Interesting meeting a couple weeks back Kanye West at the White House. Kanye is definitely an interesting person. He speaks thoughtfully and authoritatively and should be listened to.
Kanye West is definitely an exceptional. Everything Kanye chooses to focus on he greatly succeeds at. Kanye focused on music and produced numerous #1 hits and albums.
Then Kanye was interested in clothing and shoes. The result was sold out Yeezy sneakers selling for around $1,000. unheard of popularity and prices for sneakers and Kanye did it.
So everything, or at least a number of public things, Kanye gets serious about, he ends up on top. Given his proven track record, when West speaks it is wise to listen carefully. If Kanye says he is interested in something or may move into some area, then history proves he can succeed and dominate.
Which brings it to politics. If Kanye says he is interested in being elected President in 2024 I would take him at his word and take it seriously. As an exceptional, if Kanye focuses deeply on becoming President then he has the ability to make it happen.
Consider it in terms of probability. Kanye today in 2018 is more likely to become President in 2024, than Donald Trump was in 2015 to become President in 2016. And Trump achieved it. It can be done as Trump demonstrated, and Kanye could also do it.
--
About the 13th amendment. Kanye's thoughts on the 13th amendment are interesting. How often does anyone think about or discuss the 13th amendment. It's a good exercise to think about.
Kanye is basically right. The 13th amendment is no longer needed and thus should be abolished. Think about it this way. What would be the effect if it was repealed? The answer is no effect. Thus it should be repealed as its original purpose is served and continued existence has no effect. Also it could later be applied in detrimental ways that were not the original intent.
It's not the 13th got rid of slavery, or keeps slavery from returning. There are strong conventions now and there is no way any state would want to, or be able to, restore slavery. The notion is nonsensical thus there is no need for a law against something that would never happen.
Any modern nation and states within would never allow persons to be bought or sold, forced servitude, used as collateral or security on debts, etc. These contracts or arrangements would be void and unenforceable under convention and in law. So again it's not the 13th that is holding back those with bad intentions.
A problem with old obsolete law staying around is that it may be later repurposed in a way that was not intended. We see this today with the 14th amendment and birth citizenship. Today it is accepted, although recently rhetorically challenged by Trump, that persons born on US soil are considered US citizens, regardless of the status or lack thereof of the child's parents. So a foreign tourist visiting the United States, or someone who snuck across the border into the US and resides illegally, who gives birth in America; that child is a first-class US citizen with passport, SSN number, etc.
This is because of the 14th amendment that the child born in America is considered an American regardless of the status of the parents. Now in the history, the intent of the 14th was to settle any citizenship/status questions around freed former slaves. The 14th established the former slaves as proper American citizens. So it worked well for that.
It was never the intent of the 14th that foreign citizens who give birth on United States soil, that those children of foreigners would be hoisted up to US citizen solely because their mother arranged to give birth in the United States. Yet that has long been an accepted result of the 14th outliving its original purpose and being applied in novel or unexpected ways later on.
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Monday, October 22, 2018
Software Update Bulletin: Antifa Action Pack Add-On
There is a new version available for the NPC Antifa Action Pack Add-On. NPCs running the optional Antifa Action Pack module are requested to update to software version 2.414 or higher at earliest opportunity.
Version 2.414 and higher fixes this issue
The defect can be observed in this video
The problem is in the ConfrontProudBoys.cpp module. Basically the GetFavorability() function had a bug where in some scenarios the score was calculated incorrectly. As a result of NPC-8689 the NpcFightGroup activated AttackMode incorrectly. From the video it can be seen the NPCs initiated the fight by throwing the bottle. So they were in AttackMode at that point.
This update fixes the heuristics behind GetFavorability() to give more weight to these factors in the calculation
The police proximity is also given increased weight in the calculation. In the Manhattan video the Proud Boys put it to the defeated NpcFightGroup for some time before the NYPD cops come in and break it up. Previous versions did not properly account for the fight not going as planned and requiring police intervention if they lost. Starting in version 2.414 fixes this and AttackMode will not activate without some police nearby in case things go sideways in the fight.
The fallback behavior for GetFavorability() returning a negative number remains the same. In StagingMode NPCs in the NpcFightGroup are programmed to seek toward these goals
Version 2.414 and higher fixes this issue
NPC-8689 NPCs in Manhattan enter AttackMode incorrectly. get beaten up
The defect can be observed in this video
The problem is in the ConfrontProudBoys.cpp module. Basically the GetFavorability() function had a bug where in some scenarios the score was calculated incorrectly. As a result of NPC-8689 the NpcFightGroup activated AttackMode incorrectly. From the video it can be seen the NPCs initiated the fight by throwing the bottle. So they were in AttackMode at that point.
This update fixes the heuristics behind GetFavorability() to give more weight to these factors in the calculation
- ratio of NpcFightGroup members to ProudBoysOpponent
- proximity of nearby police
The police proximity is also given increased weight in the calculation. In the Manhattan video the Proud Boys put it to the defeated NpcFightGroup for some time before the NYPD cops come in and break it up. Previous versions did not properly account for the fight not going as planned and requiring police intervention if they lost. Starting in version 2.414 fixes this and AttackMode will not activate without some police nearby in case things go sideways in the fight.
The fallback behavior for GetFavorability() returning a negative number remains the same. In StagingMode NPCs in the NpcFightGroup are programmed to seek toward these goals
- shout insults at ProudBoysOpponent from a safe distance using the standard canned list of slogans and insults
- recruit additional nearby NPCs to join the NpcFightGroup
Friday, October 19, 2018
Urgent Message for Jordan Hunt
Jordan, please immediately update your software to version 4.5019 or higher. This version fixes the defect
The manifestation of this defect can be observed in this video from Toronto
The problem is in the ConfrontProLife.cpp module. Basically there was a bug where if pro-life BadPerson has a reasonable response to "what if she was raped" (WISWR), then NPC does not have programming to continue the conversation. Instead a seg fault occurs in ConfrontProLife and npcOS panic reboots.
This can be observed in the video where Jordan was unable to verbalize a reply to the WISWR response and instead stands there with his tongue out for several seconds. The tongue out and silence demonstrates the crash and reboot.
Unfortunately due to another bug NPC-8618 the reboot is into FightMode. In FightMode NPC physically attacks the BadPerson previously conversing with. This can be observed in the video where Jordan irrationally roundhouse kicks the pro-life woman upon reboot in FightMode.
This bug is also fixed starting in 4.5019. Going forward an unhandled exception in ConfrontProLife.cpp will reset into WalkAwayAndWin mode. In this mode the NPC just calls the BadPerson a fascist and walks away to nearest nearby blue hair NPC for HighFive and PositiveFeedback, believing that he won the verbal confrontation with pro-life BadPerson.
NPC-8611 Unexpected counter to "what if she was raped" causes crash and violence
The manifestation of this defect can be observed in this video from Toronto
The problem is in the ConfrontProLife.cpp module. Basically there was a bug where if pro-life BadPerson has a reasonable response to "what if she was raped" (WISWR), then NPC does not have programming to continue the conversation. Instead a seg fault occurs in ConfrontProLife and npcOS panic reboots.
This can be observed in the video where Jordan was unable to verbalize a reply to the WISWR response and instead stands there with his tongue out for several seconds. The tongue out and silence demonstrates the crash and reboot.
Unfortunately due to another bug NPC-8618 the reboot is into FightMode. In FightMode NPC physically attacks the BadPerson previously conversing with. This can be observed in the video where Jordan irrationally roundhouse kicks the pro-life woman upon reboot in FightMode.
This bug is also fixed starting in 4.5019. Going forward an unhandled exception in ConfrontProLife.cpp will reset into WalkAwayAndWin mode. In this mode the NPC just calls the BadPerson a fascist and walks away to nearest nearby blue hair NPC for HighFive and PositiveFeedback, believing that he won the verbal confrontation with pro-life BadPerson.
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Problematic Privacy Commissioner
Canada's Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien has been in the news lately mobilesyrup, Ottawa Citizen. He has been advocating for Canada to adopt a European-style "right to be forgotten"
Canada does not have a right to be forgotten. Commissioner Therrien understands this. He admits "Therrien has said there’s no explicit right to be forgotten in any Canadian legislation"
It's good that there is no right to be forgotten for many reasons. The main problem is that it is a "positive right". That is, it compels other parties to take some action or provide some resources to satisfy the "right" of an individual.
Rights, properly defined, belong to the individual. Someone might have the right to free speech, but that does not compel the government or established media to provide a printing press or an audience. A person might have the right to live where he chooses in a country, but that does not require the state to provide a moving truck or damage deposit to enable someone to move to a new city.
The right to be forgotten inverts this. It compels search engines to take an action to "forget" something that they know about. They are forced to agree to keep something secret. To take action to conceal something. To knowingly mislead those using the search service by concealing public information. This is especially corrosive because the issues are actually public record. Criminal convictions, bankruptcies, divorces, lawsuits against, professional censure. In living memory these things were published in the daily newspapers of record.
In the Europe court case it was a lawyer who wanted to keep a past bankruptcy secret. hmmm as a potential client I might want to know if a lawyer I was thinking of hiring had a history of being irresponsible about money and mismanaging money. Lawyers are often asked to hold clients money in trust. Anyway it is the responsibility of the consumer of the search result to evaluate the information returned and weigh different data points. To decide what is material and relevant and what is not. An individual may like to wish away black marks from the past but that is his problem, not the search engine.
The major issue with Daniel Therrien is that he is attempting to bypass Parliament and use lawfare to get a judge to create a right to be forgotten out of thin air. From the Citizen article.
So that's wrong. Therrien concedes there is no right to be forgotten in legislation. Thus there is no such right. As privacy commissioner it's fine for Therrien to advocate for a right to be forgotten, or advise Parliament to enact such a right in legislation. It's not for the courts to decide. It's for the elected Parliament to establish rights.
Using the courts to bypass Parliament to advance his agenda is wrong and inappropriate to his office. Prime Minister Trudeau should fire Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien.
Canada does not have a right to be forgotten. Commissioner Therrien understands this. He admits "Therrien has said there’s no explicit right to be forgotten in any Canadian legislation"
It's good that there is no right to be forgotten for many reasons. The main problem is that it is a "positive right". That is, it compels other parties to take some action or provide some resources to satisfy the "right" of an individual.
Rights, properly defined, belong to the individual. Someone might have the right to free speech, but that does not compel the government or established media to provide a printing press or an audience. A person might have the right to live where he chooses in a country, but that does not require the state to provide a moving truck or damage deposit to enable someone to move to a new city.
The right to be forgotten inverts this. It compels search engines to take an action to "forget" something that they know about. They are forced to agree to keep something secret. To take action to conceal something. To knowingly mislead those using the search service by concealing public information. This is especially corrosive because the issues are actually public record. Criminal convictions, bankruptcies, divorces, lawsuits against, professional censure. In living memory these things were published in the daily newspapers of record.
In the Europe court case it was a lawyer who wanted to keep a past bankruptcy secret. hmmm as a potential client I might want to know if a lawyer I was thinking of hiring had a history of being irresponsible about money and mismanaging money. Lawyers are often asked to hold clients money in trust. Anyway it is the responsibility of the consumer of the search result to evaluate the information returned and weigh different data points. To decide what is material and relevant and what is not. An individual may like to wish away black marks from the past but that is his problem, not the search engine.
The major issue with Daniel Therrien is that he is attempting to bypass Parliament and use lawfare to get a judge to create a right to be forgotten out of thin air. From the Citizen article.
The privacy commissioner wants the Federal Court of Canada to decide whether Canadians have the “right to be forgotten,” which would allow people to request that search engines remove old or embarrassing links about them.
Daniel Therrien is asking the court to decide whether Google falls under federal privacy laws when it displays search results about Canadians; if the court finds the search giant does, the company would have to remove some references when requested.
So that's wrong. Therrien concedes there is no right to be forgotten in legislation. Thus there is no such right. As privacy commissioner it's fine for Therrien to advocate for a right to be forgotten, or advise Parliament to enact such a right in legislation. It's not for the courts to decide. It's for the elected Parliament to establish rights.
Using the courts to bypass Parliament to advance his agenda is wrong and inappropriate to his office. Prime Minister Trudeau should fire Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien.
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
Doug Ford and the notwithstanding clause
Some news out of Ontario. A court blocked a move by Ontario Premier Doug Ford to reduce Toronto city council from 47 to 25 members. Ford has responded by saying he will invoke the notwithstanding clause of the constitution to overrule the court ruling and proceed. This will be the first time Ontario has invoked notwithstanding since the constitution was enacted in 1982.
It's an interesting case to invoke notwithstanding on. The intent had always been that notwithstanding would be used very sparingly, only in egregious or important public interest cases. For example suppose some judge ruled that incarceration was unconstitutional. That's the type of case where notwithstanding would be called for. I'm not against a more active use of notwithstanding myself. On this site I've advocated it for some cases in the public interest and to maintain public confidence in government
Sally Campbell
Abdoul Abdi deportation
also in the Omar Khadr case the correct move was to appeal appeal appeal any adverse court decisions in the lawsuit and then finally if necessary invoke notwithstanding. in no case does Canada pay off those who fight on the enemy side in a war, or participate in terrorism. I like to believe that Stephen Harper if he had won; would have taken that tack and in no circumstance would the taxpayers of Canada pay off Khadr for what he participated in. Alas the people elected Justin Trudeau who saw things differently.
On the face of it, it won't make an ounce of difference anywhere if Toronto city council has 47 or 25 seats. So on its own it's not the type of case that calls for notwithstanding. So what's up? I believe there is something else there, something important that needs to be discussed.
What I believe Ford is doing, is reasserting the jurisdiction of the elected assembly over the activist courts. I don't believe it's about the 47/25 thing on its own. This is the first time activists tried to use lawfare to block and frustrate a legitimate act by the Premier. So Ford, early in his term, is sending a very clear message to the activist judges and their allies. Those seeking to use the courts to frustrate and overrule the elected legislature and impose their own agenda.
Ford saw what happened with Trump and the courts blocking the immigration ban. He saw what happened with judges and the Trans Mountain pipeline. In a larger sense Doug Ford is right. For a long time now, decades really, there has been gradually increasing aggressiveness from the courts. Some of the cases and arguments in recent years demonstrate this. Appeals and arguments to "right to enjoyment of life", "fairness", and other dubious claims not in the constitution or any statute. these aren't rights, it's just "feels good" law, judges overstepping their authority to "make things right" for favoured groups.
in the past a judge might hear a case, express sympathy for the appellant, then note that the court does not have jurisdiction, or it is up to the legislature to repeal or modify an unfair or onerous law. it isn't for judges to create new rights where convenient, or strike down laws or ministerial decisions they personally disagree with. judges exercised restraint and caution, and in general left it to the legislature to make things right in the law, rather than imposing their own concept of law. since judges generally did the right thing on their own, there was no need to use or threaten to use notwithstanding.
somewhere over the years this changed. unsurprising really. Dalhousie University has a law school. Plenty of students who took courses or majored in Communications at Laurier went on to law school. Inevitably at this point, 20-25-30 years on now, these same students have taken their place and world view into the judiciary. Doug Ford is taking an important step in the legitimate use of notwithstanding to make an important course correction against lawfare and judicial activism.
It's an interesting case to invoke notwithstanding on. The intent had always been that notwithstanding would be used very sparingly, only in egregious or important public interest cases. For example suppose some judge ruled that incarceration was unconstitutional. That's the type of case where notwithstanding would be called for. I'm not against a more active use of notwithstanding myself. On this site I've advocated it for some cases in the public interest and to maintain public confidence in government
Sally Campbell
Abdoul Abdi deportation
also in the Omar Khadr case the correct move was to appeal appeal appeal any adverse court decisions in the lawsuit and then finally if necessary invoke notwithstanding. in no case does Canada pay off those who fight on the enemy side in a war, or participate in terrorism. I like to believe that Stephen Harper if he had won; would have taken that tack and in no circumstance would the taxpayers of Canada pay off Khadr for what he participated in. Alas the people elected Justin Trudeau who saw things differently.
On the face of it, it won't make an ounce of difference anywhere if Toronto city council has 47 or 25 seats. So on its own it's not the type of case that calls for notwithstanding. So what's up? I believe there is something else there, something important that needs to be discussed.
What I believe Ford is doing, is reasserting the jurisdiction of the elected assembly over the activist courts. I don't believe it's about the 47/25 thing on its own. This is the first time activists tried to use lawfare to block and frustrate a legitimate act by the Premier. So Ford, early in his term, is sending a very clear message to the activist judges and their allies. Those seeking to use the courts to frustrate and overrule the elected legislature and impose their own agenda.
Ford saw what happened with Trump and the courts blocking the immigration ban. He saw what happened with judges and the Trans Mountain pipeline. In a larger sense Doug Ford is right. For a long time now, decades really, there has been gradually increasing aggressiveness from the courts. Some of the cases and arguments in recent years demonstrate this. Appeals and arguments to "right to enjoyment of life", "fairness", and other dubious claims not in the constitution or any statute. these aren't rights, it's just "feels good" law, judges overstepping their authority to "make things right" for favoured groups.
in the past a judge might hear a case, express sympathy for the appellant, then note that the court does not have jurisdiction, or it is up to the legislature to repeal or modify an unfair or onerous law. it isn't for judges to create new rights where convenient, or strike down laws or ministerial decisions they personally disagree with. judges exercised restraint and caution, and in general left it to the legislature to make things right in the law, rather than imposing their own concept of law. since judges generally did the right thing on their own, there was no need to use or threaten to use notwithstanding.
somewhere over the years this changed. unsurprising really. Dalhousie University has a law school. Plenty of students who took courses or majored in Communications at Laurier went on to law school. Inevitably at this point, 20-25-30 years on now, these same students have taken their place and world view into the judiciary. Doug Ford is taking an important step in the legitimate use of notwithstanding to make an important course correction against lawfare and judicial activism.
Friday, August 24, 2018
Andrew Scheer and Maxime Bernier
It's a bit funny I had a post in mind how well Andrew Scheer was doing. Just keeping quiet. Save your good stuff, hold it back, wait for the election campaign. A wise man keepeth his own counsel. Let Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh stumble and bumble along, stay out of that.
Well so much for that. Scheer's conservative rival Maxime Bernier has now left the Conservatives and launched his own political party. Well that sucks for Scheer. As the saying goes, with Bernier, "It’s better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in." Well now Bernier is outside the tent.
It's too bad. Bernier has a lot of supporters and very nearly won the race to succeed Stephen Harper as Conservative leader. Honestly I didn't pay much attention to the Conservative leadership race and I didn't appreciate distinctions between the candidates. Though what I've learned of Bernier these last few weeks has made a positive impression. Pure laine Québécois. An energetic, patriotic Canadian who actually defended Canadian identity and culture (by insisting that Canadian culture is itself a real thing, which means that there is some optimum amount of multiculturalism beyond which we should not pass).
The thing about dairy and supply management. meh w/e to me. I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or the other. It would be nice if milk was less expensive in the stores. Still, individual dairy farms and the supporting industry around them are vital to rural life. There is a goodness about the rural/agriculture/industrial economy. I guess supply management has always been there as long as I've been alive. There is a lot of inertia around it. Maybe it has run its course. People will still buy and drink milk. There will still be cows and farms. So again I'm fine either way with whatever the Prime Minister wants to do with supply management in dairy.
It is unfortunate Scheer couldn't keep Bernier in the fold. The Conservative party has to actually be conservative. It has to stand for something. The feel-good situation with media darling Rona Ambrose when she was interim leader. Gleefully embracing gay marriage and trans- everything. That wasn't right for an unelected interim leader Ambrose to make major policy changes.
Scheer has said he tends toward Stephen Harper for philosophy. For some Scheer is seen more as a Patrick Brown type, offering some kind of Trudeau-lite alternative, tweaks here and there, the checkboxes can go, a bit less virtue signaling on twitter, more competent administration. While Bernier is perceived more the Doug Ford type, wanting to aggressively repeal and rollback the Trudeau agenda.
So what might unfold. If we take Bernier at his word then it's a lot like the Reform Party situation a generation ago. The "real" conservatives left the Progressive Conservative party they felt had abandoned them and started their own party. One result was several Jean Chrétien majorities. Though it was eventually successful. Terms were negotiated, the Conservative party was forged from Reform/PC, Stephen Harper became Prime Minister and had a strong run.
So is Bernier right, are we today back at the PC/Reform divide? Is the current Ambrose/Scheer Conservative party hopelessly lost, unwilling to be unpopular with a leftist establishment media, seeking only to be in office and the personal gains of being in power.
We will see I guess. One result is that Trudeau is suddenly in better shape for the next election. If Bernier's new party becomes a real thing then their votes would come from largely the existing Conservative and to a lesser extent disaffected Liberal voters. That could make things difficult for Scheer. I think a realistic plan for Scheer before all this was the Stephen Harper playbook when faced with a Paul Martin majority.
Well so much for that. Scheer's conservative rival Maxime Bernier has now left the Conservatives and launched his own political party. Well that sucks for Scheer. As the saying goes, with Bernier, "It’s better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in." Well now Bernier is outside the tent.
It's too bad. Bernier has a lot of supporters and very nearly won the race to succeed Stephen Harper as Conservative leader. Honestly I didn't pay much attention to the Conservative leadership race and I didn't appreciate distinctions between the candidates. Though what I've learned of Bernier these last few weeks has made a positive impression. Pure laine Québécois. An energetic, patriotic Canadian who actually defended Canadian identity and culture (by insisting that Canadian culture is itself a real thing, which means that there is some optimum amount of multiculturalism beyond which we should not pass).
The thing about dairy and supply management. meh w/e to me. I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or the other. It would be nice if milk was less expensive in the stores. Still, individual dairy farms and the supporting industry around them are vital to rural life. There is a goodness about the rural/agriculture/industrial economy. I guess supply management has always been there as long as I've been alive. There is a lot of inertia around it. Maybe it has run its course. People will still buy and drink milk. There will still be cows and farms. So again I'm fine either way with whatever the Prime Minister wants to do with supply management in dairy.
It is unfortunate Scheer couldn't keep Bernier in the fold. The Conservative party has to actually be conservative. It has to stand for something. The feel-good situation with media darling Rona Ambrose when she was interim leader. Gleefully embracing gay marriage and trans- everything. That wasn't right for an unelected interim leader Ambrose to make major policy changes.
Scheer has said he tends toward Stephen Harper for philosophy. For some Scheer is seen more as a Patrick Brown type, offering some kind of Trudeau-lite alternative, tweaks here and there, the checkboxes can go, a bit less virtue signaling on twitter, more competent administration. While Bernier is perceived more the Doug Ford type, wanting to aggressively repeal and rollback the Trudeau agenda.
So what might unfold. If we take Bernier at his word then it's a lot like the Reform Party situation a generation ago. The "real" conservatives left the Progressive Conservative party they felt had abandoned them and started their own party. One result was several Jean Chrétien majorities. Though it was eventually successful. Terms were negotiated, the Conservative party was forged from Reform/PC, Stephen Harper became Prime Minister and had a strong run.
So is Bernier right, are we today back at the PC/Reform divide? Is the current Ambrose/Scheer Conservative party hopelessly lost, unwilling to be unpopular with a leftist establishment media, seeking only to be in office and the personal gains of being in power.
We will see I guess. One result is that Trudeau is suddenly in better shape for the next election. If Bernier's new party becomes a real thing then their votes would come from largely the existing Conservative and to a lesser extent disaffected Liberal voters. That could make things difficult for Scheer. I think a realistic plan for Scheer before all this was the Stephen Harper playbook when faced with a Paul Martin majority.
- hold Trudeau to a minority in 2019
- Scheer wins minority in the next election
- Scheer wins majority in the next election
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)