so, after caving into various self-rationalizations over the first half of september, i've been de-nicing the last few days and have every intention to stick with it this time. i've said that for a long time. but, i've got my income stable for the next five years, i'm no longer in a hurry to do much of anything and i'm very much intent on getting over this. i had a little heatstroke when i got back on tuesday night and have been sleeping that off as well, but i think i'm alert enough now to at least try and get the machine back up.

i turned it off tuesday morning right before the script runs. i'm going to want to make sure i can get the firewire drivers correctly working before i run the script.

i didn't get my forms on tuesday. it turns out that the psychiatrist has to fill them out, and i'll have to wait until monday. nor does it seem as though the nurse practitioner is going to carry through with my prescriptions. he claims he'll work as a go between if i can find an endocrinologist, but he won't work with the guy from london because he claims he's unprofessional, which i think is a cop out - i think it's a religious thing, again. he said he put out a referral, but i'm kind of sketchy on it. i'm not convinced it's even a real person. but we'll find out. if i don't have an answer by monday, i'm going to have to get in contact with the guy in london.

i can't think of any reason why i should need to actually go to london and physically speak with him. i'm just asking for a refill of something i've been on for years and will be on for the rest of my life. it should be a five minute conversation, and it's not really necessary. and, if he insists on a blood test or something, i don't see any reason why i can't just get the blood test here and have the results sent to him.

the ideal remains trying to get the guy in windsor to see me because then i can indulge whatever silliness he wants at essentially no cost to me.

i'll find out these things in a few days.

and i think i should have the machine up in a few hours, even if i need to spend a few more days sleeping to finish the detox.

corporate tax cuts have absolutely no effect on jobs, whatsoever. lowering taxes will not create jobs. raising them will not eliminate jobs.

rather, jobs are created when demand increases, and eliminated when demand decreases. that means that consumption tax cuts could conceivably create jobs, but only if implemented at what are almost impossible levels.

as the issue is not actually tax increases or decreases but the elimination and creation of rebates, a theoretical rebate shift that transfers tax rebates for corporations into tax breaks for consumers would actually be likely to have the effect of increasing demand, and thereby create jobs, if it is large enough. unfortunately, those new jobs will be in asia, not in canada.

the general idea if you want to create jobs is that you want to redistribute wealth from corporations [that just sit on it] to consumers [who will spend it]. but, that logic relies on a country producing things.

in a predominantly service sector economy like canada's, tax policy will have absolutely no effect on job creation. nor will it have any effect on job creation in an extractive economy. it may be news to some that canada is a primarily service sector economy. i guess that happened when you weren't paying attention.

there's lots of things we can try and do to change the nature of the economy. but, as it is, this discussion is entirely propaganda.

there isn't even a hidden, kernel of truth stacked away in there. it's just utterly foolish nonsense.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ndp-corporate-tax-rate-1.3232490

they're pretty much all the same on the very limited set of policies that journalists refer to as "the economy". i know voters continually pick this out, and i was pointing out a few weeks ago that it wasn't at all clear what they meant. and, part of the reason is that if the economy is the dominant voting issue then the 60% turnout rates become justified.

tax rates don't affect the economy. nor do budget deficits, in a strict and literal sense.

i'm *not* going to vote on the economy, but, if i were to do so, i would identify the following priorities:

1) canada benefits from a relatively low dollar. i would want to hear the party leaders come out and state their interest rate policies: do they agree with this and how active will they be to maintain a low dollar? this is really the only lever that the government has over the economy. and, there's no need to pretend the bank is or ought to be independent, either.

2) unfortunately, all three of the major parties support existing trade agreements and they all seek to expand them. what i would like to hear is an acknowledgement that the economy has changed for the worse and ideas on how to adjust to these negative changes, should they continue to support the agreements moving forwards. it would also be nice to hear an explanation that isn't transparently false.

3) i would like to hear one of the parties commit to exploring the idea of a guaranteed annual income. i believe that this is one of the biggest changes that is necessary to adjust to the new world order of "free trade" agreements.

4) although it may mean working against the trade agreements, what steps is the government willing to take to stimulate local production for local consumption and thereby reduce the effects of inflation?

it's not tax rates and budget deficits. nobody cares about these things. nor do they have anything to do with the economy, really.

it's unemployment, wage stagnation, inflation, outsourcing, mechanization, food security, reducing the reliance on imports, the technicalities in the trade agreements...

i suppose i should clarify: i would vote based on all or some of this if there existed some kind of option that deviated from the status quo.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-leaders-debate-economy-1.3231343

in literal terms, this is of absolutely no importance to me. i don't think ordering them to remove the scarf is particularly oppressive. but, i can't think of any good reason why they should be so insistent on it, either. i mean, they don't force you take off your baseball cap, do they?

where do the fashion police fall in the division of powers?

what's more concerning to me is why it's of such apparent interest to the government. what's driving this? it can't be some kind of weird tory nationalism, it's too out to lunch - none of these people are insane quite like that. some of them may be a little unstable, sure, but not in the king and country sense. so, what is it about? surveillance? race baiting to rev up their base? just base authoritarianism?

i don't have a good answer. but, i'd recommend we all be extra special careful to hide our uncool nieces from the self-imposed fashion critics in the pmo.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqab-ruling-appeal-1.3230288

PaleBlueDot
Agreed. A government that can dictate what you *can't* wear is a government that can dictate what you *can* wear.

Jessica Murray
i really think it's entirely a surveillance issue. they want the opportunity to get some good shots in, so they can file them away in a face-recognition database.

CeeDeeEnn
Im curious, if you escaped your "old" country, for a number of big reasons (emigrating is a major undertaking) why would you insist on bringing your "old" attitudes, opinions, etc with you and then insist on imposing them on the new country? Not a fresh start really.

It's not in the Koran, as the koran says both women AND men must dress modestly, yet "men" Imams, have managed to either force and/or brainwash women into thinking only they must hide their personality and faces

Jessica Murray
i just don't think this is a debate. i don't care what people's fashion decisions are. i'm not about to spend the slightest amount of time thinking about it, or trying to figure out why some people prefer scarfs and some other people like green socks or whatever other triviality.

and, as mentioned, i don't think that's really the issue. i think the government is looking for an opportunity to use it's facial-recognition software. they may be appealing to some base racist rhetoric to get the argument to the court, because they can hardly make the argument they'd like to, but what it's actually about is surveillance.

the riding changes should help. the way this was set up to split the cities in four was ridiculous.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/regina-how-did-your-neighbours-vote-in-the-2011-federal-election-1.3231066

i think the way "no seats east of winnipeg" sounds.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-atlantic-sept15-1.3229237

rather, i think i need some coffee when i wake up, before i post on the internet.

i like the way "no seats east of winnipeg" sounds.

see, this is plausible and everything, and i don't want to reject it completely. but, i suspect there's something else going on, related to facial recognition software. i agree it would be very hard to push the voting thing. but, there's no cameras at the voting booth either and should definitely not be any. are there cameras at a citizenship ceremony?

being born here, i'll admit to never having been to a citizenship ceremony, or even knowing much about them. but, even if this is a veiled lob at the base, it's just completely random. why target citizenship ceremonies and not some other random thing?

but, if the ceremony gives the state an opportunity to get people's faces into some kind of a system, it all of a sudden makes sense.

there's a little bit of consistency, too. rather than compare it to the voting thing, let's compare it to something that is maybe a bit more contextual: this government has also made it illegal to protest with a face mask. again, that seems completely random and pointless. until you stop for a moment and realize that they're probably filming the protesters, and the masks interfere with the software.

i'm just speculating, of course. this is actually a job for a real life, investigative journalist. it's maybe a wikileaks upload, if it's not a simple request for information. but, i think i'm on to something...

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/09/16/veiled-threats-the-conservatives-dog-whistle-pitch-for-the-anti-muslim-vote/

thecrucible
If they want a drivers licence, they have to show their full face for a picture. If they want an identification card, they have to show their full face for the picture. The list goes on.

All these situations result in a full face photo on file somewhere. Of everyone, not just new citizens. It doesn't make sense for them to use photos at citizenship ceremonies only.

No, this is purely a political "wedge issue". An attempt to get certain people to focus on one single issue, and get their vote based on that single issue alone. In this case, they are looking for the bigot vote with an appeal to the people afraid of their own shadows as well.

I abhor this kind of politics. I have seen normally thoughtful people get caught up in it. They become so focused on that single issue, they give up thinking about anything else. These same people would once dismiss the Green party supporters because of being "solely focused on the environment", but now they are doing exactly the same. It is psychological manipulation of the worst sort. It is modern day, marketing techniques driven, politics. It is designed to stop people from thinking, and turn them into an emotion driven mob. Wedge politics turns people into single issue voters.

deathtokoalas
but, there's various reasons why using the database for driver's licenses to build a new database of "people of concern" is a problem - there's the legalities of it, to begin with, and also the sheer size of such a thing, and the difficulty of really pulling what you want out of it.

getting people on film at a citizenship ceremony would be a faster, and at least not explicitly illegal, way to build that kind of system. and, as mentioned, there is precedent in it with the face mask law against protesters.

let's not jump to conclusions on the ads. just look at the facts:

1) one has been prime minister for ten years
2) one was a cabinet minister in one of the most important provinces in the country
3) one was a high school drama teacher

you don't need to be brainwashed by obnoxious ads to conclude that trudeau has the least experience, you just need to be informed of the reality of the situation.

but, nobody would have said harper had more experience than martin, either - that would have been foolish. in the end, this is simply not a vote driver. if it were, there would never be any changes of government.

rather, changes of government happen when voters decide that a change of direction is more important than experience and competence. it's always a conscious, calculated risk.

and, it's actually aligning in a consistent arc that has put trudeau in an increasingly better position than mulcair day over day for several weeks, now. mulcair is purposefully trying to campaign as the safe choice in an election where voters have made it clear that they want to roll the dice.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/voters-in-favour-of-liberals-economic-plan-but-unsure-on-trudeau-poll/article26389432/

nobody cares, except the journalists in the anachronism that is the tory media party.

all i hear when they say "balanced budgets" is "cuts in services".

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2015/09/16/this-isnt-the-red-book-its-a-back-page-of-the-red-book-says-h%C3%A9bert-on-ndp-platform/43423

cocaine. clearly.