yeah, i'm in tonight. it's a combination of things - i am actually feeling a tad better (i'm at like 95%, now), but it didn't warm up quite as much as forecast, and, despite feeling a little better, i still don't really feel like smoking anything at all tonight.
i'm kind of happy in my blanket tonight, actually, and don't really want to leave it. it happens. i'm more interested in getting through 2013 - as it will be final when i do. like, that's the end of that. forever.
i wanted to start the journal off in mid-1989, as well, and was hoping i'd already be there. but, i'm going to wait until christmas before i get antsy about it. i may do the full six months at once, and start off in 1990. or, i may get a journal for christmas and reflect back a little, just starting fresh in 1990.
i don't think i can put aside the time to live full time in my 9 year old self, so i think i'm looking at infrequent alter-reality updates for a bit, anyways. i will need to plan this out by looking at things like release dates, and trying to figure out specific life events. christmas...
i could be done november by monday, anyways. really.
for right now, the update is that the master document is entirely synced and finished. and ready to cut up. it's 350 pages, smaller than the last few, and will shrink even more because a lot of it is email relics. there's 70 html files to deal with, but i think this is the last month like that for a good while.
i also wanted to get january, 2014 done before i fire up the music pc, so let's hope i can get through this by the end of the week.
and, if i'm in for most of the winter, let's hope 2-3 days turnover time is realistic for most months. can i get to the end of 2017 by christmas?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Saturday, October 19, 2019
byzantine history is really truly surreal and fascinating and horrible, all at the same time. any would be prince, or dauphin, should be far more well-versed in it's intricacies than i am.
i think the best way to describe it is like something out of star trek, when you periodically had kirk and the gang run into these creatures that were so far ahead of them that the humans couldn't even recognize the truth as it was. the byzantines existed past the initial fall of rome, all the way through the dark ages and into the beginning of the renaissance, although they were drastically reduced by the time the latter started. there is even a theory - backed up by evidence in the form of migration - that a substantive underpinning of the renaissance, as it existed in rome itself, was a consequence of the collapse of constantinople as a major power. but, i digress.
the period we call rome "byzantium" is pretty much exactly the period where the remnants of roman and greek civilization were defending themselves against a multi-directional onslaught from the barbarian world, a process that took a thousand years for the romans to finally lose. and, in that period, the theme that constantly reinforces itself is just how much more advanced the romans really were. if we had a modern concept of species at the time, we may have been tempted to label the romans superhuman in intellect, at that junction. there really was a substantive difference, then.
so, the thing that comes up over and over again is these roman generals that just effortlessly treat these barbarians in their complicated configurations as figures on a risk board. if you look at maps from the period, it restricts the roman empire, proper, as greece, turkey, the balkans and (usually) southern italy, but the actual reality is that they were the hegemonic power all the way around the black sea, and they had the ability to project power all the way over the steppes, and far into central asia. the generals in constantinople no doubt had a better understanding of the intricacies of the tribal allegiances in the steppes than the tribes in the steppes did, themselves. i mean, they kept histories, to start with - the barbarians didn't. the difference between understanding reality in segments of centuries or millennia, or understanding it in segments of decades (at most), is pretty daunting in managing the world.
this wasn't without consequence. by the end, the barbarians saw the imperial throne with contempt, and spoke of little more than treachery in the context of alliances - in the end, nobody trusted the emperor or his generals anymore. but, that was a process that took centuries, and there wouldn't have been an empire to defend had these manipulations not run their course.
i tend to have little patience for people that want to understand history through a lens of morality, and i actually find it scary to hear people talk about geopolitics in these moralistic terms. if the byzantines had stuck with their allies without reference to changing facts on the ground, they would have been raped and slaughtered in no time.
america likes to pretend it has a history in roman civilization, but it constantly demonstrates that it doesn't understand the subtleties of it. moscow is the true third rome, not washington. and, we should let the empire govern.
if america seeks to be the empire, it needs to throw it's bible away and read more machiavelli.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i think the best way to describe it is like something out of star trek, when you periodically had kirk and the gang run into these creatures that were so far ahead of them that the humans couldn't even recognize the truth as it was. the byzantines existed past the initial fall of rome, all the way through the dark ages and into the beginning of the renaissance, although they were drastically reduced by the time the latter started. there is even a theory - backed up by evidence in the form of migration - that a substantive underpinning of the renaissance, as it existed in rome itself, was a consequence of the collapse of constantinople as a major power. but, i digress.
the period we call rome "byzantium" is pretty much exactly the period where the remnants of roman and greek civilization were defending themselves against a multi-directional onslaught from the barbarian world, a process that took a thousand years for the romans to finally lose. and, in that period, the theme that constantly reinforces itself is just how much more advanced the romans really were. if we had a modern concept of species at the time, we may have been tempted to label the romans superhuman in intellect, at that junction. there really was a substantive difference, then.
so, the thing that comes up over and over again is these roman generals that just effortlessly treat these barbarians in their complicated configurations as figures on a risk board. if you look at maps from the period, it restricts the roman empire, proper, as greece, turkey, the balkans and (usually) southern italy, but the actual reality is that they were the hegemonic power all the way around the black sea, and they had the ability to project power all the way over the steppes, and far into central asia. the generals in constantinople no doubt had a better understanding of the intricacies of the tribal allegiances in the steppes than the tribes in the steppes did, themselves. i mean, they kept histories, to start with - the barbarians didn't. the difference between understanding reality in segments of centuries or millennia, or understanding it in segments of decades (at most), is pretty daunting in managing the world.
this wasn't without consequence. by the end, the barbarians saw the imperial throne with contempt, and spoke of little more than treachery in the context of alliances - in the end, nobody trusted the emperor or his generals anymore. but, that was a process that took centuries, and there wouldn't have been an empire to defend had these manipulations not run their course.
i tend to have little patience for people that want to understand history through a lens of morality, and i actually find it scary to hear people talk about geopolitics in these moralistic terms. if the byzantines had stuck with their allies without reference to changing facts on the ground, they would have been raped and slaughtered in no time.
america likes to pretend it has a history in roman civilization, but it constantly demonstrates that it doesn't understand the subtleties of it. moscow is the true third rome, not washington. and, we should let the empire govern.
if america seeks to be the empire, it needs to throw it's bible away and read more machiavelli.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
stop.
why do we have public education?
why do we spend all of this money and expend all of these resources on this?
surely, it's primarily because we understand the importance of an informed populace for the maintenance of democracy, right?
or, at least, we used to, anyways.
nowadays, we seem to be content with the premise that people are too stupid for democracy to work, and they need to be brainwashed in order to be told what to do. and, if we hold to this mentality, if we continue to refuse to educate our kids, we will have a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it is at least true that a society that can't work out what is true and what isn't cannot be a democratic one.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
why do we have public education?
why do we spend all of this money and expend all of these resources on this?
surely, it's primarily because we understand the importance of an informed populace for the maintenance of democracy, right?
or, at least, we used to, anyways.
nowadays, we seem to be content with the premise that people are too stupid for democracy to work, and they need to be brainwashed in order to be told what to do. and, if we hold to this mentality, if we continue to refuse to educate our kids, we will have a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it is at least true that a society that can't work out what is true and what isn't cannot be a democratic one.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
actually, there is something we can do about it - we can educate our kids to be smart enough to know how to process information intelligently.
this kind of thing shouldn't work on an educated and informed populace. and, this is the actual question we need to ask here: how did we let our education system devolve to the state where people can't figure this out?
https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2019/10/18/theres-little-canada-can-do-to-stop-the-flow-of-false-viral-stories-from-buffalo-website.html
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
this kind of thing shouldn't work on an educated and informed populace. and, this is the actual question we need to ask here: how did we let our education system devolve to the state where people can't figure this out?
https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2019/10/18/theres-little-canada-can-do-to-stop-the-flow-of-false-viral-stories-from-buffalo-website.html
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
you think i'm being facetious?
so, for a while the late romans had these bulgars, initially a turkic tribe, sitting on their border, who were a threat to their well-being. unruly bulgarian barbarians could interrupt trade routes, or even threaten civilians around the danube. but, there were always barbarians in this region, and the romans learned that you have to just fucking deal with it.
so, what they did was study the tribal configurations and try to find ways to divide and conquer the barbarians, so they would fight against each other, instead. and, they learned a valuable lesson - there was a powerful nation to the north of the bulgars, namely the rus, that could be brought into imperial service.
so, this is what they did, for hundreds of years - whenever the bulgars got restless, they'd send money to the rus, who would threaten the bulgars from the north. this drew them away from the danube, thereby securing the roman areas.
in the mean time, they would send emissaries to the bulgar areas in an attempt to civilize them. and, over time, the bulgars would be romanicized, christianized and even slavicized, which brought them into the empire. yet, as had happened for centuries, they were merely replaced by a new barbarian threat, the moment they were assimilated. so it goes.
this barbarian management strategy is actually what led to the alliance between the rus and the romans, which is arguably still the dominant geopolitical reality in the region, today.
trump is an idiot, we'll agree on that point. but, be careful who you're calling ignorant. you might see that backfire.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, for a while the late romans had these bulgars, initially a turkic tribe, sitting on their border, who were a threat to their well-being. unruly bulgarian barbarians could interrupt trade routes, or even threaten civilians around the danube. but, there were always barbarians in this region, and the romans learned that you have to just fucking deal with it.
so, what they did was study the tribal configurations and try to find ways to divide and conquer the barbarians, so they would fight against each other, instead. and, they learned a valuable lesson - there was a powerful nation to the north of the bulgars, namely the rus, that could be brought into imperial service.
so, this is what they did, for hundreds of years - whenever the bulgars got restless, they'd send money to the rus, who would threaten the bulgars from the north. this drew them away from the danube, thereby securing the roman areas.
in the mean time, they would send emissaries to the bulgar areas in an attempt to civilize them. and, over time, the bulgars would be romanicized, christianized and even slavicized, which brought them into the empire. yet, as had happened for centuries, they were merely replaced by a new barbarian threat, the moment they were assimilated. so it goes.
this barbarian management strategy is actually what led to the alliance between the rus and the romans, which is arguably still the dominant geopolitical reality in the region, today.
trump is an idiot, we'll agree on that point. but, be careful who you're calling ignorant. you might see that backfire.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the romans referred to this kind of thing as "barbarian management".
there's a very long history of it and a very rich literature around it.
and, it's a necessary part of running an empire - there are going to be irrational barbarians that you have to deal with.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
there's a very long history of it and a very rich literature around it.
and, it's a necessary part of running an empire - there are going to be irrational barbarians that you have to deal with.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Friday, October 18, 2019
i want to post some comments about syria, though.
it's clear at this point that if trump ever understood what he's doing then he already forgot. the premise that the turks are going to slaughter civilians by the thousands is not real, and the kurds are clearly not going to leave on their own. so, i don't know how you make sense of trump's analysis of his own behaviour. but, that's pretty normal - he's often incoherent, and he often contradicts himself in the same sentence.
a part of my position on this matter from the start is that the kurds need to pick better friends. they shouldn't have expected perpetual protection from the hegemon; that was not realistic, regardless of who is president, in the long run. this was not if, but when.
but, everybody else in the region - the russians, the turks, the syrians, the iranians, the saudis - have a much clearer understanding of what happens next. so, even if the truth is that trump got tricked into this, by who we don't know, he still made the right choice, by accident.
how is this supposed to work? well, we saw a preview of it a while back. the goal, here, is syrian territorial integrity, in the end, which requires pushing the kurds out - the war can't end until the kurds go home. they don't want to leave, though. so, how do you get them out?
1) the turks threaten to bomb them. if they just threaten them, and they're rational, that should be enough to get them to leave - they should know they can't win and give up. unfortunately, the kurds have demonstrated repeatedly that they're not rational actors, that they think they can beat the odds through manifest destiny or whatever other ridiculous thing, and you can't manipulate them through incentives or game theory like that. they don't seem to have that department in their military, unlike all the state actors involved.
2) so, if you can't treat the kurds rationally, if you have to bomb them to get them to move, what you do next is offer the syrians up as protectors. the western media is presenting this as some kind of catastrophe, but it's exactly what the plan should have been from the start. by integrating the kurds back into assad's forces, and maybe you even have them fight a few battles together, you reconstruct a concept of syrian nationality in the kurdish rebels. by fighting side by side, they once again become brothers.
3) the turks have to play along, here, in order to get this to work. yes, they have to blow up a few cities, kill a few civilians. c'est la guerre. it's not like a lot of people haven't already died, here, or the united states isn't already responsible for truly outrageous levels of carnage. but, they're not there to massacre civilians. err, i mean - tell that to the kurds, sure, let them believe that. the turks want to slaughter you like it's 1915, kurds. boo! it's not real, though - the turks know what will happen if they do that. and, what is the evidence? i think the death toll is a few dozen civilians, at this point. i'm sorry to call them collateral, but they won't leave. they won't act rationally. it is, in many ways, their own fault.
4) then, once the syrians have reestablished themselves as the dominant and rightful force in the region, the turks pull back - as they intended to from the start.
so, what is this about?
it's about scaring the kurds back into assad's arms.
and, i know that the saudis and their muppets in washington hate that, but it's the responsible way to get this done and over with.
if trump understood what he did, that's what he'd be saying, right now.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
it's clear at this point that if trump ever understood what he's doing then he already forgot. the premise that the turks are going to slaughter civilians by the thousands is not real, and the kurds are clearly not going to leave on their own. so, i don't know how you make sense of trump's analysis of his own behaviour. but, that's pretty normal - he's often incoherent, and he often contradicts himself in the same sentence.
a part of my position on this matter from the start is that the kurds need to pick better friends. they shouldn't have expected perpetual protection from the hegemon; that was not realistic, regardless of who is president, in the long run. this was not if, but when.
but, everybody else in the region - the russians, the turks, the syrians, the iranians, the saudis - have a much clearer understanding of what happens next. so, even if the truth is that trump got tricked into this, by who we don't know, he still made the right choice, by accident.
how is this supposed to work? well, we saw a preview of it a while back. the goal, here, is syrian territorial integrity, in the end, which requires pushing the kurds out - the war can't end until the kurds go home. they don't want to leave, though. so, how do you get them out?
1) the turks threaten to bomb them. if they just threaten them, and they're rational, that should be enough to get them to leave - they should know they can't win and give up. unfortunately, the kurds have demonstrated repeatedly that they're not rational actors, that they think they can beat the odds through manifest destiny or whatever other ridiculous thing, and you can't manipulate them through incentives or game theory like that. they don't seem to have that department in their military, unlike all the state actors involved.
2) so, if you can't treat the kurds rationally, if you have to bomb them to get them to move, what you do next is offer the syrians up as protectors. the western media is presenting this as some kind of catastrophe, but it's exactly what the plan should have been from the start. by integrating the kurds back into assad's forces, and maybe you even have them fight a few battles together, you reconstruct a concept of syrian nationality in the kurdish rebels. by fighting side by side, they once again become brothers.
3) the turks have to play along, here, in order to get this to work. yes, they have to blow up a few cities, kill a few civilians. c'est la guerre. it's not like a lot of people haven't already died, here, or the united states isn't already responsible for truly outrageous levels of carnage. but, they're not there to massacre civilians. err, i mean - tell that to the kurds, sure, let them believe that. the turks want to slaughter you like it's 1915, kurds. boo! it's not real, though - the turks know what will happen if they do that. and, what is the evidence? i think the death toll is a few dozen civilians, at this point. i'm sorry to call them collateral, but they won't leave. they won't act rationally. it is, in many ways, their own fault.
4) then, once the syrians have reestablished themselves as the dominant and rightful force in the region, the turks pull back - as they intended to from the start.
so, what is this about?
it's about scaring the kurds back into assad's arms.
and, i know that the saudis and their muppets in washington hate that, but it's the responsible way to get this done and over with.
if trump understood what he did, that's what he'd be saying, right now.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
me?
i don't give a fuck if you're so goddamned stupid that you actually think i'm a racist.
i know i'm not, and i know people that know me know i'm not, so why the fuck would i care what you think?
i want you to think that i'm honest. that's what i want.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i don't give a fuck if you're so goddamned stupid that you actually think i'm a racist.
i know i'm not, and i know people that know me know i'm not, so why the fuck would i care what you think?
i want you to think that i'm honest. that's what i want.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
and, i'll remind you that these were the bc numbers in 2015:
liberals -35%
conservatives - 30%
ndp - 26%
"surging" from 14 to 23 at the last minute isn't much of a win, when you're still down 2-3 points - that's still going to lose you some seats.
that is, if it's happening at all - if the truth isn't just that people don't want you to think they're racist.
the liberals ar5e supposed to do better than this
liberals -35%
conservatives - 30%
ndp - 26%
"surging" from 14 to 23 at the last minute isn't much of a win, when you're still down 2-3 points - that's still going to lose you some seats.
that is, if it's happening at all - if the truth isn't just that people don't want you to think they're racist.
the liberals ar5e supposed to do better than this
see, even this goofy online propaganda says the same thing.
all logic suggests that if the ndp are experiencing growth, it should be at the expense of the liberals, in some combination - in conjunction with undecideds and greens perhaps, and conservatives if it's strong, but there should be some swing, there.
but, the liberals are actually up.
there's a big swing from the undecideds, and a small swing from the conservatives and from the greens. who are the liberals pulling from, then?
i'm actually not surprised about the numbers in bc - i expected them to hold some seats there, unless the greens really picked up momentum, and they haven't. i've made this point explicitly; the spectrum is different in bc, and the ndp are broadly seen differently, there. they might even have a base there, which they don't even have in saskatchewan any more.
but, even this looks phony.
i think they're going to be disappointed, in the end.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
all logic suggests that if the ndp are experiencing growth, it should be at the expense of the liberals, in some combination - in conjunction with undecideds and greens perhaps, and conservatives if it's strong, but there should be some swing, there.
but, the liberals are actually up.
there's a big swing from the undecideds, and a small swing from the conservatives and from the greens. who are the liberals pulling from, then?
i'm actually not surprised about the numbers in bc - i expected them to hold some seats there, unless the greens really picked up momentum, and they haven't. i've made this point explicitly; the spectrum is different in bc, and the ndp are broadly seen differently, there. they might even have a base there, which they don't even have in saskatchewan any more.
but, even this looks phony.
i think they're going to be disappointed, in the end.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
if i don't get a sufficient response on the plumbing, the case i file is going to focus on the heat, as well.
the law says that the heat needs to be above 20 degrees celsius. that's not an opinion - that's the law. i'd rather it was closer to 25; i would have the heat on until june, and turn it on in september. so, i need to get a thermometer down here and start documenting it...
if i get a rational response on the plumbing, i'll overlook it, as i have been for some time. but, i'm not going to hold back, if i have to file - i'm going to throw the book at him, all at once.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the law says that the heat needs to be above 20 degrees celsius. that's not an opinion - that's the law. i'd rather it was closer to 25; i would have the heat on until june, and turn it on in september. so, i need to get a thermometer down here and start documenting it...
if i get a rational response on the plumbing, i'll overlook it, as i have been for some time. but, i'm not going to hold back, if i have to file - i'm going to throw the book at him, all at once.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i had to lie down for a few hours (i didn't actually sleep. but i was so exhausted i couldn't move, for some reason that might be related to the air quality. i don't know...), but the first run through the master document is in fact now done.
it's very cold in here. and, i didn't get a chance to seriously address the drain. so, i'm going to need to deal with laundry and stuff, get something to eat and then presumably actually sleep.
i should get a second pass in soon enough, and then i'll get to start posting to pretty soon. again: there's not plot this month, it's almost entirely blogging and music. which is what i wanted....
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
it's very cold in here. and, i didn't get a chance to seriously address the drain. so, i'm going to need to deal with laundry and stuff, get something to eat and then presumably actually sleep.
i should get a second pass in soon enough, and then i'll get to start posting to pretty soon. again: there's not plot this month, it's almost entirely blogging and music. which is what i wanted....
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
also, the sewers are acting up again...
and, yes, i can tell the difference between a sewer gas and a gas leak. the sewer gas comes out of the cleanout. the gas leak comes out of the heater. given that they're on opposite sides of the closet, it's not hard to figure out, so long as you stay on top of it, which i have.
so, we're going to have to dump another 50L or so down there before i get to bed..
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
and, yes, i can tell the difference between a sewer gas and a gas leak. the sewer gas comes out of the cleanout. the gas leak comes out of the heater. given that they're on opposite sides of the closet, it's not hard to figure out, so long as you stay on top of it, which i have.
so, we're going to have to dump another 50L or so down there before i get to bed..
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
yeah, i'm putting the chances of going out tomorrow at roughly 10%.
the actual reason is that my throat is still a little raw. i never really made it up past 90% health - i may have gotten a little worse a few days ago, and then kind of flatlined around it. i'm certainly feeling relatively healthy and everything, but maybe bicycling across detroit in 15 degree weather (and back in 10 degree weather) isn't the best idea right now.
i'll see how i feel tomorrow.
it's also going to depend on if i can actually patch that tire or not, and i don't want to look at it until i wake up, which should be in the morning.
this master document tends to misbehave fairly predictably. the computer flat out crashed last night when i was sleeping; i don't seem to have lost anything, but i don't see any good reason for the crash, either. and, the document froze on me this afternoon, making me start over on the time consuming web page section, after i was half done.
i'm half done again and have it saved, at least. but it should be done by now. alas...
i was hoping for before noon; it looks like before i crash makes more sense. and, if i'm in, i should get most of it done with by the time i leave the house again next, which would be monday.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the actual reason is that my throat is still a little raw. i never really made it up past 90% health - i may have gotten a little worse a few days ago, and then kind of flatlined around it. i'm certainly feeling relatively healthy and everything, but maybe bicycling across detroit in 15 degree weather (and back in 10 degree weather) isn't the best idea right now.
i'll see how i feel tomorrow.
it's also going to depend on if i can actually patch that tire or not, and i don't want to look at it until i wake up, which should be in the morning.
this master document tends to misbehave fairly predictably. the computer flat out crashed last night when i was sleeping; i don't seem to have lost anything, but i don't see any good reason for the crash, either. and, the document froze on me this afternoon, making me start over on the time consuming web page section, after i was half done.
i'm half done again and have it saved, at least. but it should be done by now. alas...
i was hoping for before noon; it looks like before i crash makes more sense. and, if i'm in, i should get most of it done with by the time i leave the house again next, which would be monday.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
what are the eight seats that the ndp have in ontario, and how safe are they?
- three in windsor
- one in london
- two in hamilton
- two in the north (one of them is sort of sudbury, the other is an "unsettled" or largely indigenous area)
the federal ndp do not currently have any seats in ottawa or toronto.
in years past, hamilton was "safe" for the ndp. but, trudeau won seats here in 2015, and it's an overwhelmingly white union town. when the numbers were hovering around 10%, this was vulnerable. at 15-16%, they could maybe hold on - but if they dip any lower than that, don't be surprised if the liberals win these seats.
the london seat is vulnerable, as it's a three-way race. the sudbury seat is vulnerable, as the liberals do well here - it's more like rural quebec than rural ontario.
the ndp has, in recent decades, done very well in the northern areas - northern quebec, northern ontario, northern manitoba, northern saskatchewan and northern bc, too. the ndp will probably hold this. if anything is safe, it's this.
what's left is windsor, and the riding i'm in is not safe, because there's a very strong challenger. the riding to the south of here actually usually leans conservative. and the riding i used to be in is actually a bit more wealthy, and arguably more vulnerable than the one i'm in. it has voted liberal in the past...
again: if the numbers are trending up, these are the places they're trending in, and there's reason to think they'll hold them. but, if there's actually a bradley effect at play, and those numbers we saw last month were more accurate, there's not really any compelling evidence to think they can hold any of these seats, except that one in the far north.
they don't really have a base of voters in this province.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
- three in windsor
- one in london
- two in hamilton
- two in the north (one of them is sort of sudbury, the other is an "unsettled" or largely indigenous area)
the federal ndp do not currently have any seats in ottawa or toronto.
in years past, hamilton was "safe" for the ndp. but, trudeau won seats here in 2015, and it's an overwhelmingly white union town. when the numbers were hovering around 10%, this was vulnerable. at 15-16%, they could maybe hold on - but if they dip any lower than that, don't be surprised if the liberals win these seats.
the london seat is vulnerable, as it's a three-way race. the sudbury seat is vulnerable, as the liberals do well here - it's more like rural quebec than rural ontario.
the ndp has, in recent decades, done very well in the northern areas - northern quebec, northern ontario, northern manitoba, northern saskatchewan and northern bc, too. the ndp will probably hold this. if anything is safe, it's this.
what's left is windsor, and the riding i'm in is not safe, because there's a very strong challenger. the riding to the south of here actually usually leans conservative. and the riding i used to be in is actually a bit more wealthy, and arguably more vulnerable than the one i'm in. it has voted liberal in the past...
again: if the numbers are trending up, these are the places they're trending in, and there's reason to think they'll hold them. but, if there's actually a bradley effect at play, and those numbers we saw last month were more accurate, there's not really any compelling evidence to think they can hold any of these seats, except that one in the far north.
they don't really have a base of voters in this province.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
what are the fifteen seats the liberals can win in the west?
- about seven-ten seats around vancouver
- ralph
- about five-seven seats around winnipeg
what are the fifteen seats the ndp can win?
- a few in manitoba
- a few in saskatchewan
- probably not that one in edmonton
- the ndp have historically won seats in both urban and rural brtish columbia. there's likely at least ten there for them, if they're still running over 20%.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
- about seven-ten seats around vancouver
- ralph
- about five-seven seats around winnipeg
what are the fifteen seats the ndp can win?
- a few in manitoba
- a few in saskatchewan
- probably not that one in edmonton
- the ndp have historically won seats in both urban and rural brtish columbia. there's likely at least ten there for them, if they're still running over 20%.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i think i'm ready to make a final forecast. i'll let you know if this changes.
these are nik's numbers for yesterday:
conservative - 28.8
liberals - 28.7
ndp 17.3
greens - 8.6
bloc - 5.6
people's - 1.6
lost - 0.4
undecided - 9.0
over the last week, the liberals and conservatives have been more or less flat, while the undecideds have moved to the ndp.
i think this is a bradley effect. but, i suspect a lot of these voters are also a little younger and unlikely to actually vote. so, i'm going to to split the difference, and readjust:
conservative - 28.8
liberals - 28.7
ndp 15.0
greens - 8.6
bloc - 5.6
people's - 1.6
lost - 0.4
undecided - 11.3
this is where turnout matters, and i where i introduce jessica's theorem, aka the fundamental principle of canadian elections: the conservatives do terrible with undecided voters. they get maybe 20% of them. the greens also tend to underperform, and while it looked otherwise earlier, it doesn't look that way anymore. let's get them 5%. i'm also just going to give the bloc an extra 1% and the ppc an extra 0.475% and leave it at that.
that leaves 7% to distribute between the liberals and the ndp, and the results of the election will depend on how that works.
as mentioned, i think there is a bradley effect, but i'm actually going to point more to the liberal ground game. i've yet to see an election where it works out the other way, at least. so, i'm going to give the liberals 5% of this and the ndp the rest.
lib - 33.7 %
con - 31.1 %
ndp - 17.0 %
greens - 9.2%
bloc - 6.6 %
ppc - 2.1 %
those numbers are not that strange. but, you need to look regionally to understand the results.
the ndp and conservatives are outperforming their average in the west, and underperforming it in the east; the liberals, the opposite. so, i'm going to split the country in half. there are 104 seats in the west, and 231 seats in the east. there are also 3 seats in the north.
in the west, including bc, the conservatives seem likely to win by large margins, while the ndp and liberals fight it out for second place. in 2015, the totals in the west were as follows:
liberals - 29
conservatives - 54
ndp - 20
greens - 1
at current numbers, ignoring any bradley effect, the ndp may be able to keep their existing seats if the decrease in liberal support does not benefit the conservatives too much, and the increase in green support does not affect them too negatively. i think this is all too optimistic for the ndp. rather, we're going to take them down by a few seats. it does not, however, appear as though the greens are likely to make a breakthrough, after all. rather, i would expect the conservatives to gain a number of seats from the liberals in the west, and the outcome will look something like:
liberals - 15
conservatives - 70
ndp - 15
greens - 4
defeating the liberals will be pyrrhic for the anti-pipeline forces in bc, but the question really remains open: does the federal ndp even oppose the pipeline in the first place? the greens are your best bet here, in the long run. but, i'm not voting for them on monday, either - i get it.
in the east, the 2015 totals were rather different:
liberals - 152
conservatives - 45
ndp - 24
bloc - 10
greens - 0
at current numbers, the ndp are likely to lose all of their 16 seats in quebec (where they are down at least 15 points) and some, but not all, of their seats in ontario (where they are roughly flat). it would not appear as though they will gain seats in ontario, anyways; how many they lose would appear to rely on the strength of the presumed bradley effect. i see little evidence that they're going to pick up seats in the east. that will leave them with around 5 seats, at best.
the liberals are also roughly flat in ontario, but the conservatives are down dramatically, at the apparent benefit of the greens. this combination - ndp & liberals flat, conservatives down, greens up - is just about the best outcome that the liberals could possibly ask for. they may only steal a seat or two from the ndp in ontario, but they should steal 25+ from the conservatives, and in areas that are usually conservative locks, too.
expect something like this in ontario:
liberals - 110
conservatives - 6
ndp - 5
in 2015, quebec was a complicated four-way race that was difficult to call, resulting in split races with weird results. with the retreat of the ndp (mostly to the benefit of the bloc), you should see something more predictable in this election: the bloc should sweep the rural areas, while the liberals sweep montreal, gatineau and the south shore urban spaces and the conservatives nab a few seats in quebec city. that means you should expect the conservatives to lose a few seats, actually - and that the liberals may be able to hold steady, if they're lucky. but, the bloc will be the big winners here.
i do want to temper this slightly, though. i haven't seen a poll with the bloc above 30%, yet. they used to poll way, way higher than that in the duceppe years, and it does open up a few questions - is there enough lingering ndp support to help the liberals on the split? how may seats can they actually win with 30%?
i'm going to suggest the following in quebec:
liberals - 40
bloc - 30
conservatives - 8
ndp - 0
in 2015, the liberals won all 32 eastern seats, and ran over 50% in all four provinces. nobody predicted that. they have nowhere to go but down, but they are still leading the region by a good margin in all of the polling that i've seen. the greens may beat the ndp in this region, but they are taking support from the ndp itself, and i don't see any evidence that they'll actually win anywhere. that said, the east is likely to actually like elizabeth may for who she is, so some space for an upset should be accounted for.
that said, i think the reality is that the conservatives are not actually running much higher here than they were in 2015, and that the movement on the left is largely to be mostly inconsequential. it would be very unlikely for the liberals to sweep the region a second time, but nobody else is really stepping up, either.
something like the following is likely:
liberals - 27
conservatives - 5
ndp - 0
greens - 0
that adds up to a big win for the liberals in the east:
liberals - 177
bloc- 30
conservative - 19
ndp - 5
yeah. ontario...
there's three seats in the north, and they usually vote liberal.
so, here's my prediction:
liberals - 195
conservatives - 89
bloc - 30
ndp - 20
greens - 4
that would be a liberal majority.
what are some issues to draw attention to?
as mentioned, the greens are a wild card out east, but they're also a wild card in rural ontario. if they underperform in ontario, you could see the conservatives lose a few less seats; if they overperform, they could lose a few more. likewise, the greens could produce some confusing results in the east, but i'm not predicting it.
there's some possibility that the ndp could overperform these results in bc, as well, but we're talking a few seats, and i would consider that error.
in 2015, i tallied up 169 seats for the liberals - one seat short of a majority. so, my prediction was a strong liberal minority or a weak liberal majority (subject to error). most of the models actually predicted a harper minority, although some of the smarter kids clued in at the very end - but nobody that i know of predicted a liberal majority, except one forum poll released a few hours before the vote. the reason they got it right was because they picked up a last minute mass movement to the liberals in quebec, specifically. and, that was my error - i was suggesting a stronger showing by the bloc. i overestimated the bloc tally by 15 seats - the amount the liberals were short by. i was also dead-on with my conservative numbers.
if i'm wrong in 2019, it will likely be an overestimate by the liberals of roughly the same amount, and probably in ontario. but, 195 seats is actually a fairly comfortable majority, and i can eat that and still get the outcome right.
so, that's my prediction: a weak or comfortable liberal majority, but a liberal majority, nonetheless.
the liberals are still supposed to do better than this
these are nik's numbers for yesterday:
conservative - 28.8
liberals - 28.7
ndp 17.3
greens - 8.6
bloc - 5.6
people's - 1.6
lost - 0.4
undecided - 9.0
over the last week, the liberals and conservatives have been more or less flat, while the undecideds have moved to the ndp.
i think this is a bradley effect. but, i suspect a lot of these voters are also a little younger and unlikely to actually vote. so, i'm going to to split the difference, and readjust:
conservative - 28.8
liberals - 28.7
ndp 15.0
greens - 8.6
bloc - 5.6
people's - 1.6
lost - 0.4
undecided - 11.3
this is where turnout matters, and i where i introduce jessica's theorem, aka the fundamental principle of canadian elections: the conservatives do terrible with undecided voters. they get maybe 20% of them. the greens also tend to underperform, and while it looked otherwise earlier, it doesn't look that way anymore. let's get them 5%. i'm also just going to give the bloc an extra 1% and the ppc an extra 0.475% and leave it at that.
that leaves 7% to distribute between the liberals and the ndp, and the results of the election will depend on how that works.
as mentioned, i think there is a bradley effect, but i'm actually going to point more to the liberal ground game. i've yet to see an election where it works out the other way, at least. so, i'm going to give the liberals 5% of this and the ndp the rest.
lib - 33.7 %
con - 31.1 %
ndp - 17.0 %
greens - 9.2%
bloc - 6.6 %
ppc - 2.1 %
those numbers are not that strange. but, you need to look regionally to understand the results.
the ndp and conservatives are outperforming their average in the west, and underperforming it in the east; the liberals, the opposite. so, i'm going to split the country in half. there are 104 seats in the west, and 231 seats in the east. there are also 3 seats in the north.
in the west, including bc, the conservatives seem likely to win by large margins, while the ndp and liberals fight it out for second place. in 2015, the totals in the west were as follows:
liberals - 29
conservatives - 54
ndp - 20
greens - 1
at current numbers, ignoring any bradley effect, the ndp may be able to keep their existing seats if the decrease in liberal support does not benefit the conservatives too much, and the increase in green support does not affect them too negatively. i think this is all too optimistic for the ndp. rather, we're going to take them down by a few seats. it does not, however, appear as though the greens are likely to make a breakthrough, after all. rather, i would expect the conservatives to gain a number of seats from the liberals in the west, and the outcome will look something like:
liberals - 15
conservatives - 70
ndp - 15
greens - 4
defeating the liberals will be pyrrhic for the anti-pipeline forces in bc, but the question really remains open: does the federal ndp even oppose the pipeline in the first place? the greens are your best bet here, in the long run. but, i'm not voting for them on monday, either - i get it.
in the east, the 2015 totals were rather different:
liberals - 152
conservatives - 45
ndp - 24
bloc - 10
greens - 0
at current numbers, the ndp are likely to lose all of their 16 seats in quebec (where they are down at least 15 points) and some, but not all, of their seats in ontario (where they are roughly flat). it would not appear as though they will gain seats in ontario, anyways; how many they lose would appear to rely on the strength of the presumed bradley effect. i see little evidence that they're going to pick up seats in the east. that will leave them with around 5 seats, at best.
the liberals are also roughly flat in ontario, but the conservatives are down dramatically, at the apparent benefit of the greens. this combination - ndp & liberals flat, conservatives down, greens up - is just about the best outcome that the liberals could possibly ask for. they may only steal a seat or two from the ndp in ontario, but they should steal 25+ from the conservatives, and in areas that are usually conservative locks, too.
expect something like this in ontario:
liberals - 110
conservatives - 6
ndp - 5
in 2015, quebec was a complicated four-way race that was difficult to call, resulting in split races with weird results. with the retreat of the ndp (mostly to the benefit of the bloc), you should see something more predictable in this election: the bloc should sweep the rural areas, while the liberals sweep montreal, gatineau and the south shore urban spaces and the conservatives nab a few seats in quebec city. that means you should expect the conservatives to lose a few seats, actually - and that the liberals may be able to hold steady, if they're lucky. but, the bloc will be the big winners here.
i do want to temper this slightly, though. i haven't seen a poll with the bloc above 30%, yet. they used to poll way, way higher than that in the duceppe years, and it does open up a few questions - is there enough lingering ndp support to help the liberals on the split? how may seats can they actually win with 30%?
i'm going to suggest the following in quebec:
liberals - 40
bloc - 30
conservatives - 8
ndp - 0
in 2015, the liberals won all 32 eastern seats, and ran over 50% in all four provinces. nobody predicted that. they have nowhere to go but down, but they are still leading the region by a good margin in all of the polling that i've seen. the greens may beat the ndp in this region, but they are taking support from the ndp itself, and i don't see any evidence that they'll actually win anywhere. that said, the east is likely to actually like elizabeth may for who she is, so some space for an upset should be accounted for.
that said, i think the reality is that the conservatives are not actually running much higher here than they were in 2015, and that the movement on the left is largely to be mostly inconsequential. it would be very unlikely for the liberals to sweep the region a second time, but nobody else is really stepping up, either.
something like the following is likely:
liberals - 27
conservatives - 5
ndp - 0
greens - 0
that adds up to a big win for the liberals in the east:
liberals - 177
bloc- 30
conservative - 19
ndp - 5
yeah. ontario...
there's three seats in the north, and they usually vote liberal.
so, here's my prediction:
liberals - 195
conservatives - 89
bloc - 30
ndp - 20
greens - 4
that would be a liberal majority.
what are some issues to draw attention to?
as mentioned, the greens are a wild card out east, but they're also a wild card in rural ontario. if they underperform in ontario, you could see the conservatives lose a few less seats; if they overperform, they could lose a few more. likewise, the greens could produce some confusing results in the east, but i'm not predicting it.
there's some possibility that the ndp could overperform these results in bc, as well, but we're talking a few seats, and i would consider that error.
in 2015, i tallied up 169 seats for the liberals - one seat short of a majority. so, my prediction was a strong liberal minority or a weak liberal majority (subject to error). most of the models actually predicted a harper minority, although some of the smarter kids clued in at the very end - but nobody that i know of predicted a liberal majority, except one forum poll released a few hours before the vote. the reason they got it right was because they picked up a last minute mass movement to the liberals in quebec, specifically. and, that was my error - i was suggesting a stronger showing by the bloc. i overestimated the bloc tally by 15 seats - the amount the liberals were short by. i was also dead-on with my conservative numbers.
if i'm wrong in 2019, it will likely be an overestimate by the liberals of roughly the same amount, and probably in ontario. but, 195 seats is actually a fairly comfortable majority, and i can eat that and still get the outcome right.
so, that's my prediction: a weak or comfortable liberal majority, but a liberal majority, nonetheless.
the liberals are still supposed to do better than this
the logic the governor-general should use is this:
1) a conservative government will certainly be short-lived.
2) a liberal government might last close to four years.
3) therefore, the liberals should get the first crack.
but, the liberals cannot need to rely on bloc support.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
1) a conservative government will certainly be short-lived.
2) a liberal government might last close to four years.
3) therefore, the liberals should get the first crack.
but, the liberals cannot need to rely on bloc support.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
trudeau and martin both represented governments that had been in power for more than ten years, and resigned because they thought they were at a dead end.
that is probably not the case, here - this is trudeau's second election, he is young, and he would have a realistic chance of quickly winning another majority, should he want one. does he actually want one?
but, what is the actual rule, here? may is technically right, but she's maybe missing the point, as per usual.
what the governor-general is supposed to do is figure out who has the best chance at forming a stable government. the overriding concern is to prevent another election. the conservatives have no clear coalition partner, so allowing them to form a government would be necessitating an election within a year or two - which is what the governor-general is supposed to act to avoid.
it's going to depend on the strength of the minority. if trudeau needs bloc support to pass a budget (in addition to ndp and green support), and the conservatives have more seats, he should resign. but, if he can present a reasonably stable coalition to the governor-general, he should do so, regardless of who has more seats - because the conservatives will fall quickly, regardless.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-modern-canadian-convention-1.5324463
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
that is probably not the case, here - this is trudeau's second election, he is young, and he would have a realistic chance of quickly winning another majority, should he want one. does he actually want one?
but, what is the actual rule, here? may is technically right, but she's maybe missing the point, as per usual.
what the governor-general is supposed to do is figure out who has the best chance at forming a stable government. the overriding concern is to prevent another election. the conservatives have no clear coalition partner, so allowing them to form a government would be necessitating an election within a year or two - which is what the governor-general is supposed to act to avoid.
it's going to depend on the strength of the minority. if trudeau needs bloc support to pass a budget (in addition to ndp and green support), and the conservatives have more seats, he should resign. but, if he can present a reasonably stable coalition to the governor-general, he should do so, regardless of who has more seats - because the conservatives will fall quickly, regardless.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-modern-canadian-convention-1.5324463
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
in 2015, i didn't really vote for justin trudeau. i really voted for stephane dion. but, it was driven by the local choices - my business-liberal local candidate actually ran against nafta, and my ndp candidate was known for being an anti-science hippie in the local activist community.
if i get out of the house on monday to vote - and it should at least be nice out - i'm going to vote for the local liberal candidate, who was a left-leaning cabinet minister in the mcguinty government and a top tier leadership candidate at one point, over my sitting mp, who is a wasted seat in the house. it's one of those elections where the choice, locally, is obvious. sandra pupatello is clearly the better candidate, and if i vote for her, i'm voting for her.
but, i'm also voting for the secular legacy of the liberal party in opposition to the christian legacy of the ndp. and, i'm doing so with the intent of trying to right the party's course.
i don't feel that letting singh or may into government would advance my interests, as a secular leftist; i think it would set me back, by forcing them into consultation with the religious left. i was hoping for something different, but i have to face the facts. and, i do hope the options around a minority government are better in four years. right now, i'd rather give them back a majority, and agitate for change within the party - i think we're better off doing this then putting our hopes in the hands of a fundamentalist sikh, or an equally fundamentalist christian.
so, don't mistake my vote for an endorsement. and, don't mistake me for a trudeau supporter, either. i still want trudeau to resign asap, and i will continue to shit disturb.
i'm just doing what i think is in my own self-interest, as best as it is, in the terms i define it in.
she can win this riding, and i hope she does.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
if i get out of the house on monday to vote - and it should at least be nice out - i'm going to vote for the local liberal candidate, who was a left-leaning cabinet minister in the mcguinty government and a top tier leadership candidate at one point, over my sitting mp, who is a wasted seat in the house. it's one of those elections where the choice, locally, is obvious. sandra pupatello is clearly the better candidate, and if i vote for her, i'm voting for her.
but, i'm also voting for the secular legacy of the liberal party in opposition to the christian legacy of the ndp. and, i'm doing so with the intent of trying to right the party's course.
i don't feel that letting singh or may into government would advance my interests, as a secular leftist; i think it would set me back, by forcing them into consultation with the religious left. i was hoping for something different, but i have to face the facts. and, i do hope the options around a minority government are better in four years. right now, i'd rather give them back a majority, and agitate for change within the party - i think we're better off doing this then putting our hopes in the hands of a fundamentalist sikh, or an equally fundamentalist christian.
so, don't mistake my vote for an endorsement. and, don't mistake me for a trudeau supporter, either. i still want trudeau to resign asap, and i will continue to shit disturb.
i'm just doing what i think is in my own self-interest, as best as it is, in the terms i define it in.
she can win this riding, and i hope she does.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i am a hard leftist.
but, i'm also a creature of the enlightenment.
and, at the end of the day, the most important thing for me is to ensure that people motivated by religious views are not able to seize power. that's my meta-spectrum: atheism v. religion. in the name of copernicus, and socrates, and galileo...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
but, i'm also a creature of the enlightenment.
and, at the end of the day, the most important thing for me is to ensure that people motivated by religious views are not able to seize power. that's my meta-spectrum: atheism v. religion. in the name of copernicus, and socrates, and galileo...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
if things were "normal", the conservatives and ndp would be splitting the religious vote, and the liberals would be running high as the default secularists.
but, the liberals are in an identity crisis. and, elizabeth may's hard right turn at the last minute isn't helping, either.
things will have to eventually right themselves.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
but, the liberals are in an identity crisis. and, elizabeth may's hard right turn at the last minute isn't helping, either.
things will have to eventually right themselves.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
we'll see.
but, understand...
if they come in in the end at 15, 16, 17 then what that means is that the pollsters that had them higher - like nanos - were right the whole time, and that the pollsters that had them lower were wrong. that would still be a very poor showing, and they would still lose a lot of seats. with the ndp, the difference between 19 and 14 is nearly the difference between everything and nothing. but, it wouldn't be the clean wipe that they were facing when they were dwindling around 10-12 in some polls. don't argue that 17% support is a win for jagmeet singh; it's not, especially considering the circumstances. if they had run somebody like meghan leslie, they probably would have beaten the liberals.
if they come in at 10-14, then the pollsters that had them lower were right, and we'll be face to face with a bradley effect that we'll have to talk about. the media certainly set us up for it...
....and, if they do poll higher than that, it's increasingly clear that it's because they're pulling from the right of the spectrum, which is...it's not unpredictable. i predicted that, eventually. it's just ahead of schedule. they were supposed to get decimated this election, and then rebuild as a religious and right-wing party that is most attractive to recent immigrants, allowing the liberals to reclaim their historical position as secularists.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
but, understand...
if they come in in the end at 15, 16, 17 then what that means is that the pollsters that had them higher - like nanos - were right the whole time, and that the pollsters that had them lower were wrong. that would still be a very poor showing, and they would still lose a lot of seats. with the ndp, the difference between 19 and 14 is nearly the difference between everything and nothing. but, it wouldn't be the clean wipe that they were facing when they were dwindling around 10-12 in some polls. don't argue that 17% support is a win for jagmeet singh; it's not, especially considering the circumstances. if they had run somebody like meghan leslie, they probably would have beaten the liberals.
if they come in at 10-14, then the pollsters that had them lower were right, and we'll be face to face with a bradley effect that we'll have to talk about. the media certainly set us up for it...
....and, if they do poll higher than that, it's increasingly clear that it's because they're pulling from the right of the spectrum, which is...it's not unpredictable. i predicted that, eventually. it's just ahead of schedule. they were supposed to get decimated this election, and then rebuild as a religious and right-wing party that is most attractive to recent immigrants, allowing the liberals to reclaim their historical position as secularists.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i mean, i can tell you that it was predictable that secular leftists - the core of the ndp's base since layton tried to push the religious elements out of the party - would have a hard time voting for a sikh fundamentalist. that's clearly a non-starter for their own voters, and for much of the swing on the left.
but, maybe, the idea of conservatives voting for him is a little easier to get your head around - if they're otherwise exceedingly low information, and don't particularly care about actual policy (which is a lot of conservatives, isn't it?).
and, if you want to reduce it to the religious symbols law, that makes sense, too. the only place in canada that strenuously opposes the bill is alberta - the most conservative province, by a large margin. that's the argument i've been making the whole time: this debate should be between conservatives that support tradition and religious identity, and liberals trying to get rid of it.
as mentioned: i do think there's a bradley effect, here.
but, have we finally figured out how to cut into this unmoveable conservative base?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
but, maybe, the idea of conservatives voting for him is a little easier to get your head around - if they're otherwise exceedingly low information, and don't particularly care about actual policy (which is a lot of conservatives, isn't it?).
and, if you want to reduce it to the religious symbols law, that makes sense, too. the only place in canada that strenuously opposes the bill is alberta - the most conservative province, by a large margin. that's the argument i've been making the whole time: this debate should be between conservatives that support tradition and religious identity, and liberals trying to get rid of it.
as mentioned: i do think there's a bradley effect, here.
but, have we finally figured out how to cut into this unmoveable conservative base?
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i crashed around 19:00 and was up around 2:00.
and, i've got all of the local data in the master document except for the web page stuff, which is next. 70 files. if i can get it done before noon, we're in good shape.
it's a much smaller document - about half of the size of october. the focus is mostly on the music for november, as well, although there's a number of book reviews interspersed. and, dtk starts for real near the end of the month...
i should also have liner notes for inri001, inri003, inri016, inri027, inri028 and inri029 on the way.
so, this could be a productive weekend, if i stay in, as i think i will.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
and, i've got all of the local data in the master document except for the web page stuff, which is next. 70 files. if i can get it done before noon, we're in good shape.
it's a much smaller document - about half of the size of october. the focus is mostly on the music for november, as well, although there's a number of book reviews interspersed. and, dtk starts for real near the end of the month...
i should also have liner notes for inri001, inri003, inri016, inri027, inri028 and inri029 on the way.
so, this could be a productive weekend, if i stay in, as i think i will.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the sewers have been ok, but now we're getting a gas leak.
is this just the result of turning it on for the year? or is it something more serious?
i also wonder if the two things are interrelated. well, i need a plumber, right?
i still have to run the hot water to burn it off. but, at least i can separate the smells better, now, and figure out what is what.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
is this just the result of turning it on for the year? or is it something more serious?
i also wonder if the two things are interrelated. well, i need a plumber, right?
i still have to run the hot water to burn it off. but, at least i can separate the smells better, now, and figure out what is what.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
as mentioned, i'm not willing to concede movement until i see some polling over 20, and i still haven't.
...but this swing from the conservatives to the ndp continues to show up.
this is weird. the polling is suggesting a large swing from the conservative party to the socialist party - multiple firms are picking this up. unless a large amount of conservatives became socialists overnight, it's not ideologically driven - this bump, however real or not real it is, and it's still simply not clear, isn't being driven by policy.
so, i'll let you answer the question, is this:
1) random fluctuations driven by various types of sample bias, like the long weekend.
2) a bradley effect.
3) a rising south asian identity vote.
i'm going with a little bit of each.
but, i expect the final numbers to be lower.
regardless, the modelling is misinterpreting this. if we're seeing a big swing from the conservatives to the ndp amongst asian voters, that's going to happen in the 905 (and maybe in vancouver). and, it's going to help the liberals, not the ndp.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
...but this swing from the conservatives to the ndp continues to show up.
this is weird. the polling is suggesting a large swing from the conservative party to the socialist party - multiple firms are picking this up. unless a large amount of conservatives became socialists overnight, it's not ideologically driven - this bump, however real or not real it is, and it's still simply not clear, isn't being driven by policy.
so, i'll let you answer the question, is this:
1) random fluctuations driven by various types of sample bias, like the long weekend.
2) a bradley effect.
3) a rising south asian identity vote.
i'm going with a little bit of each.
but, i expect the final numbers to be lower.
regardless, the modelling is misinterpreting this. if we're seeing a big swing from the conservatives to the ndp amongst asian voters, that's going to happen in the 905 (and maybe in vancouver). and, it's going to help the liberals, not the ndp.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Thursday, October 17, 2019
so, i got a start on this. i'm taking what i think will probably be a more efficient aproach this time, so it should be a bit faster.
but, i just want to stop for a second to double down on what i'm projecting in the election.
first, i'll remind you that i do have a four year degree in mathematics, plus enough credits for a masters (taken while working out a degree in computer science that i stopped a credit short of). i made a hard turn out of academia, because i decided i wanted to be a musician and i was wasting my time with it. i then ended up doing a lot of political activism, and ended up as a prolific blogger, so here i am. i've also worked in polling, as a student. so, referring to me as an "amateur" is a bit of stretch; i'm as qualified to speak on this topic as anybody else that you'll meet.
and i need to get this point across very clearly: it's not that i'm too lazy to model, it's that i actually think it's a bad approach because the sampling frames suck. i'm explicitly dissenting; they're trying to ram square pegs into round holes, and more often than not end up completely wrong regarding anything that's not already obvious. in order to statistically model canadian elections with any kind of accuracy, the way that the computers accept the data has to change very radically. right now, it's largely just garbage in, garbage out.
so, this isn't an amateur approaching this from an ad hoc perspective; this is an expert that is offering a dissenting opinion around the existing methods, and offering a different approach.
but, how do i get a liberal majority when they can barely get 30%, and might not even win the popular vote, and everybody else is suggesting a coin flip minority?
because the regional numbers actually aren't even close.
the conservatives are at 70% in alberta and saskatchewan, the liberals are at 45% in ontario and quebec is a clean split between the liberals and the bloc. when you add it all up, they're tied, nationally, sure. but, in actual fact, the liberals are going sweep the east, and the conservatives are going to sweep the west, as we've seen however many times since wwII - and i don't need a sophisticated modelling algorithm (one that the greens running at 10% in ontario, concentrated into urban ridings, is going to completely break, i might add) to tell me that.
my dissenting opinion is that we're better off fitting the data to past results than trying to interpolate it in real-time.
and, for ontario, which is going to decide this election, the numbers are most similar to the ones in 2000 - where the pcs and reform split the rural vote, handing the liberals a huge majority.
even if that doesn't happen, the conservative numbers in ontario appear to be very low, right now. the rural split with the greens might be stretching, right now. but, a liberal sweep over the 905 is a reasonable projection, and the conservatives simply can't win an election when that's the reality in front of them.
we've seen very weird election results in canada, in the past. run the 1979 data into your model and tell me what it says - i promise you that you won't get a clark minority.
these results could be awful, from a democratic perspective, but that's the norm, here.
don't let that huge conservative lead in alberta skew your analysis - they're not running well in the east, right now, and are not going to win the election.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
but, i just want to stop for a second to double down on what i'm projecting in the election.
first, i'll remind you that i do have a four year degree in mathematics, plus enough credits for a masters (taken while working out a degree in computer science that i stopped a credit short of). i made a hard turn out of academia, because i decided i wanted to be a musician and i was wasting my time with it. i then ended up doing a lot of political activism, and ended up as a prolific blogger, so here i am. i've also worked in polling, as a student. so, referring to me as an "amateur" is a bit of stretch; i'm as qualified to speak on this topic as anybody else that you'll meet.
and i need to get this point across very clearly: it's not that i'm too lazy to model, it's that i actually think it's a bad approach because the sampling frames suck. i'm explicitly dissenting; they're trying to ram square pegs into round holes, and more often than not end up completely wrong regarding anything that's not already obvious. in order to statistically model canadian elections with any kind of accuracy, the way that the computers accept the data has to change very radically. right now, it's largely just garbage in, garbage out.
so, this isn't an amateur approaching this from an ad hoc perspective; this is an expert that is offering a dissenting opinion around the existing methods, and offering a different approach.
but, how do i get a liberal majority when they can barely get 30%, and might not even win the popular vote, and everybody else is suggesting a coin flip minority?
because the regional numbers actually aren't even close.
the conservatives are at 70% in alberta and saskatchewan, the liberals are at 45% in ontario and quebec is a clean split between the liberals and the bloc. when you add it all up, they're tied, nationally, sure. but, in actual fact, the liberals are going sweep the east, and the conservatives are going to sweep the west, as we've seen however many times since wwII - and i don't need a sophisticated modelling algorithm (one that the greens running at 10% in ontario, concentrated into urban ridings, is going to completely break, i might add) to tell me that.
my dissenting opinion is that we're better off fitting the data to past results than trying to interpolate it in real-time.
and, for ontario, which is going to decide this election, the numbers are most similar to the ones in 2000 - where the pcs and reform split the rural vote, handing the liberals a huge majority.
even if that doesn't happen, the conservative numbers in ontario appear to be very low, right now. the rural split with the greens might be stretching, right now. but, a liberal sweep over the 905 is a reasonable projection, and the conservatives simply can't win an election when that's the reality in front of them.
we've seen very weird election results in canada, in the past. run the 1979 data into your model and tell me what it says - i promise you that you won't get a clark minority.
these results could be awful, from a democratic perspective, but that's the norm, here.
don't let that huge conservative lead in alberta skew your analysis - they're not running well in the east, right now, and are not going to win the election.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i took a look at the tube on my bike a little more closely, and i can't figure out where the hole is. so, i filled it back up, and it came back down again after about an hour.
i can't help but feel i can save this tube, but it'll need to wait a few days. going out on saturday is, in fact, dependent on the bike, due to the distance i'll need to travel. i could in theory hop the rail to grand, but it's still a long ass walk to hamtramck. and, i am morally opposed to using a car (at all.), unless i have to. so, no cabs, no uber. and, i don't have or want a phone, anyways. pretty much the only valid use of combustion engines are ambulances and fire trucks, imo. i'm pretty strict on myself about that...
the options are really walking or biking, and this place is too far to walk and not on any reasonable bus route.
i don't want to take my other bike to detroit, that's what i bought this one for.
so, if i make the choice to go tomorrow or the next day, i'll have to take the whole tire apart, patch it and put it back together again.
for right now, i want to work on the rebuild for the end of 2013.
the sewers held overnight. i'm going to see if i can push it the whole day....
as it is, i'm showered and fed and ready to get at it.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i can't help but feel i can save this tube, but it'll need to wait a few days. going out on saturday is, in fact, dependent on the bike, due to the distance i'll need to travel. i could in theory hop the rail to grand, but it's still a long ass walk to hamtramck. and, i am morally opposed to using a car (at all.), unless i have to. so, no cabs, no uber. and, i don't have or want a phone, anyways. pretty much the only valid use of combustion engines are ambulances and fire trucks, imo. i'm pretty strict on myself about that...
the options are really walking or biking, and this place is too far to walk and not on any reasonable bus route.
i don't want to take my other bike to detroit, that's what i bought this one for.
so, if i make the choice to go tomorrow or the next day, i'll have to take the whole tire apart, patch it and put it back together again.
for right now, i want to work on the rebuild for the end of 2013.
the sewers held overnight. i'm going to see if i can push it the whole day....
as it is, i'm showered and fed and ready to get at it.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
indeed, pelosi can always be expected to stand up for what's wrong - even when she's in the minority.
she has a history of standing up for what's wrong.
she has a history of standing up for saudi blood money.
and, she has a history of standing up for imperialist wars, too.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
she has a history of standing up for what's wrong.
she has a history of standing up for saudi blood money.
and, she has a history of standing up for imperialist wars, too.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
yeah.
so, the legal stuff is put aside for a few days, and i'm going to put a major push to try to finish 2013 before the end of the weekend.
seriously.
there's minimal amounts of communication with the outside world, at this point, so i think we can rocket through this...
i'm not currently excited about saturday. we'll see how i feel on saturday.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, the legal stuff is put aside for a few days, and i'm going to put a major push to try to finish 2013 before the end of the weekend.
seriously.
there's minimal amounts of communication with the outside world, at this point, so i think we can rocket through this...
i'm not currently excited about saturday. we'll see how i feel on saturday.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
back in the 90s, the liberals were running a little higher in ontario - around 50% - and the ndp were running a little lower, around 10% (or lower). but, that's not why the liberals virtually swept ontario in three successive elections - 1993, 1997 and 2000. rather, the reason that the liberals swept ontario is that the reform party and "progressive conservative" party split the vote on the right in rural areas, allowing them to come up the middle.
these were the 2000 numbers:
liberals: 51.5%, 100 seats.
reform: 23.6%, 2 seats.
pcs: 14.4%, 0 seats.
ndp: 8.3%, 1 seat.
the ndp appear to be running a little higher, which you can take away from the liberals. this should get the ndp a small number of union seats if they actually run at 15% - but may not even be good for that if they dip much lower.
but, current green numbers are not that different than those pc numbers, and current conservative numbers are not that different than those reform numbers.
so, you can see what might happen.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
these were the 2000 numbers:
liberals: 51.5%, 100 seats.
reform: 23.6%, 2 seats.
pcs: 14.4%, 0 seats.
ndp: 8.3%, 1 seat.
the ndp appear to be running a little higher, which you can take away from the liberals. this should get the ndp a small number of union seats if they actually run at 15% - but may not even be good for that if they dip much lower.
but, current green numbers are not that different than those pc numbers, and current conservative numbers are not that different than those reform numbers.
so, you can see what might happen.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the national numbers continue to flatline. but, nik posted some ontario numbers. thanks, nik.
there are large margins here. and it's one poll. so, be careful. but....
if that is close to being right, what does it say?
liberals: -3.4%
cons: -6.6
greens: +8.2
the ndp are +0.8 which is statistically flat, but i also suspect a bradley effect. i'm not taking their numbers seriously, right now. in the end, i expect they'll be down a few points.
you can look at the file yourself, but i pulled this out for a reason. at 44.8% last election, the liberals won 80 seats in ontario. if the ndp are flat (or down) and the conservatives are way down, they're not just going to keep almost all of those 80 seats, but they're going to pick up an extra dozen urban seats from the conservatives and ndp.
even better for them, that huge boost in green support is actually rural. that's right - the greens are way up in conservative ridings. and the conservatives are way down. that means the greens could actually be handing seats to the liberals on the split.
again, the margins are huge, and i'm operating in them. so, if we end up with the following, in the end:
liberals: 45%
conservatives: 26%
ndp: 15%
greens: 12%
ppc: 2%
....the liberals are going to win 110+ seats in ontario. like, 115, even
and, that's why i think they're on track for a majority.
we'll see what happens.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
there are large margins here. and it's one poll. so, be careful. but....
liberals: -3.4%
cons: -6.6
greens: +8.2
the ndp are +0.8 which is statistically flat, but i also suspect a bradley effect. i'm not taking their numbers seriously, right now. in the end, i expect they'll be down a few points.
you can look at the file yourself, but i pulled this out for a reason. at 44.8% last election, the liberals won 80 seats in ontario. if the ndp are flat (or down) and the conservatives are way down, they're not just going to keep almost all of those 80 seats, but they're going to pick up an extra dozen urban seats from the conservatives and ndp.
even better for them, that huge boost in green support is actually rural. that's right - the greens are way up in conservative ridings. and the conservatives are way down. that means the greens could actually be handing seats to the liberals on the split.
again, the margins are huge, and i'm operating in them. so, if we end up with the following, in the end:
liberals: 45%
conservatives: 26%
ndp: 15%
greens: 12%
ppc: 2%
....the liberals are going to win 110+ seats in ontario. like, 115, even
and, that's why i think they're on track for a majority.
we'll see what happens.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
fwiw, we were a part of the initial bombing attack on isis. that was a choice made by harper. trudeau actually ran on withdrawing (like his father should have...), and what happened was that we did a kind of juggling act - we pulled the planes out and shifted support to "training the kurds" instead, which meant we had a small contingent of special forces there. at the time, it seemed like the liberals were doing two things - (1) listening to the experts on the ground, that argued that bombing was not sufficient to actually defeat isis and (2) upholding their historical position on requiring a un mandate to actually fight.
i did support the bombing campaign on isis, which is very rare for me. and, when the commanders said "we need boots on the ground", i supported that, too, as was required. i opposed the 2003 invasion. there are only two imperialist wars i've ever supported, and the other one is wwII. that means i'm drawing a clear parallel between nazis and islamists, but, in fact, i do that all of the time and am actually baffled that others don't see the obvious similarities. what exactly is the difference between a nazi and an islamist? they seem like the same thing, to me. hence, the only good islamist is a dead one! bombing the shit out of them sounded like the right idea, to me; i listened to the generals when they said they need ground troops, too.
over time, it became less clear what was actually happening on the ground. where we fighting isis or supporting it? the liberals had pr reasons for shifting to a support-the-kurds mission, but the whole thing was always shady,
apparently, this ended some time last year. they were pretty quiet about it, because i don't remember hearing about it. but, it kind of just upholds the point - canada left syria 15 months ago, because we decided we'd won. why, exactly, are the americans still there?
and, why is chrystia freeland pushing saudi talking points on the matter, in apparent contradiction to her government's own policies?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-no-longer-training-kurdish-troops-in-iraq-amid-fight-against/
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i did support the bombing campaign on isis, which is very rare for me. and, when the commanders said "we need boots on the ground", i supported that, too, as was required. i opposed the 2003 invasion. there are only two imperialist wars i've ever supported, and the other one is wwII. that means i'm drawing a clear parallel between nazis and islamists, but, in fact, i do that all of the time and am actually baffled that others don't see the obvious similarities. what exactly is the difference between a nazi and an islamist? they seem like the same thing, to me. hence, the only good islamist is a dead one! bombing the shit out of them sounded like the right idea, to me; i listened to the generals when they said they need ground troops, too.
over time, it became less clear what was actually happening on the ground. where we fighting isis or supporting it? the liberals had pr reasons for shifting to a support-the-kurds mission, but the whole thing was always shady,
apparently, this ended some time last year. they were pretty quiet about it, because i don't remember hearing about it. but, it kind of just upholds the point - canada left syria 15 months ago, because we decided we'd won. why, exactly, are the americans still there?
and, why is chrystia freeland pushing saudi talking points on the matter, in apparent contradiction to her government's own policies?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-no-longer-training-kurdish-troops-in-iraq-amid-fight-against/
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
they're switching back...
https://www.salon.com/2019/07/05/how-did-the-republican-party-become-so-conservative/
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
https://www.salon.com/2019/07/05/how-did-the-republican-party-become-so-conservative/
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i don't know what colour pill you need to take, but you'd better start popping them, 'cause you're going to need to wake up with this sooner than later.
there's no future in the democrats.
a third party is necessary. and, you'd better get to it, to stop it from ending up in the same co-opted, backwards mess that sanders' campaign ended up in.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
there's no future in the democrats.
a third party is necessary. and, you'd better get to it, to stop it from ending up in the same co-opted, backwards mess that sanders' campaign ended up in.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i don't care about this dumb and dumber school yard spat between trump and pelosi. they're both idiots.
but, something substantive just happened: the democratic house - including aoc and her friends, apparently - just voted to try and continue a war that the republican president tried to end. this is a massive, paradigm shift in the pro-war lobby. it's a realignment.
and, then, when the president lashed out (reasonably.), the democrats claimed they would "pray for him". as though magical thinking has any effect on reality...
if you're still supporting the democrats after this, you need to give your head a shake. this should be more than enough to turn any clear-minded, thinking person away from this backwards-thinking party for a very, very long time.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
but, something substantive just happened: the democratic house - including aoc and her friends, apparently - just voted to try and continue a war that the republican president tried to end. this is a massive, paradigm shift in the pro-war lobby. it's a realignment.
and, then, when the president lashed out (reasonably.), the democrats claimed they would "pray for him". as though magical thinking has any effect on reality...
if you're still supporting the democrats after this, you need to give your head a shake. this should be more than enough to turn any clear-minded, thinking person away from this backwards-thinking party for a very, very long time.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
they've all been terrible from the start.
and, then we learned recently that the one decent candidate - sanders - is actually a complete bigot in his attitude towards queer people.
so, what's the point, other than to wallow in misanthropy and defeatism?
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-debate-ratings-low-viewership
\the liberals are supposed to do better than this
and, then we learned recently that the one decent candidate - sanders - is actually a complete bigot in his attitude towards queer people.
so, what's the point, other than to wallow in misanthropy and defeatism?
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-debate-ratings-low-viewership
\the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
it started to act up again this afternoon, and then really did take another 50 L of water, this evening. it's just a function of how dry it is in here - and it is exceedingly dry in here.
it's really obvious enough what's happening - his dehumidifier is drying the drains out. should i get a re-humidifier? that's what i wanted to do in the last basement, but it didn't happen. let's get a plumber in here, first.
but i ultimately i have no idea where all of this water is going. i mean, that's a lot of water. but, i don't really have a choice but to do it - and it's a consequence of his negligence. i'm right to do it, and he won't win that argument, or at least not on the merits.
frankly, my impression of him is that he's kind of dumb, in a typical male way. i initially had a better impression of him, but it turns out that he's just kind of a dumb, jockish sort of guy that seems to have difficulty with understanding abstract concepts. so, if he makes the excuse that he just misunderstood the plumbing, i might accept it. we have to work through it, though - we need to turn the dehumidifier off, or otherwise adjust for what it's doing.
i took another nap after dumping the 50L down, and before i could shower, and i might regret it; i might have to do my sheets again. i dunno. i didn't get any laundry done last night, and i didn't look much at the legal stuff today, but i have cleared the shows out for another week. that's what i did today.
there's a record release on saturday that is a long shot, depending on the weather. but i'm probably in until next tuesday, when i'll need to pick up the balance on the prescription (i hate that they do this.). and, i'm probably not going to another show until wednesday at the earliest, and the things i have lined up are iffy.
so, what's next?
well, i need to take that last look through the notice of appeal. i mean, it's done. i just need to check it over.
and, i'm double-guessing my thoughts about the timing of the constitutional rights challenge...
there's no deadline on a charter challenge, and i think i'm better off doing one thing at a time. as it is, i might have to pause the human rights challenge until after the appeal, but i had to launch it, because there is a statutory deadline, there.
but, i obviously want to minimize the trips to toronto, too. so, i'm going to double check if i can file this in the superior court here or not.
it's a frustration. there's a superior court in windsor, but there isn't a divisional court. so, i might be able to file the challenge - which goes to superior court - here. but, i can't find the appeal - which go to divisional court - here. it's frustrating because the divisional court is a subset of the superior court, so you'd think you can file in the superior court, right? and, i can to an extent, but they'll just forward it to london or toronto, and then i'll need to file everything else there.
as it is, i need to serve several offices in toronto, so it makes sense to do it in person, there, when i'm there.
but, if i can file here, i think it's a better idea to wait for the charter challenge until we're done with the cops, at least.
so, that means i should be able to get back to work for the next week.
i know i mentioned that i wanted to get a start on period 3, but i've changed my mind. i was hoping i could have the fan off; this is partly an electrical issue, as i get a certain amount free every month that i'm straddling very closely. i am certainly going to need to fire up the other machine relatively soon to do some file transferring. but, i think i'd rather wait until i get through this phase of rebuilding, which will end in january, 2014. so, i think i should get three more months (and the end of 2013 stuff) up first. it won't be much longer, though - when i do that, i'll get to filing things and maybe even to some new uploads. we'll see. i need to multitask around the stuff that just needs to be reorganized and hone in on what needs to actually be worked out, this documentation phase is just taking too long...
so, that's my write-up for the day.
i don't know if the nap was enough, but i seem alert. so, i'm going to eat and potentially shower and try to get back to it.
fwiw, i'm feeling essentially no urge at all to check out the democratic debates. i'm expecting that i'll be leaning third-party, this cycle - and that i'm not going to interpret any of these candidates as substantively more appealing than trump around any issue that i actually care about.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
it's really obvious enough what's happening - his dehumidifier is drying the drains out. should i get a re-humidifier? that's what i wanted to do in the last basement, but it didn't happen. let's get a plumber in here, first.
but i ultimately i have no idea where all of this water is going. i mean, that's a lot of water. but, i don't really have a choice but to do it - and it's a consequence of his negligence. i'm right to do it, and he won't win that argument, or at least not on the merits.
frankly, my impression of him is that he's kind of dumb, in a typical male way. i initially had a better impression of him, but it turns out that he's just kind of a dumb, jockish sort of guy that seems to have difficulty with understanding abstract concepts. so, if he makes the excuse that he just misunderstood the plumbing, i might accept it. we have to work through it, though - we need to turn the dehumidifier off, or otherwise adjust for what it's doing.
i took another nap after dumping the 50L down, and before i could shower, and i might regret it; i might have to do my sheets again. i dunno. i didn't get any laundry done last night, and i didn't look much at the legal stuff today, but i have cleared the shows out for another week. that's what i did today.
there's a record release on saturday that is a long shot, depending on the weather. but i'm probably in until next tuesday, when i'll need to pick up the balance on the prescription (i hate that they do this.). and, i'm probably not going to another show until wednesday at the earliest, and the things i have lined up are iffy.
so, what's next?
well, i need to take that last look through the notice of appeal. i mean, it's done. i just need to check it over.
and, i'm double-guessing my thoughts about the timing of the constitutional rights challenge...
there's no deadline on a charter challenge, and i think i'm better off doing one thing at a time. as it is, i might have to pause the human rights challenge until after the appeal, but i had to launch it, because there is a statutory deadline, there.
but, i obviously want to minimize the trips to toronto, too. so, i'm going to double check if i can file this in the superior court here or not.
it's a frustration. there's a superior court in windsor, but there isn't a divisional court. so, i might be able to file the challenge - which goes to superior court - here. but, i can't find the appeal - which go to divisional court - here. it's frustrating because the divisional court is a subset of the superior court, so you'd think you can file in the superior court, right? and, i can to an extent, but they'll just forward it to london or toronto, and then i'll need to file everything else there.
as it is, i need to serve several offices in toronto, so it makes sense to do it in person, there, when i'm there.
but, if i can file here, i think it's a better idea to wait for the charter challenge until we're done with the cops, at least.
so, that means i should be able to get back to work for the next week.
i know i mentioned that i wanted to get a start on period 3, but i've changed my mind. i was hoping i could have the fan off; this is partly an electrical issue, as i get a certain amount free every month that i'm straddling very closely. i am certainly going to need to fire up the other machine relatively soon to do some file transferring. but, i think i'd rather wait until i get through this phase of rebuilding, which will end in january, 2014. so, i think i should get three more months (and the end of 2013 stuff) up first. it won't be much longer, though - when i do that, i'll get to filing things and maybe even to some new uploads. we'll see. i need to multitask around the stuff that just needs to be reorganized and hone in on what needs to actually be worked out, this documentation phase is just taking too long...
so, that's my write-up for the day.
i don't know if the nap was enough, but i seem alert. so, i'm going to eat and potentially shower and try to get back to it.
fwiw, i'm feeling essentially no urge at all to check out the democratic debates. i'm expecting that i'll be leaning third-party, this cycle - and that i'm not going to interpret any of these candidates as substantively more appealing than trump around any issue that i actually care about.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
there has been some movement since august - the liberals are down a few points, and the bloc have taken that away from them. that's real.
the conservatives are flat around 31-32.
the ndp are flat around 15-16.
and, the greens are flat, too, around 9-10.
so, the key is turnout.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
the conservatives are flat around 31-32.
the ndp are flat around 15-16.
and, the greens are flat, too, around 9-10.
so, the key is turnout.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i started smelling the sewer again this morning, and i started freaking out. it might have been paranoid, but i took action - and noticed that the drain had indeed drained almost entirely, very quickly.
it's probably draining out through something upstairs that needs to be flushed. i guess that's what's happens when he leaves for days at a time...
as more data is collected, i understand it better.
as it is, i've decided that i'm not fucking around with this anymore. i'm not waiting to react. we've now got a schedule.
every 12 hours i will dump 30 litres of pure water down the hole. that's about what it took to fill it up this time. i'll then add another 5 or so litres of dish soapy water.
this will happen until we get a plumber down here...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
it's probably draining out through something upstairs that needs to be flushed. i guess that's what's happens when he leaves for days at a time...
as more data is collected, i understand it better.
as it is, i've decided that i'm not fucking around with this anymore. i'm not waiting to react. we've now got a schedule.
every 12 hours i will dump 30 litres of pure water down the hole. that's about what it took to fill it up this time. i'll then add another 5 or so litres of dish soapy water.
this will happen until we get a plumber down here...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
so, yes - the numbers pushed the brink. it looked like a trend. it really did.
but, they seem to be readjusting around a mean of about 16%, +/- 4.
this process simply isn't more precise than that.....
i mentioned that nanos had them consistently higher the whole time - 15ish when other people had them closer to 10. so, the lack of movement in his numbers is particularly instructive - they're running at about 16%, give or take, and have been the whole time. that's not high enough to be a serious factor in the election.
also, the fact that singh's numbers are climbing higher than the party's is more evidence of a wilder effect. so, that's my take on what's going on...
1) nik had them higher the whole time. he was right.
2) but, that means the movement was illusory - statistical fluctuation.
3) i've noticed a few times now that the ndp numbers seem to go up over long weekends, only to crash again after. this may be a phenomenon in sampling bias.
4) there's a wilder effect happening. for real.
https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.47/823.910.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-1445-CTV-Globe-ELXN-2019-10-15.pdf
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
but, they seem to be readjusting around a mean of about 16%, +/- 4.
this process simply isn't more precise than that.....
i mentioned that nanos had them consistently higher the whole time - 15ish when other people had them closer to 10. so, the lack of movement in his numbers is particularly instructive - they're running at about 16%, give or take, and have been the whole time. that's not high enough to be a serious factor in the election.
also, the fact that singh's numbers are climbing higher than the party's is more evidence of a wilder effect. so, that's my take on what's going on...
1) nik had them higher the whole time. he was right.
2) but, that means the movement was illusory - statistical fluctuation.
3) i've noticed a few times now that the ndp numbers seem to go up over long weekends, only to crash again after. this may be a phenomenon in sampling bias.
4) there's a wilder effect happening. for real.
https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.47/823.910.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-1445-CTV-Globe-ELXN-2019-10-15.pdf
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
to be clear: i'd rather vote with my feet on this. that's the right option. if i walk up to the checkout line, i'd rather make the choice to avoid, at that junction. but, it's not just the case nowadays that i don't have that choice at the check out line in any specific store - it's the case that if i go to the store down the street, and then store down the street after that, i still won't be able to find somebody to ring me in without religious wear.
it's not like i'm not going to freak out or anything. i can handle it. i'm more annoyed than angry. and, i miss the stereotypical bubbly teenage checkout chick, which it seems like has been pushed out.
when every single cashier has a hijab in a region where muslims are maybe 20% of the population at most, whatever subsidies the government is providing are clearly working far too well.
i don't blame the cashiers, they're just trying to survive. nor do i blame the companies, actually, who are clearly profiting from the arrangement. but, i should have the ability to vote with my feet on this - i shouldn't be forced to go through the checkout line with somebody that probably thinks i ought to be crucified in public. and, i'd consequently support adjusting or abolishing those subsidies.
i'm not a free marketeer, you know that. but, this is doing more than balancing things - it's tilting things towards a specific outcome, and in the process has become corporate welfare. and, that really shouldn't be.
the liberals are supposed to do better than that
it's not like i'm not going to freak out or anything. i can handle it. i'm more annoyed than angry. and, i miss the stereotypical bubbly teenage checkout chick, which it seems like has been pushed out.
when every single cashier has a hijab in a region where muslims are maybe 20% of the population at most, whatever subsidies the government is providing are clearly working far too well.
i don't blame the cashiers, they're just trying to survive. nor do i blame the companies, actually, who are clearly profiting from the arrangement. but, i should have the ability to vote with my feet on this - i shouldn't be forced to go through the checkout line with somebody that probably thinks i ought to be crucified in public. and, i'd consequently support adjusting or abolishing those subsidies.
i'm not a free marketeer, you know that. but, this is doing more than balancing things - it's tilting things towards a specific outcome, and in the process has become corporate welfare. and, that really shouldn't be.
the liberals are supposed to do better than that
so, the gas was an issue again this evening.
i'm going to wash my sheets again. it's partly because i think i'm in for most of the month. it did warm up by the time i got home, but i was reminded of how far the temperature has fallen outside when i left the house this afternoon; even with a sweater, it was pretty miserable. it might be nice during the day on saturday, but it doesn't matter much if i don't leave the house until 22:00, when it's already ten degrees. and, i don't generally like day things, much. i could convince myself otherwise, and the weather could flip over, but i think we're down to more specific shows, at this point - chelsea wolfe near the end of the month, anamanaguchi, la dispute w/_ touche amore that one more last time...
but, we're taking a change in approach to the sewer, until i get a plumber in. previously, i thought i could fix this and put everything back together again and that would be that. now, i'm operating under the assumption that this is going to require constant effort to react to. so, we're going to keep the dresser disassembled until further notice, and jump on the issue as soon as it redevelops. if that means dumping 20 L down the hole every other day, so be it.
what do i need for this task?
1) tape. check.
2) 2 L bottle. check.
3) dish soap. check.
everything's set up now for easy access.
i just showered a few hours ago, but i'm going to need to take another one, now. well, i'm going to eat first, and then shower.
for the night, we'll be doing laundry, and we'll also be combo scratching out shows and working through the rest of the legal stuff. i got the document for the plumber printed this afternoon. once i get the other two things finalized, i can look at planning to serve and file them.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i'm going to wash my sheets again. it's partly because i think i'm in for most of the month. it did warm up by the time i got home, but i was reminded of how far the temperature has fallen outside when i left the house this afternoon; even with a sweater, it was pretty miserable. it might be nice during the day on saturday, but it doesn't matter much if i don't leave the house until 22:00, when it's already ten degrees. and, i don't generally like day things, much. i could convince myself otherwise, and the weather could flip over, but i think we're down to more specific shows, at this point - chelsea wolfe near the end of the month, anamanaguchi, la dispute w/_ touche amore that one more last time...
but, we're taking a change in approach to the sewer, until i get a plumber in. previously, i thought i could fix this and put everything back together again and that would be that. now, i'm operating under the assumption that this is going to require constant effort to react to. so, we're going to keep the dresser disassembled until further notice, and jump on the issue as soon as it redevelops. if that means dumping 20 L down the hole every other day, so be it.
what do i need for this task?
1) tape. check.
2) 2 L bottle. check.
3) dish soap. check.
everything's set up now for easy access.
i just showered a few hours ago, but i'm going to need to take another one, now. well, i'm going to eat first, and then shower.
for the night, we'll be doing laundry, and we'll also be combo scratching out shows and working through the rest of the legal stuff. i got the document for the plumber printed this afternoon. once i get the other two things finalized, i can look at planning to serve and file them.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
there really does seems to be a monopoly of hijabed or niqabed muslim women on service industry jobs in this city, and if you don't believe me just walk around.
i guess it's probably some kind of government program - the employers probably get a deal on it. they're still a distinct minority, here, and you see it as soon as you leave the store. i might even go so far as to say that the only time i see muslim women anywhere is as cashiers at the store; if it wasn't for that, i wouldn't really know they were even here. i mean, you don't see them at concerts. you don't see them at the bars...
i've made a few comments about this before, along the lines of mentioning that i'd avoid them if i could, but it's actually kind of challenging at points. i went to three grocery stores today (not for that reason...), and it was the same face of conformity at all of them.
but, what i'm thinking about right now is what was there before them. i mean, i think about what's going to happen if they force me to get a job sometimes, and i'm going to end up applying for these jobs. i'm not going to want to wear a hijab or a niqab - i'm going to want to wear tight-fitting clothing and makeup. and, wasn't that the norm a year or two ago?
what happened to the pretty, friendly girl at the cash register?
she doesn't seem to exist anymore. what we have now is the drab conservatism of a religion that most of the people in this area don't care much for.
and, it does feel like you're getting invaded, even if the truth is closer to corporate welfare for businesses that hire women that cover-up - which is an incentive of exceedingly questionable merit.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i guess it's probably some kind of government program - the employers probably get a deal on it. they're still a distinct minority, here, and you see it as soon as you leave the store. i might even go so far as to say that the only time i see muslim women anywhere is as cashiers at the store; if it wasn't for that, i wouldn't really know they were even here. i mean, you don't see them at concerts. you don't see them at the bars...
i've made a few comments about this before, along the lines of mentioning that i'd avoid them if i could, but it's actually kind of challenging at points. i went to three grocery stores today (not for that reason...), and it was the same face of conformity at all of them.
but, what i'm thinking about right now is what was there before them. i mean, i think about what's going to happen if they force me to get a job sometimes, and i'm going to end up applying for these jobs. i'm not going to want to wear a hijab or a niqab - i'm going to want to wear tight-fitting clothing and makeup. and, wasn't that the norm a year or two ago?
what happened to the pretty, friendly girl at the cash register?
she doesn't seem to exist anymore. what we have now is the drab conservatism of a religion that most of the people in this area don't care much for.
and, it does feel like you're getting invaded, even if the truth is closer to corporate welfare for businesses that hire women that cover-up - which is an incentive of exceedingly questionable merit.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
ok, so i've got the document for my landlord typed up, which sort of inserted itself as a priority.
i need to get pills before or around noon. it's actually hovering around the freezing mark right now, in windsor. but it's going to warm up; i have to go early, so i might miss it. but, i'm going to want to wait as long as i can, kind of thing, too.
this morning, i'll be scratching things off the list for the week, so the next thing to do is a couple of reviews.
remember: i'm not filing the review until november. so, i don't need to print it for a while.
what could i catch in toronto, though?
i'll see. i'm going to want it to be something that's not here.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i need to get pills before or around noon. it's actually hovering around the freezing mark right now, in windsor. but it's going to warm up; i have to go early, so i might miss it. but, i'm going to want to wait as long as i can, kind of thing, too.
this morning, i'll be scratching things off the list for the week, so the next thing to do is a couple of reviews.
remember: i'm not filing the review until november. so, i don't need to print it for a while.
what could i catch in toronto, though?
i'll see. i'm going to want it to be something that's not here.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
nanos doesn't seem to have polled yesterday, which was thanksgiving monday in canada.
this is the other daily tracking poll, and it is upholding the idea of little to no movement.
if the liberals both get a majority and lose the popular vote, how will they address electoral reform in the next parliament?
https://ipolitics.ca/2019/10/14/liberals-conservatives-once-again-in-statistical-tie-in-latest-mainstreet-polling/
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
this is the other daily tracking poll, and it is upholding the idea of little to no movement.
if the liberals both get a majority and lose the popular vote, how will they address electoral reform in the next parliament?
https://ipolitics.ca/2019/10/14/liberals-conservatives-once-again-in-statistical-tie-in-latest-mainstreet-polling/
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
"The American people and our allies expect and deserve real leadership from Washington," Pelosi said in the statement.
translation: the american congress is bought and paid for by the saudi theocracy, and will jump at any opportunity to prop up it's financial interests.
again: this is stupid. there's no other way to describe it.
...unless you're invested in saudi businesses, who will reap the benefits.
never fail to take advantage of a crisis, right? it's disaster capitalism at it's worst...
it's a good time to invest in bin laden's construction company, though. for real.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/465784-pelosi-says-trump-sanctions-package-on-turkey-falls-very-short
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
translation: the american congress is bought and paid for by the saudi theocracy, and will jump at any opportunity to prop up it's financial interests.
again: this is stupid. there's no other way to describe it.
...unless you're invested in saudi businesses, who will reap the benefits.
never fail to take advantage of a crisis, right? it's disaster capitalism at it's worst...
it's a good time to invest in bin laden's construction company, though. for real.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/465784-pelosi-says-trump-sanctions-package-on-turkey-falls-very-short
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
and, i don't think that putting sanctions on the turks is very smart, either.
that means we have iran, turkey and russia all under sanctions. pushing these three countries together is the dumbest thing they could possibly do...
pushing the kurds out of syria was the right strategy. but, we don't want to be pushing for another proxy war between the turks and saudis, which is exactly what the sanctions are going to do.
i am usually in 100% diametrical opposition to the marco rubios and lindsey grahams of the world, so there's no real surprise here. but, that's my position - something needs to be done to put restraints on the turks, but sanctions are a dumb response. what putin is doing is the more intelligent approach to this...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
that means we have iran, turkey and russia all under sanctions. pushing these three countries together is the dumbest thing they could possibly do...
pushing the kurds out of syria was the right strategy. but, we don't want to be pushing for another proxy war between the turks and saudis, which is exactly what the sanctions are going to do.
i am usually in 100% diametrical opposition to the marco rubios and lindsey grahams of the world, so there's no real surprise here. but, that's my position - something needs to be done to put restraints on the turks, but sanctions are a dumb response. what putin is doing is the more intelligent approach to this...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
marijuana and alcohol just aren't the drugs that have the effects that i'd be likely to get hooked on. they're fun here and there, and especially in social situations. but, i'm just not an alcoholic, just not a pothead - being drunk and/or stoned all the time would make me so depressed that i'd want to kill myself. broadly speaking, i can't stand being drunk and/or stoned at home, by myself. i need sobriety, need to focus.
i've beaten nicotine addiction, but that was my vice, not pot or booze. and, what's left is large amounts of coffee. huge amounts of coffee.
if i was ever going to get badly addicted to something, it would be an upper, not a downer. cocaine. meth. i've never done them, and don't want to, but those are the drugs that would "get" me, not alcohol or pot.
i've never done it, but i think i'd hate heroin. don't misunderstand me: i'm not interested in playing chicken with this. get that shit away from me - no thank you. i'm happy to admit i can't handle it. but, i actually suspect i'd try it and hate it so much that i'd never go near it again. if i ever found myself addicted to a downer, it would necessarily change me into an entirely different person - the person i am, and always have been, would just hate it, i'm sure of it.
that was a crazy summer. i'm almost 40. how many more will i have left?
but, most of the time, i just want more coffee, thanks.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i've beaten nicotine addiction, but that was my vice, not pot or booze. and, what's left is large amounts of coffee. huge amounts of coffee.
if i was ever going to get badly addicted to something, it would be an upper, not a downer. cocaine. meth. i've never done them, and don't want to, but those are the drugs that would "get" me, not alcohol or pot.
i've never done it, but i think i'd hate heroin. don't misunderstand me: i'm not interested in playing chicken with this. get that shit away from me - no thank you. i'm happy to admit i can't handle it. but, i actually suspect i'd try it and hate it so much that i'd never go near it again. if i ever found myself addicted to a downer, it would necessarily change me into an entirely different person - the person i am, and always have been, would just hate it, i'm sure of it.
that was a crazy summer. i'm almost 40. how many more will i have left?
but, most of the time, i just want more coffee, thanks.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i tried to sleep all day yesterday and couldn't. so, i was in a haze yesterday and couldn't really do anything - it was that awful feeling you get when you're exhausted, but can't actually sleep. so, i kept sitting down to do something and kept concluding "nope. too tired.", only to not be able to sleep.
i drink a lot of coffee. i guess that fighting off everything from last week - getting over strep throat, dealing with the hangover, and getting used to not smoking, again - all at the same time meant it lifting all at the same time. then, your body ends up under the dominant influence of large doses of caffeine without being strong enough to deal with it, and you just end up dragging. those moments of purgatory can both be incredibly rewarding if you're in the middle of something and are pushing your self to finish it and incredibly brutal if you're not. it's all context.
right now, i want to be fresh and able to think clearly in order to do legal writing. it's a bad time for me to be unable to focus. so, this was just a wasted day spent cleaning and ranting when i wasn't tossing and turning, and when i wanted to be focused and productive. *shrug*.
this is probably the new normal for me, until the spring. i tend to smoke and drink very, very little in the winter. last year, i was completely straight edge from october 1st (actually, since the end of may - movement, 2018) until mid-april (the acid mothers show at phog). it was a good 11 months of total abstinence. again - that's only usual for me in terms of it being 11 months instead of three or six months, these long period of complete sobriety are a normal part of my life. so, i could be straight edge for months, now. and, if i can buy legal marijuana on both sides of the border in the spring, i may have smoked my last cigarette, ever, too. the timing remains unclear, but that is something that will happen within the next little while....
in fact, it's imminent. date of last smoke: sunday, oct 6th, 2019. is that the end of smoking j? stay tuned.
but, i finally got some sleep this evening and think i might be awake. i'm going to get some fruit, to start, and we'll see when i sit down to do something - if i'm still unable to focus, it's back to sleep.
how's my health?
well, it seemed like i was just about there, but then the sewers reasserted themselves. i'll remind you that i was sick all week, so just how bad the p-traps were isn't totally clear. but, the initial symptoms i felt when this started last came back when i first noticed the smell - dried throat, dried sinuses, even the headache (although much weaker, as of yet). it makes you wonder what the actual cause was - did i actually catch strep throat when i was out, or did i get sick from breathing in sewer gas when i got home, unable to tell because i was smoking all weekend, and then not able to figure it out because it made me sick?
you need a swab to figure that out.
i mentioned previously that i'd go to a clinic if i was still sick on monday, and i didn't initially think it was necessary, but now i'm less sure. after waking up, the most pressing concern is that i have a very large "frog" in my throat, and a bit of a dry cough. i should be able to expel this with water and the sheer force of hacking, and then we'll see what's next. but, i feel congested again. i didn't yesterday...
it's unclear whether the lingering smell is a consequence of the previous sewer eruption or signs of a continuing problem. if the root cause of the problem is disuse, and he's been gone a few days, the lines upstairs may be too dry for anything i do down here to make a difference, in which case i just have to keep running the water until he gets back. if i could just get somebody up there to flush the toilet...
i need to go out and do some running around tomorrow. i'll get that letter printed when i'm out.
again: my intent here is not to drag this guy through court. i won't feel bad about it, if i have to, granted, and am preparing for it. but, what i want is for him to fix the problem, and i'm actually hoping that he's rational about it without being ordered to be - that he doesn't need a judge to tell him to do the right thing, here.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i drink a lot of coffee. i guess that fighting off everything from last week - getting over strep throat, dealing with the hangover, and getting used to not smoking, again - all at the same time meant it lifting all at the same time. then, your body ends up under the dominant influence of large doses of caffeine without being strong enough to deal with it, and you just end up dragging. those moments of purgatory can both be incredibly rewarding if you're in the middle of something and are pushing your self to finish it and incredibly brutal if you're not. it's all context.
right now, i want to be fresh and able to think clearly in order to do legal writing. it's a bad time for me to be unable to focus. so, this was just a wasted day spent cleaning and ranting when i wasn't tossing and turning, and when i wanted to be focused and productive. *shrug*.
this is probably the new normal for me, until the spring. i tend to smoke and drink very, very little in the winter. last year, i was completely straight edge from october 1st (actually, since the end of may - movement, 2018) until mid-april (the acid mothers show at phog). it was a good 11 months of total abstinence. again - that's only usual for me in terms of it being 11 months instead of three or six months, these long period of complete sobriety are a normal part of my life. so, i could be straight edge for months, now. and, if i can buy legal marijuana on both sides of the border in the spring, i may have smoked my last cigarette, ever, too. the timing remains unclear, but that is something that will happen within the next little while....
in fact, it's imminent. date of last smoke: sunday, oct 6th, 2019. is that the end of smoking j? stay tuned.
but, i finally got some sleep this evening and think i might be awake. i'm going to get some fruit, to start, and we'll see when i sit down to do something - if i'm still unable to focus, it's back to sleep.
how's my health?
well, it seemed like i was just about there, but then the sewers reasserted themselves. i'll remind you that i was sick all week, so just how bad the p-traps were isn't totally clear. but, the initial symptoms i felt when this started last came back when i first noticed the smell - dried throat, dried sinuses, even the headache (although much weaker, as of yet). it makes you wonder what the actual cause was - did i actually catch strep throat when i was out, or did i get sick from breathing in sewer gas when i got home, unable to tell because i was smoking all weekend, and then not able to figure it out because it made me sick?
you need a swab to figure that out.
i mentioned previously that i'd go to a clinic if i was still sick on monday, and i didn't initially think it was necessary, but now i'm less sure. after waking up, the most pressing concern is that i have a very large "frog" in my throat, and a bit of a dry cough. i should be able to expel this with water and the sheer force of hacking, and then we'll see what's next. but, i feel congested again. i didn't yesterday...
it's unclear whether the lingering smell is a consequence of the previous sewer eruption or signs of a continuing problem. if the root cause of the problem is disuse, and he's been gone a few days, the lines upstairs may be too dry for anything i do down here to make a difference, in which case i just have to keep running the water until he gets back. if i could just get somebody up there to flush the toilet...
i need to go out and do some running around tomorrow. i'll get that letter printed when i'm out.
again: my intent here is not to drag this guy through court. i won't feel bad about it, if i have to, granted, and am preparing for it. but, what i want is for him to fix the problem, and i'm actually hoping that he's rational about it without being ordered to be - that he doesn't need a judge to tell him to do the right thing, here.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Monday, October 14, 2019
he claims he's gone this week, and i do think he's been gone for a few days, which might be a part of the problem. although i also think there's somebody up there...
i'm going to have to write up the letter and leave it in the box, then.
and, in the mean time, i have little option but to run the water.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i'm going to have to write up the letter and leave it in the box, then.
and, in the mean time, i have little option but to run the water.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
no. stop.
i think the numbers right now suggest an outcome more like this:
liberals - 210
conservatives - 75
bloc - 40
ndp - 10
greens - 5
yes, the conservatives sweep the west. yes, the bloc is back. but, this is driven by substantive gains by the liberals in ontario, at the expense of both of the other parties - and not even because the liberals are up, but because the other parties are down.
it gets spooky if the ndp start polling higher in ontario. that's when the numbers start flopping around.
i know the models are suggesting something entirely different, but they have a very poor track record, and that is the case because they're not very well constructed. i've deconstructed this before, you can sort through it if you insist.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i think the numbers right now suggest an outcome more like this:
liberals - 210
conservatives - 75
bloc - 40
ndp - 10
greens - 5
yes, the conservatives sweep the west. yes, the bloc is back. but, this is driven by substantive gains by the liberals in ontario, at the expense of both of the other parties - and not even because the liberals are up, but because the other parties are down.
it gets spooky if the ndp start polling higher in ontario. that's when the numbers start flopping around.
i know the models are suggesting something entirely different, but they have a very poor track record, and that is the case because they're not very well constructed. i've deconstructed this before, you can sort through it if you insist.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
there are seats in the 905 - like lisa raitt's - that you wouldn't immediately think might be in danger of swinging liberal.
but, if the ndp attract enough south asian voters away from the conservatives, the liberals could sneak in up the middle.
it might actually be the liberals that benefit from splitting. i'm just speculating...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
but, if the ndp attract enough south asian voters away from the conservatives, the liberals could sneak in up the middle.
it might actually be the liberals that benefit from splitting. i'm just speculating...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i've been clear who i'm not voting for.
are the ndp splitting the vote, though?
i actually think the conservatives are running too low. at 30% nationally, and not much better in ontario, it's going to be hard for them to compete in most urban centres, even with the vote splitting. i actually think that's going to be a major outcome of this election - a lot of these ridings that the conservatives have been winning on the split since 2000 or so are going to just flat out swing liberal, and not because the liberals are up that much, but because the conservatives are down that much, with their vote...their vote is dying. that's why they're running at 25% in places they were running at 30% a few years ago - their voters are just dead, of old age, and aren't getting replaced, or at least not in those ridings. so, you might see everybody - including the greens and ppc - up a half a point or something. that's not what's happening. what's happening is the conservatives are dying off....
the conservatives need a way to connect with groups like south asians and muslims if they want to replenish their vote in these regions, and while harper and kenney were good at that, scheer doesn't seem like he can compete with trudeau on that point. i'm also still curious about what kind of south asian identity vote ends up backing singh. it could kill scheer in the 905, where the ndp are not usually competitive.
it's become a part of the discourse to vote liberal to prevent vote splitting, and it was a real problem back when the conservatives were running in the mid to high 30s, and competitive in toronto. when they're running in the low 30s (or maybe the high 20s, depending on turnout), and getting beaten badly in ontario, vote splitting is really a less pressing issue than it was.
of course, if the ndp comes out of nowhere in ontario at the last minute and pulls the liberals way down then this calculus implodes. but, at the moment, i wouldn't worry much about it - vote for who you want. i'm an advocate of that, anyways.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
are the ndp splitting the vote, though?
i actually think the conservatives are running too low. at 30% nationally, and not much better in ontario, it's going to be hard for them to compete in most urban centres, even with the vote splitting. i actually think that's going to be a major outcome of this election - a lot of these ridings that the conservatives have been winning on the split since 2000 or so are going to just flat out swing liberal, and not because the liberals are up that much, but because the conservatives are down that much, with their vote...their vote is dying. that's why they're running at 25% in places they were running at 30% a few years ago - their voters are just dead, of old age, and aren't getting replaced, or at least not in those ridings. so, you might see everybody - including the greens and ppc - up a half a point or something. that's not what's happening. what's happening is the conservatives are dying off....
the conservatives need a way to connect with groups like south asians and muslims if they want to replenish their vote in these regions, and while harper and kenney were good at that, scheer doesn't seem like he can compete with trudeau on that point. i'm also still curious about what kind of south asian identity vote ends up backing singh. it could kill scheer in the 905, where the ndp are not usually competitive.
it's become a part of the discourse to vote liberal to prevent vote splitting, and it was a real problem back when the conservatives were running in the mid to high 30s, and competitive in toronto. when they're running in the low 30s (or maybe the high 20s, depending on turnout), and getting beaten badly in ontario, vote splitting is really a less pressing issue than it was.
of course, if the ndp comes out of nowhere in ontario at the last minute and pulls the liberals way down then this calculus implodes. but, at the moment, i wouldn't worry much about it - vote for who you want. i'm an advocate of that, anyways.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
ok, so that was p-trap problem #3. i got out of the shower, took a nap and woke up to it smelling pretty rank.
so, we did the same routine, and it seems to have cleared up relatively quickly - i guess i got it early. i'm sure we're looking at a few days to clear out, at least. and, i was just finishing my last batch of laundry, too. ugh.
but, i've got enough data now to understand what's going on i fixed this in mid-august, mid-september and then mid-october. so, roughly once a month, give or take. that's too frequently to be acceptable - we need to find a way to fix this.
i have now sent three emails to the landlord about this, and received no response.
so...
what happens if he doesn't fix it?
1) i need to run hot water to keep the drains wet, and otherwise clear the air out.
2) i need to shower more frequently.
3) i need to run the fans.
4) i need to do extra laundry.
this is all expensive and frustrating for him, and he's mentioned it. the rational thing to do is fix the sewer issue, so we can fix these other issues. but he doesn't appear to be a rational agent - he seems to neither recognize his responsibility to fix the issue, nor does he seem to think i have much of a right to complain about it. the messaging i'm getting is that he basically doesn't think it's his problem...
i can't prove he's smoking, so i can't do anything about it. and, it took forever for me to figure out the issue with the gas, too. but, now that i understand what's happening, i have enough information to force him to do something.
the easiest thing for him to do would be to transform into a rational agent and fix the sewer line, whatever that means. step one would clearly be to call a plumber. that would be ideal.
the hardest thing for him to do would be to ignore me. but, that's what i'm actually expecting, because that seems to be what he's like. he'll claim it's stressful, or he's too busy or something - clearly bullshit excuses, and maybe his ex-wife accepts them, but they're not excuses a court will accept.
so, what's next?
1) i'll wait three days for an email response
2) if i get no email response, i'll leave a letter in his box and give him until november 1st to respond. this letter will clearly lay out reality and he'll have the choice of how to deal with it.
3) if i still get no response, i'll get the landlord and tenant board to order him to pay for a plumber. that's how this works - you take him to the board, and the board makes him do it.
i'm not a plumber. i don't know what to do next, besides call one.
but, this is an uninhabitable scenario. again. and i have to react appropriately, if he won't respond.
there is some chance that the plumber may decide he can't fix it, and we'll have to go from there if he does.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
so, we did the same routine, and it seems to have cleared up relatively quickly - i guess i got it early. i'm sure we're looking at a few days to clear out, at least. and, i was just finishing my last batch of laundry, too. ugh.
but, i've got enough data now to understand what's going on i fixed this in mid-august, mid-september and then mid-october. so, roughly once a month, give or take. that's too frequently to be acceptable - we need to find a way to fix this.
i have now sent three emails to the landlord about this, and received no response.
so...
what happens if he doesn't fix it?
1) i need to run hot water to keep the drains wet, and otherwise clear the air out.
2) i need to shower more frequently.
3) i need to run the fans.
4) i need to do extra laundry.
this is all expensive and frustrating for him, and he's mentioned it. the rational thing to do is fix the sewer issue, so we can fix these other issues. but he doesn't appear to be a rational agent - he seems to neither recognize his responsibility to fix the issue, nor does he seem to think i have much of a right to complain about it. the messaging i'm getting is that he basically doesn't think it's his problem...
i can't prove he's smoking, so i can't do anything about it. and, it took forever for me to figure out the issue with the gas, too. but, now that i understand what's happening, i have enough information to force him to do something.
the easiest thing for him to do would be to transform into a rational agent and fix the sewer line, whatever that means. step one would clearly be to call a plumber. that would be ideal.
the hardest thing for him to do would be to ignore me. but, that's what i'm actually expecting, because that seems to be what he's like. he'll claim it's stressful, or he's too busy or something - clearly bullshit excuses, and maybe his ex-wife accepts them, but they're not excuses a court will accept.
so, what's next?
1) i'll wait three days for an email response
2) if i get no email response, i'll leave a letter in his box and give him until november 1st to respond. this letter will clearly lay out reality and he'll have the choice of how to deal with it.
3) if i still get no response, i'll get the landlord and tenant board to order him to pay for a plumber. that's how this works - you take him to the board, and the board makes him do it.
i'm not a plumber. i don't know what to do next, besides call one.
but, this is an uninhabitable scenario. again. and i have to react appropriately, if he won't respond.
there is some chance that the plumber may decide he can't fix it, and we'll have to go from there if he does.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this.
as expected, the ndp flatlined....
hey, i'm baffled they got this far. i'm not being cocky about this.
so, what does this mean?
it means that there's not yet compelling evidence that there was any real movement. it doesn't mean there wasn't any real movement (yet). it doesn't mean he's "plateaued". what he did was hit the top of the margin and bounce back, which you can't deduce is anything more than random fluctuations until or unless it breaks through the barricades.
as an aside: these are three day averages. so, if he went from 19.7 to 19.2 in the average, that means he was polling at 18 point something (max) last night.
it's a long weekend in canada, and the sample on saturday night (when he may have peaked) would be particularly sketchy.
we actually saw this last election, too, when the ndp peaked on one of the holiday weekends. i can't remember which one. if there's something to pull out here, it's maybe a tendency for ndp voters to be more available for surveys on long weekends, which kind of makes sense. you could call it the "lonely dipper" effect.
https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.47/823.910.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-1445-CTV-Globe-ELXN-2019-10-13.pdf
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
hey, i'm baffled they got this far. i'm not being cocky about this.
so, what does this mean?
it means that there's not yet compelling evidence that there was any real movement. it doesn't mean there wasn't any real movement (yet). it doesn't mean he's "plateaued". what he did was hit the top of the margin and bounce back, which you can't deduce is anything more than random fluctuations until or unless it breaks through the barricades.
as an aside: these are three day averages. so, if he went from 19.7 to 19.2 in the average, that means he was polling at 18 point something (max) last night.
it's a long weekend in canada, and the sample on saturday night (when he may have peaked) would be particularly sketchy.
we actually saw this last election, too, when the ndp peaked on one of the holiday weekends. i can't remember which one. if there's something to pull out here, it's maybe a tendency for ndp voters to be more available for surveys on long weekends, which kind of makes sense. you could call it the "lonely dipper" effect.
https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.47/823.910.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-1445-CTV-Globe-ELXN-2019-10-13.pdf
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
you seem to want a world that operates on the principle of "i do something for you, you do something for me". and, then you don't care what those people think or believe, so long as there's a quid pro quo. that's capitalism.
that's not the world i want.
i want a world that operates on the principle "we agree with each other, so let's do something together". which means that i do care about what you think and believe and why you're doing it. and, it means i don't care if there's a quid pro quo or not - it won't affect my behaviour. that's socialism.
if the turks get out of hand, there will need to be a reaction. as it is, they are doing the right thing in driving the kurds - who were in the wrong - out. that's what's important, not who did what for who yesterday or the day before.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
that's not the world i want.
i want a world that operates on the principle "we agree with each other, so let's do something together". which means that i do care about what you think and believe and why you're doing it. and, it means i don't care if there's a quid pro quo or not - it won't affect my behaviour. that's socialism.
if the turks get out of hand, there will need to be a reaction. as it is, they are doing the right thing in driving the kurds - who were in the wrong - out. that's what's important, not who did what for who yesterday or the day before.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i don't think that alliances or solidarity should be transactional. this idea that "they fought for us, so we should stand with them" is backwards thinking.
we don't have a debt to the kurds; in fact, they cost us a lot of money.
war shouldn't be evaluated in these market-theoretic terms of exchange, or in these kind of bro-ish concepts of "having your back", or whatever weird idea it is that you're bringing in here. that's how they think. we're supposed to be more enlightened and sophisticated than that.
rather, we need to ask the question: do the kurds want peace in the region? and, you'd be disingenuous if you thought that they did. so, i don't want to support them for that reason - we don't have common cause. they want to fight until they get their own state, and i want to shut the war down and get out.
i guess that if you actually support the endless war, then you might see them as a preferable ally, and you might have common cause. but, then, that's the difference between you and i - you want to keep going with this, and i don't.
but, broadly speaking, i want to stand with people i agree with and have common cause with, and not just people that were loyal to me.
maybe it's cause i'm a woman - maybe that's how women think. and, maybe you're insistence on loyalty is a male thing. just a thought.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
we don't have a debt to the kurds; in fact, they cost us a lot of money.
war shouldn't be evaluated in these market-theoretic terms of exchange, or in these kind of bro-ish concepts of "having your back", or whatever weird idea it is that you're bringing in here. that's how they think. we're supposed to be more enlightened and sophisticated than that.
rather, we need to ask the question: do the kurds want peace in the region? and, you'd be disingenuous if you thought that they did. so, i don't want to support them for that reason - we don't have common cause. they want to fight until they get their own state, and i want to shut the war down and get out.
i guess that if you actually support the endless war, then you might see them as a preferable ally, and you might have common cause. but, then, that's the difference between you and i - you want to keep going with this, and i don't.
but, broadly speaking, i want to stand with people i agree with and have common cause with, and not just people that were loyal to me.
maybe it's cause i'm a woman - maybe that's how women think. and, maybe you're insistence on loyalty is a male thing. just a thought.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
to answer the obvious: would i support a kurdish homeland?
no.
they're iranians.
i may support expanding the territory of iran to include kurdish regions, if it's democratic and consensual all around. and, they can talk with tehran about what that means in terms of autonomy.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
no.
they're iranians.
i may support expanding the territory of iran to include kurdish regions, if it's democratic and consensual all around. and, they can talk with tehran about what that means in terms of autonomy.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
see, this is good - this is what i wanted to see, the reason i supported threatening the kurds with turkish force, although i was hoping that the force of threat would have been enough, that it wouldn't be necessary to actually send the turks in to do it. it's the outcome that will best facilitate the return of syrian refugees to the country, the reconstruction of syria's territorial integrity and the establishment of a long-term peace in the region.
and, this could have been avoided if the kurds had just agreed to work with the regime in the first place. but, game theory only works when your actors are rational, and the kurds have been irrational in their insistence on holding on to lands that are not theirs.
this might not have been what trump had in mind, granted. and, i don't care what the republicrats in congress or their saudi controllers think. but, it's a positive step for the region - whether by accident or not.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/syrian-army-deploy-turkey-border-orders-pullback-191013191238367.html
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
and, this could have been avoided if the kurds had just agreed to work with the regime in the first place. but, game theory only works when your actors are rational, and the kurds have been irrational in their insistence on holding on to lands that are not theirs.
this might not have been what trump had in mind, granted. and, i don't care what the republicrats in congress or their saudi controllers think. but, it's a positive step for the region - whether by accident or not.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/syrian-army-deploy-turkey-border-orders-pullback-191013191238367.html
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Sunday, October 13, 2019
actually, i think that's done already.
what took so long?
well, i got it on the 4th of september, ranted about it all day and then wanted to finish the rebuild for october, 2013 first, which was done on the 10th. i was at a show on the 11th and slept most of the day on the 12th. i spent the 13th & 14th watching debates, the 15th reading the green platform, the 15th-18th uploading everything to youtube, the 18th-19th uploading teasers for period 3, the 20th on the phone, the 20th-22nd at a long detroit party, the 23rd-24th writing the order for the human rights campaign, the 24th at fly pan am, the 25th sleeping, the 26th-30th finalizing the 10/13 archive and inri000 rough draft and republishing the three new period 3 releases, the 30th doing groceries, the 1st-3rd doing facebook x-references and show look aheads , the 4th-6th in detroit and the 7th-12th recovering from being sick, while writing.
it's the 13th. it's done.
hopefully.
let me check when i wake up.
so, that's two of four suits. the fourth was the review of the access request, and it's...yes, i missed my date on that, but i think i can get them to waive it. more to the point is that it's not affecting me. i'm not going to have time.
if something funny happens, i'm going to have to push it. right now, it doesn't seem like it's worth it.
so, the last thing to write is the constitutional challenge, and it'll be a doozy.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
what took so long?
well, i got it on the 4th of september, ranted about it all day and then wanted to finish the rebuild for october, 2013 first, which was done on the 10th. i was at a show on the 11th and slept most of the day on the 12th. i spent the 13th & 14th watching debates, the 15th reading the green platform, the 15th-18th uploading everything to youtube, the 18th-19th uploading teasers for period 3, the 20th on the phone, the 20th-22nd at a long detroit party, the 23rd-24th writing the order for the human rights campaign, the 24th at fly pan am, the 25th sleeping, the 26th-30th finalizing the 10/13 archive and inri000 rough draft and republishing the three new period 3 releases, the 30th doing groceries, the 1st-3rd doing facebook x-references and show look aheads , the 4th-6th in detroit and the 7th-12th recovering from being sick, while writing.
it's the 13th. it's done.
hopefully.
let me check when i wake up.
so, that's two of four suits. the fourth was the review of the access request, and it's...yes, i missed my date on that, but i think i can get them to waive it. more to the point is that it's not affecting me. i'm not going to have time.
if something funny happens, i'm going to have to push it. right now, it doesn't seem like it's worth it.
so, the last thing to write is the constitutional challenge, and it'll be a doozy.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
to be clear.
i made a complaint about police misconduct before i was arrested, in sept, 2018. i finally got an answer in mar, 2019 and immediately appealed it on a correctness basis. basically, they tried to argue reasonable cause on a crime where the law is explicit that reasonable cause is not good enough - you need a warrant to arrest. i was able to prove that the cop lied in his report, which was completely ignored. so, i appealed it on a correctness basis - and was explicit in pointing out that the cops were just flat out fucking wrong. i finally got a response more than three months later that the review was reasonable because it - i'm not bullshitting this - "cited case law". they again ignored the lying.
so, i'm asking for the judge to use certiorari to pull the case to use the correct basis of review and prosecute the cop for lying.
because they were fucking flat out wrong. and i can prove he lied.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
i made a complaint about police misconduct before i was arrested, in sept, 2018. i finally got an answer in mar, 2019 and immediately appealed it on a correctness basis. basically, they tried to argue reasonable cause on a crime where the law is explicit that reasonable cause is not good enough - you need a warrant to arrest. i was able to prove that the cop lied in his report, which was completely ignored. so, i appealed it on a correctness basis - and was explicit in pointing out that the cops were just flat out fucking wrong. i finally got a response more than three months later that the review was reasonable because it - i'm not bullshitting this - "cited case law". they again ignored the lying.
so, i'm asking for the judge to use certiorari to pull the case to use the correct basis of review and prosecute the cop for lying.
because they were fucking flat out wrong. and i can prove he lied.
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
ok.
here we go.
finally.
and, fwiw - i spent a lot of money last weekend, almost accidentally. i spent about $200 on groceries up front, because i had let things go. i needed stuff like toilet paper and coffee and caesar dressing - just things you need and i had let run down to almost nothing. then i spent $245 on the actual weekend, which is a lot, but i mean...i didn't really realize it until i was standing at the bus stop on the way over. it was like "wait a second".
it was $120 cash, us. but, that's $165 cdn.
i spent $20 on customs,
and another $20 at the phog show.
i had a pre-bought marble ticket for $13.50, which was $18 cdn.
the shots on the way over cost me $10.
and, i spent the balance on a pack of smokes on friday night, before i went over.
that is, indeed, $245. oops.
and, i came back with nothing...
so, $450 of the $500 i had to spend this month (which was inflated by the gst refund - it's usually $400) was gone instantly on the crazy weekend. if i wasn't sick and had gone out to see that show on friday, it would have been it for the month.
i'm feeling that much better; i'm over it, it's just down to a dry cough. but, i'm not buying tickets to toronto until after hallowe'en, at this point, which is partly why i'm taking my time. it actually doesn't matter if i'm done tomorrow or next week because i'm not filing until late november at the earliest, anyways...
i might be able to file the constitutional rights challenge a little earlier, if i can do it here. we'll see what the exact process is.
but, here we go. let's get to it...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
here we go.
finally.
and, fwiw - i spent a lot of money last weekend, almost accidentally. i spent about $200 on groceries up front, because i had let things go. i needed stuff like toilet paper and coffee and caesar dressing - just things you need and i had let run down to almost nothing. then i spent $245 on the actual weekend, which is a lot, but i mean...i didn't really realize it until i was standing at the bus stop on the way over. it was like "wait a second".
it was $120 cash, us. but, that's $165 cdn.
i spent $20 on customs,
and another $20 at the phog show.
i had a pre-bought marble ticket for $13.50, which was $18 cdn.
the shots on the way over cost me $10.
and, i spent the balance on a pack of smokes on friday night, before i went over.
that is, indeed, $245. oops.
and, i came back with nothing...
so, $450 of the $500 i had to spend this month (which was inflated by the gst refund - it's usually $400) was gone instantly on the crazy weekend. if i wasn't sick and had gone out to see that show on friday, it would have been it for the month.
i'm feeling that much better; i'm over it, it's just down to a dry cough. but, i'm not buying tickets to toronto until after hallowe'en, at this point, which is partly why i'm taking my time. it actually doesn't matter if i'm done tomorrow or next week because i'm not filing until late november at the earliest, anyways...
i might be able to file the constitutional rights challenge a little earlier, if i can do it here. we'll see what the exact process is.
but, here we go. let's get to it...
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
see, i'm not worried about this, because i think they should have just killed them, anyways.
what were we going to do with these people? give them 90 day jail sentences? try to reintegrate them? the best outcome would have been for the kurds to just kill them.
let the russians finish the job.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/13/kurds-say-785-isis-affiliates-have-escaped-camp-after-turkish-shelling
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
what were we going to do with these people? give them 90 day jail sentences? try to reintegrate them? the best outcome would have been for the kurds to just kill them.
let the russians finish the job.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/13/kurds-say-785-isis-affiliates-have-escaped-camp-after-turkish-shelling
the liberals are supposed to do better than this
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)