Tuesday, June 28, 2016


<TheNewTeddy> je suis la teddy
<TheNewTeddy> je suis la parle francais tres tres petite
<TheNewTeddy> je suis la vieux la elu du premiere ministre du canada du la parte liberal
<TheNewTeddy> je suis elu gross seiges du quebec et la parle francais!
<TheNewTeddy> je parle
<TheNewTeddy> "tu voter pour moi"
<TheNewTeddy> et la elu seiges grande!

Monday, June 27, 2016

Game of Thrones, how it will end (spoiler if correct)

My previous theory:
seems much less likely now after the last episode of the season.

Much of the above remains true, but with two critical changes.

Dany's fleet included Targaryen, Greyjoy, Tully, and Dornish flags. Tyrion is not the one to inherit the South, Dany is.

Sansa has stepped aside to allow Jon to rule. Jon is now "King In The North". Sansa is not the one to inherit the North, Jon is.

As such I think the TV show will end with the bit "expected" Jon and Dany on the throne. Sansa is being set up to rule the North while Jon is down south. Tyrion is being set up to be Hand of the Queen. So on and so forth.

Also, I think the book WILL end with Tyrion and Sansa on the throne, Jon and Dany dying in the final battle. I think that this is Martin's idea.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Change the way you think

You need to change the way your brain works.

Oh I know that you've been trying to change your spending habits, and your eating habits, and have been fighting to do this for a while...

And I know that doing this means you need to change just a small fraction of how your brain works...

But you need to change how your ENTIRE BRAIN WORKS RIGHT NOW

I'm not gonna tell you how to do it, you gotta figure that part out, even though, you know, it's impossible.

But, I feel so bad for you that I need a smoke.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016


So recently there were some disagreements between the terms NSFW and NWS.

I, as part of a community, was asked for feedback on something and pointed this out.

I was basically told off because my comment was not useful.

I feel it was useful.

I feel clarity is important. In response, some people say that pointing such a thing out made me SUCH A PEDANTIC ASSHOLE that they don't want to be anywhere near me.

As such, I have nothing to contribute. Yes. I actually do think clarity is important, and if you feel so strongly that it's not, that I MUST be bringing up unimportant things on purpose - if you SO strongly doubt my motives - that the ONLY possible conclusion is that it's unimportant and anyone who disagrees is CRAZY.

Then I simply have nothing to contribute
On this, or on anything else you ask about

You've basically said that my views do not count, and worse, that I'm NOT ALLOWED to comment, because my comments make me the aforementioned pedantic asshole.

As such, don't ask for my feedback again.

Thursday, June 16, 2016


Sometimes things happen to me frequently that take a while to explain, and I don't like explaining it, at length, each time it happens. As such, this post explains these things, so if I've sent you here, please go to the proper section.

My computer froze

My computer sucks. I've tried to figure out what's wrong with it, but the best I've come up with is something is wrong with "the controller". See, for one minute at a time - always exactly one minute, 60 seconds - my computer will hang. I can still do RAM stuff, and my internet connection works, so, I can chat in a chat room for example, or continue to play a video game to a point. The problem is my computer utterly refuses to contact my hard drive. As such nothing new can load. This impacts internet browsing the most, new tabs refuse to open, pages refuse to load. When it starts the only thing I can do is wait. I know it's over because I suddenly hear my hard drive loading something, and pouf, the problem is solved, and any tabs I've tried to open load their content. This happens often while I'm watching a video, or playing a game, in the second monitor. This tells me it's somehow related to playing video, or using the GPU, but I've tried removing my graphics card and this still will happen. I've also tried being offline (and removing the card, and keeping the card in) and again, this still happens. Mortvert suggested my wire to my hard drive may be faulty, or the controller is faulty, and I'm leaning towards the latter; but I have no idea what a controller is. Either way. If I've sent you here because my computer froze its because I want you to know that this is what happens every time I say it froze, and that there is nothing I can do to speed it up, and that it will happen again, many times, in the future.

I'm Eating

Some people may have 3 or 4 hands, but I only have two. When I'm eating, I tend to use both these hands. I don't really eat one-handed food, and it's very very rare that I'll eat soup, or something else that I can just leave lying in the bowl/plate/whatever. As such, when I'm eating, I have both hands on the food. Add to this the fact that my entire apartment is the size of two jail cells. I don't have space for a kitchen table, and my computer desk is very small. So small in fact that I am unable to eat anything without moving my keyboard, as it otherwise takes up too much space in front of me. This means that I literally place my keyboard on top of my desktop case. I can still reach it to type if I have to, but I'm EATING! This is VERY inconvenient for me to type, and, get this, I WANT TO FINISH EATING MY FOOD!! I've had a few people be very insistent that I type to them while eating. This ain't gonna happen. "Don't bug me when I'm eating" is pretty much the first rule that roommates learn about me. If I've sent you here because I'm eating it means I want you to just hold your fucking horses and let me finish eating before I do whatever the hell it is you want from me.

Lying Down

I always feel strange, as though I'm the only person who does this, but I can't be. Sometimes, I get a bit tired. Not sleepy tired, just I need a break from the day tired. As such, I will go to my bed, and lie down. I won't turn down the lights, and I have no intention of going to sleep, I just need to physically lie down for maybe 2 minutes, 5, minutes 15 minutes. I just lie there, relaxing. I don't nap. I just need to literally lie down for a bit. Sometimes my allergies will dictate this, as lying down helps them not bother me so much. Either way, if I've sent you here because if this it means I was, or am about to lie down, and want to explain that no, I don't mean napping or sleeping, I do literally mean, I was physically lying down, that it will only take a few minutes, and that I come back after. The only exception to this is if I'm actually sleepy tired, in which case, I stop lying down, turn down the lights, go to the washroom, put in my earplugs, and go to sleep.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Mandela Effect: a theory

With apologies fo Gates McFadden and Denise Crosby.

I have a theory on why some things get mis-remembered.

Lets say that on January 5th, 2017, Denise Crosby, who played a blonde female on Star Trek TNG, id diagnosed with a new disease, we'll call NX01. She keeps this private, and information about this does not get out to the public at this time.

On January 9th, Gates McFadden, who played Dr Crusher, also a blonde female on Star Trek TNG, gets sick and goes into the hospital. There are news articles about it across the internet. Not headline news really, but big enough that most people see the headline at some point while surfing. She's alright, and gets out a week or two later.

A few weeks later, however, she's back again. And again, more headlines.

Again out, and again, a few weeks later, she's back in the hospital. This time she's diagnosed with NX01. There are news stories on NX01, what it is, why it's popping up, what it's cause is, all of that. McFadden fights it, publically.

A few weeks later, she is again in the news, raising money to combat NX01. She looks a bit sickly.

Again, a few weeks later, she is again in the news, after another celebrity has been diagnosed with NX01, again raising money, and again, looking more sick.

Finally she's in the news again, in early May, looking very very sick indeed.

This is the last we hear from her for some time.

On July 1st, Denise Crosby dies from NX01.

On July 17th, science invents scanners that can see inside you better than anything we currently have. It can be used like a biobed, and as such, any hospital bed can be turned into a CAT scanner. In the news story, there are lots of shots of Dr. Crusher standing over a biobed. These news stories continue right up to the 21st with lots of people commenting on how this will change medicine.

Finally christmas time rolls around. You are at home looking at youtube when you notice a new video about the Mandela Effect. "Gates McFadden is alive!?" it says. But how? You are certain she died. You remember she got sicker and sicker and sicker, and then there was a news report about her death, and then more stories with pictures of her on the set. Surely she had passed away. Right?

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

US and Gun Violence #2

Part 1: http://thenewteddy.blogspot.ca/2016/06/us-and-gun-violence.html

Here are two videos I just watched by Stephen Colbert

You don't need to watch them. In the second video there is a part where a famous basketball player says that if someone steps over you, you have an obligation to assault them. Watch if you want the full context, but it matters little.

I remind you of this graphic

If you take away guns from every American, you'll likely cut the total number of homicides in half. And the remaining half will still be far far more than Canada, the next country on the list.

The poorly thought out comment in the second video is a perfect example of this culture. So that it's very clear what I'm saying, I will scream it.

It is not okay to commit violence on another person. If you think it is okay, you are the problem, and removing you will do more for reducing gun violence than removing a gun will.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

US and gun violence

The US has more non-gun deaths than these countries have gun + non gun deaths.

The US has a violence problem. People think it's okay, or cool, to be violent towards one another for various reasons, many cultural. Getting rid of every gun in the country still means the US has a crazy high rate of murder and violence.

If you want to solve the problem of gun violence, you need to solve the problem of violence. Convince americans that violence is not okay, and you'll see the number of gun deaths drop along with the number of non-gun deaths.

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Game of Thrones - my theory on the ending

Warning; if I'm right this is a spoiler. If I'm wrong though, it is not.

First, some background:

So the Baratheons are pretty well dead right now. So what happens to their little "kingdom"?

Well everyone thinks Tommen is half Baratheon, so it goes to him, pretty much.
The Lannisters are not doing well either, so he would also likely come into possession of their land soon enough. With Loras locked up and Marjorie married to Tommen, this focuses the power quite a bit. Consider as well that Dorne is not doing so hot in terms of legal succession and you could craft an argument that Tommen, as King, is ruler of all of these lands.

Meanwhile Littlefinger controls the Reach, and soon enough, the Riverlands, while Robin, who is related to Sansa, is the figurehead. Sansa's blood also entitles her to the North. With all the shit going on in the iron islands, one could construct an argument that she could rule them as well.

While some of these arguments are a stretch, they are important. Why? Because with a few well placed deaths (all men must die) you can very easily get yourself into a situation with one simple answer:

Tyrion and Sansa end up on the throne.

Martin does not write fairy tails, so I doubt Jon Snow and Dany will end up on the throne, but Tyrion and Sansa are already married, and Tyrion was just about the only man in her life to not try to take advantage of her in one way or another - as such, this is my prediction for how the story ends.

Saturday, June 4, 2016

A video, part 2

Despite the fact this is a part 2, for some people (you know who you are) I strongly suggest you read THIS post first, and watch the video, starting at 9:30, FIRST. Do not watch the first half of the video. Watch from 9:30 onward.

For everyone else, go and read part 1 first, and come back to this point:

This is when everyone needs to listen to the section at 9:30 in that video. Let me directly link it for you guys: https://youtu.be/2v8m-J8sgik?t=570

Watch that. Everyone.

And remember the line: "The boom, not the slump, is the time for austerity"

The speaker is 100% correct. Remember that. Remember that when you vote.

Continue to listen. The next question is golden. The speaker's response is also excellent. This is what some people are missing.

Stupid Spending vs Smart Spending.

This is where the speaker FINALLY starts talking about the real problems, using real terms, and real examples.

Pay attention.

The speaker says he supports many important things that - if you only watch the first video - would think that he opposes.

He also touches on VERY important issues, like, as he says "people living too long"

He also makes a point that "high taxes" don't always mean bad things, which is also important. There is a certain range that it works well in, and Sweden is in that range.

a video

so I just watched this

Anyway, long story short, there are a few problems with this video

1 - This video is from 2013 and focuses on the recession which started in 2008. The speaker says the US debt to GDP ratio went down. This is untrue and that is easily verifiable with a quick search. While it's dropped since 2013, it's dropped, in part, due to austerity measures.

2 - The speaker also repeatedly confuses government budgets (and deficits) with export and important balances (and deficits). These are not one in the same. He says, flat out, that all countries can not be in (budgetary) surplus. This is untrue.

3 - The speaker also mis-represents what austerity is, though, that term itself is not well defined, so I'll let that go.

4 - The speaker is also misleading on the impact of cutting spending. In particular, the IMF has said that a cut of 1% of GDP could reduce the total economy by as much as 1.7% GDP. The GDP does not have such a direct impact on the government budget, and as such, a 1% GDP cut in spending does not mean a 1% GDP cut in revenue.

5 - The speaker ignores the reason countries want to keep budgets under control. Flexibility. Having a massive debt means that you are unable to gain much more, and you lose flexibility. If your debt is too big you simply can't spend spend spend without defaulting, and throwing banks into chaos. The whole reason you want to keep government debts under control is to allow you to spend when you need to. This is totally ignored.

6 - The entire video ignores that what kind of spending and cutting is done is very important. People will spend up to an amount, and save after that, and invest after that. If you gave every person who had an income of under $20,000 a thousand dollars, you'll notice the economy will grow much more than if you give the same money to people who an income of about $80,000

7 - In general, this video can be dangerous. It presumes that people have not a basic understanding of government budgets, economics, and trade, but an advanced understanding. People who lack this understanding can be lead to believe that government spending is magic. Nothing is absolute. Cutting $1 from the national budget as part of austerity will not cause the economy to crash. Everything works within certain limits, and it's only when those limits are exceeded that things fall apart.

 8 - The only thing the speaker is correct on is that the current limits on the Euro (like deficits) hurt the economy and should be removed.

The video also contains terminology problems.

"Deficit" is generally understood to be an imbalance in government spending and government revenue, in particular, from general funds. Deficit usually excludes spending and revenue from government owned corporations, and always excludes any trade balance, as well as monetary policy. Austerity is focused on reducing deficits. The implication made is that it is focused on reducing other imbalances, which it is simply not.

A much MUCH better video - featuring the same speaker - talking to a TV host from TVO (Ontario government funded TV) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v8m-J8sgik&ab_channel=TheAgendawithStevePaikin

A few things however

1 - The point of austerity is not to reduce debt, it is to reduce the deficit. It is to reduce the growth of debt. not debt itself. To suggest that this is the case is just disingenuous, ignorant, or purposefully misleading. Austerity is either done to reduce deficits, or to keep the debt under control. Austerity can still see a rising level of debt so long as that level in manageable.

2 - Focusing on the poor is important as the poor are important in growing the economy, something that is often forgotten. Italy is a perfect example, take a gander at what's happened in polling in that country over the past few years to see what the people actually think of this kind of economics: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/ElectionAverageGraphItalyNext.PNG

3 - The speaker is also correct that at current levels of debt, there is no confidence problem, however, he tries to connect it to a silly strategy; he also says "it doesn't work if everybody does it at the same time" which is simply not true - depending on what "it" is - it seems his opinion is austerity is that austerity is horrific level of cutting that hurts only the poor. In that case, yes, "it" does not work.

At about 5 minutes in the host starts asking important questions, but he again confuses government spending with private spending. These are not one in the same.

After 7 minutes he stops mixing up terminology. He makes a great point that austerity has different levels, he calls Canada's cutting "fake austerity". I call it "the only kind of austerity that works". The real "fake austerity" is the stuff that is being done over in europe.

He also points out some great problems with a currency union should that currency be unresponsible.