but, i just want to be clear: i'm not going to argue against the term "black lives matter". i think it's a stupid, semantic debate. they could have done themselves a favour and picked a different slogan; i've suggested "black lives matter, too.". but, the logic is that if you really think that all lives matter then you shouldn't have a problem stating that "black lives matter", even if you append an *.
if XCY and Y==T then X==T.
very simple concept.
what bothers me about them is that they're fucking foucauldians: they're burkean conservatives hiding behind a bunch of absurd language. the idea that black lives matter (too) is maybe the only thing i'll agree with them on.
....that and, as mentioned, i'm fully cognizant of the reality that these multi-chapter groups are all police fronts. which is not to say that some of them aren't real people, so much as to point out that it isn't a real protest movement.
Friday, February 10, 2017
that was a disappointing day: too much ranting.
i should have finished this today. i at least got the framework down.
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/index.html
back at it tomorrow...
i should have finished this today. i at least got the framework down.
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/index.html
back at it tomorrow...
http://www.ward27news.ca/prideandpolice
yeah. i've seen this language before. so, i'm going to translate this for you...
the blm movement is a data mining operation that is infested with cops, who have decided that they no longer want to be involved with the pride festival because they're a bunch of homophobic conservatives. the next step will be to remove funding from city council.
i don't have an opinion: i avoid pride like the plague that it is, and think it probably broadly counteracts queer interests. what pride is is a way for the business community to advertise their inclusiveness, largely at the annoyance of the general population. the money that comes into the festival is mostly from large corporations with nefarious operations. given the context, it's consequently actually probably useful to let the cops participate.
but, i mean, this is typical of foucauldians: they never make any sense. if they're going to protest police involvement on the grounds that it's a type of "queerwashing", they should be protesting the entire festival from the top down.
i mean, look at these sponsors:
http://www.pridetoronto.com/sponsors/
manulife. td. olg. and, you go after the cops? what an absurd farce. or, at least, it would be if it wasn't so obviously false flag.
besides - don't they have any workplaces to organize? well, i suppose they would if they weren't cops, right...
yeah. i've seen this language before. so, i'm going to translate this for you...
the blm movement is a data mining operation that is infested with cops, who have decided that they no longer want to be involved with the pride festival because they're a bunch of homophobic conservatives. the next step will be to remove funding from city council.
i don't have an opinion: i avoid pride like the plague that it is, and think it probably broadly counteracts queer interests. what pride is is a way for the business community to advertise their inclusiveness, largely at the annoyance of the general population. the money that comes into the festival is mostly from large corporations with nefarious operations. given the context, it's consequently actually probably useful to let the cops participate.
but, i mean, this is typical of foucauldians: they never make any sense. if they're going to protest police involvement on the grounds that it's a type of "queerwashing", they should be protesting the entire festival from the top down.
i mean, look at these sponsors:
http://www.pridetoronto.com/sponsors/
manulife. td. olg. and, you go after the cops? what an absurd farce. or, at least, it would be if it wasn't so obviously false flag.
besides - don't they have any workplaces to organize? well, i suppose they would if they weren't cops, right...
a little context, for those (mentally) under 70.
https://albinger.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/pierre-and-justin-trudeau-in-canoe.jpg?w=584
https://albinger.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/pierre-and-justin-trudeau-in-canoe.jpg?w=584
the way that we deal with "not criminally responsible" is incoherent, because we focus the law around the concept of punishment rather than around the concept of prevention.
a punitive system has no choice but to conclude that somebody that is incapable of understanding what they are doing should not be punished for their actions. and, i'll agree that - on that basis - a punishment does seem unfair.
but, a preventative system would conclude that somebody that is incapable of understanding what they are doing couldn't possibly be released because there is no way to conclude that they will not pose a threat to the community.
it is obviously the case that vince li should be in a hospital for the rest of his life, with no chance of release. he walked on to a bus and beheaded somebody. it is absurd to even consider the premise of releasing him, after this. the correct way to arise at this obvious outcome is by avoiding the discussion of whether he should be punished or not and focusing on the question of preventing harm to the community.
once again, we see that socialists have different value systems than conservatives - even when we agree on outcomes.
not criminally responsible should be a life sentence with no parole.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/vince-li-discharge-1.3977278
a punitive system has no choice but to conclude that somebody that is incapable of understanding what they are doing should not be punished for their actions. and, i'll agree that - on that basis - a punishment does seem unfair.
but, a preventative system would conclude that somebody that is incapable of understanding what they are doing couldn't possibly be released because there is no way to conclude that they will not pose a threat to the community.
it is obviously the case that vince li should be in a hospital for the rest of his life, with no chance of release. he walked on to a bus and beheaded somebody. it is absurd to even consider the premise of releasing him, after this. the correct way to arise at this obvious outcome is by avoiding the discussion of whether he should be punished or not and focusing on the question of preventing harm to the community.
once again, we see that socialists have different value systems than conservatives - even when we agree on outcomes.
not criminally responsible should be a life sentence with no parole.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/vince-li-discharge-1.3977278
so, the canadian right is very upset about this following motion:
"That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Iqra-Khalid%2888849%29/Motions?sessionId=152&documentId=8661986
we have our own steve bannon up in canada. his name is ezra levant. you can't believe a word he says; as usual, he's lying through his teeth. i won't repeat what he said, because it's not worth it.
what is my analysis of the motion?
i think that this is a political pastiche of incoherent buzz words designed to increase the profile of the mp. this is cynical self-promotion. for example, consider the following line:
condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination
how do you make sense of the idea of islamophobia as "systemic racism and religious discrimination" in the context of canada, where the entire establishment from the top down is falling all over itself to appear inviting, and the push back is coming from isolated weirdos that live in their parents' basements? the motion is being brought up in the context of the mosque attack, which very clearly demonstrated the reality that the system has work to do in enforcing tolerance from the top down, while the self-identified pure laine quebecois struggle and resist against this elitist push for social engineering.
so, yes: this exposes the flaws of unthinkingly importing theories and language from the united states. it makes sense to speak of "systemic racism" against blacks in georgia, and it even makes sense to speak of "systemic racism" against indigenous groups in canada. but, there is no "systemic racism" against muslims in canada; this is a total fabrication, a complete fiction. there is, rather, a strong social engineering push to manufacture harmony within diversity. but, that's all there really is to it: it's just a bunch of incoherent buzz words strung together for self-interest. if it passes, as a non-binding motion, it means nothing. some students will clap, some old men will jeer. life moves along.
but, what the reaction really draws attention to is the need to define the term islamophobia, especially in the context of hate crimes legislation. how can you vote on a measure like this without defining the idea you're voting on? the mp did not think that through for the simple reason that it's nothing more than a pr stunt. that leaves it to observers to do so.
does this refer to a healthy skepticism of religion, as i've outlined in my previous posts? if so, i could hardly support the motion, and would agree that it's a step backwards towards religious despotism. but, it seems unlikely than anybody intended for this interpretation, or any court would pick it up. does it instead refer to violent attacks on muslims? i would be more likely to support a non-binding resolution in the latter context, but apprehensive in going beyond it as i think the existing laws are more than sufficient.
see, here's the thing: while i'm never going to buy into the narratives presented on the right, because they are so frequently obvious excuses to push racist nonsense, i am actually aware of the reality that free speech is considered incompatible with islam by most muslims. i'm exceedingly apprehensive about religious groups co-opting left-leaning political parties as a consequence of not being welcomed by the right, which is where their views more accurately align. this is actually a legitimate concern.
they have to define islamophobia to clarify their intent; in doing so, they should probably eject the term from the motion and in the future avoid using it altogether. the court would smack something stupid down, here, pretty fast. but, there's little reason to fight a losing battle on multiple fronts that has the potential to cut deep into the party's actual base.
"That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Iqra-Khalid%2888849%29/Motions?sessionId=152&documentId=8661986
we have our own steve bannon up in canada. his name is ezra levant. you can't believe a word he says; as usual, he's lying through his teeth. i won't repeat what he said, because it's not worth it.
what is my analysis of the motion?
i think that this is a political pastiche of incoherent buzz words designed to increase the profile of the mp. this is cynical self-promotion. for example, consider the following line:
condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination
how do you make sense of the idea of islamophobia as "systemic racism and religious discrimination" in the context of canada, where the entire establishment from the top down is falling all over itself to appear inviting, and the push back is coming from isolated weirdos that live in their parents' basements? the motion is being brought up in the context of the mosque attack, which very clearly demonstrated the reality that the system has work to do in enforcing tolerance from the top down, while the self-identified pure laine quebecois struggle and resist against this elitist push for social engineering.
so, yes: this exposes the flaws of unthinkingly importing theories and language from the united states. it makes sense to speak of "systemic racism" against blacks in georgia, and it even makes sense to speak of "systemic racism" against indigenous groups in canada. but, there is no "systemic racism" against muslims in canada; this is a total fabrication, a complete fiction. there is, rather, a strong social engineering push to manufacture harmony within diversity. but, that's all there really is to it: it's just a bunch of incoherent buzz words strung together for self-interest. if it passes, as a non-binding motion, it means nothing. some students will clap, some old men will jeer. life moves along.
but, what the reaction really draws attention to is the need to define the term islamophobia, especially in the context of hate crimes legislation. how can you vote on a measure like this without defining the idea you're voting on? the mp did not think that through for the simple reason that it's nothing more than a pr stunt. that leaves it to observers to do so.
does this refer to a healthy skepticism of religion, as i've outlined in my previous posts? if so, i could hardly support the motion, and would agree that it's a step backwards towards religious despotism. but, it seems unlikely than anybody intended for this interpretation, or any court would pick it up. does it instead refer to violent attacks on muslims? i would be more likely to support a non-binding resolution in the latter context, but apprehensive in going beyond it as i think the existing laws are more than sufficient.
see, here's the thing: while i'm never going to buy into the narratives presented on the right, because they are so frequently obvious excuses to push racist nonsense, i am actually aware of the reality that free speech is considered incompatible with islam by most muslims. i'm exceedingly apprehensive about religious groups co-opting left-leaning political parties as a consequence of not being welcomed by the right, which is where their views more accurately align. this is actually a legitimate concern.
they have to define islamophobia to clarify their intent; in doing so, they should probably eject the term from the motion and in the future avoid using it altogether. the court would smack something stupid down, here, pretty fast. but, there's little reason to fight a losing battle on multiple fronts that has the potential to cut deep into the party's actual base.
i think that a body of evidence is emerging that trump has been successfully brainwashed by the christians. frankly, i think he's an easy target....
https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-wants-to-tear-down-the-wall/
https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-wants-to-tear-down-the-wall/
we're all going to spend the next eight to twelve years fighting christians tooth and nail on everything imaginable, and while we can rely on strong solidarity from non-believers of middle eastern descent, we will not get an ounce of it from practicing muslims, who will align with the christians at every step of the way.
wake up, guys.
you're fighting the wrong battle...
wake up, guys.
you're fighting the wrong battle...
actually, i think that all sane people should fear islam; if you're not afraid of muslims, you need to get your head checked. but, you should also fear christians and jews and buddhists and...
the reason is that these people want to tell you how to live your life. they want to enforce repressive systems of thought, and reject anybody that is different from them. they want draconian laws. your ignorance on the matter doesn't change the reality of the situation.
so, this term "islamophobia" is kind of stupid - as though islam is something we shouldn't fear, and it is irrational to be afraid of religion. right. people that read books that advocate stoning people in public shouldn't be feared. there's nothing at all that is scary about people that believe that quasi-historical figures rode chariots to heaven. and, thinking somebody died for your sins 2000 years ago, and is going to return from the dead and separate the righteous from the wicked? there's nothing loopy about that at all (or in thinking a messiah is on the way, to smite the enemies of your race, for that matter). this is all perfectly reasonable - not at all crazy. what's crazy is fearing this.
i mean, you can be naive about this, if you want. but, i'm not going to follow you into a future of religious despotism. i will stand up for secularism at every step of the way. and, if that upsets you then i guess we're not on the same side.
know your history, people: religion experiences down points, but it doesn't moderate. there's no such thing as a "moderate christian" or a "moderate muslim". the inherently extremist nature of religion always remains dormant, waiting for an opportunity to seize power. you may think that secularism is dominant, but the religious right is about to seize power in the united states in a way that it perhaps never has. reproductive rights are going to experience serious setbacks. science is under serious attack. mike pence is the fucking vice president. and, what side are the muslims on? they're on the same side as the christians.
we have to remain vigilant - or we're going to suffer the consequences.
the reason is that these people want to tell you how to live your life. they want to enforce repressive systems of thought, and reject anybody that is different from them. they want draconian laws. your ignorance on the matter doesn't change the reality of the situation.
so, this term "islamophobia" is kind of stupid - as though islam is something we shouldn't fear, and it is irrational to be afraid of religion. right. people that read books that advocate stoning people in public shouldn't be feared. there's nothing at all that is scary about people that believe that quasi-historical figures rode chariots to heaven. and, thinking somebody died for your sins 2000 years ago, and is going to return from the dead and separate the righteous from the wicked? there's nothing loopy about that at all (or in thinking a messiah is on the way, to smite the enemies of your race, for that matter). this is all perfectly reasonable - not at all crazy. what's crazy is fearing this.
i mean, you can be naive about this, if you want. but, i'm not going to follow you into a future of religious despotism. i will stand up for secularism at every step of the way. and, if that upsets you then i guess we're not on the same side.
know your history, people: religion experiences down points, but it doesn't moderate. there's no such thing as a "moderate christian" or a "moderate muslim". the inherently extremist nature of religion always remains dormant, waiting for an opportunity to seize power. you may think that secularism is dominant, but the religious right is about to seize power in the united states in a way that it perhaps never has. reproductive rights are going to experience serious setbacks. science is under serious attack. mike pence is the fucking vice president. and, what side are the muslims on? they're on the same side as the christians.
we have to remain vigilant - or we're going to suffer the consequences.
so, this process was a little slower yesterday than i'd have liked it
to be, and i'm slow getting back to it today, but i'm about to get back
to it and expect to get at least most of it done by the end of the day.
the air quality is poor this morning, but it's middling: the fan is enough. but it's annoying. i'll be glad when it warms up enough that i can just keep the windows open all of the time.
i'm firming up saturday as a night out. it's going to depend on how i feel tomorrow. but, i'm actually really not at all interested in anything on the bill; it's all very generic and largely boring. it's the kind of thing that's all image and no substance. it's billing itself as an "industrial" festival, but i'd describe it more as a bunch of millenial hipsters imagining what they think industrial was through the filter of bad films and shitty books. see, i'm willing to shrug all that off, though, for the opportunity to just dance all night. but, i'm a little iffy on the weather. if i don't go, that's a shame; but, i don't feel like i'm missing anything, either. the actual upside is that i'm definitely going to miss the bus, so i'd end up at the works for the rest of the night. that really extends the night. but, the walk is...i dunno...i'm still thinking about it...
if i go, it's going to be against my better instincts. but, i kind of want to support the festival, too, even if i think it's a little weak to start off with, because it's at least a good idea.
for right now, i want to get back to it and hopefully get close to finishing...
the air quality is poor this morning, but it's middling: the fan is enough. but it's annoying. i'll be glad when it warms up enough that i can just keep the windows open all of the time.
i'm firming up saturday as a night out. it's going to depend on how i feel tomorrow. but, i'm actually really not at all interested in anything on the bill; it's all very generic and largely boring. it's the kind of thing that's all image and no substance. it's billing itself as an "industrial" festival, but i'd describe it more as a bunch of millenial hipsters imagining what they think industrial was through the filter of bad films and shitty books. see, i'm willing to shrug all that off, though, for the opportunity to just dance all night. but, i'm a little iffy on the weather. if i don't go, that's a shame; but, i don't feel like i'm missing anything, either. the actual upside is that i'm definitely going to miss the bus, so i'd end up at the works for the rest of the night. that really extends the night. but, the walk is...i dunno...i'm still thinking about it...
if i go, it's going to be against my better instincts. but, i kind of want to support the festival, too, even if i think it's a little weak to start off with, because it's at least a good idea.
for right now, i want to get back to it and hopefully get close to finishing...
one of the things that trump has talked about is "eliminating the food police".
i kind of like having a food police. and, as a member of a foreign country, i'm kind of apprehensive of importing food from a country that doesn't have a food police, anymore.
it turns out that we're going to have to renegotiate the trade agreement we have with the united states. can we ensure that we retain the ability to block imports that don't meet stringent regulatory requirements?
i kind of like having a food police. and, as a member of a foreign country, i'm kind of apprehensive of importing food from a country that doesn't have a food police, anymore.
it turns out that we're going to have to renegotiate the trade agreement we have with the united states. can we ensure that we retain the ability to block imports that don't meet stringent regulatory requirements?
i have very little respect for paul wells, but i agree with him on this. we have to be firm, no doubt. but just about the worst thing we could do is send somebody down there that is going to talk over trump.
george w. bush took a particular liking to tony blair. blair could have exploited this better, even if the feeling wasn't mutual. but, the reason that dubya like him is that he didn't speak down to him, and he didn't threaten him. chretien and martin had a lot harder time trying to juggle their contempt - which, to be fair, was a lot deeper.
trump doesn't want to deal with strong egos. he doesn't want to be talked down to. he doesn't want to be grovelled at, either. and, he likes to be around attractive people, too.
trudeau's weaknesses are in his grasp of policy, not in his people skills. he'll be fine. and, i'd actually struggle to suggest a better alternative.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/02/09/a-face-to-face-meeting-is-trudeaus-best-bet-for-dealing-with-trump-paul-wells.html
george w. bush took a particular liking to tony blair. blair could have exploited this better, even if the feeling wasn't mutual. but, the reason that dubya like him is that he didn't speak down to him, and he didn't threaten him. chretien and martin had a lot harder time trying to juggle their contempt - which, to be fair, was a lot deeper.
trump doesn't want to deal with strong egos. he doesn't want to be talked down to. he doesn't want to be grovelled at, either. and, he likes to be around attractive people, too.
trudeau's weaknesses are in his grasp of policy, not in his people skills. he'll be fine. and, i'd actually struggle to suggest a better alternative.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/02/09/a-face-to-face-meeting-is-trudeaus-best-bet-for-dealing-with-trump-paul-wells.html
i mean, let's take a step back and understand what's happening from a distance.
1) the ban is a political tactic to distract from things like the collapse ofglass-steagall dodd-frank, or the return of the dapl. trump himself has pointed out that he's not getting any push back on dapl. of course he isn't; that's what the muslim ban is for. this logically follows directly from the campaign, which generated xenophobia as a way to distract from the economy.
2) as such, the ban is temporary. the administration knows it's unconstitutional. they know it's a waste of time; that's the entire point.
3) the judiciary is actually taking the bait in pushing down unusual and obviously political rulings, but we'll have to see how long that goes on for.
if the judiciary would have ruled in favour of the ban, it would have run out. if they rule against it in the end, it still runs out. this outcome is not in question: it will be gone in a few months. but, what is he ramming through while you're not paying attention?
1) the ban is a political tactic to distract from things like the collapse of
2) as such, the ban is temporary. the administration knows it's unconstitutional. they know it's a waste of time; that's the entire point.
3) the judiciary is actually taking the bait in pushing down unusual and obviously political rulings, but we'll have to see how long that goes on for.
if the judiciary would have ruled in favour of the ban, it would have run out. if they rule against it in the end, it still runs out. this outcome is not in question: it will be gone in a few months. but, what is he ramming through while you're not paying attention?
"The government argued that not having the
refugee and visa ban in place would cause the United States immediate
harm, by increasing the risk of a terrorist attack.
That argument has often inspired deference from judges;
they don’t think it’s their job to weigh security risks. But the Ninth
Circuit has rejected it.
The states in this case have argued that — from its origins as a
campaign promise to ban “Muslims” from entering the US to President
Trump’s promise, the day the executive order was signed, to make an
exception to the refugee ban for “Middle Eastern Christians” — there’s a
lot of evidence that this ban is discriminatory in a way that’s too
blatant for the courts to ignore."
but, this isn't an argument.
the precedent, from my understanding, and certainly in canada, is that the judges really don't think it's their job to weigh security risks, or interfere with executive orders of this nature. that's the norm that was always in place.
so, it's never ok for the judges to assume the role of the executive branch, except when they decide that it is because their actions are "discriminatory"?
i mean, everybody knows that the courts wouldn't rule this way on search and seizure rights, or even on freedom of assembly. why is discrimination more important than freedom of assembly?
vox probably has the right answer:
they really didn’t like the federal government’s contention that the executive order is beyond the scope of the courts to review at all.
right. of course.
this is a power struggle, no doubt informed by the judiciary buying into the media narrative about trump being an autocrat. and, keep in mind that conservatives and liberals both bought into this. i don't think pointing to reagan or bush appointees is some way out of a critical analysis.
i'm not arguing against the likelihood that the order is probably going to be declared unconstitutional, i'm just very surprised that this is being used as a reason to stop the ban, given that it normally wouldn't be (consider laws on wiretapping, or orders to clear public spaces - and canada has a process in the constitution for this situation). and, i have to again suggest that this is a political ruling, rather than a legal one - and that some attention should be drawn to this, even if you agree with it.
"We hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success
on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a
stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency
motion for a stay."
see, this is a different argument, and i think it speaks to the incoherency of the order in the first place. even so, i'm a little surprised that they took the approach of arguing that the illegality of the order overpowered the separation of powers; the exact opposite would have happened in canada. and, we're supposed to have the more powerful judiciary....
let's consider the possibility that the court would have allowed the ban to come back into force. it would have been appealed, for precedent if nothing else. but, by the time the appeal would have been heard, the ban would be over. what happens then? do the groups drop the appeal?
see, it is for this reason that i would have argued it more likely that the courts would step back and let the executive implement it's power. but, it seems to rather be arguing that the entire thing is a waste of time. and, i must again point to this zealous use of power by the judiciary as a bit of an ominous problem. they're vetoing an executive order, here...
...but, now, the problem has been shifted to the administration: what is the point of appealing a gag on an order that is going to run out before the appeal is finished? and, if that happens, the only logic towards reapplying the ban is that they were incompetent at resolving the issues the ban was put in place to resolve.
see, this is a different argument, and i think it speaks to the incoherency of the order in the first place. even so, i'm a little surprised that they took the approach of arguing that the illegality of the order overpowered the separation of powers; the exact opposite would have happened in canada. and, we're supposed to have the more powerful judiciary....
let's consider the possibility that the court would have allowed the ban to come back into force. it would have been appealed, for precedent if nothing else. but, by the time the appeal would have been heard, the ban would be over. what happens then? do the groups drop the appeal?
see, it is for this reason that i would have argued it more likely that the courts would step back and let the executive implement it's power. but, it seems to rather be arguing that the entire thing is a waste of time. and, i must again point to this zealous use of power by the judiciary as a bit of an ominous problem. they're vetoing an executive order, here...
...but, now, the problem has been shifted to the administration: what is the point of appealing a gag on an order that is going to run out before the appeal is finished? and, if that happens, the only logic towards reapplying the ban is that they were incompetent at resolving the issues the ban was put in place to resolve.
pro-tip: the reasons doctors don't say what i'm saying is not because they disagree (they know i'm right...), but because they don't think
it will work. they're convinced that north americans are hopeless, fat
slobs with irreversibly sedentary lifestyles, and they'll never get
anywhere telling them to decrease their total intake. so, they just give up on them and try and tweak their diets, instead.
when your doctor tells you to change your diet, this is harm reduction. the actual solution is to modify your energy intake to be more in line with your energy expenditure so that you aren't storing fuel for later, and then internally imploding like the scene from se7en.
when your doctor tells you to change your diet, this is harm reduction. the actual solution is to modify your energy intake to be more in line with your energy expenditure so that you aren't storing fuel for later, and then internally imploding like the scene from se7en.
not only is sugar certainly not terrible for you, it is the only fuel that your body understands.
you are not a hybrid vehicle. you take sugar. that's it.
so, virtually everything you eat is converted to glucose along the way. if you eat the glucose straight, your body just requires less energy in converting it. that is all.
that said, if you eat too much sugar then your body needs to find a way to store it, and that is where you get the various problems that are said to be associated with sugar, such as high cholesterol and diabetes.
but, the actual blunt reality is that these are actually not problems with sugar but problems with over-eating. it's really just a simple conservation of energy problem: if you don't eat too much, then your body won't store it the wrong way.
once again: the issue is not what you eat, but how much you eat. you are not what you eat. you are how much you eat.
so, don't worry too much about that errant can of pop or that odd bag of doritos. just watch the total intake.
you are not a hybrid vehicle. you take sugar. that's it.
so, virtually everything you eat is converted to glucose along the way. if you eat the glucose straight, your body just requires less energy in converting it. that is all.
that said, if you eat too much sugar then your body needs to find a way to store it, and that is where you get the various problems that are said to be associated with sugar, such as high cholesterol and diabetes.
but, the actual blunt reality is that these are actually not problems with sugar but problems with over-eating. it's really just a simple conservation of energy problem: if you don't eat too much, then your body won't store it the wrong way.
once again: the issue is not what you eat, but how much you eat. you are not what you eat. you are how much you eat.
so, don't worry too much about that errant can of pop or that odd bag of doritos. just watch the total intake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)