ok.

that gets me through june.

and, i'm not going to eat - i'm going to fall asleep. i'll have a bigger meal when i get up.

50 pages and twenty days left. so, i could even get to calling tomorrow afternoon.

and, i will need to put it aside after that.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/06/j-reacts-to-third-parties-on-right-and.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-intersection-of-voter.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-dispensary-busts-in-toronto.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-trumps-curious.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-trumpsanders-debate.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-nobody-understanding-taylor.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-tightening-numbers-in.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-pop-science.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-anarchist-kids-ironically.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-hillarys-vote-suppression.html

i've often advocated non-voting.

i may advocate non-voting in the next federal election.

but, i'm not advocating non-voting in the provincial election; these pseudo-left candidates are as good as late capitalism gets.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-role-reversal-on-voter.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-sanders-choice-for-dnc.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-clintons-debate-refusal.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-continuing-specious.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-clinton-taking-her-open-and.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-ramifications-of-not-being.html

http://www.who.int/hhr/activities/tool%20box%2010069_Smoker.pdf

the constitution doesn't apply at the landlord & tenant board. but, if i were to launch a human rights complaint - and i'm thinking about it - i'd be arguing that it's an infringement of s. 7, the security of person.

and i will state this clearly once again: if you don't have the right to sobriety, you don't have any rights at all.

i am once again under the influence of a drug that i don't want to be under the influence of at this time.

and, again: i can sit back and wonder, but at the end of the day, i don't care.

what i care about is my own right to clean and clear air, my own right to sobriety and the fact that it's being infringed upon right now.

i've been around marijuana my whole life, but i've never been a pothead and i've really just never understood the desire to become one.

we only exist for a few decades. sobriety is such a treat. why waste your life away like that?

she's been chain smoking by herself for over 8 hours.

i just don't understand who thinks that's a good night. if i were her, i'd be so tired and drained and depressed that i'd feel like i want to kill myself.

and, if i didn't have the window open, i'd be passed out like a fucking heroin addict - from the smoke at the end of her joints.

again: she must have spent $100 tonight to stare at the wall by herself. it's just incomprehensibly stupid.

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-possibility-that-trump-is.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-trumps-attempts-to-re.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-trumps-use-of-undefined.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-clintons-anointment.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-elbowgate.html

http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2016/05/j-reacts-to-logic-around-whether-trump.html

if you don't have the right to decide when you're sober and when you're stoned, then you don't have any rights at all.

i think i have every right to stay in and be sober on a saturday night if i want to, and am entirely grounded in claiming she's infringing on my right to clean air and sobriety.

the marijuana chain-smoking has indeed returned as of a few hours ago, and i'm at this point sure that i can tie the fact that i'm tired and sore to it. i've had a few plumes come up, and it's just got me feeling disorientated and unpleasant.

again: this is terrible pot. it's like taking valium, it's not a fun high at all - i just want to sleep another ten hours.

but, i'm going to drink a lot of coffee instead and try to get back to work.

so, what's my projection for an ndp government? what do i think it's going to be like?

well, i'm not concerned about over spending, so much as i'm potentially concerned about cuts. but, i would also expect those cuts to mostly be transferred elsewhere. it would be more like a shift in priorities. and, it's probably not going to affect me much of any way or the other. it will be less money on this particular healthcare priority and more money on this other one, instead, sort of thing. i just hope the people that are affected have done their homework.

it's hard to take her seriously on her plan to buy back hydro one; i wouldn't expect that to happen. she may come up with some middle-point in between. if she does, that won't reduce rates. so, what's the point in doing it? see, this is an empty ideological thing, and while i might agree with her in principle, i don't agree with prioritizing it. and, unfortunately, i think she's misled a lot of people into thinking that buying back the lines will reduce costs, when it won't. ending time of use pricing is not going to reduce my hydro bill by 30%, either - it would be more like 2%, giving that i'm paying more than twice as much for delivery than i am for electricity. so, is she going to dictate terms to the board? it's supposed to be independent. maybe that itself is something that should change - maybe the board should come under stronger democratic oversight. but, if she follows through on her plan to end the refinancing, my hydro bill is going to increase. well, the upside is that i have $200 worth of credits, so it'll be a while before i pay anything. yet, how many people are going to vote ndp and then freak out when their hydro goes back up when she ends the refinancing? if you're voting for either horwath or ford to cut your electricity, you're going to be rightly pissed off in four years because neither of them will succeed in doing so. in the end, i'll be surprised if she does much of anything substantive on this file at all, because she's going to realize that the plans she's presented, while popular amongst low information voters, are going to harm her own re-election prospects if she actually follows through with them. so, i don't expect that an ndp government will actually be much different on hydro at all.

her platform has higher increases in social assistance than the liberals are promising, but the liberals are promising fairly substantive increases, as well. i'm skeptical that this gets changed, in the end - i think she'll probably follow through with what the liberals have already budgeted.

she says she'll let the gai experiment work it's way though, but i would expect the ndp to have a more producerist approach to labour, and not be happy about a gai, on ideological grounds. it was never totally clear if the liberals were going to actually do this or not (it came on the recommendation of a conservative senator, who is seeing it in negative income tax terms), but i think the ndp will probably kill it - and spend the money on job training, instead. this is a situation where the liberals are maybe a little more forward thinking in terms of understanding the future trajectory of the economy and are interested in protecting class interests through the welfare state, while the ndp are maybe stuck in backwards calvinist-style thinking that preaches ideas about personal salvation through hard work. unfortunately, a lot of voters may prefer that. but, as an anarchist advocate of positive freedom, this is the place where i break with workers parties, and maybe find them a little bit scary.

i think the question of the ndp's interest in environmental sustainability is a question mark, as they tend to focus more on pocket-book issues. if they win this election outright, they may argue this is one of the reasons for it. so, they may have less of an interest in pushing recycling programs or green bin programs, arguing it's not worth the money, and unpopular with voters. that's the other side of the ndp: they're a populist party. what that's going to do is shift the responsibility on to the individual, and open up a need for better activism. that might be a net benefit in the long run. if we're lucky, the green party wins their seat in guelph and gets a platform to keep them honest.

on the drug plan & dental plan, people are likely to be disappointed by what actually gets implemented.

broadly speaking, it's not going to be a catastrophe. i'm sure i'll find reasons to criticize them and reasons to praise them. and, while i might prefer the liberal plan for the reasons i've outlined, i'm not likely to find myself in deep opposition to an ndp government, either.

or, to put it another way: this is probably the best chance the conservatives will have to win an election here for most of our remaining lives.

if they can't win in this scenario, where they have everything in their favour, there's little reason to think they ever will.

i think the best outcome for the liberals is probably an ndp majority, as it gives them time to prepare themselves as an alternative to the opposition for the next election. i don't see why ontarians would want to vote for the conservatives in four years, if they've rejected them this vehemently, once again. if the ndp fail, we're going to swing back to the liberals, not to the conservatives.

and, it's hard to believe how the ndp could hold any majority it has, four years from now: meaning you're looking at an almost certain return to influence within four years.

as i've stated repeatedly: it's very hard for the conservatives to win elections in this province. the demographics & the geography are both very much against them. if this massive exercise in groupthink in toronto actually happens, it could be suggestive that we're looking at a future where the ndp & liberals switch back and forth from government to third party, while the conservatives remain forever stuck in opposition.

the conservatives still have a strong angle, in their appeal to right-leaning ethnic voters in the gta, but they appear to have squandered it this time around, and, at this point, there's not a lot of evidence that they want to pick this angle up. if they insist on being the party of white rural ontarians, they're going to remain in opposition forever.

no, i need to make this point clear, because i think a lot of canadians don't get it, either.

canada is a three-party+ system, meaning it can have fourth or even fifth parties during crisis points. i've argued that the federal system is most stable in a four-party configuration, with parties on both the right and the left. today, the federal system is in a three-party state, but could be in a fracture point (as there is no substantive left, and the federal liberals seem to want to move to the right). ontario has traditionally had three parties.

in a three party system, you have the following:

1) a government
2) an opposition
3) a third party, that is primarily an alternative to the opposition, but can also act as a wildcard in minority scenarios.

what we're seeing right now is this system working: voters want to vote out the government, but don't support the opposition, and so are voting in the third party. the same thing happened in the 2015 federal election. this is not "weird", it's the fundamental aspect of our system that defines it.

so, what wynne is pointing out is simply that the liberals are accepting their role as the third party in the next legislature - which will be as a wildcard in the case of minority, and to provide an alternative to the opposition in the case of majority.

you can assign motives to that, and i agree that it's a tactical shift, but i think it's silly to suggest some kind of psychologically manipulative ploy.

realistically speaking, would the liberals support an ndp budget? they probably don't want a snap election....

as somebody that has found myself voting liberal for much of the last ten years (the big exception was the 2011 federal election, where i voted ndp in an ndp riding, because i felt i had to), i'd certainly pick the ndp over the conservatives if i absolutely had to choose.

so, if you already think that wynne is some kind of evil villain, you're of course going to interpret her premature concession as some kind of a nefarious plot.

i think it's just a realistic analysis of the situation: her internal polling indicated to her that the liberals will be in a third-party role in the next government. canada doesn't have a two-party system; third parties have defined purposes and roles. and, third parties run elections differently than first or second parties do.

i think she should have run as a third party from the start - i made that point clear.

do i think it will make liberals more likely to vote conservative to block the ndp? well, that doesn't actually make any sense. not in the 905. not in the 416. what policies do the conservatives support that liberals would prefer over the ndp? and, if you preferred ford over horwath, why are you still intending to vote for wynne days before the election? the liberals have far more in common with the ndp than the conservatives, nowadays - partly because the ndp have moved a lot to the right. this is logic that's twenty years out of date. that said, there may be some lingering liberal support that's still voting against bob rae, but you'd think it's pretty muted, at this point - and likely not enough to matter much of anywhere. i'm not buying into that, and i don't think the liberal strategy is that meta - if anything, it's demonstrated itself as fairly shallow.

if i want to read an angle into it, i might suggest that kathleen wynne has come to terms with the benefits of retirement. she turned 65 the other day, you know.

that was an unexpectedly hard crash; i just slept for ten hours and woke up with a sore neck. i'm suspicious of the weather, but we'll see how i feel in a bit.

i think i can get done may before i get something to eat in the morning.

i smelled some pot this morning when i got up to eat, but it's clear again tonight with a caveat - she seems to have started smoking cigarettes very heavily. so, now it smells like cigarettes instead of marijuana. which is...it's not going to get me stoned, but is it why i'm sore? i dunno. it's also a saturday night, so she may have had somebody over smoking.

i'll also point out that there was again a strong smell of bay leaves this afternoon, which she seems to start burning when somebody complains about the pot. it wasn't me, and i don't think i'm the only complainant at this point.

like i say: i want to get to the hook-up before i start looking for august 1st. that might be tomorrow, might be the next day.

right now, i'm sore and tired after waking up a little after midnight, but the only thing i smell just right now is cigarettes.