we can have these debates from a distance, but it is ultimately up to the people to govern themselves, whatever you think of their structures. i think there's little doubt that some progress has been made in the region, especially if you compare it to the despotic regimes in the region, but the level of actual freedom for everybody in the society still no doubt pales to that that exists even in a half-secularized state like turkey, which is culturally responsible for where the kurds are coming from. as critical as people may be of turks or baathists, the kurds are a consequence both of the secular turkish state and of the movement towards secular nationalism in the arab world.

regardless, my position on the point is consistent: the kurds cannot expect protection from an imperial occupation that is illegal under international law. to begin with, they literally cannot expect it - the americans can literally not be trusted, in any serious way. second, the longer they rely on the cover of american imperialism, the more they become an imperial force, themselves - which is what we're seeing with their expansion to the south. the kurds are well out of their historical zone of occupation, which is particularly problematic given their history of complicity with genocide in the area. they need to pull back; if they don't, the comparisons to orwell's catalonia are going to become less relevant than the comparisons to animal farm, as they become little more than america's most recent group of occupying thugs.

but, when i say they cannot expect protection, that also means that they must defend themselves. what is an anarchist revolution under the protection of an imperial military force, but a colonial farce? what kind of statelessness is this?

i don't want to be too critical, because i understand that any progress in the region should be applauded. but, an honest analysis of the situation presents a set of rather cynical conclusions.

this is not a good reason to keep american troops in syria, in contravention of international law.

https://libcom.org/library/rojava-fraud-non-existent-social-revolution

hrmmn.

maybe i should convert to catholicism?

nah. the theology is still stupid.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/andrew-sullivan-the-vaticans-corruption-has-been-exposed.html

if all of these candidates are going to stand by an interventionist foreign policy, while refusing to support any kind of meaningful form of social democracy, why would i care if they lose to trump, in the end?

i pointed this out in 2016, and it's rung fairly true. if you put 100 issues down on the table, i might agree with hillary clinton over donald trump something like 53% of the time. but, i would take sanders over trump something more like 75% of the time, and sanders over a more traditional conservative candidate (like ted cruz) something like 95% of the time. i might lean a little right on immigration and free speech; nobody is this abstract political position of left or right. see, the twist is that if clinton were running against a cruz or a rubio, that more comfortable distance would open back up again: clinton beats the traditional right 70-30, while she runs against trump as a coin toss. and even a neo-liberal like harris or gillebrandt is likely to do a little better than clinton against trump - maybe you even get to 60%.

the differences where trump blurs the centre are to do with things like trade and foreign policy, although i also should be quick to point out that trump's position often doesn't match his rhetoric. he was also supposed to fund a massive infrastructure project, and hasn't. but, if i'm opposed to what we call "free trade", opposed to foreign intervention and in favour of public infrastructure, does that make me right-wing? hardly. it's the spectrum that's fucked up.

i think that biden presents the same basic problem as clinton, even when you adjust trump for his record. do i think biden would be better than trump? maybe 55% of the time, at most. warren might get 63 or something - and not due to her positions on financial regulation, which i actually think are naive, but due to a slightly better foreign policy. and, these faceless, milquetoast neo-liberal senators - harris, booker, klobuchar, gillebrand, etc - are just going to land somewhere in between, around 60.

but, bernie is still a dominantly preferable candidate, even if i don't agree with everything he says.

so, save your guilt trip about trump winning for the partisan circle jerks. if some non-bernie candidate wins, the fact is that i'm probably going to be pretty rigorously opposed to most of their policy positions, and not able to articulate much of a benefit of them winning.

the greens probably need to look beyond jill stein, and how much rhetorical support i give them is going to depend on who and how they run. but, you should expect me to line up behind a green candidate before you expect me to support another neo-liberal, corporatist democrat.

i had no issue in a plea deal.

i was aggressively demanding disclosure and forcefully pushing for a thorough trial.

in a sense, i'm even disappointed that i didn't get the opportunity to rip the police department apart in a court of law...

the actual issue at hand here is a police force with an anti-queer bias here in windsor, and i expect to hold them accountable for it.

and, i will repeat the facts in the case i'm dealing with, tersely.

1) in september, i was arrested (illegally - that is, without a warrant on a charge where one is required in canada) in my home for harassment for repeatedly applying to an ad for housing. all communication in the matter was with a corporation. the person i was communicating with used the screen name of "ryan", and i had no other clues as to their gender. i have never met this person or even seen a picture of them, and would not be able to identify him or her (the person's gender actually remains unclear to me) if put in a room with them.

2) communication in the matter was strictly related to the question of housing availability. no other matters were discussed, whatsoever.

3) i am readying litigation against this person for discrimination in housing, and expect to win a cash settlement in the matter. broadly speaking, litigation in the matter is likely to drag on for several years, on my own initiative.

4) charges were dropped in november, upon the realization that the officer did not collect the electronic communication that the case was reliant upon. i actually have most of the electronic communication in question and will be using it in the civil proceedings against the complainant. i intended to go to trial, with the intent of the judge dismissing the charges as ridiculous - if the communication were to be placed in front of a judge and correctly analysed, i am confident that it would be determined to not remotely fit any definition of harassment. as it is, the policing was too incompetent to even collect it - and, as such, no warrant for arrest could have possibly been granted, if applied for.

5) there is consequently an ongoing investigation into the conduct of the officer that i am expecting this week. i believe the officer acted primarily out of a transphobic bias, and the issue was interconnected with arguments i was having with tenants in the building regarding my right to not be invaded by their second-hand marijuana smoke, or otherwise disturbed by their drug or alcohol habits.

6) i would actually like the officer charged with harassment, as i am the only victim in the situation, at hand.

7) upon completion of the investigation into the conduct of the officer, i will be launching a substantive charter challenge for a massive infringement of my constitutional rights, which is the only remaining legal issue at hand.

if it isn't obvious - and it should be - i'll state clearly that i don't work for bernie sanders, i don't speak on his behalf and i am not a surrogate of his. i am not only not a member of the democratic party, but would consider myself a staunch opponent of it. i am an independent and anarchist-identifying political analyst in a different country. and, while i would like to see bernie win, the legitimacy and independence of my blog is my primary concern, not his campaign.

and, i don't care if i offend his opponents, or even his followers, for that matter. you can expect harsh and brutal - but honest - language from this space.

what i will say is that if the democrats don't want to be attacked for running morally corrupt, corporatist candidates then they should defeat them at the ballot box; if they are going to run these kinds of candidates, they should expect them to receive the kind of criticism that they deserve to receive.

so, if kamala harris is going to push for morally depraved policies then i'm going to call her a morally depraved candidate, and tell her to alter her policies if she doesn't like the criticism.

and, if that makes you sad then find a box of kleenexes and cry it up - i don't give a fuck.

bernie is actually overstepping his bounds on this point - he has no right to police other people's language and should apologize for it.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/431328-sanders-writes-internal-memo-warning-against-bullying-and-harassment-on-his

they're probably waiting for the federal election.

there's a chance the conservatives could roll it back if they win. or, they may be trying to steal the thunder.

i don't smoke very often - it's been nine months since i last smoked a joint (on purpose), and i've been completely straight-edged over that period, as well. no cigarettes, even. just a lot of coffee. i pointed out from the start that i was going to be more excited about dispensaries opening up in detroit, because the only time i like to do drugs is at concerts, and that's where the concerts are. so, being able to go to detroit and buy something on the way to the show is very emancipating, but buying pot in canada has never had the same kind of appeal.

if i lived in a different city, it would be different, of course.

so, i should be more upset about this than i am.

i'm going to warn people not to buy online, though. you're probably setting yourself up for something.

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/london-region-may-be-shut-out-of-first-phase-of-ontarios-new-marijuana-dispensary-plan

i haven't been paying any attention to this at all.

what a joke.

https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/despite-council-support-slim-odds-windsor-gets-a-pot-store-in-2019

are they going after cuba next?

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/02/05/venezuela-capitalist-success-not-socialist-failure/