and, if your ambitions are to smile as you kill, please turn your ambitions upon yourself.

i think the claim that i lack ambition is pretty obviously false.

rather, my argument is that a market-driven, competitive society makes actual ambition virtually impossible to actualize. i mean, look around you. it's a constant. in order to be successful, you have to throw your ambitions away, first.

there's room at the top, they're telling you still
but first you must learn to smile as you kill...

all that ambition is ever going to get you in this society is a one way ticket to permanent poverty.

and that is what you see in front of you when you look at me.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard

don't trust the corporate polling.

they lie.

to your face.

repeatedly.

https://climateactionnetwork.ca/2015/04/07/61-of-canadians-say-protecting-the-climate-more-important-than-pipelines-and-tarsands/

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

so, what am i even doing?

well, i've just been sitting here ranting for a long time. i'm kind of feeling in limbo, between things.

i keep trying to do the cleaning i need to do in here, so i can sit down and get back to work, but i keep getting distracted. and, i've actually barely slept in days.

i think i'm going to get some work done for the night, and try to focus on the prep for the week tomorrow. the end point is doing laundry & tucking myself into bed to finish the rest of the rebuild, but it will have to wait yet another day before i get that in motion.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i might suggest trying a $50 bicycle with a $100 lock, next time.

i paid $30 (usd) for one to leave in detroit, + $30 (cad) for a lock, and i think it's still there.

i should check soon.

https://www.straight.com/life/1033991/bike-twitter-users-bought-replace-ivans-stolen-bikehas-been-stolen

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

in other news, i hear that congress has put out a related secondary warrant on charlotte & emily bronte, sisters, for posing as men, for the purposes of influencing public opinion.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

no.

nothing i've seen about the alleged russian involvement "tests the limits of free expression".

this is basic, garden variety free speech, long established, and a guilty verdict would set a precedent that would extend a chilling effect to to every corner of the internet.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

wow.

this is really fundamental. textbook first amendment.

if these russians are indicted, it will end free expression in the united states and reduce the bill of rights to a sad joke.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i don't know exactly how broadly applicable the first amendment is to non-citizens in the united states.

but, if past precedent is not wide enough to acquit those that are charged, a new precedent should be developed that is wide enough to acquit.

can we get the aclu involved, as well as other civil rights groups, please?

you should be shocked by this, alright.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

this is what i told you from day one, though.

russiagate is a ploy to take away your rights and extend the powers of the security state.

if it's not obvious to you at this point, you're hopeless.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i'm sorry, but what crime is being committed here?

i'd like to see the court come down hard on the justice department here, in extending constuitutional protections of free speech to these russian citizens.

and, i guess you need to watch your mouth when you speak in america nowadays, don't you?

you might get charged with the thoughtcrime of freedom of expression.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/us-special-counsels-office-charges-13-russian-nationals-with-interfering-in-politics/article38006035/

jagmeet singh must cut his beard

the senate marijuana vote is scheduled for the same day as the ontario provincial election.

are they going to vote it down outright and hope nobody reports on it?

sober second thought, huh?

it's too brazen...too contemptuous....but, this government is not learning from it's errors...

so, i don't know exactly why, yet. but that's not a coincidence.

jameet singh must cut his beard.

it's funny how these aristocrats always end up in the wrong party, though, isn't it?

the dauphin is obviously a conservative, whereas the younger mulroney appears as though she'd be more comfortable in the liberal party.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

if mulroney pulls out, it doesn't change much, the votes just go directly to elliot.

but, what if tga pulls out?

then ford's life gets a little harder, as those votes mostly go to mulroney first.

let's say first choices are this:

ford: 48%
mulroney - 27%
elliot: 25%

you would expect elliot's votes to go mostly to mulroney. but, ford isn't going to need many of them...

i guess the way to say it is this: the new candidate turns a probable ford victory into a guaranteed one, via vote splitting with female voters.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

yeah.

it's early.

but these are my predictions of the outcome of the race, after the ranked balloting works itself out (subject to change as more evidence comes in):

1. doug ford - 55%
2. christine elliot - 20%
3. tga. - 15% ----> votes go mostly to ford (because it's psychologically different to rank ford second)
4. caroline mulroney - 10%  ----> votes go mostly to elliot

the wild card entry really eliminates any chance that mulroney has of winning.

she should focus on her seat.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

so, what's with this wildcard late entry, this tanya granic allen?

last minute entries are usually fronts for somebody looking to split the vote. and, on first glance, it may appear that somebody wants to cut into ford's base.

i don't think so, actually.

identity politics is a terrible virus that must be destroyed, but, so long as it is here, we have to analyze it. and, there are certain demographics that are well understood, through empirical analysis, to vote almost entirely on identity. obama got something like 98% of the black vote.

women are currently also another group that prioritizes identity over ideology in making decisions. i say this with no happiness; i wish it were not true, and i hope it changes, over time. but, in the present moment, the reality is that women vote for women.

so, running a third woman on the right - that is different than the two in the middle - is probably an attempt to siphon identity votes away from the two centrist candidates. she's meant to appeal to women that prefer ford's politics, but will vote for a woman, if possible, no matter what, anyways.

will it cut into ford? probably not, because he's so polarizing. i don't expect ford's numbers to move much in either direction.

now, deductive logic doesn't mean anything in reality. but, if they're running her to eat into ford's base, it's poorly thought through (which would finger mulroney rather than elliot - and do remember that mulroney is the establishment candidate, here).

given how far to the right the tory base is, this wildcard entry could even beat one or both of the two centrist female candidates.

based solely on an identity politics analysis in the tory base, i would expect tga to beat mulroney, at least.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i could plausibly be in the list.

hope so...

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-write-off-200-million-in-student-loans-feds-will-never-collect-1.3806500

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

also: i'm not convinced trudeau is interested in running for another term.

i think he'd prefer to move to hollywood to focus on his acting career, frankly.

i mean, this is when and not if, right? trudeau will eventually end up working in film. the question is about when he gets bored with what he's doing, which is no doubt tied to what kind of opportunities exist in front of him.

the point i'm making is that we may find that electoral factors are less important of a consideration to trudeau over the second half of this mandate. he could very well be close to zero fucks territory, and if doesn't happen now, it will no doubt happen in the next cycle.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

so, how are they going to do this?

they're going to drag this along until the end of the year, and then pro-rogue parliament some time in late 2018 or early 2019.

the truth is that this session is already far too long. they should have reset parliament at least once already.

it would be very strange if they didn't do this some time in the next 6-12 months.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard

it seems like what we're going to end up with here is not an industry focused on domestic consumption, but an industry focused on export (for medical use).

canada is, of course, a colonial state. we exist to mine resources for export. and, that's what the government is actually doing: setting up that industry for that reason.

don't be surprised if we're still talking about local decriminalization ten years from now, while we're living off tax revenue from exports.

i fully expect it to be legal in michigan before it is in ontario.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard

this gets to the heart of the point of why i don't want an elected senate: it's just going to create gridlock, and slow things down.

until trudeau ruined the senate, in an apparent attempt to americanize the way our system operates, which has never been functionally bicameral,  we had a massive advantage in the way our government worked: because we only had one house to pass legislation in, we are able to avoid all of the petty nonsense that comes in sending legislation back and forth between houses, as well as all of the superfluous study.

the reality is that the senate is not going to do anything the house hasn't already done. doing the same thing twice is wasteful and inefficient. if we were going to reform this, it should have been to make the process faster and cheaper, not slower and more expensive.

again: these changes are not enshrined in any law. these are just procedural changes. and, they will not survive justin trudeau's mandate.

in the mean time, we're just going to have to be patient, until we can undo it.

https://www.straight.com/cannabis/1033756/unelected-hacks-canadian-senate-delay-marijuana-legalization

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

but, just a reminder:

i don't care if i'm popular.

i care if i'm correct.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i want to clarify the context a little.

because when i was 8 or 9 years old, i didn't know that my dad had this history, where he really had his life changed about ten years earlier by a dirty knee-on-knee hit. the way he explained it is that it literally blew his knee out, and that it never healed properly. but, i couldn't have known any of this.

he just didn't talk about it. and, i don't think i ever saw him on a pair of skates.

it wasn't until years later that he filled me in, on a drive through the place he grew up in, an impoverished and crime-filled district in west ottawa ('bayshore') called the ritchie street project. it's around the britannia pier.

rather, the dad that i knew as a young child was not a hockey player but a scholar!

my parents split when i was a toddler; my mom had developed into quite a violent alcoholic, and my dad ultimately had to get away from what was an abusive relationship and start over. so, we had the twice weekly visits, to start, when i was 3 and 4 and 5. and, we basically did the same thing every time he picked me up: we went to the south gloucester library (this has been closed for years, but was near the kmart on queensdale). but, these were not recreational sessions, they were learning sessions. and, the truth is that i could read better than most high school kids by the time i entered kindergarten.

so, this interest in reading wasn't spontaneous, it was taught. and, in truth, my interests reflected what i'd been exposed to - and were very much integrated and internalized into my own being as a consequence of it.

(and, it was the same thing with my younger sister, too, who was maybe even reading that proficiently a little younger than i was.)

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

as for the claims of outperforming bobby smith at the high school level, he at least had an mvp trophy to back him up on the point. 

it was kind of like four touchdowns in one game, granted. but, the trophy existed. i saw it...

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

apparently, he played on a line with bobby smith when he was a kid, and used to set him up all the time.

in fact, he tended to make some outlandish claims about the whole thing, in terms of who the more important playmaker on the line was.

bobby smith:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Smith_(ice_hockey)

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

and, my dad was actually drafted by the ottawa 67s back in the 70s (although he ruined his knee before he got there), so it's not like i didn't have opportunities to learn, here.

he was an excellent skater. nearly pro. well, besides the fucked up knee.

"i'd rather stay in and read, dad. sorry."

no regrets, either.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

actually, i never learned how to skate.

it's true that my parents weren't really able to afford a pair of skates until my dad remarried. but, i still hadn't turned ten, yet, i had lots of time to learn to skate, if i wanted to.

the reality is that, as a child, i preferred to stay in bed and read than go outside and play. so, the fact that i never learned to skate is really due solely to disinterest.

and, i never developed an interest, but rather grew up to see it as a kind of triviality.

people in canada tend to look at you like you're from a different planet when you tell them you never learned to skate. but, i kind of tend to look back at them the same way. why not just sit around and roll boulders back up the hill?

....because skating around in circles is pretty much the definition of a foolish waste of fucking time, isn't it?

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

"take their kids away"

see, i'd even reject this statement.

...because those kids don't belong to their parents. kids are autonomous individuals that own themselves. so, the kids were never theirs in the first place.

parents have obligations, but they don't have - and don't deserve - rights.

the rights need to be solely in the hands of the children, and in the hands of the society.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

"the only way to be free is to abolish all property"

gee. isn't that what jesus said?

no.

what jesus said is "sell everything you own, and follow me into poverty, for, in the end, you will have everything in the after life.". i understand that there has been much confused conflation of this point, and the marxists could get a little confusing in ways that the anarchists were generally more clear about, but what jesus said about property in conjunction with the afterlife is actually the literal opposite of marxism, which insisted that we not throw our property away in a use sense but abolish it in an ownership sense, and, most importantly, that we dispel with this absurd notion of the afterlife, which keeps us enslaved, in favour of the here and now.

i grasp that you can find me dozens of historically important "christian socialists", some of which generated movements (tommy douglas was one), but the actual reality, here, is that they just didn't understand the socialist part of it very well, confusing ideas that were hostile to religion for ideas that were friendly to it, perhaps due to translations that managed to miss the point.

if somebody tells you they want to abolish property in english, and you've never heard anybody say that before, they have to explain what they mean - otherwise you're likely to interpret it in the jesus freak (for no christian denominations are sufficient, here) kind of way.

so, that intersection is only in your head.

there is no common cause.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

for example, they talk about an inability of communally raised children to form emotional attachments.

but, that's the purpose of this. it's a feature, and not a bug. that "emotional attachment" is a propertarian relationship that keeps the individual bound to their biological or sexual relatives; breaking that attachment is freeing one's self from the slavery inherent in the propertarianism of the family unit.

these critiques always follow along the same way, in fundamentally missing the point of why it is so important that we get rid of families, in the march towards a more communistic future.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard

drastic?

listen, the idea of a nuclear family will not make any sense to generations raised outside of the slavery of private property. it only seems drastic because you've never known anything else.

rather, i might put forth the idea that it is the nuclear family that is a drastic and unnatural step away from our evolutionary lineage, and that, once it is abolished we may scarcely remember it at all.

it will be far less of an issue, when we get there, than many imagine it will be.

http://www.academia.edu/3070388/Plato_and_the_Abolition_of_the_Family

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i agree with the state authorities; homeschooling isn't something that the broader society should be tolerating, as the ramifications have an effect on all of society.

if parents want to behave antisocially like this, and instill those anti-social values in their children, the state has the obligation to interfere. they would be negligent in not doing so.

sorry, liberals. i'm very leftist on this point: education is to be determined by the whole community, and the nuclear family (which, in the end, must be abolished altogether) should have essentially no say in the matter.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/a-big-state-versus-a-poor-family-canadian-s-son-forcibly-removed-in-norway-1.3804956

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

actually, i think these rules should stay in place.

we have a responsibility to take care of people that were born here. that responsibility does not extend to the whole world; rather, people born elsewhere are the responsibilities of their respective governments.

where there are issues about foreign governments being unable to afford to take care of their own citizens, i would prefer to see policies designed to maximize trade with those countries, so they can generate the wealth to do so.

the ndp are doing this because they think it will be popular amongst the voting base they are keying in on. jenny kwan has really become a problem in this parliament, and i do hope she loses her seat soon. but, this policy will not be popular, here, not even amongst minorities, and the liberals would be smart to distance themselves from it before it gets stuck around their neck.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/immigration-hussen-medical-inadmissibility-1.4537076

jagmeet singh must cut his beard

np: dmst

maybe there's no physical evidence that the carbon tax exists, but this is just the world of the corporeal, the play thing of satan.

you need faith that the carbon tax exists.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.