i actually think i've been pretty clear for a long time and from the start: i'm very much an eighteenth century classical anarchist (which was the sister ideology to classical liberalism), tied to concepts of historical progress and obsessed with the epistemological superiority of the scientific method.

i have no interest in structuralism, post-structuralism, post-(post-structuralism) or any other system of thinking that wants to throw away the intellectual rigour of the classical period. i live in the world of bertrand russell and isaac asimov, not the world of michel foucault and angela davis.

so, yes: i'm as staunchly pro-science as i am anti-religion. yes, i think they're in conflict. yes, i think one will have to defeat the other. no, i don't think they can co-exist. and, i'm not interested in organizing with people that think this kind of plurality is possible; i actually consider that to be right-wing, reactionary and conservative.

i want a society rooted in science from the ground up, with the eventual relegation of all religion to the dustbin of history.

and, i think the left ought to be aggressive in pushing forward with that aim. this is a conflict the left ought to relish.

i just ultimately can't grasp why anybody pushing for religious pluralism would choose to identify on the left. it's just simply not a left-wing idea; it's pretty much the definition of the historical conservative movement. the left has always been about abolishing religion; it is the right that has been about concepts of "class harmony".

so, sure: i very well might come off as some old school eurocentric liberal that looks down on half the world as outside of historical progress and in need of serious systemic reform. the reason i would come off that way is that it's actually true - and, i'm not going to apologize for it because i think it's actually correct, and my opponents - people arguing against it - are in truth deep cultural conservatives that want to stop progress and need to be opposed and stopped, using whatever means are necessary.

that said, it's 2017, not 1817. as an empiricist, i have an obligation to look at data that we have available to us today that was not available then and learn from it. we must acknowledge that the methods that the left used in the past to abolish traditional ways of life were not successful, and should be evolved as best they can be.

in the end, i don't have a problem admitting that i'm not on your side, but i will insist that i am on the left, and you are not - and try and push you out to where you should be, rather than retreat to rebuild.

if you want to ensure that you don't get stopped at the border, do the following:

1) be sober.
2) dress like a respectable adult.
3) be honest.

it's your choice of clothing, in conjunction with your skin colour, that is going to get you stopped, not your history of drug use.

if you must show up with chains around your neck, prominent tattoos and messy facial hair, they'll be more likely to let you through if you admit it. the thing that's most likely to get you stopped is if they think you're lying to them - and they will think you're lying to them, even if you're not.

the only problems i've had at the border are with people noticing that i'm tanned, and then questioning me on my status as a canadian. i don't know if they thought i was mexican or something else, but the only reason they've ever stopped me is on that suspicion of lying to them about my citizenship - and this is with advanced clearance.

wrong.

i've admitted marijuana use to border people at least a dozen times, and i was given advanced border clearance.

this lawyer is clueless - and his attitude is exactly what is wrong with this society. it's about discretion. and, so long as you don't look like a thug or a dirty hippie, you'll probably be fine.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3768753/marijuana-us-border-canada-len-saunders/

they should make a religious festival out of this.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4551926/belgian-cops-fear-missing-daughter-bbq-cooked-by-mum/

i didn't believe it, really.

i guess i thought they'd converge.

but, would hillary get a bill on daca through? or renegotiate nafta? and, would she have invaded anybody yet?

they're all evil. don't misunderstand me, here. but, maybe jill stein was right: maybe the lesser evil was trump, after all.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/29/85299/

there's a realignment happening.

i was never a democrat, or a liberal for that matter. so, i'm not going to become a republican any time soon. but, i think the lesser evil is flipping.

they set themselves up, man.  don't look at me. i'm just being consistent with my own values. and, the whole thing is flipping over.

"i didn't leave the democratic party..."

yeah.

you know what? it's official.

fuck america. i'm on russia's side. eat it.

personally, i always thought canada had more in common with the russians, anyways.

i'm just barely old enough to remember the tail end of the cold war as it played out in 80s media - the stallones and the arnolds. i was very young; i turned 10 in 1991. and, so, i don't know if it's some kind of ultraparadoxical phase or something, but i never found it obvious that i ought to be cheering for the americans as i was being brainwashed as a young child. it was clear there was something epic going on, but it was less clear which side i ought to pick.

i knew i was canadian, and i knew i had a rivalry with the americans because i was a canadian. i knew far less about the russians. sure - we had common cause in being antagonistic with the americans, so there was the whole enemy of your enemy thing. but, what little bit of exposure i had to the russians just legitimately seemed more familiar a lot of the time.

the hockey. the bears. the outdoors. the economy. and, i'm finnish on my mom's side and native american on my dad's side, so i'm practically russian, right? the natives and the finns both ultimately came from siberia. what i'm getting at is that they even looked more similar; the reality is that you can walk around for days in canada and never meet an african.

i know that the americans are being led down a path with this, but i'd guesstimate that the likelihood of me being swept up into this is...it's zero. there's no way.

but, the decision to get involved in a war of aggression against russia is one of a small number of things that can absolutely ensure i will not be voting liberal....ever, ever, ever again.

i knew this guy was an airhead, but this is beyond reasonable expectations. really. what the fuck...

i, for one, have no interest at all in defending the country from any invasion by the russians.

"dude, the rink's that way. wait, do you want a beer? vodka. right. of course."

we'll kill the generals on our own side.

sending "peacekeeping" troops to ukraine is batshit fucking insane.

the actual reason that i voted liberal in 2015 was due to the proposed green infrastructure bank, which was being presented as a subsidiary of the bank of canada and essentially as a way to print as much money as is needed to get us off the dirty energy.

there were other reasons. my local ndp candidate is a dirty fucking anti-science hippie, and i couldn't - and still won't - vote for her. i have zero tolerance for anti-vaxxers or anti-gmo types. on top of that, i found muclair's rhetoric on oil to be a hundred years out of date - he was still living in the world that trudeau's father lived in, where a strong national energy sector was a blessing to be used to fund social services (never mind the oil curse, let alone climate change). mulcair flatly sounded like he was more interested in maximizing tax revenue from oil profits than he was in shutting the tar sands down.

but, i could have voted green, or not voted at all. i did vote liberal, and the infrastructure bank was fundamental in that. if we could get a good idea or two out of it, right?

unfortunately, this idea appears to have disappeared from the mouth of trudeau, as well as from the party's literature. they've had to squirm out of a lot of broken promises; this is something they just don't talk about at all. it's as though it was never there.

nothing's changed except the urgency of action. and, in the end, my vote in 2019 will most likely reduce to what i think is a best option for carbon transition - although i must state up front that if she manages to win, she's going to have to fight the oil interests out of her own party before she can legislate against them, and i'm not particularly convinced that she would be that option, even if she did win. this is likely mostly just talk....

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/09/25/news/niki-ashton-has-plan-fix-trudeaus-patchwork-green-funding