ugh. thugs.

pro-tip: if you don't want somebody to run you over with their car, don't smash their window in while they're in the car. if you do smash their window in, you don't really have a strong argument for generating sympathy.

i continue to find it hard to understand why people develop these absurd tactics to deal with disputes. i can generally at least get my head around it. like, if you're hungry and you can't get food, you might steal food. or if you're addicted to something and you're freaking out, you might go to extreme lengths to find it. certain rules about personal autonomy might be broken in the process, but there's a logic to it.

it's this violence-in-response-to-undesired-social-behaviour thing i don't get, not even as a dominant monkey thing. we're generally more successful when we co-operate and it's well documented in our own species as well as in other species. why do so many people have such a hard time getting their head around this while others grasp it as toddlers?

i guess i get that there's some variation, here. but i don't think that kind of behaviour has a genetic basis, it's an individualistic behavioural response. i often like to explain things in terms of conditioning or reacting to experiences, but i just can't generate a path where this behaviour is understood as rational.

i'm just left arguing that we're quite irrational creatures that often seem to lack an ability to really think through what we're doing.

let's be honest...

if pet were alive, he'd be using exactly the same tactics as harper: he'd be pointing out that his son is intellectually unfit to run the country, calling him an empty suit and a bleeding heart and mercilessly making fun of his hair.

as much as i'd like to see a change in government in this country, the reason he'd be doing that is because it's true.

the liberal party has fallen a long way over the last twenty years. i'm not going to write another retrospective or post another eulogy. but there was a long period of time where, even if you didn't agree with them on every issue, you could count on them to run somebody with a head on their shoulders that wouldn't do anything stupid. those days seem to be over.

what i will say is this: there is no longer a default choice. if they get back in, it's not going to be another dynasty. and there's no clear answer as to how we can get back to that sort of passive comfort level of at least being pretty sure they're not going to fuck anything up.

the weird thing about it is that you know you're voting for the person that replaces trudeau, as odd as that sounds. it's weird how history cycles.

there's a lot of parallels between harper and diefenbaker. and while baby trudeau is no lester pearson, he may very well be a short term, transitional leader who's legacy is primarily connected to who he places in what position.

(yeah, i know that pearson did lots of stuff, just go with it)