what this ndp government looks like, but i expect it to pivot to the right fairly quickly, and for it to come out of it's mandate seeming very right-wing. liberals might be scared right now; they shouldn't be, as the ndp would just be giving them their voters back. if the liberals are going to pretend to be the ndp, voters will eventually vote ndp; as we saw with mulcair, when the ndp pretends to be the liberals, voters just vote liberal. it's a nicely symmetrical truth.
don't get me started on symmetry (or the lack thereof). alas...
but i keep reminding you that i'm not a liberal. not technically, anyways. and, i want to prop up an option on the left, if the ndp insist on hugging the centre.
i've written this essay elsewhere; ontario is deindustrializing, and i follow malatesta in his view that workers really have the same interests as capital, which we've seen in the ndp's behaviour over and over, so we need a new concept of the left - and i think it's a libertarian left that seeks distributive justice over things like food and land, seeking to put them in common, while abolishing obsolete concepts like currency. in some ways, it's a retreat to a peasant left, but that's why it's important to ensure it's paired with support for automation and green energy production.
i don't think there's any future in workers politics, when unionized workers are such a small percentage of the population. and, as mentioned, it's hard to get excited about standing up for people that are making products that are wrecking the planet.
we'll have to see what this ndp government looks like, but i expect it to pivot to the right fairly quickly, and for it to come out of it's mandate seeming very right-wing. liberals might be scared right now; they shouldn't be, as the ndp would just be giving them their voters back. if the liberals are going to pretend to be the ndp, voters will eventually vote ndp; as we saw with mulcair, when the ndp pretends to be the liberals, voters just vote liberal. it's a nicely symmetrical truth.
don't get me started on symmetry (or the lack thereof). alas...
but i keep reminding you that i'm not a liberal. not technically, anyways. and, i want to prop up an option on the left, if the ndp insist on hugging the centre.
so, i've made up my mind on this.
i'm willing to accept an ndp win, but i'm not willing to vote for them because i think they're running a dishonest campaign; i'm also of the view after watching this campaign that the liberals need a time-out, and i'm not willing to vote for them, either. i still prefer the liberal platform. so, i'm left with the choice of whether i want to vote green or not.
i've decided that i do, because i expect them to play a role in the next election, and the candidate here doesn't seem to be one of those goofy libertarian green capitalism pro-market doofuses - she's the kind of green party candidate i'm willing to support.
i like the idea of abolishing catholic schools, too.
http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/jarvis-the-green-party-is-finally-invited
i'm willing to accept an ndp win, but i'm not willing to vote for them because i think they're running a dishonest campaign; i'm also of the view after watching this campaign that the liberals need a time-out, and i'm not willing to vote for them, either. i still prefer the liberal platform. so, i'm left with the choice of whether i want to vote green or not.
i've decided that i do, because i expect them to play a role in the next election, and the candidate here doesn't seem to be one of those goofy libertarian green capitalism pro-market doofuses - she's the kind of green party candidate i'm willing to support.
i like the idea of abolishing catholic schools, too.
http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/jarvis-the-green-party-is-finally-invited
racial profiling is not something that happens when you have individual police officers breaking ranks and being racist.
rather, racial profiling is something that happens when you have police departments that train police officers to treat minorities differently than the majority.
and, the solution has to go to the very core of the training.
cops aren't accidentally racist. cops are trained to be racist.
rather, racial profiling is something that happens when you have police departments that train police officers to treat minorities differently than the majority.
and, the solution has to go to the very core of the training.
cops aren't accidentally racist. cops are trained to be racist.
Sunday, June 3, 2018
she's been chain smoking by herself for over 8 hours.
i just don't understand who thinks that's a good night. if i were her, i'd be so tired and drained and depressed that i'd feel like i want to kill myself.
and, if i didn't have the window open, i'd be passed out like a fucking heroin addict - from the smoke at the end of her joints.
again: she must have spent $100 tonight to stare at the wall by herself. it's just incomprehensibly stupid.
i just don't understand who thinks that's a good night. if i were her, i'd be so tired and drained and depressed that i'd feel like i want to kill myself.
and, if i didn't have the window open, i'd be passed out like a fucking heroin addict - from the smoke at the end of her joints.
again: she must have spent $100 tonight to stare at the wall by herself. it's just incomprehensibly stupid.
the marijuana chain-smoking has indeed returned as of a few hours ago, and i'm at this point sure that i can tie the fact that i'm tired and sore to it. i've had a few plumes come up, and it's just got me feeling disorientated and unpleasant.
again: this is terrible pot. it's like taking valium, it's not a fun high at all - i just want to sleep another ten hours.
but, i'm going to drink a lot of coffee instead and try to get back to work.
again: this is terrible pot. it's like taking valium, it's not a fun high at all - i just want to sleep another ten hours.
but, i'm going to drink a lot of coffee instead and try to get back to work.
so, what's my projection for an ndp government? what do i think it's going to be like?
well, i'm not concerned about over spending, so much as i'm potentially concerned about cuts. but, i would also expect those cuts to mostly be transferred elsewhere. it would be more like a shift in priorities. and, it's probably not going to affect me much of any way or the other. it will be less money on this particular healthcare priority and more money on this other one, instead, sort of thing. i just hope the people that are affected have done their homework.
it's hard to take her seriously on her plan to buy back hydro one; i wouldn't expect that to happen. she may come up with some middle-point in between. if she does, that won't reduce rates. so, what's the point in doing it? see, this is an empty ideological thing, and while i might agree with her in principle, i don't agree with prioritizing it. and, unfortunately, i think she's misled a lot of people into thinking that buying back the lines will reduce costs, when it won't. ending time of use pricing is not going to reduce my hydro bill by 30%, either - it would be more like 2%, giving that i'm paying more than twice as much for delivery than i am for electricity. so, is she going to dictate terms to the board? it's supposed to be independent. maybe that itself is something that should change - maybe the board should come under stronger democratic oversight. but, if she follows through on her plan to end the refinancing, my hydro bill is going to increase. well, the upside is that i have $200 worth of credits, so it'll be a while before i pay anything. yet, how many people are going to vote ndp and then freak out when their hydro goes back up when she ends the refinancing? if you're voting for either horwath or ford to cut your electricity, you're going to be rightly pissed off in four years because neither of them will succeed in doing so. in the end, i'll be surprised if she does much of anything substantive on this file at all, because she's going to realize that the plans she's presented, while popular amongst low information voters, are going to harm her own re-election prospects if she actually follows through with them. so, i don't expect that an ndp government will actually be much different on hydro at all.
her platform has higher increases in social assistance than the liberals are promising, but the liberals are promising fairly substantive increases, as well. i'm skeptical that this gets changed, in the end - i think she'll probably follow through with what the liberals have already budgeted.
she says she'll let the gai experiment work it's way though, but i would expect the ndp to have a more producerist approach to labour, and not be happy about a gai, on ideological grounds. it was never totally clear if the liberals were going to actually do this or not (it came on the recommendation of a conservative senator, who is seeing it in negative income tax terms), but i think the ndp will probably kill it - and spend the money on job training, instead. this is a situation where the liberals are maybe a little more forward thinking in terms of understanding the future trajectory of the economy and are interested in protecting class interests through the welfare state, while the ndp are maybe stuck in backwards calvinist-style thinking that preaches ideas about personal salvation through hard work. unfortunately, a lot of voters may prefer that. but, as an anarchist advocate of positive freedom, this is the place where i break with workers parties, and maybe find them a little bit scary.
i think the question of the ndp's interest in environmental sustainability is a question mark, as they tend to focus more on pocket-book issues. if they win this election outright, they may argue this is one of the reasons for it. so, they may have less of an interest in pushing recycling programs or green bin programs, arguing it's not worth the money, and unpopular with voters. that's the other side of the ndp: they're a populist party. what that's going to do is shift the responsibility on to the individual, and open up a need for better activism. that might be a net benefit in the long run. if we're lucky, the green party wins their seat in guelph and gets a platform to keep them honest.
on the drug plan & dental plan, people are likely to be disappointed by what actually gets implemented.
broadly speaking, it's not going to be a catastrophe. i'm sure i'll find reasons to criticize them and reasons to praise them. and, while i might prefer the liberal plan for the reasons i've outlined, i'm not likely to find myself in deep opposition to an ndp government, either.
well, i'm not concerned about over spending, so much as i'm potentially concerned about cuts. but, i would also expect those cuts to mostly be transferred elsewhere. it would be more like a shift in priorities. and, it's probably not going to affect me much of any way or the other. it will be less money on this particular healthcare priority and more money on this other one, instead, sort of thing. i just hope the people that are affected have done their homework.
it's hard to take her seriously on her plan to buy back hydro one; i wouldn't expect that to happen. she may come up with some middle-point in between. if she does, that won't reduce rates. so, what's the point in doing it? see, this is an empty ideological thing, and while i might agree with her in principle, i don't agree with prioritizing it. and, unfortunately, i think she's misled a lot of people into thinking that buying back the lines will reduce costs, when it won't. ending time of use pricing is not going to reduce my hydro bill by 30%, either - it would be more like 2%, giving that i'm paying more than twice as much for delivery than i am for electricity. so, is she going to dictate terms to the board? it's supposed to be independent. maybe that itself is something that should change - maybe the board should come under stronger democratic oversight. but, if she follows through on her plan to end the refinancing, my hydro bill is going to increase. well, the upside is that i have $200 worth of credits, so it'll be a while before i pay anything. yet, how many people are going to vote ndp and then freak out when their hydro goes back up when she ends the refinancing? if you're voting for either horwath or ford to cut your electricity, you're going to be rightly pissed off in four years because neither of them will succeed in doing so. in the end, i'll be surprised if she does much of anything substantive on this file at all, because she's going to realize that the plans she's presented, while popular amongst low information voters, are going to harm her own re-election prospects if she actually follows through with them. so, i don't expect that an ndp government will actually be much different on hydro at all.
her platform has higher increases in social assistance than the liberals are promising, but the liberals are promising fairly substantive increases, as well. i'm skeptical that this gets changed, in the end - i think she'll probably follow through with what the liberals have already budgeted.
she says she'll let the gai experiment work it's way though, but i would expect the ndp to have a more producerist approach to labour, and not be happy about a gai, on ideological grounds. it was never totally clear if the liberals were going to actually do this or not (it came on the recommendation of a conservative senator, who is seeing it in negative income tax terms), but i think the ndp will probably kill it - and spend the money on job training, instead. this is a situation where the liberals are maybe a little more forward thinking in terms of understanding the future trajectory of the economy and are interested in protecting class interests through the welfare state, while the ndp are maybe stuck in backwards calvinist-style thinking that preaches ideas about personal salvation through hard work. unfortunately, a lot of voters may prefer that. but, as an anarchist advocate of positive freedom, this is the place where i break with workers parties, and maybe find them a little bit scary.
i think the question of the ndp's interest in environmental sustainability is a question mark, as they tend to focus more on pocket-book issues. if they win this election outright, they may argue this is one of the reasons for it. so, they may have less of an interest in pushing recycling programs or green bin programs, arguing it's not worth the money, and unpopular with voters. that's the other side of the ndp: they're a populist party. what that's going to do is shift the responsibility on to the individual, and open up a need for better activism. that might be a net benefit in the long run. if we're lucky, the green party wins their seat in guelph and gets a platform to keep them honest.
on the drug plan & dental plan, people are likely to be disappointed by what actually gets implemented.
broadly speaking, it's not going to be a catastrophe. i'm sure i'll find reasons to criticize them and reasons to praise them. and, while i might prefer the liberal plan for the reasons i've outlined, i'm not likely to find myself in deep opposition to an ndp government, either.
i think the best outcome for the liberals is probably an ndp majority, as it gives them time to prepare themselves as an alternative to the opposition for the next election. i don't see why ontarians would want to vote for the conservatives in four years, if they've rejected them this vehemently, once again. if the ndp fail, we're going to swing back to the liberals, not to the conservatives.
and, it's hard to believe how the ndp could hold any majority it has, four years from now: meaning you're looking at an almost certain return to influence within four years.
as i've stated repeatedly: it's very hard for the conservatives to win elections in this province. the demographics & the geography are both very much against them. if this massive exercise in groupthink in toronto actually happens, it could be suggestive that we're looking at a future where the ndp & liberals switch back and forth from government to third party, while the conservatives remain forever stuck in opposition.
the conservatives still have a strong angle, in their appeal to right-leaning ethnic voters in the gta, but they appear to have squandered it this time around, and, at this point, there's not a lot of evidence that they want to pick this angle up. if they insist on being the party of white rural ontarians, they're going to remain in opposition forever.
and, it's hard to believe how the ndp could hold any majority it has, four years from now: meaning you're looking at an almost certain return to influence within four years.
as i've stated repeatedly: it's very hard for the conservatives to win elections in this province. the demographics & the geography are both very much against them. if this massive exercise in groupthink in toronto actually happens, it could be suggestive that we're looking at a future where the ndp & liberals switch back and forth from government to third party, while the conservatives remain forever stuck in opposition.
the conservatives still have a strong angle, in their appeal to right-leaning ethnic voters in the gta, but they appear to have squandered it this time around, and, at this point, there's not a lot of evidence that they want to pick this angle up. if they insist on being the party of white rural ontarians, they're going to remain in opposition forever.
no, i need to make this point clear, because i think a lot of canadians don't get it, either.
canada is a three-party+ system, meaning it can have fourth or even fifth parties during crisis points. i've argued that the federal system is most stable in a four-party configuration, with parties on both the right and the left. today, the federal system is in a three-party state, but could be in a fracture point (as there is no substantive left, and the federal liberals seem to want to move to the right). ontario has traditionally had three parties.
in a three party system, you have the following:
1) a government
2) an opposition
3) a third party, that is primarily an alternative to the opposition, but can also act as a wildcard in minority scenarios.
what we're seeing right now is this system working: voters want to vote out the government, but don't support the opposition, and so are voting in the third party. the same thing happened in the 2015 federal election. this is not "weird", it's the fundamental aspect of our system that defines it.
so, what wynne is pointing out is simply that the liberals are accepting their role as the third party in the next legislature - which will be as a wildcard in the case of minority, and to provide an alternative to the opposition in the case of majority.
you can assign motives to that, and i agree that it's a tactical shift, but i think it's silly to suggest some kind of psychologically manipulative ploy.
realistically speaking, would the liberals support an ndp budget? they probably don't want a snap election....
canada is a three-party+ system, meaning it can have fourth or even fifth parties during crisis points. i've argued that the federal system is most stable in a four-party configuration, with parties on both the right and the left. today, the federal system is in a three-party state, but could be in a fracture point (as there is no substantive left, and the federal liberals seem to want to move to the right). ontario has traditionally had three parties.
in a three party system, you have the following:
1) a government
2) an opposition
3) a third party, that is primarily an alternative to the opposition, but can also act as a wildcard in minority scenarios.
what we're seeing right now is this system working: voters want to vote out the government, but don't support the opposition, and so are voting in the third party. the same thing happened in the 2015 federal election. this is not "weird", it's the fundamental aspect of our system that defines it.
so, what wynne is pointing out is simply that the liberals are accepting their role as the third party in the next legislature - which will be as a wildcard in the case of minority, and to provide an alternative to the opposition in the case of majority.
you can assign motives to that, and i agree that it's a tactical shift, but i think it's silly to suggest some kind of psychologically manipulative ploy.
realistically speaking, would the liberals support an ndp budget? they probably don't want a snap election....
so, if you already think that wynne is some kind of evil villain, you're of course going to interpret her premature concession as some kind of a nefarious plot.
i think it's just a realistic analysis of the situation: her internal polling indicated to her that the liberals will be in a third-party role in the next government. canada doesn't have a two-party system; third parties have defined purposes and roles. and, third parties run elections differently than first or second parties do.
i think she should have run as a third party from the start - i made that point clear.
do i think it will make liberals more likely to vote conservative to block the ndp? well, that doesn't actually make any sense. not in the 905. not in the 416. what policies do the conservatives support that liberals would prefer over the ndp? and, if you preferred ford over horwath, why are you still intending to vote for wynne days before the election? the liberals have far more in common with the ndp than the conservatives, nowadays - partly because the ndp have moved a lot to the right. this is logic that's twenty years out of date. that said, there may be some lingering liberal support that's still voting against bob rae, but you'd think it's pretty muted, at this point - and likely not enough to matter much of anywhere. i'm not buying into that, and i don't think the liberal strategy is that meta - if anything, it's demonstrated itself as fairly shallow.
if i want to read an angle into it, i might suggest that kathleen wynne has come to terms with the benefits of retirement. she turned 65 the other day, you know.
i think it's just a realistic analysis of the situation: her internal polling indicated to her that the liberals will be in a third-party role in the next government. canada doesn't have a two-party system; third parties have defined purposes and roles. and, third parties run elections differently than first or second parties do.
i think she should have run as a third party from the start - i made that point clear.
do i think it will make liberals more likely to vote conservative to block the ndp? well, that doesn't actually make any sense. not in the 905. not in the 416. what policies do the conservatives support that liberals would prefer over the ndp? and, if you preferred ford over horwath, why are you still intending to vote for wynne days before the election? the liberals have far more in common with the ndp than the conservatives, nowadays - partly because the ndp have moved a lot to the right. this is logic that's twenty years out of date. that said, there may be some lingering liberal support that's still voting against bob rae, but you'd think it's pretty muted, at this point - and likely not enough to matter much of anywhere. i'm not buying into that, and i don't think the liberal strategy is that meta - if anything, it's demonstrated itself as fairly shallow.
if i want to read an angle into it, i might suggest that kathleen wynne has come to terms with the benefits of retirement. she turned 65 the other day, you know.
that was an unexpectedly hard crash; i just slept for ten hours and woke up with a sore neck. i'm suspicious of the weather, but we'll see how i feel in a bit.
i think i can get done may before i get something to eat in the morning.
i smelled some pot this morning when i got up to eat, but it's clear again tonight with a caveat - she seems to have started smoking cigarettes very heavily. so, now it smells like cigarettes instead of marijuana. which is...it's not going to get me stoned, but is it why i'm sore? i dunno. it's also a saturday night, so she may have had somebody over smoking.
i'll also point out that there was again a strong smell of bay leaves this afternoon, which she seems to start burning when somebody complains about the pot. it wasn't me, and i don't think i'm the only complainant at this point.
like i say: i want to get to the hook-up before i start looking for august 1st. that might be tomorrow, might be the next day.
right now, i'm sore and tired after waking up a little after midnight, but the only thing i smell just right now is cigarettes.
i think i can get done may before i get something to eat in the morning.
i smelled some pot this morning when i got up to eat, but it's clear again tonight with a caveat - she seems to have started smoking cigarettes very heavily. so, now it smells like cigarettes instead of marijuana. which is...it's not going to get me stoned, but is it why i'm sore? i dunno. it's also a saturday night, so she may have had somebody over smoking.
i'll also point out that there was again a strong smell of bay leaves this afternoon, which she seems to start burning when somebody complains about the pot. it wasn't me, and i don't think i'm the only complainant at this point.
like i say: i want to get to the hook-up before i start looking for august 1st. that might be tomorrow, might be the next day.
right now, i'm sore and tired after waking up a little after midnight, but the only thing i smell just right now is cigarettes.
Saturday, June 2, 2018
it's not clear at this point whether voting for the liberals will split the vote or even if voting for the ndp will, in the riding you're in.
this is very much the nightmare scenario that critics of strategic voting tend to point to. there is some data suggesting that the ndp are way ahead, but there's data suggesting otherwise as well, and it's fluctuating fairly frequently. we have imperfect methods with small sample sizes and little consistency.
i was analyzing one poll.
and, i think wynne's announcement was actually premature.
my request to horwath & the ndp still stands - be careful. i suppose that also applies to the liberals, but it's a different context. and, to the rest of the electorate, beware: if you want to play this game this year, there's a chance you're going to get burned.
try to find riding polls; do the best research you can, and prepare for the possibility that you might be wrong.
but, keep this in mind, as well - in general, the strategy promoted by critics of strategic voting is to vote with your heart.
there's still four days of polling left to come in.
this is very much the nightmare scenario that critics of strategic voting tend to point to. there is some data suggesting that the ndp are way ahead, but there's data suggesting otherwise as well, and it's fluctuating fairly frequently. we have imperfect methods with small sample sizes and little consistency.
i was analyzing one poll.
and, i think wynne's announcement was actually premature.
my request to horwath & the ndp still stands - be careful. i suppose that also applies to the liberals, but it's a different context. and, to the rest of the electorate, beware: if you want to play this game this year, there's a chance you're going to get burned.
try to find riding polls; do the best research you can, and prepare for the possibility that you might be wrong.
but, keep this in mind, as well - in general, the strategy promoted by critics of strategic voting is to vote with your heart.
there's still four days of polling left to come in.
so, what are we going to do about these tariffs?
well, i guess we'll have to find new markets and new importers, right? perhaps we could take advantage of that ceta that came into force recently. and, i'd still like to see a bilateral agreement with japan.
if america doesn't want to trade with the rest of the world, we can't force them to. but, the rest of the world can increase trade with itself.
well, i guess we'll have to find new markets and new importers, right? perhaps we could take advantage of that ceta that came into force recently. and, i'd still like to see a bilateral agreement with japan.
if america doesn't want to trade with the rest of the world, we can't force them to. but, the rest of the world can increase trade with itself.
and, again: the media seems to think, across the board, that having your votes distributed in the least populous areas makes your vote more efficient.
that's ridiculous.
the guy's own numbers say the ndp are running over 50% in toronto & in southwestern ontario, which together comprise roughly 60 seats. the conservatives may be running higher in more subregions, but these are the most sparsely populated areas and have the least seats.
it's maybe fitting that doug ford's people don't understand what the word 'efficiency' means, but you'd think the pollsters would get it right, even if the media doesn't.
those numbers suggest the most efficient vote is with the ndp.
that's ridiculous.
the guy's own numbers say the ndp are running over 50% in toronto & in southwestern ontario, which together comprise roughly 60 seats. the conservatives may be running higher in more subregions, but these are the most sparsely populated areas and have the least seats.
it's maybe fitting that doug ford's people don't understand what the word 'efficiency' means, but you'd think the pollsters would get it right, even if the media doesn't.
those numbers suggest the most efficient vote is with the ndp.
but, is the idea of toronto flipping clean from red to orange implausible? we're talking 40 seats moving the same way all at once, here. is that kind of mass groupthink realistic?
it might be more expected in quebec. but, we're sibling provinces, upper and lower; it's just a language difference.
and, i think you want to think it's going to happen all at once or not at all - that there's a tipping point where it flips. certainly, wynne has been going out of her way to alienate torontonians, hasn't she?
i've been talking about the liberal base being hard to move, but i've also been talking about it being pragmatic and less tied to ideology. i just didn't want to make that choice for it without seeing any actual data. and, it hasn't moved in a very long time, either. but, if toronto has decided that it can't let ford win, and horwath is the way to do it, it's not so crazy to think the whole city could flip together at the same time, at all.
unprecedented, perhaps. historic. but not crazy.
that would leave wynne with a few seats hanging around outside the 905, and a few in ottawa.
i look forward to seeing more data framed like this. but, again, regardless of what frank says, the ndp should be happy about those numbers.
it might be more expected in quebec. but, we're sibling provinces, upper and lower; it's just a language difference.
and, i think you want to think it's going to happen all at once or not at all - that there's a tipping point where it flips. certainly, wynne has been going out of her way to alienate torontonians, hasn't she?
i've been talking about the liberal base being hard to move, but i've also been talking about it being pragmatic and less tied to ideology. i just didn't want to make that choice for it without seeing any actual data. and, it hasn't moved in a very long time, either. but, if toronto has decided that it can't let ford win, and horwath is the way to do it, it's not so crazy to think the whole city could flip together at the same time, at all.
unprecedented, perhaps. historic. but not crazy.
that would leave wynne with a few seats hanging around outside the 905, and a few in ottawa.
i look forward to seeing more data framed like this. but, again, regardless of what frank says, the ndp should be happy about those numbers.
ok, this has the kind of sampling frames i wanted to see.
the first three frames are not unexpected - and it may even be a bit of good news for the ndp, at the expense of the conservatives. those are powerful numbers for the ndp in ridings they probably weren't expecting to win. they may be benefiting massively from strategic voting, and that's good - nobody thought the liberals could compete here.
i'm going to presume that the grand river valley means the kitchener-waterloo-guelph tricity area, which is an education & technology hub. it's hard to know exactly what that means, but i don't think there's a big surprise on the three-way split, either. if that's right, the liberals could maybe hold some seats there - but it's just a handful of them in play. nor have the liberals been competitive in niagara or hamilton proper for a very long time, either, although 4% seems kind of obscene. and, it's hard to know where niagara starts and the "grand river valley" ends - which is important given the difference between 30 and 4. i'm suspecting small sample sizes, here. nonetheless, if those numbers are even close to right, don't be surprised if the liberals hold some seats on the end of the horseshoe, there. but, none of this is really that earth-shattering - excluding that 4%, which may end up more like 14% in the end. the shape is not surprising.
but, those numbers in halton/peel are hard to comprehend. the races in halton are traditionally conservative-liberal. it's a wealthy suburb of toronto - the kind of place the ndp just don't do well in. peel, on the other hand, is usually an ndp-liberal race. again: combining these together is tricky. it could mean that the conservatives are running away with halton and the ndp are running away with peel, or it could be obscuring closer races in aggregate. what i'm going to say is that this is weird - and that i don't like the way it's presented, as it suggests you're looking at the pcs v the ndp over a large region, when you're probably actually looking at each of them v the liberals separately in two distinct regions - and it's not clear how close it is. frank, man what are you up to?
http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_june_1_2018b.pdf
i don't have any particular rejection of the brampton numbers, but it's only 3-4 seats. brampton is the kind of demographic that would swing from red to blue under ford. and, those numbers are not particularly bad for the liberals in york/durham, either, where there are a couple of conservative strongholds and a couple of conservative/liberal swing ridings.
at this point, after the first eight frames, this doesn't look like a weird election, and the seat count doesn't look likely to flip much. what's different here is the next two frames...
i accidentally cut the bottom off, but the next two frames are central and suburban toronto and those are powerful numbers that are suggestive of an ndp majority. i don't know what frank is smoking, suggesting otherwise. if the ndp can poll close to 50% over toronto in the end, that's suggestive of a clean sweep - which is 35-40 seats. that would be a near complete absorption of the liberal party by the ndp.
in the east & ottawa, again, the numbers are not exactly surprising. it's not clear what is ottawa and what is east, but the conservatives always dominate the rural east and the liberals usually do well in ottawa. with the liberals running over 30, it might suggest that they may lose a seat or two to the conservatives on the edges of the city.
i've been saying the same thing over and over again - this is about the 416.
and, despite what frank says, if those numbers are correct, you'd be looking at something like the following:
ndp ~65
conservatives ~30
liberals ~15
the first three frames are not unexpected - and it may even be a bit of good news for the ndp, at the expense of the conservatives. those are powerful numbers for the ndp in ridings they probably weren't expecting to win. they may be benefiting massively from strategic voting, and that's good - nobody thought the liberals could compete here.
i'm going to presume that the grand river valley means the kitchener-waterloo-guelph tricity area, which is an education & technology hub. it's hard to know exactly what that means, but i don't think there's a big surprise on the three-way split, either. if that's right, the liberals could maybe hold some seats there - but it's just a handful of them in play. nor have the liberals been competitive in niagara or hamilton proper for a very long time, either, although 4% seems kind of obscene. and, it's hard to know where niagara starts and the "grand river valley" ends - which is important given the difference between 30 and 4. i'm suspecting small sample sizes, here. nonetheless, if those numbers are even close to right, don't be surprised if the liberals hold some seats on the end of the horseshoe, there. but, none of this is really that earth-shattering - excluding that 4%, which may end up more like 14% in the end. the shape is not surprising.
but, those numbers in halton/peel are hard to comprehend. the races in halton are traditionally conservative-liberal. it's a wealthy suburb of toronto - the kind of place the ndp just don't do well in. peel, on the other hand, is usually an ndp-liberal race. again: combining these together is tricky. it could mean that the conservatives are running away with halton and the ndp are running away with peel, or it could be obscuring closer races in aggregate. what i'm going to say is that this is weird - and that i don't like the way it's presented, as it suggests you're looking at the pcs v the ndp over a large region, when you're probably actually looking at each of them v the liberals separately in two distinct regions - and it's not clear how close it is. frank, man what are you up to?
http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_june_1_2018b.pdf
i don't have any particular rejection of the brampton numbers, but it's only 3-4 seats. brampton is the kind of demographic that would swing from red to blue under ford. and, those numbers are not particularly bad for the liberals in york/durham, either, where there are a couple of conservative strongholds and a couple of conservative/liberal swing ridings.
at this point, after the first eight frames, this doesn't look like a weird election, and the seat count doesn't look likely to flip much. what's different here is the next two frames...
i accidentally cut the bottom off, but the next two frames are central and suburban toronto and those are powerful numbers that are suggestive of an ndp majority. i don't know what frank is smoking, suggesting otherwise. if the ndp can poll close to 50% over toronto in the end, that's suggestive of a clean sweep - which is 35-40 seats. that would be a near complete absorption of the liberal party by the ndp.
in the east & ottawa, again, the numbers are not exactly surprising. it's not clear what is ottawa and what is east, but the conservatives always dominate the rural east and the liberals usually do well in ottawa. with the liberals running over 30, it might suggest that they may lose a seat or two to the conservatives on the edges of the city.
i've been saying the same thing over and over again - this is about the 416.
and, despite what frank says, if those numbers are correct, you'd be looking at something like the following:
ndp ~65
conservatives ~30
liberals ~15
i mean, this was always the issue with trudeau, he had to prove he wasn't a moron.
having him slow down and talk like cletus the slack-jawed yokel to appeal to idiot albertans is going to reinforce the criticism that he isn't very bright and cave him in the urban centres.
canada is very big, but in terms of population density, it's one of the most urbanized countries in the world.
whoever told him to do that should be immediately fired.
having him slow down and talk like cletus the slack-jawed yokel to appeal to idiot albertans is going to reinforce the criticism that he isn't very bright and cave him in the urban centres.
canada is very big, but in terms of population density, it's one of the most urbanized countries in the world.
whoever told him to do that should be immediately fired.
why is justin trudeau all of a sudden speaking at a pace suggestive of the idea that somebody snuck into his room when he was sleeping and gave him a lobotomy?
that forty minute speech of his would have taken ten if he was speaking at a normal pace.
is he trying to appeal to rural voters, or something?
bad idea: he sounds like a retard. that's going to kill him with educated voters, who are already playing lesser evil with him.
that forty minute speech of his would have taken ten if he was speaking at a normal pace.
is he trying to appeal to rural voters, or something?
bad idea: he sounds like a retard. that's going to kill him with educated voters, who are already playing lesser evil with him.
i'm not sure there's any good answers in here, but it's an interesting read, and maybe a reality check if you live in canada.
i think i'm clear about what i want, even if i don't have a good name for it. i tried to do a google search for "post-culturalism", but i didn't get any hits. culture, to me, in the sense of it being an ethnic identity (rather than a synonym for art) ought to be looked at entirely derisively, as a relic of the past. but, i want to avoid this term 'cosmopolitanism', because it doesn't come attached to any actual set of rules. it's the right idea, but i want to attach it to science and logic and reason specifically, and it doesn't do enough to make that clear.
but, i have no interest in relativism, and no interest in respecting the rules that exist in different cultures, especially if they are oppressive or require some concept of relativism to tolerate. i'm perfectly comfortable with being the anarchist that wants to rip all these structures apart, and send the religious groups the bill for the damage. i have no qualms at all with looking a religious minority in the eye and telling them their religion is wrong and they should change their views, or abandon their beliefs. and i would actually like to see more people be pro-active about it; to me, this kind of evangelical atheism is actually a valid and needed form of social activism.
it's less that i want to undo the immigration, exactly, and more that i want some more aggressive approaches to ensuring that the society remains entirely secular - and that agents of any kind that want to undo this are more vigorously and more comprehensively opposed.
http://afrasia.ryukoku.ac.jp/english/publication/upfile/WP19.pdf
i think i'm clear about what i want, even if i don't have a good name for it. i tried to do a google search for "post-culturalism", but i didn't get any hits. culture, to me, in the sense of it being an ethnic identity (rather than a synonym for art) ought to be looked at entirely derisively, as a relic of the past. but, i want to avoid this term 'cosmopolitanism', because it doesn't come attached to any actual set of rules. it's the right idea, but i want to attach it to science and logic and reason specifically, and it doesn't do enough to make that clear.
but, i have no interest in relativism, and no interest in respecting the rules that exist in different cultures, especially if they are oppressive or require some concept of relativism to tolerate. i'm perfectly comfortable with being the anarchist that wants to rip all these structures apart, and send the religious groups the bill for the damage. i have no qualms at all with looking a religious minority in the eye and telling them their religion is wrong and they should change their views, or abandon their beliefs. and i would actually like to see more people be pro-active about it; to me, this kind of evangelical atheism is actually a valid and needed form of social activism.
it's less that i want to undo the immigration, exactly, and more that i want some more aggressive approaches to ensuring that the society remains entirely secular - and that agents of any kind that want to undo this are more vigorously and more comprehensively opposed.
http://afrasia.ryukoku.ac.jp/english/publication/upfile/WP19.pdf
when you have a small, homogeneous state like kansas or new brunswick, the assumptions in the modelling should work out fine for whatever kind of outcome you want.
but, when you have a big, heterogeneous region like ontario - which is at least four very distinct regions with totally different everything - all you're doing by aggregating and modelling is polluting sample.
data from kenora or sarnia is worse than completely useless in modelling brampton, it's actually distorting and misleading.
you can do this right using distinct and mutually exclusive sampling frames, but nobody does it. and, how accurate you are depends on how precise the frames are.
but, when you have a big, heterogeneous region like ontario - which is at least four very distinct regions with totally different everything - all you're doing by aggregating and modelling is polluting sample.
data from kenora or sarnia is worse than completely useless in modelling brampton, it's actually distorting and misleading.
you can do this right using distinct and mutually exclusive sampling frames, but nobody does it. and, how accurate you are depends on how precise the frames are.
there are certain areas in toronto that horwath ought to actually avoid, as an ndp bump is more likely to swing a red seat blue than orange.
i'm sure she has better riding data than i do.
so, i would put out a call to the ndp campaign to consult it very carefully - and to avoid taking modelling data seriously.
just briefly...
what the models do is they take data from across the province and try and squeeze it into specific ridings. so, if i'm talking to lawyers here, they're taking data that is overly broad and trying to force it into very specific scenarios that ignore the specifics, like incumbency and turnout and demographics.
personally, i'm going to argue that the whole idea is flawed - that the premise of modelling is overly broad and should be struck down as unconstitutional (the constitution being the predicate calculus, i suppose). but, that defence is untested.
riding polls ask people in the riding - it's directly empirical. much better. but, watch out for small sample sizes...
i'm sure she has better riding data than i do.
so, i would put out a call to the ndp campaign to consult it very carefully - and to avoid taking modelling data seriously.
just briefly...
what the models do is they take data from across the province and try and squeeze it into specific ridings. so, if i'm talking to lawyers here, they're taking data that is overly broad and trying to force it into very specific scenarios that ignore the specifics, like incumbency and turnout and demographics.
personally, i'm going to argue that the whole idea is flawed - that the premise of modelling is overly broad and should be struck down as unconstitutional (the constitution being the predicate calculus, i suppose). but, that defence is untested.
riding polls ask people in the riding - it's directly empirical. much better. but, watch out for small sample sizes...
Friday, June 1, 2018
to be clear: it's not that she's saying one thing in one language and something different in another. that's not the problem, in principle.
it's that she's advertising herself on the right in specific communities that lean that way, essentially selling out the party's value system for votes - and that this is a potentially serious problem in a country that is experiencing an immigration-based value shift to the right. it's opening up debates that i don't want opened.
it was hash. ok. but, it could have been sex-ed. it could have been abortion.
i need to hear the liberal party stand up for liberal values, not pander to ethnic conservatives using right-wing talking points. and, i know that's what she was doing anyways, but she didn't make it that explicit - she just sounded like she was floundering. by targetting explicitly, she exposes a strategy that i must reject in the most vehement terms as divisive, backwards and racist.
so, i'm explicitly rejecting the kind of coalition between white liberals and brown conservatives that exists in the united states. i don't want the liberal party to be that, i don't want to vote for that and i don't want to be governed by that. i want a coalition of white liberals and brown liberals and purple liberals and green liberals, and i want to tell conservatives of all colours and creeds to fuck off and join the conservative party if they don't like liberal party policies.
sorry.
it's that she's advertising herself on the right in specific communities that lean that way, essentially selling out the party's value system for votes - and that this is a potentially serious problem in a country that is experiencing an immigration-based value shift to the right. it's opening up debates that i don't want opened.
it was hash. ok. but, it could have been sex-ed. it could have been abortion.
i need to hear the liberal party stand up for liberal values, not pander to ethnic conservatives using right-wing talking points. and, i know that's what she was doing anyways, but she didn't make it that explicit - she just sounded like she was floundering. by targetting explicitly, she exposes a strategy that i must reject in the most vehement terms as divisive, backwards and racist.
so, i'm explicitly rejecting the kind of coalition between white liberals and brown conservatives that exists in the united states. i don't want the liberal party to be that, i don't want to vote for that and i don't want to be governed by that. i want a coalition of white liberals and brown liberals and purple liberals and green liberals, and i want to tell conservatives of all colours and creeds to fuck off and join the conservative party if they don't like liberal party policies.
sorry.
i mentioned early in the campaign that i would withdraw support - perhaps on a long-term basis - if i saw one of the pseudo-left parties trying to appeal explicitly to wandering ethnic minorities by using right-wing messaging. it's not about the hash exactly, it's the tactic. it could have been pushing for opening up sex ed, or it could have been something else. this is just crossing a red line, for me.
this party is dancing with the devil in the pale twilight; i can't support this, and i can't support this trajectory.
i was more worried about the ndp doing this.
it doesn't change my electoral analysis: if the liberals can hold their base in toronto, they will maintain a voice in parliament, and could even still win. the polls outside toronto to a large extent don't matter a lot.
but, they've dealt their hand on where they're moving if they do win, and i'm not voting for it.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/06/01/liberals-raise-doug-ford-drug-allegations-in-campaign-ads.html
this party is dancing with the devil in the pale twilight; i can't support this, and i can't support this trajectory.
i was more worried about the ndp doing this.
it doesn't change my electoral analysis: if the liberals can hold their base in toronto, they will maintain a voice in parliament, and could even still win. the polls outside toronto to a large extent don't matter a lot.
but, they've dealt their hand on where they're moving if they do win, and i'm not voting for it.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/06/01/liberals-raise-doug-ford-drug-allegations-in-campaign-ads.html
broadly speaking, when political parties suggest that there may be vote rigging, it usually means they're up to something.
this should be interpreted as a red flag that doug ford is trying to rig the election.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pc-concerns-ontario-voting-machines-1.4686946
this should be interpreted as a red flag that doug ford is trying to rig the election.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pc-concerns-ontario-voting-machines-1.4686946
the contemporary idea amongst liberals - which nobody on the left considers to be on the left - is that you should implement this idea of multiculturalism, where you have all of these tribal identities in coexistence with each other, and i guess they just ignore their differences and live in harmony (even when evidence is clear that they don't).
but, that's not the abolition of racism. that is the definition of a society that has institutionalized and normalized racism. and, i'm not going to write this essay - i'm just going to ask you to think it through carefully.
when you have a society where muslims and jews and christians and atheists are all segregated, that is what racism is. and, that is the multicultural model in canada: the institutionalization and normalization of racism under the banner of 'multiculturalism'. and, so it's natural that you attack the anti-racist activist as a racist. that's the world we live in, today.
what abolishing racism means is abolishing race as a concept, which science has already done. but, that's impossible when you have these ethno-religious identities enforcing it from childbirth and the state sanctioning it or looking the other way.
the leftist vision is not one where we pretend to ignore our differences, it's one where we evolve past them together; it's not a world where we accept each other's superstitions, but one where we leave them behind and move forward together.
again: i'm not telling you what to think. not exactly. we can have competing visions and try to convince each other of their correctness. but, i'm asking you to be more careful in how you categorize yourself, and more careful in how you categorize others.
but, that's not the abolition of racism. that is the definition of a society that has institutionalized and normalized racism. and, i'm not going to write this essay - i'm just going to ask you to think it through carefully.
when you have a society where muslims and jews and christians and atheists are all segregated, that is what racism is. and, that is the multicultural model in canada: the institutionalization and normalization of racism under the banner of 'multiculturalism'. and, so it's natural that you attack the anti-racist activist as a racist. that's the world we live in, today.
what abolishing racism means is abolishing race as a concept, which science has already done. but, that's impossible when you have these ethno-religious identities enforcing it from childbirth and the state sanctioning it or looking the other way.
the leftist vision is not one where we pretend to ignore our differences, it's one where we evolve past them together; it's not a world where we accept each other's superstitions, but one where we leave them behind and move forward together.
again: i'm not telling you what to think. not exactly. we can have competing visions and try to convince each other of their correctness. but, i'm asking you to be more careful in how you categorize yourself, and more careful in how you categorize others.
no.
listen.
religion = racism = nationalism = tribalism = exclusion. religion is racist, by definition - they're the same thing. or, that's what leftists think, anyways. if that sounds crazy to you, stop calling yourself a leftist!
leftists believe that all religion is inherently racist.
but, further, understand that, as a leftist, i can't make any sense of your claim that i'm racist for not accepting any specific religion, because rejecting all religion is the definition of abolishing racism. to a leftist, fighting racism and fighting religion are the same thing.
i'm an anti-racist activist because i'm an atheist, not in spite of it.
now, i understand that people are going to get upset by this. they're going to argue i'm attacking their identity - and they're right. but, in attacking their identity, i'm attacking the tribalist, exclusivist, nationalist basis of it - because their identity is incompatible with an egalitarian future. put in more contemporary terms: tolerance does not mean accepting intolerance, and the root of all intolerance is religion.
of course, as a leftist, i understand agency. i want to argue with you, not force you. i don't want to convert you by sword or threat, but i want to convince you that apostasy is the way forward.
and, if i can't convince you of this, i have to come to terms with the reality of it - that you are my political opponent, and that we will be in conflict with each other until you relent and denounce your tribalism.
listen.
religion = racism = nationalism = tribalism = exclusion. religion is racist, by definition - they're the same thing. or, that's what leftists think, anyways. if that sounds crazy to you, stop calling yourself a leftist!
leftists believe that all religion is inherently racist.
but, further, understand that, as a leftist, i can't make any sense of your claim that i'm racist for not accepting any specific religion, because rejecting all religion is the definition of abolishing racism. to a leftist, fighting racism and fighting religion are the same thing.
i'm an anti-racist activist because i'm an atheist, not in spite of it.
now, i understand that people are going to get upset by this. they're going to argue i'm attacking their identity - and they're right. but, in attacking their identity, i'm attacking the tribalist, exclusivist, nationalist basis of it - because their identity is incompatible with an egalitarian future. put in more contemporary terms: tolerance does not mean accepting intolerance, and the root of all intolerance is religion.
of course, as a leftist, i understand agency. i want to argue with you, not force you. i don't want to convert you by sword or threat, but i want to convince you that apostasy is the way forward.
and, if i can't convince you of this, i have to come to terms with the reality of it - that you are my political opponent, and that we will be in conflict with each other until you relent and denounce your tribalism.
again: i'm the leftist. leftists reject religion; it's really the fundamental aspect of being a leftist. if you don't reject religion, you're not a leftist.
religion correlates on the right with authoritarianism, capitalism, hierarchy, heteropatriarchy and class division. that's what religion is. you can't separate it from these things, and it's the reason capitalism is so reliant on it to enforce itself.
atheism correlates with anti-authoritarianism, communism, egalitarianism, feminism and democracy. that's the point of being an atheist. and, you can't get to ideas like democracy or feminism without tearing down religion, first.
so, i'm perfectly happy to argue with you if you want to stand up for religion, but i'm always doing it from the left, and you're always defending yourself from the right - whether your spectrum is restricted or not.
religion correlates on the right with authoritarianism, capitalism, hierarchy, heteropatriarchy and class division. that's what religion is. you can't separate it from these things, and it's the reason capitalism is so reliant on it to enforce itself.
atheism correlates with anti-authoritarianism, communism, egalitarianism, feminism and democracy. that's the point of being an atheist. and, you can't get to ideas like democracy or feminism without tearing down religion, first.
so, i'm perfectly happy to argue with you if you want to stand up for religion, but i'm always doing it from the left, and you're always defending yourself from the right - whether your spectrum is restricted or not.
i made a quip about doug ford being the offspring of homer simpson & an orangutan - in fact, a retarded orangutan - so i ought to say something about roseanne.
first, i wasn't exactly a fan of the show. whether roseanne is roseanne or not, roseanne is pretty obnoxious, and that was obvious to me, even as a child. i'm not obnoxious; i'm wry. there's a difference, there really is. it's the difference between good british wit and simple american barbarism.
for example.
anyways, is my comment racist? well, i'd probably have been a little more careful if ford was black. i might have suggested he was the offspring of homer simpson & an enlightened bull, instead - an enlightened bull being of roughly the same cognitive abilities as a retarded orangutan, or at least that's a reasonable hypothesis. i guess it's an empirical question, really.
see, now here's the tricky part: i'm telling you i know better than to make ape jokes about black people. i'm just not doing that. but, if i can make an ape joke about doug ford when he's white, do i have a defense of making the same joke when he's black, and then telling you to imagine he's white? or pointing out that it really shouldn't fucking matter - while acknowledging it absolutely does? it's just something to think about.
i meant to say that doug ford doesn't come off as having very evolved policy positions, and i think that's clear enough.
and, what i'm going to say about the roseanne quip is that i don't actually have the insight into valerie jarrett's politics to get my head around what roseanne said. is valerie jarrett a fundamentalist muslim with unevolved policy positions? i don't know; i get the impression it's unlikely, but i don't know. so, i don't know if it was racist, or if it was witty.
...although i might have advised her against forcing people to try and figure that out.
i think it's clear enough that it was pretty stupid, whether it was racist or not.
first, i wasn't exactly a fan of the show. whether roseanne is roseanne or not, roseanne is pretty obnoxious, and that was obvious to me, even as a child. i'm not obnoxious; i'm wry. there's a difference, there really is. it's the difference between good british wit and simple american barbarism.
for example.
anyways, is my comment racist? well, i'd probably have been a little more careful if ford was black. i might have suggested he was the offspring of homer simpson & an enlightened bull, instead - an enlightened bull being of roughly the same cognitive abilities as a retarded orangutan, or at least that's a reasonable hypothesis. i guess it's an empirical question, really.
see, now here's the tricky part: i'm telling you i know better than to make ape jokes about black people. i'm just not doing that. but, if i can make an ape joke about doug ford when he's white, do i have a defense of making the same joke when he's black, and then telling you to imagine he's white? or pointing out that it really shouldn't fucking matter - while acknowledging it absolutely does? it's just something to think about.
i meant to say that doug ford doesn't come off as having very evolved policy positions, and i think that's clear enough.
and, what i'm going to say about the roseanne quip is that i don't actually have the insight into valerie jarrett's politics to get my head around what roseanne said. is valerie jarrett a fundamentalist muslim with unevolved policy positions? i don't know; i get the impression it's unlikely, but i don't know. so, i don't know if it was racist, or if it was witty.
...although i might have advised her against forcing people to try and figure that out.
i think it's clear enough that it was pretty stupid, whether it was racist or not.
i've been kind of bed-ridden the last few days, reading a lot, but i'm coming back to and building a plan around things.
as mentioned a few times, i'm close to a hook-up on the rebuild, and i kind of want to get there. i'm at may 7th; the hook up is june 19th. so, i think i can finish that before monday. and i'm staying in this weekend...
so, i'm going to try to blitz over that for a bit, and then do some cleaning when it's done.
and, then i'll put a dominant focus on looking for a better place.
how's the stench, anyways?
well, i spent much of the weekend in detroit; i was out midday on the 25th and come back early in the morning on the 29th. while i slept here in between, and even stayed in on sunday, my complaints were muted. the reality is that i smelled bad myself, from partying. i'll reiterate that i was not smoking inside, or even going out for smokes when i was here, but i was smoking when i was in detroit partying. that said, i noticed the smell of marijuana pretty much every day and every night. i just wasn't upset about it at that particular time.
that's not a pass by any means, it's just a truth statement. the precise situation this pisses me off in is when i'm trying to read and i can't because i'm stoned from the second-hand smoke or when i can't keep my eyes open because i'm burnt out from it and don't want to be; the smell itself is rank, but when it's hot like this i keep the windows open and sit in my own sweat, so in the broader scope of things i might care a lot less if it wasn't having a physical effect on me. if i'm between parties, or nursing a hangover, the effects are kind of bordering on trivial...
of course, i eventually come out of those hangovers and want to be clear-minded. that's the difference between the tenant downstairs and i - i like to have fun with intoxicants, sure, but i deeply value the long stretches of sobriety that i have in between. i even call those stretches of sobriety life. the tenant downstairs wants to be stoned 24/7 and seems to go into "panic attacks" (called withdrawals.) when she gets sober. as marijuana builds tolerance with frequent use, she smokes more drugs in a day than i might in an average three or four month season. and i'm not exaggerating.
but, while i'm nursing a hangover? yeah - i could smell it. sure. i could smell it all weekend, and i could smell it all week. but, i actually haven't smelled anything yet tonight. note that it's the end of the month. so, it's got me wondering if i got lucky and she left...
but, am i some kind of hypocrite? i don't think so. smoking isn't binary; i think a lot of people have a hard time getting their head around this because it's presented to us that way so often. you smoke or you don't, right? but that's not true. just because i like to smoke a little at the bar once in a while doesn't forfeit my right to sobriety and clean air for the other 25 or 27 days of the month, and the idea that it does is really just ridiculous. if you like a glass of wine at christmas does that make you an alcoholic? so, why do we have these weird ideas about smoking? i don't see anything inconsistent or disingenuous about this. and, i might even argue that i'd stil have the right to complain even if i was a habitual smoker, if the amount coming up from downstairs was legitimately bothering me.
i think the key point is showering. i haven't showered since i got back on tuesday morning; it's now been about 55 hours since i woke up on tuesday afternoon. i've been sleeping, napping, sweating, drinking water, typing, reading, eating - but i haven't really gotten up and out of bed for any substantive purpose, yet. it's time to start thinking about that shower. and, once i get out of it, i'll be wanting to have that focus on sobriety again for the next 10-15 days or so, and not be dragged down by the second-hand smoke.
the tenant downstairs may be getting very frustrated by the heat in the unit, and the inability of her a/c to work properly when i have the windows open like this. well, it's the same basic problem. there's no flooring. so, the a/c is no doubt useless down there for the same reason the smoke comes right up - it's like running an a/c in an open barn with all the doors open. was that enough to get her out? well, i'll be here all summer, anyways, at the very least...
like i say: right now, i want to get a bunch of that rebuild done. let's hope i can get season 6 done before the sun comes up.
as mentioned a few times, i'm close to a hook-up on the rebuild, and i kind of want to get there. i'm at may 7th; the hook up is june 19th. so, i think i can finish that before monday. and i'm staying in this weekend...
so, i'm going to try to blitz over that for a bit, and then do some cleaning when it's done.
and, then i'll put a dominant focus on looking for a better place.
how's the stench, anyways?
well, i spent much of the weekend in detroit; i was out midday on the 25th and come back early in the morning on the 29th. while i slept here in between, and even stayed in on sunday, my complaints were muted. the reality is that i smelled bad myself, from partying. i'll reiterate that i was not smoking inside, or even going out for smokes when i was here, but i was smoking when i was in detroit partying. that said, i noticed the smell of marijuana pretty much every day and every night. i just wasn't upset about it at that particular time.
that's not a pass by any means, it's just a truth statement. the precise situation this pisses me off in is when i'm trying to read and i can't because i'm stoned from the second-hand smoke or when i can't keep my eyes open because i'm burnt out from it and don't want to be; the smell itself is rank, but when it's hot like this i keep the windows open and sit in my own sweat, so in the broader scope of things i might care a lot less if it wasn't having a physical effect on me. if i'm between parties, or nursing a hangover, the effects are kind of bordering on trivial...
of course, i eventually come out of those hangovers and want to be clear-minded. that's the difference between the tenant downstairs and i - i like to have fun with intoxicants, sure, but i deeply value the long stretches of sobriety that i have in between. i even call those stretches of sobriety life. the tenant downstairs wants to be stoned 24/7 and seems to go into "panic attacks" (called withdrawals.) when she gets sober. as marijuana builds tolerance with frequent use, she smokes more drugs in a day than i might in an average three or four month season. and i'm not exaggerating.
but, while i'm nursing a hangover? yeah - i could smell it. sure. i could smell it all weekend, and i could smell it all week. but, i actually haven't smelled anything yet tonight. note that it's the end of the month. so, it's got me wondering if i got lucky and she left...
but, am i some kind of hypocrite? i don't think so. smoking isn't binary; i think a lot of people have a hard time getting their head around this because it's presented to us that way so often. you smoke or you don't, right? but that's not true. just because i like to smoke a little at the bar once in a while doesn't forfeit my right to sobriety and clean air for the other 25 or 27 days of the month, and the idea that it does is really just ridiculous. if you like a glass of wine at christmas does that make you an alcoholic? so, why do we have these weird ideas about smoking? i don't see anything inconsistent or disingenuous about this. and, i might even argue that i'd stil have the right to complain even if i was a habitual smoker, if the amount coming up from downstairs was legitimately bothering me.
i think the key point is showering. i haven't showered since i got back on tuesday morning; it's now been about 55 hours since i woke up on tuesday afternoon. i've been sleeping, napping, sweating, drinking water, typing, reading, eating - but i haven't really gotten up and out of bed for any substantive purpose, yet. it's time to start thinking about that shower. and, once i get out of it, i'll be wanting to have that focus on sobriety again for the next 10-15 days or so, and not be dragged down by the second-hand smoke.
the tenant downstairs may be getting very frustrated by the heat in the unit, and the inability of her a/c to work properly when i have the windows open like this. well, it's the same basic problem. there's no flooring. so, the a/c is no doubt useless down there for the same reason the smoke comes right up - it's like running an a/c in an open barn with all the doors open. was that enough to get her out? well, i'll be here all summer, anyways, at the very least...
like i say: right now, i want to get a bunch of that rebuild done. let's hope i can get season 6 done before the sun comes up.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
this actually isn't the first time this has happened, either.
the reality is that this kind of paranoia is baked into the structure of the american right. it's not just trump. and, the nixon=trump comparison is apt, but it's not just that, either.
check the annals of history: due to his opposition to star wars, and general reluctance to partition the world into two parts, reagan actually honestly believed that the elder trudeau was a communist spy. like, that he was working for the kremlin. taking orders. a useful idiot. maybe he could have helped them write a constitution? but, it's not a joke, it's a historical fact. and, there's good evidence that it's the actual reason he stepped down.
it's also widely believed in canada that jean chretien was pushed out under heavy republican pressure for his refusal to go into iraq.
then, there was the time that lyndon johnson beat up lester pearson (who had years earlier won a nobel peace prize) for criticizing the american role in vietnam.
nobody remembers that igor guy anymore.
so republicans (and some democrats.) have had a hard time dealing with canadian liberals, and have often tended to view them as suspicious, as foreign agents, as communist sympathizers. trump is cartoonish, but he's not an isolated example.
the reality is that this kind of paranoia is baked into the structure of the american right. it's not just trump. and, the nixon=trump comparison is apt, but it's not just that, either.
check the annals of history: due to his opposition to star wars, and general reluctance to partition the world into two parts, reagan actually honestly believed that the elder trudeau was a communist spy. like, that he was working for the kremlin. taking orders. a useful idiot. maybe he could have helped them write a constitution? but, it's not a joke, it's a historical fact. and, there's good evidence that it's the actual reason he stepped down.
it's also widely believed in canada that jean chretien was pushed out under heavy republican pressure for his refusal to go into iraq.
then, there was the time that lyndon johnson beat up lester pearson (who had years earlier won a nobel peace prize) for criticizing the american role in vietnam.
nobody remembers that igor guy anymore.
so republicans (and some democrats.) have had a hard time dealing with canadian liberals, and have often tended to view them as suspicious, as foreign agents, as communist sympathizers. trump is cartoonish, but he's not an isolated example.
is canada a national security threat to the united states?
i can think of one thing, and you need to use this funny corporate logic about lost profits again, and that comes down to the oil exports.
i've made many arguments over many years that the americans consider canada's oil resources to be a strategic asset that belongs to them, and that they view any effort to export it as a threat. further, they consider the reserve to be of longterm strategic importance. that is, they wish to save our oil for later.
from the perspective of america's leadership, all of the pipelines and all of the geography and all of the export destinations are to be interpreted strictly through a national security filter around access to a strategic resource, rather than through an environmental filter or even through a profit motive. and, you know america is serious about something when it's more important than profits for shareholders.
if you think i'm crazy, mentally remove yourself from your body and float over north america for a moment. look out at the chaos and dominance projected by american hard power for the purpose of controlling the flow of oil. look at the bloodshed. look at the violence. look at the destruction of property. and, ask yourself: would america merely shrug as canada twins pipelines to export a resource it considers it's own to it's dominant competitor, in china?
and, who are these political leaders in canada facilitating this?
it's funny corporate logic. but, it's real, if you're in the pentagon, or the state department - or the white house.
i can think of one thing, and you need to use this funny corporate logic about lost profits again, and that comes down to the oil exports.
i've made many arguments over many years that the americans consider canada's oil resources to be a strategic asset that belongs to them, and that they view any effort to export it as a threat. further, they consider the reserve to be of longterm strategic importance. that is, they wish to save our oil for later.
from the perspective of america's leadership, all of the pipelines and all of the geography and all of the export destinations are to be interpreted strictly through a national security filter around access to a strategic resource, rather than through an environmental filter or even through a profit motive. and, you know america is serious about something when it's more important than profits for shareholders.
if you think i'm crazy, mentally remove yourself from your body and float over north america for a moment. look out at the chaos and dominance projected by american hard power for the purpose of controlling the flow of oil. look at the bloodshed. look at the violence. look at the destruction of property. and, ask yourself: would america merely shrug as canada twins pipelines to export a resource it considers it's own to it's dominant competitor, in china?
and, who are these political leaders in canada facilitating this?
it's funny corporate logic. but, it's real, if you're in the pentagon, or the state department - or the white house.
should nafta be renegotiated every five years?
well, it makes sense to me to suggest it should be re-evaluated on some regular basis of time, yes - although i don't know how important a five year interval is, or how appropriate the term "renegotiate" is.
one of the weird things about this process is how much pomp it's requiring, and we may be the ones going the furthest overboard. i understand why the government of canada is a little reluctant to have it's ministers of trade & foreign policy tied up in permanent trade negotiations with it's closest ally. the government is handling this at it's highest level because it sees it as of the utmost importance. but, maybe periodic reviews could be handled by the ambassador in the future, or even delegated to a separate department. there are going to be corruption & capture issues present, but we know the ministers are relying very heavily on their aides, anyways; enough that the necessity of this layer of formality is maybe up for some question.
that said, the american side is really not projecting the kind of trust required to institutionalize something that probably ought to be, at this point. trump may be technically right to make the request, but trudeau's reaction is not irrational, and the nature of it is, in large part, trump's actual own fault. i know trump likes to try and push his "partners" around. but, as a sovereign country, we would like to trust our allies and other partners we make agreements with - and i think that's reasonable.
if some resolution to the current reciprocity dispute presents itself soon, there will no doubt be further discussions again at some point in the future, and i would actually support periodic review being implemented at that time on something like a fifteen or twenty year period - but certainly not a less than eight year period, or one that appears to be designed for the american election cycle.
well, it makes sense to me to suggest it should be re-evaluated on some regular basis of time, yes - although i don't know how important a five year interval is, or how appropriate the term "renegotiate" is.
one of the weird things about this process is how much pomp it's requiring, and we may be the ones going the furthest overboard. i understand why the government of canada is a little reluctant to have it's ministers of trade & foreign policy tied up in permanent trade negotiations with it's closest ally. the government is handling this at it's highest level because it sees it as of the utmost importance. but, maybe periodic reviews could be handled by the ambassador in the future, or even delegated to a separate department. there are going to be corruption & capture issues present, but we know the ministers are relying very heavily on their aides, anyways; enough that the necessity of this layer of formality is maybe up for some question.
that said, the american side is really not projecting the kind of trust required to institutionalize something that probably ought to be, at this point. trump may be technically right to make the request, but trudeau's reaction is not irrational, and the nature of it is, in large part, trump's actual own fault. i know trump likes to try and push his "partners" around. but, as a sovereign country, we would like to trust our allies and other partners we make agreements with - and i think that's reasonable.
if some resolution to the current reciprocity dispute presents itself soon, there will no doubt be further discussions again at some point in the future, and i would actually support periodic review being implemented at that time on something like a fifteen or twenty year period - but certainly not a less than eight year period, or one that appears to be designed for the american election cycle.
Nowhere else in Ontario are Kathleen Wynne's Liberals polling
worse than in southwestern Ontario. That makes the region a microcosm of
the entire election — with the PCs dominant in the rural parts, the New
Democrats well-positioned to pick up urban Liberal seats and the
overall winner to be decided between the two.
this is the exact wrong analysis.
the fact that the liberals are polling worse in southwestern ontario than they are anywhere else makes the projections there inapplicable to places that they are polling better. when you see a situation where a party is doing worse in a specific area than they are anywhere else, you don't take that as the rule and extrapolate it, you eliminate it as an outlier. grenier is merely exposing his own biases, but that is the status quo in this election: the entire media establishment decided the liberals were hopeless before the writ even dropped.
if the liberals are underperforming their average in the southwest then that necessarily implies that they're overperforming it elsewhere, doesn't it eric? yeah. that's right. it does, doesn't it?
if you look at the graph in the article, it seems to me like a lot of liberals are voting strategically to defeat the pcs in areas that are both historically strong pc ridings and ridings where liberals are currently being seen as distant and toronto-centric. i've talked to some people in windsor, and while the logic is often blurry, the basic idea is that they think the liberal party doesn't care about the region and the ndp will spend more money here. the people here seem to feel abandoned by capital flight, are attaching that to liberal policies, are concluding that liberals only care about toronto, are feeling personally distraught by this and are concluding, for whatever specious reason, that the ndp have a deeper personal investment in ensuring the region thrives. unfortunately, it may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the liberals really do need to focus entirely on toronto, because it's the only place they can win.
if the result of a 20% swing from the liberals to the ndp in southern ontario is that a handful of seats swing from red to orange, that's going to skew the polls pretty hard - but not make a really big difference at queen's park.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-southwestern-ontario-1.4684641
this is the exact wrong analysis.
the fact that the liberals are polling worse in southwestern ontario than they are anywhere else makes the projections there inapplicable to places that they are polling better. when you see a situation where a party is doing worse in a specific area than they are anywhere else, you don't take that as the rule and extrapolate it, you eliminate it as an outlier. grenier is merely exposing his own biases, but that is the status quo in this election: the entire media establishment decided the liberals were hopeless before the writ even dropped.
if the liberals are underperforming their average in the southwest then that necessarily implies that they're overperforming it elsewhere, doesn't it eric? yeah. that's right. it does, doesn't it?
if you look at the graph in the article, it seems to me like a lot of liberals are voting strategically to defeat the pcs in areas that are both historically strong pc ridings and ridings where liberals are currently being seen as distant and toronto-centric. i've talked to some people in windsor, and while the logic is often blurry, the basic idea is that they think the liberal party doesn't care about the region and the ndp will spend more money here. the people here seem to feel abandoned by capital flight, are attaching that to liberal policies, are concluding that liberals only care about toronto, are feeling personally distraught by this and are concluding, for whatever specious reason, that the ndp have a deeper personal investment in ensuring the region thrives. unfortunately, it may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the liberals really do need to focus entirely on toronto, because it's the only place they can win.
if the result of a 20% swing from the liberals to the ndp in southern ontario is that a handful of seats swing from red to orange, that's going to skew the polls pretty hard - but not make a really big difference at queen's park.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-southwestern-ontario-1.4684641
i was initially flabbergasted that wynne thought that she might gain any insight into the existing situation by studying the last american election, but as i'm going through my notes on the rebuild, i'm realizing that the parallel is actually rather stark, you just need to be a little abstract to get it.
the 2018 ontario election may have a similar trajectory to what the 2016 american election would have been like had bernie sanders run. i'm seeing a number of parallels come up, including sanders starting to swing clinton's core supporters near the end.
i think bernie peaked too early, though.
the 2018 ontario election may have a similar trajectory to what the 2016 american election would have been like had bernie sanders run. i'm seeing a number of parallels come up, including sanders starting to swing clinton's core supporters near the end.
i think bernie peaked too early, though.
corporate tax rates have never been demonstrated to have any effect on job creation or the broader economy at all, whatsoever. that's some class a flunkie harpernomics, is what that is.
kathleen wynne knows better than this. why is she doing this to herself?
this is one of those political questions that an empirical analyses tends to write off as irrelevant. horwath's plan to boost the tax rate by a single measly percent is likely to help in servicing the debt and have little other consequence, but do you want to help service the debt? why? i don't mind paying out interest on bonds to seniors. if you're going to cut that, you need to shift money into social services, and she's doing it. but, this is all just juggling, really, to try to appeal to a somewhat shallow understanding of things. this is just pointless emotional masturbation, at the end of the day: maybe it makes somebody feel good to stick it to the banks by voting for a 1% tax increase, or it makes somebody feel good to stand up for "free enterprise" by rejecting that.
but, there will not be any measurable consequence, one way or the other. it's just an empty endorphin rush.
i must have a personal preference? no. i'm a robot. if there's no consequence, it doesn't matter. but, some of the lateral movements might matter - you might prefer things juggled a specific way.
i have no interest in the topic.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/05/29/wynne-pledges-to-pump-another-900-million-into-helping-companies-expand-and-create-jobs-over-the-next-decade.html
kathleen wynne knows better than this. why is she doing this to herself?
this is one of those political questions that an empirical analyses tends to write off as irrelevant. horwath's plan to boost the tax rate by a single measly percent is likely to help in servicing the debt and have little other consequence, but do you want to help service the debt? why? i don't mind paying out interest on bonds to seniors. if you're going to cut that, you need to shift money into social services, and she's doing it. but, this is all just juggling, really, to try to appeal to a somewhat shallow understanding of things. this is just pointless emotional masturbation, at the end of the day: maybe it makes somebody feel good to stick it to the banks by voting for a 1% tax increase, or it makes somebody feel good to stand up for "free enterprise" by rejecting that.
but, there will not be any measurable consequence, one way or the other. it's just an empty endorphin rush.
i must have a personal preference? no. i'm a robot. if there's no consequence, it doesn't matter. but, some of the lateral movements might matter - you might prefer things juggled a specific way.
i have no interest in the topic.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/05/29/wynne-pledges-to-pump-another-900-million-into-helping-companies-expand-and-create-jobs-over-the-next-decade.html
i actually liked the instant run-off voting.
i know. it's crazy. i voted liberal...and...get this....i did so because i liked their ideas.
that's right. i knew that the liberals support irvs, or stvs, and i knew the ndp supported pr. and, i voted for the liberals! because i supported the irv!
well, it wasn't a single issue thing, but you get the point.
then, to my confusion, when the liberals win, all anybody is talking about is the ndp's ideas. bizarre, that. i thought the ndp lost, and the liberals won?
i think, in the end, the liberals realized that the stv would help the ndp at the expense of the conservatives and decided that was a bad idea.
too bad.
i know. it's crazy. i voted liberal...and...get this....i did so because i liked their ideas.
that's right. i knew that the liberals support irvs, or stvs, and i knew the ndp supported pr. and, i voted for the liberals! because i supported the irv!
well, it wasn't a single issue thing, but you get the point.
then, to my confusion, when the liberals win, all anybody is talking about is the ndp's ideas. bizarre, that. i thought the ndp lost, and the liberals won?
i think, in the end, the liberals realized that the stv would help the ndp at the expense of the conservatives and decided that was a bad idea.
too bad.
i don't think that giving parties the right to appoint people to the legislature is in any remote way described using the word "democracy".
that's a system of oligarchy that removes any concept of accountability.
the funny thing about it is that the ndp supports abolishing the senate. but, what they really want to do is abolish the house and replace it with the senate, isn't it? the way that a system like this works itself out is that you get appointed in return for financial contributions of some sort. it's a way to put these seats up for sale.
i'd like to see a move towards more direct democracy, not towards a more technocratic concept of government. we need more accountability, not less of it; we need more power for people, and less power for so-called representatives.
this is the third try at this. canadians are clear that they don't like the status quo. but, hopefully the ndp is on the cusp of starting to understand that pr isn't the right path towards substantive democratic reform.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-bc-unveils-its-proposed-question-for-voters-in-electoral-reform/
that's a system of oligarchy that removes any concept of accountability.
the funny thing about it is that the ndp supports abolishing the senate. but, what they really want to do is abolish the house and replace it with the senate, isn't it? the way that a system like this works itself out is that you get appointed in return for financial contributions of some sort. it's a way to put these seats up for sale.
i'd like to see a move towards more direct democracy, not towards a more technocratic concept of government. we need more accountability, not less of it; we need more power for people, and less power for so-called representatives.
this is the third try at this. canadians are clear that they don't like the status quo. but, hopefully the ndp is on the cusp of starting to understand that pr isn't the right path towards substantive democratic reform.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-bc-unveils-its-proposed-question-for-voters-in-electoral-reform/
this is a good start; let's hope that, whatever happens after the election, the idea gets picked up on a little further.
if they can get highrises composting first, that's a natural first step to a green bin. this government is incrementalist; that's a constant.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/building-code-changes-ban-on-landfill-organics-aimed-at-condos-apartments-1.4661100
if they can get highrises composting first, that's a natural first step to a green bin. this government is incrementalist; that's a constant.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/building-code-changes-ban-on-landfill-organics-aimed-at-condos-apartments-1.4661100
but, it really is laughable, the whole line of thought - the idea that the conservatives have a more efficient vote, or that they're going to make the government more efficient, against all empirical historical evidence to the contrary.
if i was doug ford, i'd be more concerned about the efficiency of my liver.
if i was doug ford, i'd be more concerned about the efficiency of my liver.
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
do the tories have better "vote efficiency"?
no. not even close. they have no chance in most urban ridings, and the riding maps people are using seem to be stuck in the 50s - as ford's campaign, itself, is.
these are people that think the 905 is 'rural'; it hasn't been anything of the sort for decades. suburban, perhaps. but not rural. and, the cities in the region are actually growing very quickly. the liberals swept the 905 last time around for the exact reason that it's urban.
what the conservatives do have is an advantage in geography, as they do do better in rural areas, and that does give them more safe seats. but, if you take a look at that closely, inefficient is a better term to use than efficient. they're going to get 70% in some of these ridings, then get 12% in half of toronto. they need huge swings to win a mere handful of seats; whether they run at 25 or 35 is likely only a small difference in seats exchanged.
the liberals have the opposite problem - they're uncompetitive outside toronto - but they have what could be described as efficiency, and they're the party that this idea of vote efficiency should be applied towards. pulling them down 15% might seem catastrophic, but if it's all in ridings they'll never win anyways, it doesn't matter.
so, then, are the ndp inefficient? the reality is that they win a lot of close races. the disadvantage they've had is that they don't have a similar-sized base, so they need to rely on efficiency to win. i suspect this is in the process of changing.
the fact is that the exact same people made the exact same error in 2015, and it's probably rooted in a geography error rather than a mathematics one - if it isn't the internalization of campaign propaganda. go take a drive through the 905 and tell me it's "rural" in 2018.
people are living in london and working in toronto, nowadays.
no. not even close. they have no chance in most urban ridings, and the riding maps people are using seem to be stuck in the 50s - as ford's campaign, itself, is.
these are people that think the 905 is 'rural'; it hasn't been anything of the sort for decades. suburban, perhaps. but not rural. and, the cities in the region are actually growing very quickly. the liberals swept the 905 last time around for the exact reason that it's urban.
what the conservatives do have is an advantage in geography, as they do do better in rural areas, and that does give them more safe seats. but, if you take a look at that closely, inefficient is a better term to use than efficient. they're going to get 70% in some of these ridings, then get 12% in half of toronto. they need huge swings to win a mere handful of seats; whether they run at 25 or 35 is likely only a small difference in seats exchanged.
the liberals have the opposite problem - they're uncompetitive outside toronto - but they have what could be described as efficiency, and they're the party that this idea of vote efficiency should be applied towards. pulling them down 15% might seem catastrophic, but if it's all in ridings they'll never win anyways, it doesn't matter.
so, then, are the ndp inefficient? the reality is that they win a lot of close races. the disadvantage they've had is that they don't have a similar-sized base, so they need to rely on efficiency to win. i suspect this is in the process of changing.
the fact is that the exact same people made the exact same error in 2015, and it's probably rooted in a geography error rather than a mathematics one - if it isn't the internalization of campaign propaganda. go take a drive through the 905 and tell me it's "rural" in 2018.
people are living in london and working in toronto, nowadays.
one of the polls released yesterday is more interesting than the others.
this is an actual poll:
https://innovativeresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/OntarioThisMonth_WhatDoThePhonesSay.pdf
...and what does it say?
undecideds are at 13%.
now, let's keep in mind that this is a low ball and that the margin of error puts the range for the pcs up to 31%. but, nobody is going to vote for doug ford at the last minute. so, some recent evidence is forcing me to concede a point i wasn't previously - the pcs may actually be finally starting to actually lose ground. or, to put it another way, they may be having difficulty merely holding the support from the last election, when they got 31%.
ford may be looking at leading the pcs to a decrease in popular support. well, he talks to people like they're fucking idiots...
that would indicate that essentially all of the movement that's happening right now is from the liberals to the ndp, and then you need to get worried, because most of the ridings in this province are battles between the liberals and the conservatives.
the liberals weren't going to win very many seats outside of toronto, anyways, so it doesn't matter what they're running at in most of the province. the key indicator is not the 905 but the 416.
and...
see, this is more believable than the mainstreet data, but you have to keep in mind that the margins of error start getting very high when you're dealing with small sample sizes (like 101). and, it's hard to know exactly what to make of this. the liberals are clearly down substantively, but it would seem as though the conservatives are as well. based on this poll, at least, it would seem as though the concern is less about the liberals splitting the vote with the ndp and more about the liberals splitting the vote with the conservatives: this would indicate that it's the conservatives that are losing the most ground in toronto, at the expense of the ndp (which is also picking up support from the liberals). i'm left to conclude that the liberals and ndp have a week to wage the battle of toronto - and that ford doesn't matter much.
if the liberals are going to hold toronto, they're going to need to rely on their ground game, which means they need good brand recognition.
liberals seem to prefer horwath over wynne, at this point - and the media has been beating the snot out of her for forever, so it's not surprising. but, they still call themselves liberals, when asked. and, those numbers should be skewed higher in toronto.
based solely on this poll - an actual poll, but one that doesn't fit the media narrative - i would not expect the tories to win any more seats than they already have, and for the liberals to hang on relatively well around toronto.
if the ndp & liberals split the undecided vote you end up with something like:
ndp: ~50 (35%)
tories: ~30 (27%)
liberals: ~30 (23%)
...and the ndp are going to be working on razor thin pluralities that could easily see the seat totals with the liberals flipped, even if the vote totals end as suggested. there will be more than 20 liberal-ndp fights that swing on a few points.
(just based on this one poll...)
this is an actual poll:
https://innovativeresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/OntarioThisMonth_WhatDoThePhonesSay.pdf
...and what does it say?
now, let's keep in mind that this is a low ball and that the margin of error puts the range for the pcs up to 31%. but, nobody is going to vote for doug ford at the last minute. so, some recent evidence is forcing me to concede a point i wasn't previously - the pcs may actually be finally starting to actually lose ground. or, to put it another way, they may be having difficulty merely holding the support from the last election, when they got 31%.
ford may be looking at leading the pcs to a decrease in popular support. well, he talks to people like they're fucking idiots...
that would indicate that essentially all of the movement that's happening right now is from the liberals to the ndp, and then you need to get worried, because most of the ridings in this province are battles between the liberals and the conservatives.
the liberals weren't going to win very many seats outside of toronto, anyways, so it doesn't matter what they're running at in most of the province. the key indicator is not the 905 but the 416.
and...
if the liberals are going to hold toronto, they're going to need to rely on their ground game, which means they need good brand recognition.
based solely on this poll - an actual poll, but one that doesn't fit the media narrative - i would not expect the tories to win any more seats than they already have, and for the liberals to hang on relatively well around toronto.
if the ndp & liberals split the undecided vote you end up with something like:
ndp: ~50 (35%)
tories: ~30 (27%)
liberals: ~30 (23%)
...and the ndp are going to be working on razor thin pluralities that could easily see the seat totals with the liberals flipped, even if the vote totals end as suggested. there will be more than 20 liberal-ndp fights that swing on a few points.
(just based on this one poll...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)