i'm glad i got a nice walk in today, at least. judging from last year, talk of "last nice day of the year" doesn't really apply to windsor. we'll get days in the mid teens throughout the winter, here. it'll rain significantly through each of the winter months. the severity of the weather seems to be defined by the severity of the air masses moving south, with a moderately mild climate in between. that is to say that the average winter day here really hovers around 0, and we only get worse than that when we get blasted by that north wind - but we'll also get much, much nicer than that when humid air masses come from the south. that's a big difference from ottawa, where you can expect week long blasts of -30 in between weeks of highs around -10. but it may be the last day of 20+ weather for a while, so i'm glad i got out to enjoy it. even if i had to deal with some rain...

the rest of the day was a bit more frustrating.

i started with the odsp worker. she wasn't able to suggest a doctor, and even seemed somewhat taken aback by the suggestion, as though it was a corrupt request. after some prodding, i got the suggestion of trying the canadian association for mental health, as they may have better leads.

i spent a while talking to somebody there and the conclusion was twofold.

1) camh is indeed probably my best bet - certainly a better idea than randomly keying in on specific doctors. however,
2) i need to go through a lengthy process of analysis.

i have no doubt that i'm easily diagnosed, if you give me the proper session time. it's actually probably the best approach forward from a larger perspective, as once i get that more serious diagnosis it'll stick with me permanently. i want to get the fucking paperwork done and move on, but i need to be patient about it.

so it means i'm looking at what will probably be weekly sessions for the next few months and not having this worked out until the last minute. i won't be able to see an actual physician that can fill out the papers until jan 12, which is a day before i need to get them in.

if it works out, it's kind of perfect because i wanted to wait until the last minute, anyways. but if it doesn't work out this is probably the end of me...

again: i need to not let it stress me out too much, and just keep my head in the tunes. i just need to make some phone calls tomorrow, and then i should have it off my mind for a while.

i just hope they're not thinking that putting it to the last minute is going to alter my behaviour, because it isn't.

i've expressed myself clearly. i don't think the guy i was speaking to today was really taking me seriously. i think a substantial part of the diagnosis presenting itself needs to exist in believing me when i say this is it - this gets done, or i'm dead.

the moment that logical process is understood as more than a hollow threat is the moment a pathology is established.

the annoying thing about it is it always takes the same form "you should have a good job and be making significant money. you have so much potential. you're too smart to off yourself.". what has to be understood is that the reality is "no amount of income is sufficient to compensate for time wasted in employment. when presented with that choice, i'm too smart to not kill myself.".

the other thing is like....if i think the first couple of sessions are a waste of time, i won't bother completing them, i'll just set the gears in motion....

it's this or broke, really. there's not another option.

i'm resigned to this. i need to try, but i'm not confident in the outcome.

work: the confusing phenomenon wherein people spend their entire day doing things they don't want to be doing, and accept it without violent struggle as "normal". see also: wage slavery.

actually, i think he's worse than a troll - he's a cia agent. he's maybe taken over hitchens' place in pushing neo-con doctrine to liberals. there's a point where cenk, in a round about manner, suggests he's taking money from oil companies. i think that's the right answer...

no, i don't have evidence. but he's pushing all the same talking points, like he's getting the same memos.

corbett is thought provoking enough to pay attention to, even if you find yourself largely in disagreement with him. i just want to add my own analysis to this because i find some of the deconstruction to be lacking in a broader narrative.

the american geopolitical goal in the middle east is to maintain a careful balance of power. the americans want each of the powers fighting against each other, without any of them taking control. they'll shift the balances to ensure that this power stays in place. the primary architect of this system was kissinger, who was drawing mostly from bismarck. it's that kind of realpolitik.

so, if the americans wake up and decide that the saudis are getting out of hand, they may covertly support the iranians to balance it out. if they decide the turks are gaining too much influence, they may produce instability in the kurdish regions. if israel is demonstrating too much strength, they may force a concession out of them. of course, these are all american allies, and everything that happens is in the context of each country's dependence on america - which is what america wishes to maintain. the description of "great satan" is actually quite apt, in the way that america sows chaos amongst it's own allies.

isis may have come from al qaeda in iraq, but what's happening right now is a corollary of the arab spring, which was used as an opportunity to reshape the region into an empire centered around riyadh. the thing that defines the new leadership in the middle east is that it is all very closely aligned with the saudis. but, there has been some disagreement about the way it's been done. if you want to look at an existing caliphate, the reality is that iraq and syria are the last remaining arab states that are not under the control of the saudis.

assad, in particular, made an error that cannot be forgiven - he threatened to call elections. this is unacceptable to a saudi regime that sees democracy as it's greatest threat. that democracy may be less real than we'd like, but it's not the point. it's the idea that cannot be tolerated. the israelis seem to share a lot of these real hard line attitudes, for their own reasons.

on the other hand, you have a coalition including the qataris and turks that considers the saudis to be too extreme and wishes to temper their influence. this was the fight between "moderate" and "islamist" forces in syria - and remember they were legitimately killing each other. it was a proxy war between turkey and saudi arabia, and the turks lost.

now, we have this situation: the saudis are getting out of control, so the americans need to step in on behalf of the turks to clean up the border region. but, not to the point that isis is demolished. that would tip the balance of power...

is it an excuse into syria? it seems like an opportunity, but i don't believe the united states army requires an excuse to do anything at all at this point. it's really about pushing the saudis away from turkey, to prevent them from fighting each other and maintain that balance of power. all the other layers (russia v us, saudi v iran, etc) are there, but i think that this is the key one.

i refuse to watch a buzzfeed video that wants to tell me what to eat.

nope. never. won't do it....

why isn't anybody challenging the idea that this is a "terrorist attack"?