this should maybe get the point across a little, in terms of the left's broad rejection of "religious freedom", which was always a bourgeois idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_religion

listen: i'm obviously not a conservative, and you're a buffoon if that's your take-away from this blog.

i'm a communist. ok?

if you're looking for an alt-right hero, i'm not going to be of much use to you in the long run. trust me on this point. it just happens to be that we're in a moment where the spectrum is flipped on immigration, and the so-called "left" is taking traditionally "tory" positions that benefit capital over workers under a veneer of faux humanitarianism, while the right is taking traditionally "left" positions that put the interests of workers ahead of those of capital.

i've deconstructed this already in this space.

further, the left has never supported "religious freedom"; it has always seen religion as a tool of control by capital. the fundamentally irreformable and intrinsically oppressive nature of religion was maybe the strongest point of agreement between marx and bakunin. "religious freedom" is always an oxymoron because all religion is always oppression. it is one of the points where liberals really expose themselves as nincompoops...

"i support the freedom to abide by a set of arbitrary rules and give away 30% of my income to a corrupt hierarchy that oppresses others based on identifiable characteristics!" - said no leftist, ever.

so, i mean, don't like what i'm saying if you want. that's fine. but, place me on the spectrum correctly, please: i exist on the extreme left, and in a culture where "liberal" means "tory" and "conservative" means "idiot". and, i've been clear to point out the genealogy, as well, so that you can look up where i'm coming from.

...or, maybe the reason that i eat peasant foods is that my ancestors were peasants, on both sides. and, maybe they never really transcended their peasant background, either. and, maybe i'm not only not ashamed of that but willing to be proud of it.

i think a part of the reason that i'm more attracted to allowing "illegal" immigrants to stay, and interested in stopping the government from facilitating the flow of "legal" refugees, is that there's a bit of a darwinian basis to it.

i've very loudly trumpeted the benefits of a merit-based immigration system, and been lukewarm about accepting refugees precisely because it's not merit-based. we only take the strongest immigrants we can find, but then we ruin all of this good work by literally absorbing the weakest refugees we can scour the world for. then, we applaud ourselves (like the good tories that we are) for our noblesse oblige in "protecting the most vulnerable".

that's gotta stop. we're a fraction of the world's population. we should protect our own most vulnerable. but, we need to let the other peoples of the world protect their own, and fight their own battles - and do what we can to help from a distance through multi-lateral institutions, like the united nations.

there are exceptions...

but, broadly speaking, i want to accept the strongest refugees, not the weakest ones. and, you do that by picking the ones that survived tremendous odds in finding their way here, not the ones that sat in a un refugee camp with a grade two education for ten years and are going to end up wards of the state for life when they get here, as they insist that they be allowed to follow their customs, even when they contradict our laws.

see, i'd like to see them buy out the *generation*. it's not the hydro one sale that's boosting the prices, and the sad truth is that the ndp *does* know that - they're just not willing to actually take on the electricity generators.

as frustrating as this truth is, the liberals are going to remain the better option, here, until i see a serious proposal from the ndp about taking public control of the actual generation.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hydro-price-plan-kathleen-wynne-1.4006021

but, it's disingenuous. i mean, what's your prerogative, here?

i've been clear, repeatedly: it's the organized refugee intake systems that i'm opposed to. putting people on planes and flying them in is something that we should basically never do. but, if you can manage to transport yourself from iraq to canada in order to claim asylum, i'm in full favour of giving you a fair hearing - and taking a very wide interpretation of the laws.

again: we don't need more low skill labour. but, we could use the kind of character that allows a person to make that kind of journey undetected. that kind of determination should generate a lot of respect...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/manley-border-thrid-country-deal-1.4005895

so, it's consistent - it takes the aspirin about an hour and a half to take effect, and over two hours to really work. when the aspirin is working, i can feel the headache as a dull stab in the back of my sinuses, if that makes sense, but it doesn't overtake me - it allows me to function. the aspirin then works in keeping the headache manageable for roughly 20 hours, before it gets debilitating again.

the last several times i took tylenol, it did not work at all.

i am neither a chemist nor a doctor, but the evidence in front of me suggests that the aspirin is functioning as an anti-coagulant, rather than as an anti-inflammatory drug. the reasons for this are due to the ineffectiveness of tylenol and both the delay in aspirin working, and the length of time it lasts for.

i am going to bring myself back to the hospital over night under the premises of concerns about clotting, and hope they can advise on immediate steps in a way that avoids a catscan.

i am probably not at risk for a heart attack, but i may be at risk for a stroke. and, i may have actually had a stroke on that night, due to the interaction of nicotine with estrogen.

it's true, dammit.

if you know, you know. if you don't....try it, man....then you'll know...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psychology-masala/201204/cannabis-and-creativity

actually, i think i know what an "innovation budget" is - it means legalizing weed.

because we all know that the best way to be innovative is to smoke a bowl, right?

ok.

i ain't dead yet...put the champagne away for at least another day...

the windows are closed. and, my headache is back, albeit not as bad as it was two days ago.

it's been long enough for me to take some more aspirin, and we will see in two-three hours from now if the relief is in the form of aspirin or fresh air, which will answer a more fundamental question: do i have a blood clot in my head?

if the aspirin resolves the pain, i am going to conclude that i do actually have a blood cot, and i'm going back to the hospital with this new evidence, which i believe eliminates the need for a cat scan in moving forwards.

hey. i'm a math nerd. this is what i do: i solve problems. and, i'm right. and, if you're a doctor, you know it, too.

what is an "innovation budget"?

and, why do we have an "innovation minister", anyways?

again: these are just buzzwords. this government doesn't care about governing, it's just focused on constant campaigning. they are at best contradictions in terms and at worst incoherent drivel. and, it's the same kind of absurd language you heard coming from harper.

i still don't know if harper's "economic action plan" was a four-year plan for the economy, or a five-year plan for the economy. nobody ever answered that question for me...

i'll state the obvious: innovation is something that happens by accident. you don't plan for it. you don't budget around it. rather, you adjust to it when you see it. and, if there's a way for a government to create an "innovation budget", it is by funding research blindly, and not trying to micromanage where it ends up.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/morneau-us-canada-budget-1.4005543