there's nothing better out there.

don't expect me to endorse somebody else.

i'll just sit here and bitch about how flawed the only actual lesser evil in years is.

i mean, maybe somebody needs to remind bernie that he's running for commander-in-chief, because he seems to be pretty clueless when it comes to any kind of tactics.

i mean, i had no choice but to play it when i was learning as a kid. so, i list page as an influence. but, i never liked it.

if they could have ejected robert plant into outer space, or something, they would have been far better as an instrumental fusion band.

but, as it is, they're amongst the worst things that came out of the period.

also, i've always hated led zeppelin.

the issue in kashmir is, in fact, quite clearly internal, and up to the local actors to work out. that is not debatable.

everything else aside, i don't think it's very intelligent for sanders to come out and take a side on an issue like this, which has been going on for decades and requires careful diplomacy, if the united states is to involve itself at all. if the intent is to go for specific demographics, i'll remind you that the number of non-muslim indians in the united states is not exactly trivial, and that this isn't an issue where their "side" can be discounted or ignored. the indian government does, after all, control the region.

i want to hope that what bernie was trying to get across is that he recognizes that lingering instability in the region is not in the interests of the united states, due to concerns about migration (in the event of a serious conflict) and the deadly possibility of nuclear war. unfortunately, what he actually got across was that he's taking a specific side, which is neither likely to help his own poll numbers (he's increasingly coming off as a tool of muslim blood money) nor make him look very good, internationally. further, if he was going to take a side, he's on the wrong side of the greater geopolitical situation, as pakistan is more or less allied with the chinese at this point. the better tactical decision would be to come in on the side of the indians with the intent of containing the chinese; when you come in on the side of pakistan, here, you're just playing into the long term strategy by beijing.

the indians have long memories, and they don't take too kindly to this kind of thing. so, what he's accomplished by running his mouth off when he shouldn't have is having the most important power in the conflict interpret him as an unfair mediator, which is just going to further harm the people that he's nominally trying to protect. i would be equivalent to calling for an international presence in the west bank - something that's just going to get you seen as an adversary in tel aviv.

so, right or wrong - and this conflict is messy. there's no clear outcome. and, nationalist uprisings are passe. - what he did was pretty dumb, all around. it will probably cost him more votes than it gains him, and it restricts the ability of the united states to actually mediate, if he happens to win in the end.

he should have said something along the lines of that he regrets the loss of life and looks forward to working with both sides of the conflict to end the violence.

in terms of political issues, maintaining support for supply management is a hundred million times more important to quebeckers than immigration levels (whether you want them higher or lower) or state secularism (whether you support or oppose it).

and, that is my actual opinion of maxime bernier: i am strenuously opposed to his economic policies.

so, these are more believable numbers coming out of quebec. note that the margin of error here is quite high, but what i'm more interested in is where the movement is happening - what is fixed, and what is fluid.

conservative and liberal numbers are essentially at historical norms, and would represent minimal movement. as quebec tends to vote against the ruling party whenever possible, those liberal numbers may be a little higher than anybody ought to expect actually happens in the end, especially given what's actually happening on the ground. if a tipping effect comes into play, and the province makes a clear choice, it's going to take the liberal numbers down.

but, it would be an accomplishment of incredible futility for the ndp to poll lower than somebody that is threatening to dismantle supply management in quebec. supply management is very popular in quebec, so a policy to dismantle it would not be very popular, and a party running on a promise to do such thing would not be very populist.

so, where are these ndp votes going? as predicted, a lot are going to the bloc. that makes sense - it is, in many ways, these voters going back to where they came from. but, it's also consistent on a policy level. if the vote is strictly about the turban - and i don't think it is, although it's clearly a factor - then the bloc is the only federal option that would align with their views on such a thing. but, the blunt truth is that the bloc quebecois, like the ndp, is a social democratic party, which was a huge a factor in the movement from the bloc to the ndp in the first place. it wasn't exactly a shift left - these were long-time leftist voters. quebec might be the only place on the continent where you have actually recently had not one but two nominally socialist parties in competition for a large number of seats.

but, even at it's bottoming out in the late 90s, i doubt the ndp ever polled as low as 3% in quebec. they never won any seats there, and weren't considered a relevant force, but they polled at 7%-8%, most of the time. and, who were these voters? they were left-leaning voters that wanted quebec to stay in canada. they were never going to vote liberal, and rather seem to be bolting for the greens.

so, the struggle for the ndp vote seems to be happening primarily between the bloc and the greens at this point.

and, the evidence simply will not dispel with the possibility of an imminent tipping point for the greens in quebec.

i'm not exclusively into men, and gay men are generally not attracted to me, for good reason, either. i'm like most women, really: i'm bicurious enough, and open-minded enough. so, there is potentially a place for a woman in my life.

but, i really don't like prissy, self-centered females that think the world revolves around them and it's everybody else's responsibility to deal with it.

and, maybe if you notice that i am falling asleep in front of you, it's because you're boring me to death?

actually, here's an idea to think about: maybe if you're talking to somebody at a bar for a lengthy period, and they stop responding, or even start staring into space, it's not because they're too stoned to react, or because they're falling asleep. maybe they actually just think you're boring and are trying to find a way to get you to stop talking to them without being rude or confrontational. and, maybe the better reaction is to get the hint and go away, rather than to call them names or question their sobriety.

i know that this is probably something that certain types of women don't experience very often. they're used to everybody thinking they're oh so very exciting, and falling all over themselves to get the privilege to speak to them. because they're so very, very special. but, those are exactly the types of women that i'm likely to find to be the most boring, because all they're really interested in is talking about themselves. and, i'm not generalizing, i'm correlating. so, be the exception. i dare you.

i'm just continually confused as to why these women think i want to talk to them.

and, if you're paying close attention, you realize that i tend to gravitate more towards men in these circumstances.

i'm sorry - but i'm obvious. and, people just aren't getting the hints.

i'm feeling better, actually. but i'm going to have to venture out for some mountain dew. my stomach's unhappy with the coffee.

it seems like i'm rained in today, anyways, so i'm not going to really have to have this debate about whether i'm feeling good enough to go out or not.

imagine if it didn't, though.

suppose you woke up hungover  and it just never went away.

how long would you survive for before you ended it?

so, i just realized something profound....

i didn't get hungover all summer. it's been, like, two years, and then some, since i had a hangover.

thinking it through, i guess the reason i've avoided hangovers is due to the overnights - if i buy my last drink around 2:00 (and finish it a little later, probably before 6:00 anyways), and it takes an hour or two for the bus, and i get something to eat, and it takes however long to get home, then i don't end up falling asleep drunk due to the sheer amount of time it takes to get home.

but, i stayed in windsor last night, and did in fact fall asleep drunk.

so, now i'm hungover, for the first time in ages.

and, it's a little uncomfortable. somewhat unpleasant, even.

but, this, too, shall pass.